Israel upholds citizenship bar for Palestinian spouses

[Gauthier]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

That's just ignorant, and fairly moronic to say.

Worse than that. It's trying to link Israel with all Jews in an effort to suppress legitimate criticism is Israeli policies and actions. "If you have a problem with Israel you have a problem with Jews you Hitler-worshipping Neo-Nazi!"

[Cromarty]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

Arabs are semitic derp

[Ourfgenstan (Ancient)]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

Arabs are semitic derp

Indeed. Not to mention most of these Jewish *Semites* are of European descent.

[Gauthier]

Arabs are semitic derp

Indeed. Not to mention most of these Jewish *Semites* are of European descent.

It's propaganda damage, kind of like why most people think Jesus is a blond-haired caucasian.

[Ourfgenstan (Ancient)]

Indeed. Not to mention most of these Jewish *Semites* are of European descent.

It's propaganda damage, kind of like why most people think Jesus is a blond-haired caucasian.

He was! He was a white, blue eyed, blonde, evangelical from Texas!

[Costa Fiero]

The classic "If You Hate Israel You Hate All Jews" talking point.

Got anything else to say, funny guy?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Indeed. Not to mention most of these Jewish *Semites* are of European descent.

It's propaganda damage, kind of like why most people think Jesus is a blond-haired caucasian.

Isn't he usually depicted as brunette?

[Blazedtown]

Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a law banning Palestinians who marry Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship.

Civil rights groups had petitioned the court to overturn the law, saying it was unconstitutional.

"Human rights do not prescribe national suicide," Judge Asher Grunis wrote in the judgement.

The law was introduced in 2003, with its backers citing security concerns and the need to ensure Israel remains a Jewish-majority state.

Human rights activists and Arab politicians condemned the court's decision.

The court "had failed the test of justice", said Arab-Israeli MP Jamal Zahalka of the Balad party.

"It is a dark day for the protection of human rights and for the Israeli High Court," lawyers from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel told AFP.

"The ruling proves how much the situation regarding the civil rights of the Arab minority in Israel is declining into a highly dangerous and unprecedented situation", Arab-Israeli civil rights group Adalah, one of those that brought the petition, said in a statement.

The Citizenship and Entry Law was passed in 2003, during the second Palestinian intifada (uprising), as waves of suicide bombings targeted Israel.

Many were launched from the West Bank, some with the help of Israeli Arabs.

Initially, the law was emergency legislation which has since been extended periodically.

It was amended in 2005, allowing women over 25 and men over 35 to apply for temporary permits to live in Israel, but still ruling out citizenship for all but a handful of cases.

In 2007, it was expanded to apply to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16526469

This just frustrates me really, marriage conveying citizenship (in my very limited knowledge) is quite common generally, and I also have a generally dislike social engineering to try and keep a state a particular ethnicity.

Nike!

[Evraim]

Huh?

The classic "If You Hate Israel You Hate All Jews" talking point.

Do you hate Israel? Why? What other countries do you hate? Why?

[Blazedtown]

It's propaganda damage, kind of like why most people think Jesus is a blond-haired caucasian.

He was! He was a white, blue eyed, blonde, evangelical from Texas!

He was just one form of the most powerful being in existence. One that will one day lead a united mankind to conquer the stars.

[Evraim]

Indeed they haven't. They however support these settlements in order to increase their living space at the expense of Palestinians and also in order to strengthen their claims to the area.

Although they aren't butchering them at the same rate or with the same purposeful attention does not mean however that the Israeli state does not share racism in common with the Nazis by trying to make Israel remain a Jewish-majority state, as the Nazis hoped to make their country more German.

As I said we are making comparisons, not saying that they did exactly the same things nor that they are Nazis.

---

Around when?

Bigoted views against blacks and Hispanics I'm well aware of, but I've never seen racism against Jews or East Asians at all in all the years I've lived in the United States.

Sure! I'd love to know. And especially ones against Jews. But in the modern day please (but I'd like historical ones too for other reasons). The rest doesn't really have much to do with this part of the argument here.

---

People do quite remember the European and American extermination of the Native Americans. I've never read about the atrocities commited by the Islamic hordes in their early years. Although I do know about the killing fields of Cambodia, most people sadly have never even heard of the country.

And people of course would be more surprised to find out that there are similarities between Israel and Nazi Germany.

Yes, but they aren't stopping the settlements, and they haven't increased the liberties of Israeli Arabs.

I do oppose the establishment of settlements in the West Bank, as I have stated prior to this discussion. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the Israeli are intentionally butchering the Palestinians at all. They've been involved in what amounts to a state of war since 1948. You cannot really butcher people who are shooting rockets at you. I ought to say that Israel is incredibly Nationalist, but it is for a much different reason than Nazi Germany. Germany was already primarily Germanic by the time Hitler came to power. Essentially, they were bent on making it exclusively Aryan. The Israelis are not attempting to make Israel entirely Jewish, not in the slightest. Arabs have quite a few rights that minorities in other non-Western countries hardly ever enjoy. They can vote, hold governmental office, and quite a few other things. That said, Israel does have problems. The government often ignores anti-Semitic (not using the mainstream European definition which only pertains to Jews) attitudes amongst the population to the detriment of the Arab minority.

