Israel considers harsher citizenship limits on Palestinians

[newyorican]

JERUSALEM, July 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Israel is considering to impose more restrictions on granting citizenship to Palestinians according to the reunification law because of security reasons, local press reported on Tuesday.

The consideration came as Yuval Diskin, head of the Shin Betsecurity forces, charged that 11 percent of Palestinians involved in terrorist activities entered Israel as part of the family reunification law.

-snip-

The limitations have drawn bitter criticism. An appeal has been lodged to the High Court, claiming that they are racist.

However, some people proposed to ease restrictions on Palestinian reunification, citing that now the security situation has been improved and the peace process are in a progress.

read more from Xinhua...

Same story from Ha'aretz...

Same story from Aljazeera.com...

------------------------------------------------

Among those claiming the law is racist are Palestinians. The rest of the world appears to agree with them.

[newyorican]

1. Interesting..

The different "takes" on the reasoning...

Ha'aretz:
Israel has posed limits on the number of Palestinians allowed to reunite with their families who are Israeli citizens due to security reasons.

Aljazeera.com:
The Jewish state has already imposed restrictions on Palestinians allowed to reunite with their families in Israel due to demographic concerns.

IMO, neither of these reasons are mutually exclusive.

[pelsar]

2. what changed...

why now is the law being considered to change?

[newyorican]

3. Apparently...

the change is described in the last sentence of the OP.

However, some people proposed to ease restrictions on Palestinian reunification, citing that now the security situation has been improved and the peace process are in a progress.

If the law is in reaction to the security situation it will probably wind up being modified or discarded as the process continues.

If the law is due to demographic concerns, it will be probably be left as is.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Racist laws

The laws are undeniably questionable and racist. Perhaps, if Israel leads the way the racist laws of the surrounding Arab nations against Jews will also change.

[pelsar]

5. you've got to be kidding....

...since when do we expect arab dictatorships to live up to western values?...since when do we compare israels laws, civil rights, etc to islamic regimes?....since when do we expect anybody in the middle east except for israel to treat people of different demoniations, religions, colors as equals?....

[Violet_Crumble]

6. We do expect democracies to treat people as equals...

That one's a bit of a no-brainer. Just curious here, and maybe I should ask bta rather than you seeing he made the claim, but what racist laws against Jews exist in Jordan?

Violet...

[eyl]

7. AFAIK

Jordainian law explicitly disallows Jews to recieve citizenship, and it's illegal to sell land to a Jew (I'm in a bit of a rush, but I'll try to find a cite later)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I managed to find one thing...

I haven't had a chance to read through it yet, but I've bookmarked it and I'm going to read through it tomorrow...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n1_v18/ai_18413376/pg_5

It seems to be mainly about Syrian citizenship, but it does discuss Jordanian citizenship as well...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Article III (2) of the Jordanian Citizenship Law

Jordanian law does that by stipulating that Jews (including Jewish Arab) ordinarily resident in Palestine before 1948 (who had Palestinian citizenship prior to 15 May 1948) are denied their right to Jordanian citizenship on a confessional basis: because they are Jews (Article III (2)).

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n1_v18/ai_18413376/pg_5
Arab Studies Quarterly, Winter 1996

3) Turning a blind eye to article 15, Great Britain also decided that no Jews could reside or buy land in the newly created Emirate. This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan's law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963. It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-facts3.php
Middle East Facts

An Israeli source -- and therefore not credible to some DU Progressive posters.

[IndianaGreen]

14. There is a stench of racism in these laws

but Israel is supposed to be better than that, and it is in many cases such as the status of women and the treatment of GLBTs. This does not excuse supporting laws that are racist, regardless of the rational given for their enactment.

[Englander]

18. The "middleeastfacts" site is shite.

You may believe it's not credible as it's
Israeli,but I don't know how you know it's
an Israeli site,as that is not mentioned anywhere.

It's more likely that they're another example of
conservative christian evangelicals,as there's
a lot of xtian sites listed.

I think it's shite because they recommend hate-sites,
& have nae clue. Spend a couple of minutes looking
at the listed links,& the perspective & validity
of this site should become clear.

[Coastie for Truth]

22. m'lord

May it please m'lord QC, it was cited for "evidence" of the law, and not for "expert opinion" m'lord QC.

Perhaps m'lord should consult the pre-eminent British scholar Wigmore.

