Anti-Semitism Rising Among Israeli Youth

[Dis]

Originally posted by Vince278
Israeli neo-nazis?!?

[Dis]

Originally posted by laurentius
Whats so complicated?

I dont think the situations weird at all. You neglect the youth, they react.

the youth aren't neglected. They are just a bunch of whiney cry babies who need something to rebel against.

[Seeker]

"The only way to ensure their safety is to give them their own country."

When are the Gypsies going to get their ethnic state? I'm sure the arabs have a bunch more desert somewhere they aren't using very much...

I don't buy the exclusivist government that somehow the jewish people deserve an ethnically pure state but not any other ethnicity on the earth regardless of suffering, eg the Ukrainians, Poles, etc.

The idea that there is something special about jews because of the holocaust is, well, a racist idea, and seems to go against the whole idea of building a better world where holocausts, massacres, 'ethnic cleanising', "papers please" mentalities, etc are a thing of the past.

The french believe they can absorb millions of arabic immigrants from distant lands....and if they ever considered laws to protect an 'ethnicallly pure French state' a la Israel, they would be condemned. And yet many french people feel that the long term existence of france as a french is is threatened by demographics....in EXACTLY the same way Israelis feel threatened....and yet Frogs proposing measures far less severe than Israels are vilified as 'nazis' while Israelis who enforce harsher measures are applauded on the floor of the US congress!

And subsitute "x" non-Israeli (of ANY size, you can't use Israels population as a justification) nation for france and it's the same...hypocrisy. I'm not anti-immigration....far from it, I'm for open borders as much as possible...in ALL countries.

Perhaps the way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a true 'one-state' solution. Surely with increased prosperity and secularism, the 'pals' will gradually come to embrace their semitic brothers. But real peace will require, NOT the destruction of Israel, but that Israel become a truly secular,democratic non-ethnic state like any other state. Maybe a name change would be in order like 'the Republic of Israel and Palestine'.

Unlike the Israelis I don't think that Arab migration will destroy Israel. It may destroy the anarchonism of a 'Jewish State', but it will not destroy the possiblity of a multicultural, freedom loving, peaceful Israeli but not necessarily Jewish state.

Israel needs multiculturalism. Just like any other country. It's the only REAL way forward.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
No one is suggesting taking Israel away. I'm a 100% supporter of Israel's right to exist, certainly (and I'd imagine most people here are as well). But for a people persecuted for millenia, don't you think its a bit ironic/hypocritical/sad that as soon as they get their own state they start with their own persecuting?

*sigh*

The entire point of a Jewish state was for it to be, well, Jewish. The idea was, they need their own country because in every other country, they've been persecuted. Obviously the country is going to be formed on ethnic/religious lines.

[Seeker]

So where is the post holocaust post world war 2 Roma state? Why do the jews especially need a state based on race but not the equally suffering gypsies?

The holocaust should not be used as a justification for racism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Seeker
So where is the post holocaust post world war 2 Roma state? Why do the jews especially need a state based on race but not the equally suffering gypsies?

The holocaust should not be used as a justification for racism.

1. If the Roma can do what the Zionists did, and start building a new society, transforming from a people of wondering nomads with a narrow occupational structure to a normal people, and then claim a state, Id be in full sympathy with them. IIUC the Roma originate in India. However it seems they have no desire to return to India, or to establish a Roma state. Thats THEIR choice. Zionism did not emerge ex nihilo in 1945. It was a steady development, in response to A. The real social problems of the Jewish people B. A history of persecution that long antedated the holocaust C. The real attachment of the Jewish people to their homeland - where are the Roma prayers, folklore, etc that tie them to their homeland?

2. The Law of Return does NOT exclude any "race?. Its for the return of members of the Jewish nation. Nation in traditional Jewish culture is something that doesnt quite map to religion or to race. YOu can convert to it, or you can be born to it.

Now the folk wisdom of the people takes a narrower than Jewish law. In the Brother Daniel case, a christian monk of Jewish birth applied under the Law of Return, and was rejected. Under Jewish law he was still a Jew, but the people didnt consider him one.

A Jew whos an atheist IS considered Jewish, both by Jewish law AND by the folk wisdom of the people. The early Zionists were hardly going to exclude atheists, as many of them WERE atheists. Nor were they going to exclude, say, folks who couldnt speak Hebrew, as the mass of Jews in Eastern Europe spoke Yiddish on a daily basis - which DID mark them off as a minority for persecution, but which was not the language of the new land.