Also, I'll elaborate on my views regarding Nazi comparisons/Godwin's Law. I believe that calling individuals who support policies you oppose- even for legitimate racism- is easy and essentially an ad hominem as opposed to a coherent argument. Furthermore, the specific designation of Israel as Nazi-like does not take into account the various types of oppression throughout the world. China is easily more Nazi-like than Israel in terms of the government's authority, discrimination against Budhists and dissenters, and in its Westward expansion. Of course, the Lebensraum link is slightly weaker, but overall I could compose an argument claiming that the PRC is an incredibly Nazi-like. As you might have guessed, I dislike the Chinese government. However, I do not say that they're are Nazi-like for the reason I have stated. It does not argue against their policies in a precise enough manner and really only represents an emotional knee-jerk response. Most people dislike National Socialism, and thus by branding somebody as a National Socialist you avoid vigorous discourse and examination of your claims.

I do not want anybody to be called a National Socialist unless there is a strongly compelling similarity, and in this case I do not believe there is an abnormally strong link. Here in America, where I live, the two principle political parties each have fringe groups (and commentators such as Glenn Beck) who will occasionally compare the other faction to the Nazis, usually for the purpose of eschewing debate and garnering support against a policy that may only have a small link to the Nazis. It's ridiculous, and more than a little insulting. Using the term so lightly, cheapens it. I might consider it acceptable when an entire minority is forced into a camp, either worked to death or gassed, and then burned in a furnace. Until then, it's empty posturing. If you would like to argue against what you perceive (along with others) as flaws in the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and Arab minority, please, do so. Only refrain from bringing a false equivalency into it.

---

From about the time of Hitler's rise until his acts of aggression against Poland, Mein Kampf was a pretty popular little diatribe. I am well aware the United States was not nearly as terrible as Europe, but I was merely making a point of the fact that prejudices against Jews and ethnic minorities in general were much stronger in that time period than they are today. Racism and bigotry are weaker today than they were, but they still exist. However, that is beside the point, I was merely asserting that at the time that Israel was founded racism was still a big problem. Modern racism is not relevant to the argument I am making, nor really is the United States. Here's a basic link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States

---

The fact that a comparison might shock an audience does not increase its validity. In fact, making an argument solely with the intention of inducing suprise is generally one of the components that comprises an argument devoid of logic and bulstered only by emotion. Of course, passion is more vital than reason, but you're not going to convince an analytical listener without adding some type of logic into the discourse. Especially, when the other person is using emotion as well. The reason that you probably have yet to hear much about the atrocities is because that excluding the zealotry of the new converts (such as the Turks early on), the Muslims were much more tolerant than some other cultures had been. However, the tendency to force people to convert (which did peridoically arise at times), the jizya, and the brutality of war would probably be considered quite terrible, and I doubt people would want to actually experience any of them first hand. There were also times when both Christians and Muslims would become extremely intolerant towards anybody who even thought differently about their religion, and this persists today. I actually found a few forums in which a group of Sunnis was rationalizing the suppression of their fellow Muslims because they were "heretics". It was sickening, really. It really isn't a topic I wanted to explore because it was intended more as an example than as a subject of debate. Of course, you're free to debate the validity of the example if you so desire.

Also, I ought apologize for using the term "Islamic hordes". It really doesn't do justice to the girth of cultures who could muster such large and devoted militaries.

[Zaras]

Wrong. People were comparing it do Nazism.

I think most people are sugarcoating it for what the really think about Israel. Just like they sugarcoat terrorists with "freedom fighters".

Heyheyhey. If you actually read my post, I said "How is that not Godwinish?" because I felt the previous poster was trying to use the Nazis' atrocities to justify Israel's more questionable policies. I don't remember actually saying what I think about Israel the state beyond agreeing with whoever said no side is innocent...

[Zaras]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

[Costa Fiero]

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

Maoris do have their homeland. They still live there. They even have their own king and any government (be it central or local) has to consult with iwi on projects that might affect them.

So, I don't exactly know what you're going on about. Certainly, the Maori have it much, much better than the previous two native groups you mentioned.

[Evraim]

Arabs are semitic derp

Indeed. Not to mention most of these Jewish *Semites* are of European descent.

I've already refuted that claim.