[Englander]

25. Who? Who is "Wigmore"?

Never heard of him.

--"May it please m'lord QC, it was cited for "evidence" of the law, and not for "expert opinion" m'lord QC."

Wouldn't that be "m'learned friend?"

And that's "evidence" pro-nounced "hear-say".

On the question of Jordanian law,all I could find
is the 'The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan'

'CHAPTER TWO

Rights and Duties of Jordanians

(i) Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards to their rights and duties on grounds of race, language or religion.'

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/const_ch1-3.html#CHAPTER%20TWO

[Behind the Aegis]

29. All well and good

"Rights and Duties of Jordanians

(i) Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards to their rights and duties on grounds of race, language or religion.'"

This is lovely, but does little good if one cannot become a citizen.

[IndianaGreen]

9. If "Israel" was not part of this news story

every reasonable person on this planet would refer to such policy as racism and apartheid.

How long will some people go on denying what is patently obvious to everyone else, something is really rotten in the nation that was supposed to be a light to other nations.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Have You Actually Ever Read The US Immigration and Nationality Code

Here's a link: http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-22?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act

And the 1924 Act was about as racist as any Immigration Act.

Another class act is the Japanese Nationality law.

BTW - as noted above - Jordanian Law precludes Jews from ever getting Jordanian citizenship.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Got any current immigration law?

We're not in 1924 anymore...

btw, from what I've read, the Jordanian law if it's current still, does not preclude Jews from every getting Jordanian citizenship. It's very specific about who it won't give citizenship to:

Jordanian law does that by stipulating that Jews (including Jewish Arab) ordinarily resident in Palestine before 1948 (who had Palestinian citizenship prior to 15 May 1948) are denied their right to Jordanian citizenship on a confessional basis: because they are Jews (Article III (2)).(20)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n1_v18/ai_18413376/pg_5

[eyl]

31. Except that there are other applicable laws

as cited in post #10.

Unfortunately, I've so far been unable to find any online listing of Jordainian law (at least in English, and my Arabic isn't good enough for this*) - I tried looking in Jordainian government/parliament sites, but they're all in the process of construction. If anyone has access to an English descritpion of the laws cited above, I'd appreciate if he/she could post them.

*Or enough for most other things, for that matter

[IndianaGreen]

13. Such laws are racist, no matter who enacted them!

If we engage in the same racist policies as others do, then we are no better than they are.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Well said, Indy!

n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

16. The link I provided was to

current, present United States Law, viz--
http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-22?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act

The reference to the earlier laws and to the Japanese laws was to provide context to the QC's (Queens Counsels), Barristers, Solicitors, Rechtenwalts, Orach Dins, Attorneys, Counsellors, Lawyers, Liars, Doctors of Jurisprudence, Notarios, Notaries, and Abogados to start them on their jurisprudential reserch.

Hint: start with Henkin.

[IndianaGreen]

19. There is racism in the US as well

and more so recently with the anti-immigration efforts by the rightwing.

American racism also played a key role in preventing many European Jews from coming to America in the 1930s. Thousands could have been saved from the Holocaust had we not had racist laws on the books.

Racism is still racism!

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Tell me again

American racism also played a key role in preventing many European Jews from coming to America in the 1930s. Thousands could have been saved from the Holocaust had we not had racist laws on the books.

Thousands could have been saved from the Holocaust had we not had racist laws on the books.

A major portion of my maternal grand mother's family.

The few who survived got into the US before 1924 - or into the mandate before the White Paper

Thousands could have been saved from the Holocaust had we not had racist laws on the books.

A major portion of my mother-in-law's family

A major portion of my father-in-law's family

STEAM SHIP SAINT LOUIS - THE "SHIP OF FOOLS" - BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE "NATIONAL ORIGINS IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924"

But Japan - with the toughest immigration laws and nationality laws in the world? - Just Read Rabbi Marvin Tokayer's The Fugu Plan and a true hero and humanitarian Senbo Sugihara

[IndianaGreen]

24. We may have more in common than what I thought...

The Voyage of the St. Louis: An Alumnus Commemorates His Survival

By Stefanie Condie ’01

In September 1938 — two days after Bonné’s birth — his father went to the United States, leaving his family behind in Germany. “He took a ship from Hamburg to Ellis Island, but his immigration number hadn’t come up yet,” Bonné says. Someone suggested to Bonné’s father that he go to Cuba to wait for his U.S. visa. In Havana, while arranging for his family to travel to Cuba, he was advised through some political connections to obtain Cuban immigration visas for them.

