Here's a knotty little conundrum..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25623362

a nation created by a substantial number of illegal refugees (according to the then laws of British-run Palestine) seeking asylum from oppressive regimes, who refused to be turned away, now adopts a different approach to "illegal" refugees from oppressive regimes seeking asylum from oppressive regimes.

Certainly looks unedifying...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.567097

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/31/18660834-israel-grapples-with-wave-of-north-african-migrants?lite

The issue of refugees and economic migrants is a problem worldwide, except of course for places which are so destitute, repressive or unstable that nobody would seek asylum there. Nice try mentioning Israel's past, perhaps Israel could take a leaf out of the colonial British book and house the would be asylum seekers offshore in Cyprus as Australia now does using PNG as a settlement center.

Seeing you choose to bring up British rule of Palestine, I take it you do remember the Balfour declaration intended there to be a Jewish homeland within the Palestine mandate, the UN voted Israel to be a sovereign recognizing this? Presumably a sovereign state has to right to determine it's own policy towards would be migrants does it not?

P.S Were there any demonstrations in Ramallah or Gaza city by would be immigrants?

P.P.S Israel again. What about the Tibetans, Australian aborigines or American Indians?

The issue of refugees and economic migrants is a problem worldwide, except of course for places which are so destitute, repressive or unstable that nobody would seek asylum there. Nice try mentioning Israel's past, perhaps Israel could take a leaf out of the colonial British book and house the would be asylum seekers offshore in Cyprus as Australia now does using PNG as a settlement center.

Seeing you choose to bring up British rule of Palestine, I take it you do remember the Balfour declaration intended there to be a Jewish homeland within the Palestine mandate, the UN voted Israel to be a sovereign recognizing this? Presumably a sovereign state has to right to determine it's own policy towards would be migrants does it not?

P.S Were there any demonstrations in Ramallah or Gaza city by would be immigrants?

P.P.S Israel again. What about the Tibetans, Australian aborigines or American Indians?

Regardless of the Balfour Declaration or that Israel was declared sovreign, the point of the OP, it appears to me, is that Israel was created by and for refugees, and one would think they might have a bit of empathy for them.

Of course there were no demonstrations in Ramallah or Gaza.....because there are no immigrants there; you said it yourself, "except of course for places which are so destitute, repressive......", which state of affairs Israel is also responsible for.

Just because China, Australia, and America have/had shocking history for indigenous people does not give Israel the right to all the injustices it carries out on Palestinians.

I suppose it is a compliment to Israel that refugees would want to go there. I'm not particularly pro-Israel (I'm on record in this forum as saying the state of Israel should never have been established in the first place), but

it is a small country, and doesn't have room for unlimited population

it has to remain principally Jewish, or else it has no right to exist at all.

Successful countries cannot give unlimited access to refugees from dysfunctional countries, or they would be overrun. Australia has recognised this, and is acting accordingly. Britain wavers between refusing refugees and accepting more than it can cope with.