Now maybe today we can reformulate the law of return to make a connection to Jewish culture more central. But the Jewish people are not going to exclude their brothers and sisters in times of persecution, on the basis of a cultural-linguistic test, merely to satisfy the high minded principles someone living thousands of miles away who doesnt share the fate of the Jewish people.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Seeker
"The only way to ensure their safety is to give them their own country."

"
When are the Gypsies going to get their ethnic state? I'm sure the arabs have a bunch more desert somewhere they aren't using very much..."


see below.

"I don't buy the exclusivist government that somehow the jewish people deserve an ethnically pure state but not any other ethnicity on the earth regardless of suffering, eg the Ukrainians, Poles, etc. "


The Jewish state is NOT ethnically pure. Its 20% Arab, and has other minorities as well.

"The idea that there is something special about jews because of the holocaust"

Other peoples whose civilization is endangered should have the right to protect their civilizations, including by immigration restrictions if necessary. "je me souviens"

" is, well, a racist idea, and seems to go against the whole idea of building a better world where holocausts, massacres, 'ethnic cleanising', "papers please" mentalities, etc are a thing of the past."

Doesnt follow. Killing and torturing people to keep them off your property is wrong, that doesnt mean you have to share your property.


"The french believe they can absorb millions of arabic immigrants from distant lands....and if they ever considered laws to protect an 'ethnicallly pure French state' a la Israel, they would be condemned. And yet many french people feel that the long term existence of france as a french is is threatened by demographics....in EXACTLY the same way Israelis feel threatened....and yet Frogs proposing measures far less severe than Israels are vilified as 'nazis' while Israelis who enforce harsher measures are applauded on the floor of the US congress!"

Im not sure what measure those are? Limiting overall immigration, but making an exception for overseas French of French descent? I dont think anyone would have problems with that. In fact thats EXACTLY what post war Germany did.


"And subsitute "x" non-Israeli (of ANY size, you can't use Israels population as a justification) nation for france and it's the same...hypocrisy. I'm not anti-immigration....far from it, I'm for open borders as much as possible...in ALL countries."

You may be, but others are not. They arent obligated to agree with you.



"Perhaps the way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a true 'one-state' solution. Surely with increased prosperity and secularism, the 'pals' will gradually come to embrace their semitic brothers. But real peace will require, NOT the destruction of Israel, but that Israel become a truly secular,democratic non-ethnic state like any other state. Maybe a name change would be in order like 'the Republic of Israel and Palestine'."


but most other states are NOT non-ethnic. They just assimilate their minorities, more or less successfully.


"Unlike the Israelis I don't think that Arab migration will destroy Israel. It may destroy the anarchonism of a 'Jewish State', but it will not destroy the possiblity of a multicultural, freedom loving, peaceful Israeli but not necessarily Jewish state."

The Quebecois are going to get their state to protect their distinctiveness, why shouldnt the Jews have a state to protect theirs? Jews who wanted to assimilate and give up their distinctive identity as a people, have the option of living in the diaspora.


"Israel needs multiculturalism. Just like any other country. It's the only REAL way forward."

Theres only ONE way forward, that every country needs - that hardly sounds tolerant of diversity In any case, Israel is one of the most genuinely multicultural countries I know - a hodgepodge of cultures and traditions, both Jewish and non-Jewish. I doubt that diversity would survive your proposal. Wed get one more globalized homogenized country, at BEST, and one more muslim theocracy, at worst.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why should ones ethnicity have anything to do with ones citizenship?

It really seems to be a double standard for Israel, given that they have condemned others in the past...

Ethnically homogneous,

Korean state...bad (NK)
Boer/English State.....bad (SA and Rhodesia)
Russian state.....bad (Belarus and Rus to some extent)
White State....bad (USA 1920s-60s)
Jewish State....Necessary??

Quoth sesame street: one of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not quite the same...

Korean state - good (SK)
Dutch state good - Netherlands
Russian state good - Russia

Nkor is MORE commited to univeralist values than Skor, and look at the two states.

SA and Rhodesia were bad cause they were rules of minorities over a majority, and denied basic political rights to citizens of those states.

[Seeker]

Yada yada yada lots of people have 'strong historical connections to their homelands' and lots of people have suffered persecution. There's nothing special about the jews in that regard.