[Evraim]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

Anderson is correct, but from your statement one would suppose that he understates the importance of artifical identities. For example, the African American community in the United States is largely a community created by a purely arbitrary system of classification (as are most cultures for that matter). However, the evils of slavery and discrimination forced these people out of the mainstream American culture, and thus the result is a new identity. If you're an anti-Nationalist, you would probably oppose all states created by an ethnic identity (if not all states, period). In which case, you oppose not only Israel's existence, but also Palestine's, Germany's, Italy's, Sweden's, etc. Of course, there are alternatives. You could view nationalism as artificial but support the existence of such states for other reasons. I would have supported the existence of new states had a large enough section of the population of any North American country or New Zealand was comprised of such individuals, and had they desired a separation for legitimate reasons. As it stands now, I do not believe either of these is the case.

[Blazedtown]

If you are anti-Israel, you are anti-Semitic. Israel gives Jews a homeland, so they don't get exterminated again. They tend to be hated wherever they go. Some of you are just being racist.

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

Indians have reservations.

[Juristonia]

That's just ignorant, and fairly moronic to say.

Worse than that. It's trying to link Israel with all Jews in an effort to suppress legitimate criticism is Israeli policies and actions. "If you have a problem with Israel you have a problem with Jews you Hitler-worshipping Neo-Nazi!"

This generally happens in Israel debates.
It's apparently impossible to do anything less than blindly worshipping the honourable Israelis without being a racist Nazi who wants to exterminate ze Jews and not a single point of criticism will ever be valid.

[Evraim]

Worse than that. It's trying to link Israel with all Jews in an effort to suppress legitimate criticism is Israeli policies and actions. "If you have a problem with Israel you have a problem with Jews you Hitler-worshipping Neo-Nazi!"

This generally happens in Israel debates.
It's apparently impossible to do anything less than blindly worshipping the honourable Israelis without being a racist Nazi who wants to exterminate ze Jews and not a single point of criticism will ever be valid.

I'm fine as long as you do not compare them to Nazis, and have a valid reason for disliking Israel.

[Blazedtown]

This generally happens in Israel debates.
It's apparently impossible to do anything less than blindly worshipping the honourable Israelis without being a racist Nazi who wants to exterminate ze Jews and not a single point of criticism will ever be valid.

I'm fine as long as you do not compare them to Nazis, and have a valid reason for disliking Israel.

Even though the Israeli government does have its similarity with the government policies of Nazi Germany?

[Evraim]

I'm fine as long as you do not compare them to Nazis, and have a valid reason for disliking Israel.

Even though the Israeli government does have its similarity with the government policies of Nazi Germany?

Read the posts.

[Blazedtown]

Even though the Israeli government does have its similarity with the government policies of Nazi Germany?

Read the posts.

Mossad and the Reich Main Security Office have plenty in common.

[Evraim]

Read the posts.

Mossad and the Reich Main Security Office have plenty in common.

They're both intelligence agencies? Post a link or something.

[Zaras]

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

Anderson is correct, but from your statement one would suppose that he understates the importance of artifical identities. For example, the African American community in the United States is largely a community created by a purely arbitrary system of classification (as are most cultures for that matter). However, the evils of slavery and discrimination forced these people out of the mainstream American culture, and thus the result is a new identity. If you're an anti-Nationalist, you would probably oppose all states created by an ethnic identity (if not all states, period). In which case, you oppose not only Israel's existence, but also Palestine's, Germany's, Italy's, Sweden's, etc. Of course, there are alternatives. You could view nationalism as artificial but support the existence of such states for other reasons. I would have supported the existence of new states had a large enough section of the population of any North American country or New Zealand was comprised of such individuals, and had they desired a separation for legitimate reasons. As it stands now, I do not believe either of these is the case.

Good point about the understatement. I don't know if I'm 100% anti-nationalist, but I am opposed to it being manipulated for jingoistic/discriminatory purposes and all, and I agree with the second-to-last sentence. I guess I do fall in the "nationalism is artificial but support the existence of states for other reasons" category.

Oh, and fun fact? I wrote an essay for uni about nationalism last year, and used Israel as an example of how national heritage/ethnic identities can be manipulated for political ends, specifically how Hebrew was revived and Aliyahs were staged to reinforce their claim to statehood. I'm not against Israel's existence, but I think that the argument that it is necessary to stop discrimination against the Jewish populations abroad is a pretty bad argument in light of the fact that other similarly long-oppressed groups like Native Americans don't get their own homelands. It's a matter of how you frame it, I guess.

[Zaras]

No. States and homelands are largely, as Benedict Anderson put it, imagined communities, and some of them are quite artificial. How come Jewish people should get a homeland but Native Americans/Aborigines/Maoris don't? It's a terrible argument.

Maoris do have their homeland. They still live there. They even have their own king and any government (be it central or local) has to consult with iwi on projects that might affect them.

So, I don't exactly know what you're going on about. Certainly, the Maori have it much, much better than the previous two native groups you mentioned.

Yes, you're right, I should've left "Maoris" out of that post, and stop writing at 1:23 AM.