ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[padillah]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Originally posted by lord of the mark


BTW, whatever happened to those greenhouses at the Gaza settlements? They were thoroughly vandalized, werent they? Makes one wonder how seriously to take all the agonizing about "stolen" property.

Are you sure? I do remember reading an article within weeks of the forced evacuation showing pals in gaza occupying and repairing the greenhouses with the claim that the damage had been inflicted by the spiteful departing evacuees.

Has there been further damage since then?

I personally feel it's this kind of "he said/she said" that's going to keep this conflict going 'till long after we're dead.

My wife and I get into arguments like this where neither of us cares to solve the problem anymore we just want to make sure the other knows they were wrong. And the other, now that they are being attacked, defends their original (now understood to be mistaken) point if only to not look like a complete '****.

Israeli history aside it's currently there and needs to be dealt with. No amount of sniping, from either side, is going to change that. All it does is keep the actual problem from being addressed.

NOTE: I am not saying you two are sniping at each other, this is a discussion not a policy negotiation so the atmosphere is totally different. I mearly used the preception conflict to illustrate my point of view. (hope you don't mind)

Tom P.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


so to speak. To extend the Nimbyism metaphor. People with some rights by adverse possession if you prefer.

When did the squatting begin?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Are you comfortable with other countries filtering their immigration on the basis of ethnicity/religion? I wonder if it was necessary for Israel to adopt such policies. Couldn't the Aliyah have been continued simply using extremely relaxed immigration policies instead?

I have to say that such immigration policies don't sit well with me at all, even if outside of western countries nobody seems to see anything unusual about them in the slightest.

One, its their soveriegn right, whether I agree or not

Two, in fact some do. Germany for example has a right of return for ethnic Germans, and I think Ireland has something like that. Italy even allows ethnic Italians who have NOT returned from overseas to vote, IIUC.

Second, its not the case that Israel accepts no non-Jewish immigrants. It accepts a few under general immigration laws. However as a haven, it allows ALL Jews, and anyone with one Jewish grandparent, automatic rights to immigrate.

Given the existence after 1949 of several hundred thousand Pal refugees, bitter at Israel, who when they lived in Palestine had rioted to prevent Jewish migration, its not clear to me that open immigration for them would have been consistent with keeping the doors open for Jewish immigration. Indeed, if the Pal descendants were to all return now, I doubt they would keep the doors open for Jewish immigrants now.


I would be quite comfortable with Israel modifiying the Law of Return so that only jews who are either A. Actually under threat of imminent persecution or B. Have some real demonstrable connection to Israeli/Hebrew culture/language would be granted automatic citizenship, to lessen the racial overtones some people take from the Law of Return. IMO little would be lost by doing that. Though Im not sure how much would really be gained among those hostile to Israel.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


When did the squatting begin?

Long time ago. If you want to get technical, the first squatting overlapped the actual pushing of the owner out of his home.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Long time ago. If you want to get technical, the first squatting overlapped the actual pushing of the owner out of his home.

If this happened a long time ago the owners are dead. That doesn't tell me why the people living there in 1946 were squatters.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If this happened a long time ago the owners are dead. That doesn't tell me why the people living there in 1946 were squatters.

Geez, youre taking a metaphor a little too seriously. If you wish to continue to extent it, however, the previous owners are dead, and their displaced, homeless heirs inherit their claim.

Calling the squatters "squatters" is an extreme position, as it recognizes no right of adverse possession. I would recognize some right, and demand only that the displaced heirs get HALF the home.

Now the squatters cant complain about the space theyve lost. But for anyone to accuse someone ELSE of Nimbyism for not taking the homeless into their home, when the homeless have a legitimate claim to a home, strikes me as silly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Geez, youre taking a metaphor a little too seriously. If you wish to continue to extent it, however, the previous owners are dead, and their displaced, homeless heirs inherit their claim.

I would hardly call decendents from someone who lived 1300 years ago heirs to inherit his land when there has been someone living there during that time.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Now it would, sure. You think they wanted to live there in 1948?

true.
But I have another idea - we could have solved the problem whether Britain or Ireland should posess Northern Ireland in a very simple way...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


One, its their soveriegn right, whether I agree or not

Two, in fact some do. Germany for example has a right of return for ethnic Germans, and I think Ireland has something like that. Italy even allows ethnic Italians who have NOT returned from overseas to vote, IIUC.

Second, its not the case that Israel accepts no non-Jewish immigrants. It accepts a few under general immigration laws. However as a haven, it allows ALL Jews, and anyone with one Jewish grandparent, automatic rights to immigrate.

Given the existence after 1949 of several hundred thousand Pal refugees, bitter at Israel, who when they lived in Palestine had rioted to prevent Jewish migration, its not clear to me that open immigration for them would have been consistent with keeping the doors open for Jewish immigration. Indeed, if the Pal descendants were to all return now, I doubt they would keep the doors open for Jewish immigrants now.


I would be quite comfortable with Israel modifiying the Law of Return so that only jews who are either A. Actually under threat of imminent persecution or B. Have some real demonstrable connection to Israeli/Hebrew culture/language would be granted automatic citizenship, to lessen the racial overtones some people take from the Law of Return. IMO little would be lost by doing that. Though Im not sure how much would really be gained among those hostile to Israel.

thank you.

Personally The only way those ethnically selective immigration policies will really upset me would be if it were ever successfully pointed to as justification for a return in the US to the racial quotas on immigration that prevailed for so long here. Happily, it's obvious thats not even remotely close to happening.

I hope it doesn't seem as if I'm selectively challenging your posts to the exclusion of others.

Honestly it's just that I know your replies will always be worth reading and informative.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yes, he was deliberately mentioned for this precise reason. This is what we British call "irony".

We have that too, we just make it more clear when we do it so others don't think we're overlooking the obvious. It's what we call "communication skills."

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
We have that too, we just make it more clear when we do it so others don't think we're overlooking the obvious. It's what we call "communication skills."

We don't feel the need to do that for reasons we call "respecting the reader's intelligence".

[lord of the mark]

If you guys keep using up all the available quotation marks, soon the BBC web page will have to shut down.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
One, its their soveriegn right, whether I agree or not

Point of order

Individuals have rights.
Governments have authority.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Point of order

Individuals have rights.
Governments have authority.

In international law, govts have rights, IIUC.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
We don't feel the need to do that for reasons we call "respecting the reader's intelligence".

Over here we call that "hiding laziness behind snobbery."