Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The exact quote from your post (which I was replying to):

 

"Israel is not a fait accompli. After 70 years it still does not have defined or internationally recognized borders, nor does it have peace with its neighbors."

 

The fact is that Israel does have peace with some of its neighbors, and that some of its borders are internationally recognized.

Of course, one could phrase it otherwise - after 70 years, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians do not have recognized borders nor do they have peace with Israel, their neighbor.

 

Re the absent referendum, nope, not exactly as you stated. What you actually posted was: "...without asking the resident Palestinian population...".  I merely pointed out that neither side's ordinary folk got a say, whereas you referred only to one of the sides.

 

The last bit is simply the usual BS. The land was not "stolen", there was a war, in which, the both sides (and others) participated. The cease fire agreements following the war defined the lines thereafter. As usual, glossing over the fact that both Egypt and Jordan took actual charge of most land allocated to the future Palestinian state. The objection is basically to your terminology and presentation of facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you have just proven my point about nitpicking.

 

When someone ethnically cleanses land of its resident population, occupies it, transfers its own population there against international law, even annexes parts... that's theft. 

 

The majority of the global community agrees. It is only the US administration and Israel who disagree. But that too will change one day, if not under Clinton or Trump, then the next admin. Younger people are wising up to the injustice perpetrated against the Palestinians and their own government's complicity in the crime.

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you consider your rhetoric not inflammatory, I guess you did not really pay attention to the clip posted, nor learned the meaning of the word itself. There are many ways to criticize any topic, even Israeli government policies, without resorting to your style. Referring to selective imagery is just another deflection - there were Israeli children killed by Palestinians as well.

 

You envisage an Israel which is not Israel, and which wouldn't have a reason to be called Israel. For all intents and purposes, your posts on this matter are nothing but verbal acrobatics. You are fooling no one.

 

 

If getting annoyed because someone dares to disagree with your point of view is your definition of inflammatory, then just about every post in every thread on this forum is infammatory. 

Your posts make me angry sometimes too, but I don't call them inflammatory.

 

No verbal acrobatics at all. I regard Zionism as racist/religionist and I have explained why. Far from being irrelevant, this desire to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel at all costs is the cause of the entire conflict.

 

Israel can call itself what it likes. I simply want it to grant civil and human rights to the 4.5 million Palestinians that it  has made refugees. They can either do that in a one or two state solution.

 

I am amazed that the US administration supports this institutionalized racism. Israel is becoming less of a necessary ally to USA, and more of a liability.

[Ulysses G.]

22 hours ago, dexterm said:

 

 

Israel has an exclusive Jewish only immigration policy

 

THIS is exactly what you said and it is NOT TRUE. Other religions can immigrate to Israel.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

57 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I did not say Israel was an exclusively Jewish country; I said it's immigration policy is. Yours is the blatant lie.

 

I have already pointed out that Israel does allow non-Jewish immigration and posted some examples and posted the rules. Once again you are posting fabrications that are easily disproven.

 

EXCLUSIVE means ONLY, by the way. Any religion or race can become a citizen of Israel if they meet the requirements for immigration.

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

 

Then you claimed that 17,000 non Jewish immigrants allowed citizenship in a population of 8.5 million over the course of 70 years makes its immigration policy not exclusive

 

Exclusive would mean NONE. Get yourself a dictionary 

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Exclusive would mean NONE. Get yourself a dictionary 

Yes, you are quite right.
 
0.0019% of immigrants to Israel are non Jewish, who must fulfil the residential criteria you outline above. 

 

99.998% of immigrants to Israel are Jewish, whose only qualifying condition for instant citizenship and subsidized housing is that their [grand]mother was Jewish.

 

Meanwhile, 4.5 million Palestinian refugees many of whom were born in Israel are not allowed to return to their homes.

 

That is racist and a war crime, and I find it incomprehensible that the USA supports this policy.

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

[Ulysses G.]

15 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Yes, you are quite right.
 

 

Yes I am. Kudos for admitting it.

[abrahamzvi]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

No. It is your reply that is ridiculous. I did not say that it was easy for a non-Jew to get citizenship. I said that it was possible and it is. The poster that I was responding to said otherwise. There are many thousands of non-Jewish citizens, including many Muslims. Claiming that Israel is exclusively a Jewish country is a blatant lie.