As a result, Bonné and his mother and sister were among the 28 St. Louis passengers who were allowed to disembark in Havana. In October 1939, the family received their U.S. visas and moved to New York. Bonné’s sister, Beatrice Sichel, who celebrated her fifth birthday on the ship, still has memories of the five months the family spent in Havana.

Most of the ship’s passengers had purchased landing permits that the Cuban government refused to honor because of a complicated web of greed and political intrigue. After President Franklin Roosevelt denied the refugees’ pleas for asylum and negotiations with several Latin American countries fell through, the St. Louis returned to Europe. Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands offered the passengers haven, but as the German occupation spread across Europe, hundreds of them ended up in concentration camps.

Organized by the Nazis as a propaganda ploy, the voyage of the St. Louis was designed to show that Jews were unwelcome not just in Germany, but throughout the world. A few weeks before the ship arrived in Havana, the German government sent agents to Cuba to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment on the island. Banking on the isolationist, anti-immigration mood in the United States, the Nazis correctly guessed that if Cuba refused to admit the refugees, the United States would not open its doors either.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/hermes/fall2004/article_bonne.cfm

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Write to Dick Lugar and Evan Bayh - it's a free country

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[IndianaGreen]

20. You obviously have never written to Lugar or Bayh

Bayh has generally ignored my letters and e-mails to his office, and on the rare occasions in which he did reply, his answers were so nuanced and convoluted that the reader had no idea what the hell he was talking about. This is a common complaint from Hoosier DUers.

Bayh's reply to me on the Downing Street Memo, which I posted in its entirety on the Indiana Forum, was unusually clear and lucid compared to past correspondence.

Lugar is more professional in his constituency services, but he will never commit to anything that might offend the extreme rightwing.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. No

I live in California. I was at a fund raiser with Dem State Chairman Art Torres on Monday, had a beer with my councel member Chip Reed, and I'm going to Zoe Lofgren's fund raiser picnic in August (Barbara Boxer will be there).

[pelsar]

26. immigration laws...

i betcha without previous research just goodling, i can find limitations in every country on who they give citizenship to....and that mere limitation whatever its criteria can then be defined as racists....come on you guys...name a country....

i have no problem with calling israels immigration policy racist...or course it is, it lets only certain people become citizens

BUT THATS THE NORM in the world today! and since thats the norm it would seem that you all might as well start with countries that are not invovled in a war situation. Start with lets say denmark (oops they're not too interested any more in liberal immigration laws....)...anyway first change the norm in europe, japan etc and then we can go jump on poor little israel....

[drdon326]

27. Saudi Arabia.....

that progressive bastion of democracy.







end of sarcasm.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Ah yes...

The country where, if you have Jewish or and Israeli stamp on your passport, you will be placed on the next plane out of the country.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. An academician friend (Indian Muslim)

tried to get two colleagues into Saudi Arabia as co-authors/co-presenters on a paper he was presenting at King Fahd University.

One was Jewish - visa denied.

One was born Jewish - married to a Catholic - affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist community -- Visa denied.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. It used to be on their website.

It was removed on the English version at the behest of the US State Dept....or so it is being told. Since I cannot read Arabic, I don't know if it is still in the Arabic version.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. What

Immigration law - like tax law --- is the "Lawyers' full employment law."

Why, if every country changed it's immingartion and nationalities laws -- we would have unemployed lawyers --- and all they would is either become revolutionaries or legislators.

Best to keep them employed.

[newyorican]

34. From the responses...

it's easy to forget that OP was about Israel.

The topic was changed faster than you can say, "Bob's your uncle".

We been assailed with irrelevant factoids about Jordan, Saudi Arabia, U.S., Japan and even Denmark. But very little about the actual article(s) themselves.

Fascinating tactic. Tu Quoue, that is.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

37. the topic.....

is also about being relevent within the world today as well as its policies....since all countries have immigrant policies that are inherently racist there is nothing "special" about israels.

if the discussion remains within the realm of the pros and cons that would be one thing...but since it becomes this:

very reasonable person on this planet would refer to such policy as racism and apartheid.

