main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Israel/Palestine

Discussion in 'Community' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jan 4, 2009.

  1. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Evidently not by your own research, though.

    I just finished saying how ailyah is a right of return, not a quota-based migration policy. It's no different to an American passport being issued to a kid born in the US, living their first 18 years in Manila, then being able to walk back into the USA as an adult head of all the other migrants in the queue.
     
  2. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Yes I understand that and I already know that. But doesn't Israel choose not to immigrate other ethnicities (i.e. they don't like taking non-Jewish immigrants).
     
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    No, non-Jews can immigrate to Israel.
     
  4. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Well fair enough - then we go back to my original point, that isn't the idea of an only Jewish state (a safe haven) unsustainable?
     
  5. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Only insofar as Jews don't convert?
     
  6. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    But inevitably, as the world integrates more and more people immigrate who aren't Jewish, won't the Jews inevitably become a minority. The same can be said for any country really (Germany, Britain, etc).

    Of course maybe there is a reasonable argument to be made for a native majority retaining majority rights...
     
  7. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well, no - every country has a migration policy which caps the number of migrants - and refugees - each year they can reasonably support. So long as this is a lever in the social policy machine they should be ok.
     
  8. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Yes but most countries don't discriminate based upon ethnicity. Surely Israel (and I guess all nations) would be motivated by a fear of being overwhelmed rather than what they can support, and would need to disciminate. But this is a larger issue about the Wests multicultural policy.
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
  10. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Well I think its a valid point - I mean its a point of contention in many countries. Is it wrong to discriminate based upon ethnicity in order to preserve the native majority? The Whitlam government made ethnicity a non-issue for our country, and maybe this should also be the case for Israel... or maybe not.
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I'm too tired to explain this again.
     
    DarthPhilosopher likes this.
  12. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Don't worry about it then - I just don't think Israel can remain a Jewish majority state unless they restrict immigration like Japan, for discrimitary reasons. Maybe calling it racist was a bit far but I don't see how it is different to a white Australian saying 'no more immigration because we don't want to be the minority'. And maybe they have a point, or maybe they don't I haven't made up my mind on that front. Seems a bit nationalist if you ask me, and quite frankly bordering on ethnocentrism.

    Then again Israel is a small nation, maybe it can't handle immigration in the first place.

    Should Israel restrict non-Jewish immigration to keep it a Jewish state?
     
  13. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
  14. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    This is basically our conversation to date.

    You: Israel has racist migration policies!
    Me: No they don't. They have a migration policy, and they have a right of return policy.
    You: Isn't that racist?
    Me: No. The right of return is the same concept as if you or I were born in the States to non-American parents, given a passport, lived in Oz until we're 18 and head back over there. The difference is, you don't have to be born in Israel to qualify; they say the land is tied to Jewish blood and so if you're a Jew you can go back there as a citizen.

    As for migration, anyone can emigrate there.
    You: But they don't let non-Jews migrate there!
    Me: That's not true. Anyone can migrate to Israel.
    You: So what you're saying is, anyone can migrate there and Jews are assumed to have Israeli citizenship by virtue of being Jewish; it's as if they were born there even though they weren't?
    Me: Yes, precisely.
    You: OK, I understand. Israel has racist migration policies!
    Me: ...
    You: Well can you explain it to me?
    Me: Israel has a migration policy, and they have a right of return policy.
    You: Isn't that racist?
    Me: No. The right of return is the same concept as if you or I were born in the States to non-American parents, given a passport, lived in Oz until we're 18 and head back over there. The difference is, you don't have to be born in Israel to qualify; they say the land is tied to Jewish blood and so if you're a Jew you can go back there as a citizen.
    As for migration, anyone can emigrate there.
    You: But they don't let non-Jews migrate there!
    Me: That's not true. Anyone can migrate to Israel.
    You: So what you're saying is, anyone can migrate there and Jews are assumed to have Israeli citizenship by virtue of being Jewish; it's as if they were born there even though they weren't?
    Me: Yes, precisely.
    You: OK, I understand. Israel has racist migration policies!
    Me: ...
    You: Well can you explain it to me?
    Me: Israel has a migration policy, and they have a right of return policy.
    You: Isn't that racist?
    Me: No. The right of return is the same concept as if you or I were born in the States to non-American parents, given a passport, lived in Oz until we're 18 and head back over there. The difference is, you don't have to be born in Israel to qualify; they say the land is tied to Jewish blood and so if you're a Jew you can go back there as a citizen.
    As for migration, anyone can emigrate there.
    You: But they don't let non-Jews migrate there!
    Me: That's not true. Anyone can migrate to Israel.
    You: So what you're saying is, anyone can migrate there and Jews are assumed to have Israeli citizenship by virtue of being Jewish; it's as if they were born there even though they weren't?
    Me: Yes, precisely.
    You: OK, I understand. Israel has racist migration policies!
    Me: ...
    You: Well can you explain it to me?
    Me: Israel has a migration policy, and they have a right of return policy.
    You: Isn't that racist?
    Me: No. The right of return is the same concept as if you or I were born in the States to non-American parents, given a passport, lived in Oz until we're 18 and head back over there. The difference is, you don't have to be born in Israel to qualify; they say the land is tied to Jewish blood and so if you're a Jew you can go back there as a citizen.
    As for migration, anyone can emigrate there.
    You: But they don't let non-Jews migrate there!
    Me: That's not true. Anyone can migrate to Israel.
    You: So what you're saying is, anyone can migrate there and Jews are assumed to have Israeli citizenship by virtue of being Jewish; it's as if they were born there even though they weren't?
    Me: Yes, precisely.
    You: OK, I understand. Israel has racist migration policies!
    Me: ...
    You: Well can you explain it to me?