YOU are knowingly trying to cover things up. It is, of course, THEORETICALLY possible for non Jews to apply for Israeli Citizenship. However, as I pointed out, this is theory and not practice. Practically all the non Jewish population of Israel (the non Arabs - there is an Arab minority in Israel of about 20% of its population. These are Palestinians who have lived in what is now Israel for generations and became Israeli citizens automatically), is nearly 100% either married to a Jew, or a person falling under the "Law of Return" (as I said in my previous answer, any person whose one of his 4 grandparents was a Jew falls into this category). I would be surprised if there are more than a very few thousand non Jews without any familiar connections to Jews with Israeli citizenship. 

 

I was not criticizing the Law of Return, but the racial attitude to non Jews and in particular to the refugees, termed by Israel as "Infiltrators" and treated as such. You have not commented on any of the sad reports contained in my reply. Why? Aren't they an expression of inhuman racialist attitude?

 

No, Israel is not an exclusively Jewish State, but one of the conditions of the Israeli government to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians (WITHOUT preconditions???) is the recognition of Israel as "The Nation State of the Jewish people"., whatever that means. Are there any democratic states in the world that define their state by religion ? Does Italy call itself "The catholic  Italian Republic", does any democratic state do it? Yes, dictatorial theocratic states like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the likes do it. Does Israel wish to be in that "liberal" group??

[Jingthing]

Jewish is not only a religion. You don't have to be religious to be a Jew. A large segment of Israeli Jews are SECULAR to varying levels. Jewish is a religion ... also  the Jews are a people. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. That is not the same thing as a race either.  Israel demonization agenda is always trying to insist that Jews are only a religion. It serves their propaganda anti-existence of Israel with a majority Jewish identity purpose, but again, it's a big lie. 

 

What this means at the most simplistic basic level is that to be a Jew you just have to be born of a Jewish mother. That's because it's a matrilineal culture in the anthropological sense. There are other ways to be a Jew as well, such as conversion requiring a lot of study. 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Jewish is not only a religion. You don't have to be religious to be a Jew. A large segment of Israeli Jews are SECULAR to varying levels. The Jews are a people. Jews are an ethnoreligious group. That is not the same thing as a race either.  Israel demonization agenda is always trying to insist that Jewish is only a religion. It serves their propaganda purpose but again, it's a big lie. 

That's even worse. People who can't even define what they are because their ethnicity and religion have been diluted over the millenia by inter marriage and conversion somehow have the strange right of return to a place they have never even set eyes on before, but Palestinain refugees who were born there don't.

 

States who try to establish themselves on such a flimsy, dubious premise will ultimately meld with their neighbors.

 

The global community and especially younger US voters are beginning to see through this con job.

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, dexterm said:

I think you have just proven my point about nitpicking.

 

When someone ethnically cleanses land of its resident population, occupies it, transfers its own population there against international law, even annexes parts... that's theft. 

 

The majority of the global community agrees. It is only the US administration and Israel who disagree. But that too will change one day, if not under Clinton or Trump, then the next admin. Younger people are wising up to the injustice perpetrated against the Palestinians and their own government's complicity in the crime.

 

 

Not so much a "point" as a knee-jerk reaction appearing anytime inconsistencies and Cuisinart in your posts are addressed.

 

There were no permanent peace agreements reached after  the two relevant wars (1948, 1967). On both occasions, the rejection came mainly from the Arab side. From 1948 to 1967, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were effectively annexed by Egypt and Jordan. In the same manner, the Palestinians were not properly represented in any post war ceasefire agreements. Israel did not "steal" the land from the Palestinians. It won a war, and ended up controlling areas which were previously taken over (illegally!) by Egypt and Jordan.

 

You are ignoring, as usual, that there were no conditions or mechanism allowing for a diplomatic solution at the time. Even if another set of talks was held, the Palestinians would have in all probability simply gone back to living under Egyptian/Jordanian control.

 

The argument is not against Israel's current treatment of the Palestinians, but addresses the statement that the land was "stolen" (and whatnot) to begin with.

 

The "global community" which you seem to have appointed yourself a spokesman of, could do with some history lessons. To date, most of the sentiment you paint does not usually materialize within the context of international diplomatic and economic relations.

 

As posted earlier and elsewhere, opining that things will not always remain the same with regard to US-Israel relations, is a given. The assumption that this would translate into an anti-Israeli, or Pro-Palestinian diplomatic stance is not overly supported by much. At best, it can be said that the US will "lose interest" and will distance itself from the quagmire. Whether this will be in the best interest of the Palestinians is hard to gauge. But one way or another, this is not, probably, a short (or even mid) term eventuality. 