How long will some people go on denying what is patently obvious to everyone else, something is really rotten in the nation that was supposed to be a light to other nations.


its becomes very relevant the policies of jordan/egypt/denmark etc......
do you thing the above writer will have the guts to declair the policies of the US/Britian/France/Mexico being apartheid.........and that those countries have something "rotten" within them?

[Englander]

38. What's the name of this forum,again? n/t

[newyorican]

40. The Jordan/Egypt/Denmark...

...US/Britian/France/Mexico all do it too Forum.

Natch.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. It's very impressive...

Especially the attempt I just saw to justify it when Israel does it, but to condemn it when any other country does it...

[Jim Sagle]

53. Chickenshit bullshit. If Israel was not part of this news story, it

wouldn't even BE a story.

And everybody goddamn well knows it.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. No

Only people who have never been involved with the H1B process, or the L1 process, or the "family reunification visa" process or the old INS, or lives in a community with majority immigrants.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. Two things are clear

1. They (the Palestinians and "the rest of the world") are so clearly mis-understanding and/or mis-stating the customary international of immigration and nationality as to be frightening.

About as mis-informed as saying you can "protect" your invention without a patent by sending a registered letter to yourself describing your invention and putting it in your safet deposit box.

About as misinformed as saying that "shield laws" shield plans for future homicides.
:shrug:

2. The rest of the world is not only grossly mis-informed itself, but doesn't know how to read.

1. International Law: Cases and Materials, by Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit, Louis Henkin

2. International Law, Cases and Materials, Basic Documents Supplement (Paperback)by Louis Henkin, Hans Smit, Oscar Schachter

3. International Law for Seagoing Officers by Burdick H. Brittin

4. 21st Century U.S. Army Law of Land Warfare Manual (FM 27-10) Rules, Principles, Hostilities, Prisoners of War, Wounded and Sick, Civilians, Occupation, War Crimes, Geneva Conventions by Department of Defense

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

41. What's clear is the law would be racist..

Feel free to try to explain how it wouldn't be, keeping in mind that to ensure consistancy you'd better apply those same arguments to any Jordanian laws that may or may not exist, and see how they work in that situation.

[Coastie for Truth]

43. Clear - but legally irrelevant

I gave you a link to International Law: Cases and Materials, by Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit, Louis Henkin.

The section beginning at about page 306 (may be 305 or 307 or 308) entitled "Citizenship and Nationality" discusses this point. An attribute of "sovereignty" is that a "sovereign state" can write it's own citizenship law - can be racist as long as it is not genocidal. (Remember, we are talking about "inside the Green Line" - not Gaza or the OT's --- so arguments about what happens in the OT's and Gaza are totally irrelevant to what happens inside the "Green Line").

Don't come back with quotes on "Nationality" (which is, actually different from "Citizenship" - see the discussion in Henkin) or "Asylum."

We have beaten "Asylum" to death on DU. I am not going to bother to link -- just link to the ICRC studies at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Humanitarian_law?OpenDocument

somewhere buried in there is an Adobe Acrobat file on citizenship and nationality, and another Adobe Acrobat file on asylum. They are definitely good reads.

Lots of links here -- http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/section_ihl_customary_humanitarian_law?OpenDocument#Key%20document and here http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_treaties_and_customary_law?OpenDocument and here
-- and - which is usually tied in with "Nationality" --- I don't hide the ball or hold anything back.


Most immigration and citizenship laws are "racist." That is the "right" of a "sovereign state."

[Violet_Crumble]

44. So you are agreeing that Israel's law is racist?

I had a long-running argument with a long-gone poster who insisted that a state can make whatever laws it likes on immigration and citizenship and no-one should complain. I'm consistent on what I think of any law that excludes or discriminates against a specific group of people based on their ethnicity, relgion, existing nationality, etc - the laws are racist and shouldn't exist...

If most immigration and citizenship laws are racist, then why is it that Australian immigration law doesn't contain anything that excludes specific groups of people based on things like ethnicity, religion, or nationality?

Violet...

