Israel to triple West Bank settlements

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Nevertheless, I would argue that the fact that Palestinian terrorism began before the occupation is a strong indication that there is a strain of thought within Palestinian society that sees all of Israel as occupied land (hence the "liberation" in the name of the PLO before there was an occupation), and that this strain of thinking is central to Hamas' ideology.

http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html
'..The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.'

yosi

If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?

'Jewish only settlements' and a 'sovereign Jewish homeland' both imply a semi-racial brand of Ethnic Nationalism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html
'To explain in what sense 'Jews' have a right to return to their homeland, the American-Israeli Co-operative Enterprise [AICE] states that "At present, the definition is based on Hitler's Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate." AICE neglects to mention that such persons also have the actual right to immigrate, and to obtain citizenship. On the other hand, a stateless Palestinian refugee, perhaps living a precarious existence in France, has no such right of return, even if his ancestors inhabited Palestine itself for a thousand years. Palestine, it seems, is not the 'homeland' of Palestinians, but only of the Jews.

'Jew', in other words, does not refer to those who espouse Judaism or embrace Jewish culture. 'Jew' means 'of Jewish ancestry'. In virtually every Canadian jurisdiction, ancestry is explicitly cited as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Ancestry is just a contemporary stand-in for the older notion of race and is generally used in references to racial discrimination.(**) Like skin colour, it's something you cannot change, and therefore a particularly repugnant basis for determining civic status.

For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel's Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates' list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include... negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."


And as for Israel giving up land for peace, when has it ever given up land for peace? I suppose you'll mention the fact that it gave up the Sinai Peninsula which it stole from Egypt in 1967? Israel was forced to give up this stolen land after the 1973 Yom Kippur war which could have been avoided if it hadn't rejected Sadat's peace offer in 1971.

As for Gaza:

'In a study entitled 'One Big Prison', the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem observed that the crippling economic arrangements Israel had imposed on Gaza would remain in place. In addition, Israel would continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza's land borders, coastline, and airspace, and the Israeli army would continue to operate in Gaza. "So long as these methods of control remain in Israeli hands," B'Tselem concluded, "Israel's claim of 'an end of the Occupation' is questionable". HRW (Human Rights Watch) was even more emphatic that evacuating settlers and troops from inside Gaza would not end the occupation: "Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around it's periphery, and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control."


http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun ... isglass-g/
“The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

“And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,” he said. “It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

Asked why the disengagement plan had been hatched, Weisglass replied: “Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. And although by the way the Americans read the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians, not on us, Arik [Sharon] grasped that this state of affairs could not last, that they wouldn’t leave us alone, wouldn’t get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]. These were not weird kids with green ponytails and a ring in their nose with a strong odor of grass. These were people like Spector’s group [Yiftah Spector, a renowned Air Force pilot who signed the pilot's letter]. Really our finest young people.”

Weisglass does not deny that the main achievement of the Gaza plan is the freezing of the peace process in a “legitimate manner.”

“That is exactly what happened,” he said. “You know, the term `peace process’ is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it’s the return of refugees, it’s the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen…. what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.”

badbrains

yosi wrote:

If Israel is intrinsically racist then why is it so multi-ethnic? And if Israel is intrinsically expansionist then why has it repeatedly given up land for peace, and repeatedly stated that it is willing to do so again?

They're giving land that's NOT there's in the first place. Yosi, no ones saying you don't have the right to say or defend your own beliefs but bro come on, how can you NOT HONESTLY think aipac doesn't control DC... I mean fuck bro, it's soo obvious to a lot of people in the world. Dude, I'm
no way rippng on you and you know that. You lve to read and it seems a lot of people on MT read so here's a book I mentioned before for all to read- They Dare To Speak Out written by Peter mclusky I believe. I lent it out and never got it back. Seriouslly, everybody read it and make your own conclusions. The author was a congressman or senator. It's first hand account about aipac and there true power in DC.

yosi

Badbrains, I don't deny that AIPAC is a powerful lobby. I've attended their national convention and seen their operation first hand. But to assert that they control the U.S. government is ludicrous. They aren't even the largest or wealthiest lobbying group in D.C. Not by a mile. I believe that AIPAC has something like 4-5 full time lobbyists. I read the other day that the lobbying groups for the big drug companies have something like 4 lobbyist for every 1 member of congress. To repeat, Big Pharma has thousands of lobbyists. AIPAC has 5. Or we could talk about the AARP, or the NRA, or the Agro-business lobbies. These are all massive lobbies that employ many more lobbyists than AIPAC, and wield treasure chests that are orders of magnitude larger than AIPAC's. Besides which, AIPAC, as a policy, does not contribute money to political campaigns because they want to be able to work with whomever is elected. I disagree with AIPAC's politics more often than not these days, but their success is built on personal relationships with members of congress and conveying a convincing message.

yosi

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.