[geriatrickid]

15 hours ago, poohy said:

But Israel still have no right to Palestine

 

FACT!

That is the whole issue , you take over some ones else country you are going to be hated.

Argue with THAT

 

 

Then  go after Turkey. Seriously. Why does Turkey get a free pass here? The Ottoman Empire  occupied/controlled most of the middle east and North Africa and wide swathes of Europe for centuries. There was no Syria, or Lebanon. There was no Palestine or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar etc. It was all Turkey.  The borders were non existent. Yet the  I see the usual arguments of blame Israel for everything. What part of  the historical record of  Ottoman rule do you not grasp?  The jews were present under Ottoman rule and were encouraged to return by multiple Sultans. Their return came long before the nomadic arabs started moving  into inhospitable places like the Negev and Sinai.  The Europeans who grabbed the Ottoman empire were the ones who started imposing boundaries and  saying where jews, christians and others  could live. Why the double standard? After all if Israel must go, so too must modern Jordan as it was a creation by the  British. Lebanon must go too as it was carved out of Assyria by the Europeans. What of the UAE, Qatar and the other  invented sheihkdoms? They too are  creations of the Europeans.

 

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, dexterm said:

If getting annoyed because someone dares to disagree with your point of view is your definition of inflammatory, then just about every post in every thread on this forum is infammatory. 

Your posts make me angry sometimes too, but I don't call them inflammatory.

 

No verbal acrobatics at all. I regard Zionism as racist/religionist and I have explained why. Far from being irrelevant, this desire to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel at all costs is the cause of the entire conflict.

 

Israel can call itself what it likes. I simply want it to grant civil and human rights to the 4.5 million Palestinians that it  has made refugees. They can either do that in a one or two state solution.

 

I am amazed that the US administration supports this institutionalized racism. Israel is becoming less of a necessary ally to USA, and more of a liability.

 

I believe posters (not all, obviously) are able to convey their views without resorting to hyperbole, sensationalism and yes - inflammatory, rhetoric and style. Choosing to engage others in that mode of "discussion" does nothing to support claims of being pro-peace. All it does is promote antagonism and hatred. Not quite the best way to get through to people, but then again - your posts are not about that anyway.

 

The same goes for hijacking any topic related to Israel and/or the Palestinians, in order to air your over the top extremist tirades.

 

I think that you will continue to be amazed by the way international relations and politics work. This stems from most relevant countries operating not according to one-sided emotional take on things, but following more realistic, balanced and interest driven approach. With this in mind, the Palestinians may actually benefit more from a Trump presidency, although that's rather like playing Russian Roulette.  

 

EDIT: I would add that re-visiting the clip of the interview with Israeli author Amos Oz could benefit some of our regular posters, not necessarily those posting on the Israeli-Palestinian topics here.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Morch

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Not so much a "point" as a knee-jerk reaction appearing anytime inconsistencies and Cuisinart in your posts are addressed.

 

There were no permanent peace agreements reached after  the two relevant wars (1948, 1967). On both occasions, the rejection came mainly from the Arab side. From 1948 to 1967, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were effectively annexed by Egypt and Jordan. In the same manner, the Palestinians were not properly represented in any post war ceasefire agreements. Israel did not "steal" the land from the Palestinians. It won a war, and ended up controlling areas which were previously taken over (illegally!) by Egypt and Jordan.

 

You are ignoring, as usual, that there were no conditions or mechanism allowing for a diplomatic solution at the time. Even if another set of talks was held, the Palestinians would have in all probability simply gone back to living under Egyptian/Jordanian control.

 

The argument is not against Israel's current treatment of the Palestinians, but addresses the statement that the land was "stolen" (and whatnot) to begin with.

 

The "global community" which you seem to have appointed yourself a spokesman of, could do with some history lessons. To date, most of the sentiment you paint does not usually materialize within the context of international diplomatic and economic relations.

 

As posted earlier and elsewhere, opining that things will not always remain the same with regard to US-Israel relations, is a given. The assumption that this would translate into an anti-Israeli, or Pro-Palestinian diplomatic stance is not overly supported by much. At best, it can be said that the US will "lose interest" and will distance itself from the quagmire. Whether this will be in the best interest of the Palestinians is hard to gauge. But one way or another, this is not, probably, a short (or even mid) term eventuality. 

>> The "global community" which you seem to have appointed yourself a spokesman of, could do with some history lessons.

 

The global community I refer to is the 70% of UN member states (with more to follow) who have already recognized the Palestinian State. My opinions are my opinions...no-one else's.