[pelsar]

45. Australia's racist immigration

just like ALL countries Australia rules/regulations have racist tendencies-whether they do it via the "law" or circumvent it via regulations etc is irrelevant. Austrialia is nevertheless restrictring groups of people from living there .......this took me all of 5 sec to find. Now I dont claim to know the indept details of the situation..but these people seem to:

In general, OMCT condemns the treatment of asylum seekers by Australia and calls for a change of policy. However, among the outcomes of the new immigration legislation adopted last week in Australia is a narrowing of the commonly accepted and legal interpretation of the definition of a refugee. The new immigration law remains discriminatory, repressive, unworkable and in contradiction with international standards and law.

racism is racism

http://www.dci-au.org/html/omct.html

it is far more benign in austrialia, but the environment is far different, still it seems quite a few citizens arent too happy with the changing character given the liberal immigration policy

btw I'm not so "excited" about racist laws where ever they be. However, the reality of us humans and our characters and fears must at first be acknowledged before we can move on.

There are various levels of racism in all societies, some worse some less, israel has/is been balancing liberal laws vs the "emergency wars of a nation at war....and this includes our definitions of who we are. Sometimes were liberal (gay rights) and sometimes were paranoid...and sometimes that paranoia is justified and sometimes its not.

The immigration policies are racist as they are the basis for a jewish/secular state, which in itself is a contradiction..so if the basis is contradictory all laws that follow no doubt will have that "stain as well"...but that contradiction of a country attempting to keep a certain character while being liberal thereby restricting immigration is quite the norm....its just a matter of degrees.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Due to the mandatory detention of refugees...

being a pet peeve of mine,that was something I thought of before I posted, and I still stand by what I said about Australian immigration law containing no exclusions based on racism. Go back to the 60's and before, and it's a whole different story, what with the White Australia Policy. When it comes to current law, it's the implementation of that law, based on the policies of the current conservative govt, where it turns into racism, imo. For example, a Chinese woman was caught by immigration officials with an expired visa, so immigration turned up to the primary school where her two children were and hauled those kids out of the school in front of all their classmates and took them straight to a detention centre. Would that same thing have been done if the person with the expired visa was an American or European? No way in the world. While it's true that some Americans and Europeans that come into the country with invalid visas do get sent to a detention centre, there's an indecent haste in which immigration arranges for a return trip out of the country so that they don't stay in the detention centre longer than a night or so. But when it comes to asylum seekers, their stay in detention on average is a couple of years before they're sent back where they came from (in one case Iraq after the invasion as immigration announced Iraq was now safe)...

While non-racist laws that are implemented in a selective and racist manner and ones that are way more open about the people they're targetting are nothing to be supported in any way, the difficulty with laws that are being selectively enforced is that you can't demand the laws change as you can with the more open ones. An example of where legislation should be changed though is the ever-narrowing definition by the govt of what is a refugee, which is in violation of international conventions that Australia is signatory to, as is the detention of women and children for years at a time...

I do expect with the latest wave of Howard-hysteria over terrorism that if the Libs get another term of govt and a much larger majority in the Senate, there may come a time when the immigration laws exclude Indonesians and the excuse of national security will be used..

p.s. if yr into self-punishment by reading long and boring legislation, here's a link to the big meaty part of the immigration act...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/cth/consol%5freg/mr1994227/sch1.html?query=immigration

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

48. Don't conflate "asylum seekers" and "refugees" with "immigrants"

The distinction is very well spelled out in any treatise on international law -- and beaten to death in the ICRC and ARC materials.

A favorite debaters trick on DU (and among politicians and demagogic legislators) is to conflate "asylum seekers" and "refugees" with "immigrants".

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Tell it to pelsar, then...

He's the one who first mentioned the refugee issue here, and I grabbed it and ran due to it being one of my hobbyhorses I get on...

I tend to refer to asylum seekers as asylum seekers. Immigrants are folk who migrate to the country and arrange their visas etc prior to their arrival. They tend not to come from places where there's war and huge violations of human rights as asylum seekers do. btw, I'm not familiar with what the motives would be to conflate the terms. I know there was a huge wave of refugees arriving here post-WWII and most of the books I read on that era referred to Displaced Persons as immigrants, which they were, so I'm not really getting what advantage to any argument there'd be in conflating the terms. Maybe it's an American political thing?

[Coastie for Truth]

47. That is the international law of sovereignty

A "sovereign state" can have any "citizenship" law it wants.

I had a long-running argument with a long-gone poster who insisted that a state can make whatever laws it likes on immigration and citizenship and no-one should complain.

-Which is 100% correct as a matter of well settled international law.

