551–560 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is the West planning to use it as a launchpad for a war of aggression in the region? Pretty sure this was the reason. It’s a tactical piece that they want to keep control over. Everyone else in the region hates them (and rightfully so).
Considering Israel does not, and never has allowed American forces to be stationed inside Israel, this seems pretty unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not useful analysis.
It is useful. Regardless of the virtue - or strong lack thereof - of the new law, the current headline here is misleading about what was actually passed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel is surrounded by Arab Muslims who outnumber Jews 100:1 and are overtly hostile to Judaism, as prescribed by their religion. I ask honestly, is it really so wrong for a nation to implement laws to preserve its culture, particularly when it's people constitute a tiny fraction of the global population? Or is support of cultural preservation only virtuous when the alternative is labeled "gentrification"?
> and are overtly hostile to Judaism, as prescribed by their religion As a biracial Jew from Pakistan I can assure you this is false. The modern enmity between Jews and Muslims began around the time of Israel's creation [1]. As far as 'preserving culture', this sounds a little to close to the Fourteen Words for my comfort. You can celebrate and keep alive one's own culture without the exclusion and denial of rights t…
But not to the core values of middle eastern Arab countries, which is the point to limiting the possibility of a sizeable proportion of immigrants imposing their incompatible culture onto host nations.
>As far as 'preserving culture', this sounds a little to close to the Fourteen Words for my comfort.
There is no reason to presume that the values of your "modern, liberal democracies" will be maintained if there is no effort to preserve them. The rest of the world is far less concerned with your ideas regarding women's or LGBT rights. Allusions to the fourteen words are effectively a false equivalence, there is a massive range between maintaining a liberal way of life and going on a multinational genocidal war campaign.
>As a biracial Jew from Pakistan I can assure you this is false. The modern enmity between Jews and Muslims began around the time of Israel's creation [1].
The enmity is baked into the Koran and therefore approximately as old as Islam.
It's certainly interesting how an oppressed people became the oppressor.
An oppressed people - the Jews, have become oppressors? This comment doesn't even attempt to draw the distinction between the government of Israel and the Jewish people. How would it feel if we said “The formerly oppressed Hispanic people have become the oppressors”, because one country in Central or South America has an oppressive government at some point? There isn’t even recognition that the Israeli legislature mi…
To change the regime, do it by suffering the people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Ukraine passes law barring spouses who are from Russia from becoming citizens” Seems fine to me.
A third of Ukrainians speak Russian as a first language. That really sounds fine to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel was not built by its founders to be a melting pot, it was built as a home for displaced Jewish people. It was not built to be a place of equality, and unfortunately, by its nature it cannot be one and continue to serve its purpose. If you think that purpose is racist, you are entitled to that opinion... Not really, because according the IHRA espousing such a view is antisemitic[0]. [0] https://www.holocaustr…
I don't agree that there is anything fundamentally antisemitic about criticizing Israel or its policies. While I think some antisemitic people hold that viewpoint, there is plenty of valid criticism for the actions of the Israeli government and its military. Sometimes, saying criticism of Israel is antisemitic is just a way of shutting down someone who is giving criticism, though, conversely I will also say that it's…
I get that Israel's military actions and discriminatory policies are motivated from a sense of insecurity. And I certainly agree that the stomach-churning horror of the holocaust is crucial historical context.
> they do say at the top of the article it's a "Non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism,"
Nevertheless, it has been broadly recognised by many organisations and political groups. The IHRA website lists[1] adoption by various governments including, for example, by executive order of the US President[2].
Despite the historical context, as a secularist and anti-racist I think that explicitly trying to maintain a "Jewish state" in opposition to local demographic trends probably is a racist endeavor. At the very least I think there's a reasonable argument to be made, and to people brand who think so as antisemites is pretty chilling.
But it doesn't sound like you disagree.
[1] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-defin... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel is surrounded by Arab Muslims who outnumber Jews 100:1 and are overtly hostile to Judaism, as prescribed by their religion. I ask honestly, is it really so wrong for a nation to implement laws to preserve its culture, particularly when it's people constitute a tiny fraction of the global population? Or is support of cultural preservation only virtuous when the alternative is labeled "gentrification"?
> and are overtly hostile to Judaism, as prescribed by their religion As a biracial Jew from Pakistan I can assure you this is false. The modern enmity between Jews and Muslims began around the time of Israel's creation [1]. As far as 'preserving culture', this sounds a little to close to the Fourteen Words for my comfort. You can celebrate and keep alive one's own culture without the exclusion and denial of rights t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It targets people who sleep under bridges. If, for example, there is a major safety hazard associated with sleeping under bridges, it would make sense to prohibit it, and it would be bizarre to criticize the law just because it affects mostly homeless people. If, on the other hand, the law prohibits only homeless people from sleeping under bridges, it becomes clear that the intent is discriminatory, and this becomes…
“There’s no need to shirk from the essence of this law. It is one of the tools to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel, which is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Our goal is for there to be a Jewish majority,” Lapid tweeted shortly before the law lapsed in early July. [0] [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/months-after-citizenship-law-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Israel was an ally they would be helping to supply weapons and armor to Ukraine. Instead they will not supply anything more than medication. The US gives Israel plenty of military $ for them to share in times of need. As a strictly emotional thought, this makes me feel Israel is a country to cozy up to the strongest nation at the time. If the US falls from grace Israel will have no problem ‘switching’ sides to Rus…
By that yard stick many countries would no longer count as allys. Mexico for example.
The parallels to the Jim Crow South and its borderline hysterical obsession with managing the ethno-racial balance are very strong.
Israel would cease to exist if there was no Jewish majority anymore. Just one more Arab country instead. Would you be ok with that?