 

My motivation is basically that the injustice Israel has done and continues to perpetrate upon the Palestinians is wrong, exactly the same way that European colonialists treated the resident populations in other colonial enterprises...N America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa. Global awareness of the indigenous plight in those instances came much too late, and attempts to redress those injustices are finally now being attempted. Zionists left their colonialist run about 100 years too late to get away with it, and they are still in a state of denial that they are behaving exactly the same way that other European colonialists have done before, albeit dressed up in all this right of return baloney and David and Goliath revisionist history perfect narrative nonsense, that Israeli apologists on this forum continually push.

 

When I see those images especially of Palestinian kids killed, I know in my heart that something is rotten and decidedly wrong here.

 

The politicians (US in particular) are messing up yet again in a too little too late scenario, as always in a desire simply to get re-elected and not upset too many of their voters. No vision; no commitment to what they know in their hearts is right.

 

Yes, I am one sided, because I know that the Israeli propaganda machine is very powerful and insidious...attempts to suppress BDS, censor criticism in the media and university campuses, labelling criticism of Israel as anti semitism, trying to suppress the word "Zionist" (even though its the corner stone of the state of Israel and the name of the Israeli opposition party), and in your instance labelling Israel as racist as somehow inflammatory hyperbole. In this thread alone and others I have learnt that give the Israeli apologists an inch and they will take a mile, so I tend not to give an inch even though of course I am aware of the shortcomings on both sides. That's probably why you find my stance so vehement.

 

>>This stems from most relevant countries operating not according to one-sided emotional take on things, but following more realistic, balanced and interest driven approach. 
... I challenge you on this point. Don't you feel as you look back on some of the major human rights issues in history, that mainstream politicians were often way behind the cue ball. The Wilberforces, Pankhursts, Luther Kings were pilloried but now considered being way ahead of their times, and are now lauded. 

 

I feel future students of history will regard the Israel Palestinian conflict in the same light, and ask why didnt the major players and countries do X Y Z  years before they reached a final consensual peace agreement.

Obama and Clinton are smart enough to know what's right and wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to resolve it. They just haven't got the guts to make tough decisions that may threaten their power base. Trump is too narcissistic to have a clue of what's right unless he personally benefits monetarily or gains adulation for it.

Edited September 18, 2016 by dexterm

[coma]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>> The "global community" which you seem to have appointed yourself a spokesman of, could do with some history lessons.

 

The global community I refer to is the 70% of UN member states (with more to follow) who have already recognized the Palestinian State. My opinions are my opinions...no-one else's.

 

My motivation is basically that the injustice Israel has done and continues to perpetrate upon the Palestinians is wrong, exactly the same way that European colonialists treated the resident populations in other colonial enterprises...N America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa. Global awareness of the indigenous plight in those instances came much too late, and attempts to redress those injustices are finally now being attempted. Zionists left their colonialist run about 100 years too late to get away with it, and they are still in a state of denial that they are behaving exactly the same way that other European colonialists have done before, albeit dressed up in all this right of return baloney and David and Goliath revisionist history perfect narrative nonsense, that Israeli apologists on this forum continually push.

 

When I see those images especially of Palestinian kids killed, I know in my heart that something is rotten and decidedly wrong here.

 

The politicians (US in particular) are messing up yet again in a too little too late scenario, as always in a desire simply to get re-elected and not upset too many of their voters. No vision; no commitment to what they know in their hearts is right.

 

Yes, I am one sided, because I know that the Israeli propaganda machine is very powerful and insidious...attempts to suppress BDS, labelling criticism of Israel as anti semitism, trying to suppress the word "Zionist" (even though its the corner stone of the state of Israel and the name of the Israeli opposition party), and in your instance labelling Israel as racist as somehow inflammatory hyperbole. In this thread alone and others I have learnt that give the Israeli apologists an inch and they will take a mile, so I tend not to give an inch even though of course I am aware of the shortcomings on both sides. That's probably why you find my stance so vehement.

 

>>This stems from most relevant countries operating not according to one-sided emotional take on things, but following more realistic, balanced and interest driven approach. 
... I challenge you on this point. Don't you feel as you look back on some of the major human rights issues in history, that mainstream politicians were often way behind the cue ball. The Wilberforces, Pankhursts, Luther Kings were pilloried but now considered being way ahead of their times, and are now lauded. 

 

I feel future students of history will regard the Isreal Palestinian conflict in the same light, and ask why didnt the major players and countries do X Y Z  years before they reached a final consensual peace agreement.