A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:

born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.

There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.

Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.

Is this not citizenship based on ancestry? Do you consider Canada, Germany, and Switzerland to be intrinsically racist because they confer citizenship based on ancestry? Germany, by the way, also has a right of return for ethnic Germans who may have never lived in Germany their entire lives. Other countries with a right of return in some form: Greece, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, UK, and, for that matter, a right of return to the future state of Palestine has been universally accepted as valid for Palestinian refugees who were born outside of historic Palestine, and have never lived in Palestinetheir entire lives. Are all of these countries racist? Are the Palestinians?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.

A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:

born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.

There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.

Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.

Is this not citizenship based on ancestry? Do you consider Canada, Germany, and Switzerland to be intrinsically racist because they confer citizenship based on ancestry? Germany, by the way, also has a right of return for ethnic Germans who may have never lived in Germany their entire lives. Other countries with a right of return in some form: Greece, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Taiwan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, UK, and, for that matter, a right of return to the future state of Palestine has been universally accepted as valid for Palestinian refugees who were born outside of historic Palestine, and have never lived in Palestine their entire lives. Are all of these countries racist? Are the Palestinians?

It's understandable that someone who has a parent that is German will be declared German. However, the fact that my Grandfather on my father's side is of Irish descent does not entitle me to an Irish passport or to emigrate to Ireland.

In the case of Israel, however, 'the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent.'

As for the Palestinian right of return, Israel has denied it and continues to deny it, in contravention of international law. The Jewish Law of Return is a racist law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... _of_return
According to Akram[52] although the status of Palestinian nationals/citizens after the creation of the State of Israel has been much debated, established principles of state succession,[53] human rights and humanitarian law confirm that the denationalization of Palestinians was illegal and that they retain the right to return to their places of origin.

The author states that human rights have confirmed illegality of denationalization of Palestinians because when denationalization is based on race or ethnic origin, it is a violation of the general principles of nondiscrimination in customary international law, as well as of Articles 1 and 16 of the ICCPR, 999 UNTS 173, 19 December 1966, and Article 5.d.ii of the CERD, 660 UNTS 221, 7 March 1966. According to Akram, humanitarian law is breached because its principles prohibit transferring civilian populations under the control of an occupier and require return of those expelled. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, have explicit provisions affirming the right of return to persons forced from their homes by hostilities. For example the "Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva IV) of 1949," 75 UNTS 31, 12 August 1949.

Many Palestinians argue that they have an inherent right of return to land which they or their ancestors had owned or resided in previous to the establishment of the state of Israel, and that they must therefore be given full Israeli citizenship under the terms of any future peace agreement. They question the legality of Israeli control over these lands, and point out the necessity of said lands for their proper livelihood. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 supports this argument, and resolved that Israel should permit "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors" to do so. Israel agreed under the terms of its admittance into the UN to abide by the terms of this resolution. Therefore, some have made the case that Israel is bound under international law to accept a full Palestinian right of return.[54]

http://www.al-awda.org/index.html
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition

Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition affirms that the Palestinian Arab people, regardless of their religious affiliation, are indigenous to Palestine. Therefore, they are entitled to live anywhere in Palestine which encompasses present-day "Israel", the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Al-Awda regards the "Israeli" definition of Jewish nationals, granting exclusive rights to citizenship and land to any Jew from anywhere in the world, as part of the racism and discrimination inherent in Zionist ideology which underlies the policies and laws of the settler state of "Israel".

Byrnzie

Oh, and on the subject of the annual vote on U.N Resolution 242, you can simply Google Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question


Norman Finkelstein - Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ_v5fwW9fE

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/01 ... -conflict/

On November 26, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly, as it does every year, voted on a resolution to the Israel Palestine conflict. The GA/ 10791 (documents A/63/L.35; A/63/L.36) called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem for the Palestinian State (west for Israel), and a “just” resolution to the refugee problem (”compromise”). The GA voted as it has for decades:

Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question

The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

yosi

You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people. These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people.

Actually, It's you who misunderstands. You say 'that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship' and yet the quote that you posted contradicts this:

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.

yosi wrote:

These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.