You also asked

If most immigration and citizenship laws are racist, then why is it that Australian immigration law doesn't contain anything that excludes specific groups of people based on things like ethnicity, religion, or nationality?

-And that is because as a sovereign state Australia can do anything that it wants to do on "immigration." That is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty.

Did you get the "Henkin" book or read the ICRC links? I think they will answer your questions.

You might want to browse the American Red Cross for a 29 page Acrobat file entitled "International Humanitarian aw and the Geneva Conventions - A Study Guide" (I don't have the link). This is another good read - good high level summary on many issues relevant to this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. That's not what I asked you, Coastie...

The response: 'A "sovereign state" can have any "citizenship" law it wants.' doesn't answer the question I asked, which was whether you agreed that Israels law is racist...

[Coastie for Truth]

51. I responded that is legally irrelevant. N/T

[Violet_Crumble]

52. But that's not what I was asking...

Look around at yr surroudings, Coastie. This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. I asked you whether in yr opinion you think Israels law is a racist one....

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

55. Good move by Israel.

[IndianaGreen]

56. In your eyes, Israel can do no wrong

just as in many rightwingers's eyes, America can do no wrong.

Jingoism and chauvinism in any language are still jingoism and chauvinism.

Let's push Israel back to the pre-1967 borders and build Sharon's wall to separate Israel from her neighbors. Now, that's security!

[drdon326]

57. OR.....

Maybe hamas will be sucessfull and will "PUSH" Israel into the sea.

Your post (I said, POST} is really amazing.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Don't you support a return to the 1967 borders, drdon?

The only solution to this sad conflict that is sapping America of her common sense is to return to the pre-June 1967 borders. We owe Sharon a debt of gratitude for showing that his wall does work, except that he built it on the wrong demarcation line.

Forget about controlling 100-percent of Jerusalem! No one, and I mean no one, can claim a monopoly on Jerusalem.

Compensate all those that lost property by the 1948 conflict. Dismantle all refugee camps. Make the Arab countries grant citizenship to Palestinians living within their borders.

And please, I don't want anyone quoting biblical nonsense to justify imperialism in the name of religion. While the religious may claim that G-d gave some land to the Israelites (and then sat back while the Israelites spilled their blood to conquer it), there is no doubt that it was the United Nations that created the modern state of Israel (and as in the mythological biblical account, the Israelis spilled their blood to survive).

Enough of this religion nonsense to dictate government policies at home and abroad!

[drdon326]

59. Sorry Indy.....

if I have to explain the endless ways youre wrong, its just really not worth it.

Maybe someone else has the patience to explain it to you. I cant.

[IndianaGreen]

60. So you really don't support a return to pre-June 1967 borders...

which means that you support continuing with this senseless conflict. The only way you can have peace under your concept would be to kill or forcibly remove all Palestinians from occupied Jerusalem, West Bank (or do you prefer I refer to it as Judea and Samaria).

Here is another solution to Jerusalem: Evacuate everyone to outside a radius 50 miles away from Jerusalem. Drop a 1-megaton bomb on the Temple Mount. Voila! No more wars! The land that Jews, Muslims, and Christians have been bickering over for all these many centuries is now a pile of radioactive ashes, unsafe for at least 100,000 years.

When children bicker over a toy, parents will take that toy away! It is time that we take Jerusalem away from all the bickering children, perhaps by putting it under international control.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I've got endless patience...

I could explain to Indy in great detail the comments I've seen you make in this forum that have led me to the conclusion of what yr views are, but I'm so darn patient that I'd rather sit and let you answer Indy's question yrself. I'd have thought clarifying what yr stance is would be much more worthwhile than posting endless articles from stinky sources about Muslims/Terrorism/Muslims/Muslims/Terrorism...

I'll take a non-answer as meaning Indy's got it spot on...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Okay, Indy got it spot on...

Figured as much...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

61. It's just citizenship definition. That's what nations do.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Yeah, there's nothing racist about denying citizenship to one group...

Nosirree. You won't find Jimbo having any problems with the draft Iraqi constitution that denies citizenship to Israeli citizens. The denial of citizenship in the US and Australia to blacks and aboriginals years ago? The Nuremberg Laws? That stuff was just citizenship definition that nations do, not racism! ;)

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

64. But there is nothing racist about

compelling "foreign" corporations seeking to do business in your country from denying employment to certain people in their home country because of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, gender or national origin -- even if such action is proscribed by the laws of their home country---

1.
2.
3.