Obama and Clinton are smart enough to know what's right and wrong in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to resolve it. They just haven't got the guts to make tough decisions that may threaten their power base. Trump is too narcissistic to have a clue of what's right unless he personally benefits monetarily or gains adulation for it.

 

In all the years and all the posts on TV reference the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this post is by far the best. It literally hits the nail on the head. It is the most accurate and correct summing up of the situation that I have read. Hitting like button alone would not give this post enough justice. A true pleasure to read. Thank you sir.

If only the political boffins around the world would see things as clearly. I am sure the world would be a much nicer place than it is. 

[Jingthing]

Don't be deluded. The obsessive Israel demonizaton agenda that "criticizes" Israel way out of balance to other not perfect nations in the world is all about a hateful goal that Israel as a state with a Jewish identity should end. Notice that agenda never has any problem with over 50 nations having an Islamic identify. Just the one Jew state is the problem for them. Clear minded people including leftist Israelis like Amoz Oz see that for what it is ... Jew hatred.

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Don't be deluded. The obsessive Israel demonizaton agenda that "criticizes" Israel way out of balance to other not perfect nations in the world is all about a hateful goal that Israel as a state with a Jewish identity should end. Notice that agenda never has any problem with over 50 nations having an Islamic identify. Just the one Jew state is the problem for them. Clear minded people including leftist Israelis like Amoz Oz see that for what it is ... Jew hatred.

You can't save the world all at once  (wish we could)....but you've got to start somewhere. I believe Israel cops so much flak is because it is savable. It's right on Europe's door step just half an hour away from the nearest EU country. And many of its Jewish citizens (clearly not all) share the common values of decency and what is right with the countries from which they emigrated.

 

Also Israel claims be a modern democratic country. I want it to ditch the hypocrisy and actually be one. We can then work on its neighbors, who may take note of the civilized country next door. At the moment some of them use Israel to point out US and global double standards. 

 

I agree with you that many of its Arab neighbors along with many other nations are severely lagging in the human rights stakes too, but the TV news item selectors don't seem to publish articles for comment about Chinese treatment of Uighars or Tibetans or Singaporean blind eyes to the endangered species trade, or Emirati abuse of its guest workers, or India's child slave labor. Anything remotely Islamic (v popular on TV and good for site traffic)  invites the usual bigoted Muslim bashers with their racist agendas.

Edited September 18, 2016 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, coma said:

 

In all the years and all the posts on TV reference the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this post is by far the best. 

 

What you mean, is that it matches YOUR OPINION. It is actually packed with false propoganda, distortions and spin. 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Just correcting woeful misinformation.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[DeaconJohn]

You don't correct misinformation by making blanket condemnations and ad hominem accusations.

You do it by challenging the points you disagree with and offering credible information to the contrary.

 

[Johpa]

10 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

Are there any democratic states in the world that define their state by religion ?

 

Israel does not require religious beliefs, only a provable ethnic background.  They will accept both observant and non-observant Jews.  Japan defines their citizens by ethnicity in the same way and is democratic. I believe Korea is the same.  Good luck as a foreigner obtaining Japanese or Korean citizenship. 

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Johpa said:

 

Israel does not require religious beliefs, only a provable ethnic background.  They will accept both observant and non-observant Jews.  Japan defines their citizens by ethnicity in the same way and is democratic. I believe Korea is the same.  Good luck as a foreigner obtaining Japanese or Korean citizenship. 

Yes, and there are two main reasons Jewish people migrate to Israel these days.

 

First, positive attraction to Israel, the Jewish cultural character of it, the center of the Jewish religion for the religious, the weather, the high tech industry, relatives there, etc.

 

Secondly, negative reasons, places where being a Jew is difficult or worse, such as Yemen (almost no Jews left there now), Ukraine, or more controversially France. So that is an escape to a place hopefully better. 

 

The second biggest population of Jews after Israel is the USA. The USA is a good place for Jews to live, things actually got better for American Jews after Israel was established. Thus the vast majority of American Jews that migrate to Israel do so for POSITIVE attraction reasons, with a high percentage of religious people. 

 

As in any country, there are internal conflicts about immigration politics happening all the time. Israel is no different.

 

Also keep in mind that Israel yes does welcome Jewish immigrants with open arms, but annual immigration compared to current population isn't very significant, and the vast majority of Israeli citizens today were BORN in Israel. That's home.