    You just need to accept two things here.

    1) I'm not lying to you.
    2) If you use Google it will confirm #1.
     
  15. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Quite a laughable characterisation of what I am saying.

    I am asking:

    In the long run won't Israel have to implement a policy based upon discrimination in order to keep Israel a Jewish majority state? I am not saying that they have this policy now but rather that they will have to implement in order to keep Israel Jewish majority. And once such a thing is implemented wouldn't this be a form of discrimination?
     
  16. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    But right now, Israel has an 75% Jewish population. Population growth is 2% per annum; birth rates are about 3.0 children per family. Arabs account for 20% of the population, and the remaining 5% "other". So long as Israel has a higher birth rate than OECD average and these populations continue to replace themselves, there's little chance that majority will diminish.
     
  17. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Heh. That's what I asked on page 13 of this thread. Six years ago.
     
  18. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Fortunes change. I am asking whether, hypothetically (presuming that one day their fortunes change), isn't the state built on a premise that necessitates it discriminate in the event of a Jewish decline...
     
  19. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I think that in 2-300 years time the bigger issues will be why we still believe in gods or the total melting of the ice caps. ;)
     
  20. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Philosopher, this path is leading you nowhere. Your hypothetical question is more and more hypothetical. Birth rates among Israeli Arabs have suddenly and swiftly declined in recent years, and fertility among Israeli Jews has somehow risen.
    You'd do much better to measure the idea of a Jewish state against Locke's ideas of separation of church and state or 20th century ideas of liberal democracy.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  21. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Well, of course... but that isn't my point is it ;)

    Been listening to too much Andrew Bolt on that last point...



    Sure it is hypothetical... but then again it gets to the idea of what the 'Jewish state' is and whether it may need to discriminate.
     
  22. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    For starters, I would only listen to Bolt to frame my next insult about him. But Bolt I thought was a climate change denier, so why would he be concerned about the near total collapse of the polar ice caps in 200 years time?
     
  23. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Sorry I thought you meant 'why we still believe' 'in the the total melting of Polar Ice Caps'. Read your sentence wrong.
     
  24. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Because a state does something that Americans or Brits wouldn't do, either as a function of their written laws or just theoretical underpinings, doesn't inherently make it bad -- it's how that state actor or the people work.

    Thailand is a monarchy and military junta, with a Constitution underlying everything. Woe be unto you who insults the King though... it doesn't sound like something that would work for, really, anyone but it works for them, no?
     
  25. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    dp I think you summed up the question that's at the heart of international affairs these days: what do we consider "good" forms of state?
    Saddam and Khadaffi sucked; was what came after any better? It's wonderful that we don't support dictators anymore, but we got a caliphate instead. What do we consider "better"? Especially when what we are trying - parliamentary democracy, also faces its challenges. You have the deadlock and the money making it all near hopeless, we have the extreme right and the EU making it all near hopeless. Seems like decades-old concepts are crumbling.