Logic wrote:

"The Law of Return is not unlike the White Australia policy or the "We decide who comes to Australia" election slogan which was highly successful."

You are right. The Law of Return is like the White Australia policy or the "We decide who comes to Australia" election slogan. I am against the the White Australia policy and the "We decide who comes to Australia" election slogan. I think those policies stink.

A bit of history might tell you why I oppose that sort of thing. My ancestors were Jews who came to the United States in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. In 1924 the US passed a highly restrictive immigration act which favored immigration from northern and western Europe. Under that act the immigration of Jews was severely restricted. If that immigration had not been so restricted many of the 6,000,000 who were murdered could have escaped. Jewish immigration was restricted by many other countries in various ways.

In the Law of Return Israel is doing to others what was done to us. I think it stinks.

Capisch?

Keith,

I see you have decided to throw up a red herring given that I have demolished all of your previous arguments.

OK well I do want a peace that secures Israel’s future. I also want to see Israel give up all but the one or two very large settlements (and give up useful land in return for them) and see Palestine develop into a real country.

A two state solution will prevent either side from oppressing the other, and after 60 years of war what is the likelihood of that in a single state. Hamas would undoubtedly come to dominate a single state and within the decade that state would be the Zimbabwe of the middle east. There is no way the international community could prevent Hamas from ethnically cleansing the single Israeli/Palestinian state.

Israel’s acceptance of Syria’s invitation to talk peace is laudatory and I hope it succeeds. However considering Syrias meddling in Lebanons affairs I find it highly unlikely.

Many on the left seem to ignore the fact that Israel is a country under siege. They are in a perpetual state of war with at least three of their neighbours and I believe that they have done very well to have any kind of liberal democracy under those circumstances. Many liberal democracies in the west would find themselves under martial law if they were in Israel’s position.

Davidf

Why are you determined to hold Israel to the standards of liberal democracies who are not at war. Its not really considering like with like. Also, if your proposed reforms led to Muslims holding the balance of power and voting in Hamas, who then immediately threw out all of the equal opportunity legislation and other liberal and democratic policies, wouldn’t that be just a little counter productive?

The enemies of Israel could achieve what they could not through violence and terror, the defeat of Israel. Israel would be committing suicide by allowing its enemies unlimited immigration.

Davidf

I think that Paul.L is right. Idealism is good but it must be tempered with realism.

Israel is determined to keep Jews as a majority. There would be very few countries who do not do the equivalent. Would you like a Malaysian or Fijian type situation to develop in Israel?

Israel does provide a home for displaced minorities from other Middle Eastern countries, not just over 700,000 Jews, but also Druze, Baha'i etc etc, you must know about them. The situation in 1948 was more like India/Pakistan where Hindus and Muslims were moving between the two sections of what was one country.

There was an influx of Western Jews after the holocaust but these were able to be catered for by vastly improved agricultural techniques. The latter were as a matter of fact a large minority, but a minority just the same. If the land had been left alone it would probably by now not even been able to support the small number of Arabs who were there and certainly not the large influx of Arabs from Egypt, Jordan Syria and elsewhere attracted by improvements that the Jews had made.

Get real mate.

Paul L

Your problem is you don't know what makes a Liberal Democracy. Israel ecertainly doesn't qualify for that label.

It's official religion has not undergone a reformation nor survived a renassaince. It doesn't include the influence of the teachings of Christ in it's make up. It's tenets are not and have not been challenged and relegated to a sphere outside of a secular government where it's influence is limited?

It is propagating an illegal 40 year occupation, It is illegally stealing it's neighbours lands, it practices apartheid, it suppresses opinion and people.

You display such arrogrance with your arrant nonsense. Get real no one is listening to your propaganda crap anymore. With such displays as yours you are guaranteeing the destruction of Israel as we know it.

"Davidf

Why are you determined to hold Israel to the standards of liberal democracies who are not at war. Its not really considering like with like. Also, if your proposed reforms led to Muslims holding the balance of power and voting in Hamas, who then immediately threw out all of the equal opportunity legislation and other liberal and democratic policies, wouldn’t that be just a little counter productive?"

I cited:

1. the discrimination against different kinds of Jews so only the Orthodox rites are recognised.

2. The lack of civil marriage.

3. The difference per capita of funds in Jewish and non-Jewish villages.

4. The isolation of non-Jewish, ultra-orthodox and other Jews from each other in segregated school systems.

Please explain how any of those four items has anything to do with fighting a war or giving Muslims political power.

Paul L also wrote:

“The enemies of Israel could achieve what they could not through violence and terror, the defeat of Israel. Israel would be committing suicide by allowing its enemies unlimited immigration."

Dear Paul L,

You are right. Israel cannot exist as a Jewish state and have immigration that doesn’t favour Jews.

That is the point I wished to make. I am not in favour of ethnic nationalism whether it is called self-determination or Zionism. I am against Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other states defined by part of its population. The part of the population that does not fit official paradigm becomes second-class citizens.

If Israel did not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity it would disappear as both a Jewish state and lose whatever democracy it has. That is the tragedy. What happens to the people?

The Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies of the University of Western Australia published Occasional Paper No. 16 titled "Self-Determination and Human Rights" which I wrote. It makes the case that self-determination creates second class citizens since we cannot draw boundaries which will include people of only a particular ethnicity or religion unless there is complete ethnic cleansing.

Keith wrote:

"It's official religion has not undergone a reformation nor survived a renassaince. It doesn't include the influence of the teachings of Christ in it's make up. It's tenets are not and have not been challenged and relegated to a sphere outside of a secular government where it's influence is limited?"

I really don't think you know much about Judaism. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" comes from Leviticus, the Jewish Bible. Almost everything that Jesus said that was good comes from his Jewish background. Nonsense such as the virgin birth comes from pagan mythology current at the time. Neurotic guilt from original sin comes from an interpretation of Genesis through the Platonic Fall of man.

The Jewish Reformation was shortly after 70 CE when the Temple was destroyed. The priestly caste with its hierarchy lost what influence it had, and Judaism entered the rabbinical period. Rabbis were learned men with no sacerdotal function. The Jewish Reformation removed barriers between the Jew and God.

Unlike Christianity with its adoptions of creeds and throwing out heretics Judaism is democratic. It considers a non-Jew as righteous defined by the life they live not by the particular mumbo jumbo they believe. Jews do not have the exclusivity of "Only through me shall thou enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jews do not accept the sloughing off of sins by putting them on a humanoid God. There are two types of sin - against god and against man. Sins against God can be forgiven by penitence, prayer and charity. Sins against man can be forgiven if the person does something to compensate for the sin. Putting sin on a Jesus figure is not on.

Jews will welcome Christians who wish to return to the true faith and reject a pagan humanoid God in the person of Jesus. However, you can be a righteous person if you deal justly regardless of what mumbo jumbo you believe.