 

Also just being able to migrate doesn't guarantee success. A high percentage fail. There is a high cost of living, you need to learn Hebrew, for younger people there is military service.

 

In other words, it's not a bowl of cherries, and what country is? 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

1 hour ago, DeaconJohn said:

You don't correct misinformation by making blanket condemnations and ad hominem accusations.

You do it by challenging the points you disagree with and offering credible information to the contrary.

 

 

When someone posts very little that is accurate and posts very frequently, correcting it all would take most of the day. I normally choose only the most blatant disinformation to correct. One has to be pragmatic.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

 

Also Israel claims be a modern democratic country.

 

That is exactly what it is. Non-citizens (and avowed enemies) are not allowed to participate.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[abrahamzvi]

13 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Israel does not require religious beliefs, only a provable ethnic background.  They will accept both observant and non-observant Jews.  Japan defines their citizens by ethnicity in the same way and is democratic. I believe Korea is the same.  Good luck as a foreigner obtaining Japanese or Korean citizenship. 

We are now getting into a very comlicated and arguable question - what its Judaism, a religion or an ethnicity. If the latter is the case, then there must be Christian or Muslim, or Buddhist Jews. The same as there are Koreans and Japanese of many religions, which I believe is not the case in Israel. Or is it?

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

We are now getting into a very comlicated and arguable question - what its Judaism, a religion or an ethnicity. If the latter is the case, then there must be Christian or Muslim, or Buddhist Jews. The same as there are Koreans and Japanese of many religions, which I believe is not the case in Israel. Or is it?

That's indeed a more complicated question.

Of course there are Jews that have converted to every religion you can mention. Are they still Jews? Probably not according to Israeli immigration law or most rabbis, but probably so in the eyes of their Jewish mother! 

Israeli citizens are of course free to convert to anything.

I think this is getting way too granular for this thread though.

I suppose some people would try to argue that because there are ambiguities and complexities surrounding Jewish ethnic and/or religious identity that that somehow makes a core value of the Israeli nation state, the LAW OF RETURN for all Jews, to be somehow wrong ... well, they can, but who cares, Israel is a sovereign state and has a right to make its immigration laws just as every other state.

The same will be true if there ever is an actual state of Palestine, with their clearly announced intention to not have ANY Jewish citizens. That would be their right as a sovereign state.  

I am not suggesting they are equivalent policies ... just pointing out the right of sovereign states to set their own immigration laws. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[abrahamzvi]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's indeed a more complicated question.

Of course there are Jews that have converted to every religion you can mention. Are they still Jews? Probably not according to Israeli immigration law or most rabbis, but probably so in the eyes of their Jewish mother! 

Israeli citizens of course are of course free to convert to anything.

I think this is getting way too granular for this thread though. 

I entirely agree with your last sentence. However, I maintain we really, all of us, must be careful when using words and definitions.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

I entirely agree with your last sentence. However, I maintain we really, all of us, must be careful when using words and definitions.

Yes, but I'm afraid on the question "What is a Jew" you're never going to find a finally fully definitive answer. There isn't one. 

Is Israeli immigration law that answer? No, it's just a law of a nation state. 

100 Jews, 100 opinions, and don't even get started with rabbis. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[abrahamzvi]

31 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's indeed a more complicated question.

Of course there are Jews that have converted to every religion you can mention. Are they still Jews? Probably not according to Israeli immigration law or most rabbis, but probably so in the eyes of their Jewish mother! 

Israeli citizens are of course free to convert to anything.

I think this is getting way too granular for this thread though.

I suppose some people would try to argue that because there are ambiguities and complexities surrounding Jewish ethnic and/or religious identity that that somehow makes a core value of the Israeli nation state, the LAW OF RETURN for all Jews, to be somehow wrong ... well, they can, but who cares, Israel is a sovereign state and has a right to make its immigration laws just as every other state.

The same will be true if there ever is an actual state of Palestine, with their clearly announced intention to not have ANY Jewish citizens. That would be their right as a sovereign state.  

I am not suggesting they are equivalent policies ... just pointing out the right of sovereign states to set their own immigration laws. 

No one would quarrel with your view that every state has the right to enact its own laws on any subject. It is another matter, how such laws are looked at by the rest of the world. Do you consider the way the Iranian Mullas treat people , which according to their laws is legal, right and human? The same question applies to other countries like Saudi Arabia, which again treats people according to its laws. People around the world have the right, in my view even the duty, to criticize and do whatever they can against inhuman and/or racialist laws, irrespective of which country exercises them.