My point is not to debate the true meaning of 'Jewishness' my point is that Israel is expressly not a multicultural society like every other modern nation. I don't really care how you define 'Jewishness', as nationality, ethnicity, race, culture, religion etc that's totally irrelevant. What matters is that it is used to create an artificial barrier to people's freedom to immigrate and create a better life for themselves, and that is is an arbitrary barrier.

Keeping in mind that I reject the idea of uniique priveledges based on past suffering, why Israel as a Jewish state? What about Poland as an exclusively Polish state or Ukraine as a special homeland for Ukrainians and only Ukrainians? Should Ukraine forbid the immigration of all non-Ukrainians because of the past history of Ukrainian suffering and their 'strong folk traditions'?

Why not an Israel that is the same as any other modern multicultural state?

Can't you see that it's a terrible double standard that, of any other people in the world, Jews somehome get the right to to a 'pure' state.....and don't get condemned for it??

And just to reiterate, 'strong folk connections to the land'..blah blah..EVERY nations' people feel a strong connection tp their homelland. That has to be seen as a really really poor argument against immigration. That's exact kind of thing the 'MinuteMen' in the US say.

[Seeker]

"Nkor is MORE commited to univeralist values than Skor, and look at the two states."

I'm sorry that's a completely ridiculous statement that only someone who has never visited NK would make.

NK is an explicity racist country, through and through, with an active eugenics programme. They believein the superiority and purity of the han race, with laws against race mixing, and they frequently condemn SK for 'dropping ink in the Han river' (expression for allowing dark-skinned foreigners to enter Korea). One of SK greatest 'crimes' in the North's eyes, is race-mixing and immigration. See their reaction on the visit by Pittsburg Steelers player Hines Woods, half-black half korean. He was celebrated in the South, the subject of racist tirades in the North.

The idea that North Korea is 'committed to universalist values' just undermined your credibility drastically in my opinion.

[Barnabas]

Gypsies dont want their own country, they would have to work.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Doesnt follow. Killing and torturing people to keep them off your property is wrong, that doesnt mean you have to share your property.

So if the Nazis had expelled all Jews from their lands and siezed their property instead of mass murdering them, then that'd be ok?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Im not sure what measure those are? Limiting overall immigration, but making an exception for overseas French of French descent? I dont think anyone would have problems with that.

Indeed people do. As well as the French attempts to protect their culture by anti-English legislation.

Seeker is correct in that a state dedicated to a particular nation is something that would be condemned by many. When France makes laws to slam English, people complain about it and rail against the nationalism.

[axi]

There's something about that law of return that I don't understand.

All people with a jewish mother are jews and can become citizens of Israel.
All people with a jewish father or grandfather are not jews, but can become citizens of Israel.
All people that are family to citizens of Israel have a right to be in the country, but can neither be citizens nor are considerd jews. These people are:
- Children, natural and adopted of the 2nd category of citizens.
- Married to citizens of both categories.

Do this extend to people BORN in israel? Don't they have a right to citizenship?
Why can't these people be normalised and be offered citizenship as well?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by axi
Do this extend to people BORN in israel? Don't they have a right to citizenship?
Why can't these people be normalised and be offered citizenship as well?

The law of return only talks about the exception of people born outside of Israel.

There is a different law dealing with children of non-citizens and other things.


I think that children born here automatically gain citizenship.

It possibly may not be so, if the parents have not legally migrated. I think the issue of children of foreign workers or illegal immigrants is not settled. The current minister of interior said recently he is eager to solve that issue in favor of the children.

Basically there is a disagreement between the major liberal parties who wish to reform the law of return and other citizenship laws, and the small sectarian orthodox parties, who wish to keep the law as tight as possible.

While the orthodox parties are a minority, due to the political structure in Israel, they have veto power of lots of issues, since they are always needed to form a government.



As far as the main argument about migration goes - I don't think that migration is a natural human right. I think that you are not free to live wherever you want, and to wander the earth.

Humans consist of societies. A society with a set and closed range of principles often form countries. A country - beyond being a "place of living" - is a sort of a contract between its members. This contract usually sets forth certain beliefs and ways of protecting that society. To protect itself, a society must "define" itself and later may want to defend that definition from change.


I can buy my own house, and say that "only people X...Z are invited"

I can own a castle with a group of friends and make it a private club.

I can own an Island, with a large group of people, and make it "private". We can set up a "council" or a "Forum" and have decisions regarding it. We do not have to accept immigration or allow new houses to be built.

Obviously a country is different. However, it still usually needs to maintain a level of rules to define its citizens, and try and 'defend' itself from change.