Except the Jews do not share a common language, culture, or history. A Jew who has lived his whole life in the Ukraine has absolutely nothing in common with a Jew who has lived his whole life in America. A Jew living in America has no ties to Israel whatsoever, just as some Peruvians converted to Judaism have no ties to Israel whatsoever. The notion of a unified Jewish people is a Zionist concoction. It's a political concoction. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html


http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann10142009.html
'When Zionists suggest that the French and Germans have a right to their states, they conveniently forget that this means the *inhabitants* of France and Germany, not those of some French or German *ancestry*, not a 'people' in the sense of an ethnic group. (The world was outraged when it suspected that Britain's 'partial' immigration laws were designed to favor those of ethnically British ancestry.) But 'the Jewish people' have a right to their state, and this is supposed to be some lofty ideal. Why? Because ethnic nationalism has taken on the cloak of civic nationalism, and we are too stupid to notice.'


And I suppose these Peruvians are also Jewish?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/07/israel1


How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers

When a delegation of rabbis travelled to Lima to convert a group of South American Indians to Judaism, they added just one condition: come and live with us in Israel. As soon as these new Jews arrived in the country, they were bussed straight to settlements in the disputed territories. So how are they coping? Neri Livneh tracks them down

Neri Livneh - The Guardian, Wednesday 7 August 2002

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You misunderstand Byrnzie. The German right of return does not stipulate that a person must have parents who are German citizens. It states that any German, even if they were born outside of Germany, and even if their family has never had German citizenship, is entitled to "return" to Germany and be granted citizenship on account of being part of the German people. Greece's right of return works exactly the same way, as do, I'm sure, the laws of many other countries that grant a right of return. The idea of a right of return is based in the idea of nationalism, not, as you like to call it, "ethnic nationalism." Germany is the nation state of the German people, and therefore welcomes the return of individuals that they recognize as being a part of the German people. Likewise Greece welcomes individuals from the vast and ancient Greek diaspora because Greece is the nation state of the Greek people. These are definitions that are based on group affinity, not on race or ethnicity per se. This is especially true in the case of the Jewish people, who are far more racially diverse than either the Germans or the Greeks. Jews do not make up a separate race or ethnicity. We are, however, a people, if for no other reason (though there are, in fact, very many others, such as a unique shared language, culture, and history) then that we recognize ourselves as such. You should recognize this more than anyone, since the same is true of the Palestinians. They are a nation because they have come to recognize themselves as such.

And you didn't address the Palestinians right of return. Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinian right of return is based on racism and breaches international law.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.

A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:

born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.

There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.

Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.

And can you please provide a link when you quote sources from the internet?

Commy

Byrnzie wrote:

Israel's refusal to grant the Palestinian right of return is based on racism and breaches international law.

this, incidentally, makes the term "apartheid" accurate, among, sadly, many other things.

Byrnzie

Also:

In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um) which bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court declared that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1107
'Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.

The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967?...

In the last few years there has been the unprecedented phenomenon of the wide-scale arrival of non-Jewish workers. Some 300,000 East Europeans, Asians and Africans fill unqualified, poorly-paid jobs, until now reserved for the Palestinians. These latter-day slaves are miserably housed. But what bothers the guardians of the "purity of the race" is the fact that they are not Jews. Their worry is that sooner or later they will integrate into the country through marriage and naturalization. Their voices will perhaps be heard one day in Israel's pluralist concert. In the meantime, it is nationalism and intolerance that reigns.

When will Israel become the state of all its citizens and transform itself into a multicultural society in which all its communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, can live in harmony?'

yosi

From wikipedia:

Regarding Germany: "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"."

Regarding Greece: "Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.

Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia([10])

"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors.""

yosi

"Except the Jews do not share a common language, culture, or history. A Jew who has lived his whole life in the Ukraine has absolutely nothing in common with a Jew who has lived his whole life in America. A Jew living in America has no ties to Israel whatsoever, just as some Peruvians converted to Judaism have no ties to Israel whatsoever. The notion of a unified Jewish people is a Zionist concoction. It's a political concoction." - Byrnzie

Language - Hebrew. No matter where in the world Jews have always shared Hebrew as a common language. Though for thousands of years Hebrew was not a spoken language it was universally used by Jews as a language for prayer and ritual observance, as well as study. There are letters between wide-flung Jewish communities and rabbis written in Hebrew, since that was the language they shared. For example there are letters from communities in Europe asking rabbis in what is now Iraq questions about matters of ritual observance. The letters were written in Hebrew, and clearly the correspondents were able to understand each other.