Not even talking about citizenship - or entry visas -- just extraterritoriality effects of actions.

Nope. You've got no problems with that dysfunctional system that some DUers even deny exists -- even in the face of EEOC orders and Court orders.

[newyorican]

66. I thought the target always got to decide...

what was racist. At least that's what I heard.

[Coastie for Truth]

67. That was posed as a question.

And several appenders have indicated that they had no problems with it. At least that's what I heard.

[Jim Sagle]

83. When the shooter pretends to be the target, that's a different story.

[newyorican]

84. WhateveryousayJim...

:crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

68. We're talking about citizenship here, Coastie...

If you've got something to say about that, feel free to join in...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

65. Denying citizenship based on color IS racism.

Denying it based on proven hostile attitudes by the bulk of the applicants is just survival.

Is that the real problem?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Actually, what you described is bigotry...

It's bigotry to deny citizenship to a specific racial/ethnic/religious group based on the actions of a few. It's bigotry to support such a move. And comments falsely painting the entire Palestinian population as hostile etc are bigoted...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

70. It's not just a few. It may not be a majority, but it's more than a few.

And isn't it the rottenest kind of bigotry to deny a small nation under a fifty-year siege the right to protect its people?

[IndianaGreen]

72. Aren't you speaking of the Palestinian nation?

And isn't it the rottenest kind of bigotry to deny a small nation under a fifty-year siege the right to protect its people?

Palestine has been under Israel's boot since 1967. When the world speaks of David versus Goliath, it is the Palestinians that are seen as the modern version of David, while Israel is the new bully from Philistia.

We have no one to blame but ourselves! The day we shut our eyes, ears, and collective consciences to the injustice of Israel's occupation, that was the day that we became Jews in name only. We have turned our backs to an ancient religious and ethical code that commanded us to stand for justice for all.

How do we get out of this quagmire while retaining a vestige of humanity is the challenge we now face.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Then you are doomed if you persist in the present path

and you can't count on the US continuing to have a government willing to protect Israel at all cost.

The misguided war in Iraq, if not ended soon, will have a negative on all of us.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. It is just a few...

The extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli populations are small in number when you take it as a percentage of the entire populations, but make up for it by being very vocal and active. Any law that discriminates against an entire group for the actions of a few is indeed bigoted. If the US after Sept 11 had tried to bring in laws stopping all male Muslims from gaining citizenship, that too would have been just as bigoted....

Any law like this is not about protecting the people of Israel, and there's zero logic in any argument that it would. Israel has the right to use legitimate measures to defend itself and its population. This law is not a legitimate measure, nor one that anyone can or should defend by claiming those who oppose it are actually the bigoted ones....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

74. Read some US History

If the US after Sept 11 had tried to bring in laws stopping all male Muslims from gaining citizenship, that too would have been just as bigoted....

Read some US history. After Attorney General Palmer's "Red Scare" (i.e. Emma Goldman and the Russian Revolution and Sacco and Vanzetti) - the US passed the "National Origins Immigration Act of 1924".

This is not ancient history -- the "National Origins Immigration Act of 1924" was tthe tool that was used to illegally deny ASYLUM to persons facing the certain death of the Holocaust. (Even Norman G. Finkelstein, Ph.D., concedes this in his earlier work "The Holocaust Industry" conceded this - a reliable, non-Zionist, non-Sharonista, non-Likudnik source?).

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Sept 11 2001, not Sept 11 1924...

So seeing yr so well versed in US history, where's that bit of history after Sept 11 2001 where the US tried to bring in laws stopping all male Muslims from gaining citizenship?

Violet...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Possibly because it didn't exist?

I don't recall ever seeing any proposed law to deny citizenship after Sept 11 2001 to Muslim males. So, got any links to information about it?

What's a Joosh? Also, if such a law had been proposed, why do you think it would have been fought? Could it be because it would be bigoted? I suspect that'd be the reason, and it'd be hard to imagine a real progressive opposing such a US law, but not opposing a similar Israeli law...

Violet...

[eyl]

78. AFAIK, they didn't

They just made it a lot harder for any Muslim citizenship-seekers to get into the country in the first place

[Violet_Crumble]

80. That's what I thought..

n/t