Culture - Judaism. Judaism is not simply a religion wherein you go to synagogue on Saturday, say a few prayers and call it a day. It is an all encompassing way of life. It defines virtually every aspect of a person's daily existence. It is, quite simply, a culture, and it was shared by Jews the world over. Some communities developed different particular customs, or interpreted certain laws in different ways, but the foundations were the same everywhere.

History - clearly the histories of Jewish communities diverged in the diaspora, but we all share the same history up to the Roman exile. Not to mention the fact that many Jewish communities maintained contact with other communities around the world, and that the history of the Jewish people, at least in Europe, is marked by repeated migrations, such that the histories of many of these communities are incredibly intertwined. As for Israel, Israel is actually the central thread running through all three things discussed here. Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Hebrew arose in Israel, Judaism arose in Israel, and the shared ancient history of the Jewish people the world over is the history of the Jews in Israel.

Converts become part of the Jewish people through learning. One cannot simply be tapped on the head and declared Jewish. You study for conversion. You learn Hebrew, you learn Judaism, you become part of the culture, and in doing so you become another link in the unbroken chain of Jewish history. I'll grant you that there are some sketchy things that go on today, and perhaps this Peruvian thing is one of them.

I actually find your position kind of humorous. Your argument against the existence of a Jewish people is that there were converts to Judaism who were therefore not ethnically Jewish. And yet you keep accusing me of racism, when you are the one who is trotting out arguments based in race. There is no unitary Jewish race. There is a Jewish people, or nation if you prefer.

Even if you don't accept the fact of shared Jewish history, language, and culture (in which case I would simply say that you clearly don't know the first thing about Judaism, and perhaps if you're interested in having informed opinions you should find a university with a good Jewish Studies Department), the Jewish people exist by virtue of the fact that we recognize ourselves as a nation.

WaveCameCrashin

Byrnzie wrote:

Also:

In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um) which bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court declared that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1107
'Of course, Israel is not the only county to have immigrants. But it is the only one to confer nationality automatically on a single category of people: Jews. The Law of Return, adopted in 1953, is founded on the rabbinical definition whereby "Whosoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is a Jew". The ultra-orthodox claim that this conversion must take place according to their own definition of religious law (Halacha), thereby excluding all the conservative, liberal and reform synagogues to which two-thirds of the faithful across the diaspora belong - and as many as 90% in the United States.

The Law is racism, say the Palestinians. They are not alone. Can it be legitimate to grant citizenship to Jews who have never set foot on the land, and refuse - or even withdraw - nationality to an Arab who was born there, but has temporarily lived abroad or happened to be absent at the time of the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967?...

In the last few years there has been the unprecedented phenomenon of the wide-scale arrival of non-Jewish workers. Some 300,000 East Europeans, Asians and Africans fill unqualified, poorly-paid jobs, until now reserved for the Palestinians. These latter-day slaves are miserably housed. But what bothers the guardians of the "purity of the race" is the fact that they are not Jews. Their worry is that sooner or later they will integrate into the country through marriage and naturalization. Their voices will perhaps be heard one day in Israel's pluralist concert. In the meantime, it is nationalism and intolerance that reigns.

When will Israel become the state of all its citizens and transform itself into a multicultural society in which all its communities, Jewish and non-Jewish, can live in harmony?'

so is your name really laura ? :? and are you a soccer dad
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um), bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.

http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archive ... _turn.html

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

From wikipedia:

Regarding Germany: "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person"."

Regarding Greece: "Various phenomena throughout Greek history (the extensive colonization by classical Greek city states, the vast expansion of Greek culture in Hellenistic times, the large dominions at times held by the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the energetic trading activity by Greeks under the Ottomans) all tended to create Greek communities far beyond the boundaries of modern Greece.

Recognizing this situation, Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia([10])

"Foreign persons of Greek origin", who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces, under article 4 of the Code of Greek Citizenship, as amended by the Acquisition of Greek Nationality by Aliens of Greek Origin Law (Law 2130/1993). Anyone wishing to do so must present a number of documents, including "[a]vailable written records ... proving the Greek origin of the interested person and his ancestors.""

The difference being that very few Jewish people have any ancestral connection to the land of Israel, apart from the small number living there at the turn of the 20th century.
But just simply converting to Judaism gives someone the 'right' to emigrate there. Though Palestinians are excluded from returning to their homeland by Israels racist laws.

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2009/03/13/john_bolton_on_obamas_anti-israel_turn.html

What a ridiculous article.

badbrains

Byrnzie wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2009/03/13/john_bolton_on_obamas_anti-israel_turn.html

What a ridiculous article.

+1 BUMP whatever the fuck else people add, I agree Byrnzie