Israel 🇮🇱 State of Israel Thread

[WolfBear]

I'm not exactly sure why you're hung up on changing the law of return? It works fine the way it is. The purpose is to encompass as much of the Jewish people in all their diversity as possible without nabbing people that are completely unrelated.

Are you even sure the law of return allows for a 1/32 part Jew on the matrilinear side to become a citizen? Is there even a precedent for something like this ever happening?

I don't know, but since by Jewish law, they would be considered Jewish, I would presume that they would be allowed to immigrate to Israel if they can actually prove their Jewish ancestry.

Also, Israel's Chief Rabbinate has recently began using DNA testing to help determine Jewishness, so I wouldn't be surprised if this idea will eventually be adopted in Israeli immigration policy as well:

Rabbinate DNA tests seek Jewishness in the blood, become a bone of contention

Controversial method began in Moscow, spread to Jerusalem and Sydney, as a private bid to confirm ex-Soviets as Jews. Now it faces a High Court challenge and a thunderous outcry

www.timesofisrael.com

It has nothing to do with immigration in the US, but everything to do with "diversity". Clashing cultures with clashing values, especially ones with an antagonistic history, being forced to share a country is a recipe for disaster, as Syria, Lebanon and a multitude of examples around the world prove.

Switzerland works just fine.

Incidentally, that's why the so-called "one state solution" is a terrible idea.

Well, Yeah, but as a general rule, importing a lot of Muslims into any non-Muslim country isn't that good of an idea. You'd have to be really selective for this to actually work.

No. There should be a balance between the Jewish character of the country and the free will of its citizens. Loosening immigration laws harms the former and doesn't do anything for the latter.

It allows greater freedom of association, by making it easier for Israeli citizens to hire and marry non-Jews since there will now be more non-Jews within Israel's borders.

Israel's two main qualities are supposed to be that it's Jewish and democratic, as enshrined in the Scroll of Independence. Either one by itself is insufficient. That's why I also support introducing civil marriage to Israel, as well as public transportation on Saturday.

A state can simultaneously be both democratic and illiberal. Just because a state criminalizes apostasy doesn't necessarily mean that it can't simultaneously be democratic. Democracy doesn't always HAVE TO lead to liberalism.

Even assuming that's something that can even be profiled, that's not how this works. Opinions can change over generations in any case, so nobody can guarantee that their children won't be affected by antisemitic propaganda down the line.

Nobody can also guarantee that Israeli Jews' descendants won't ever leave the Jewish faith and join other religions. Should that justify criminalizing apostasy for Israeli Jews?

And then there's the matter of sovereignty and self-determination. An integral part of Israel being a safe haven for Jews is Jewish sovereignty. Gentiles ruling over Jews is self-defeating to this purpose.

It's obvious that, for example, even people "profiled for anti-Semitism" would likely repeal the Jewish symbols (such as the flag) and holidays in Israel if they ever become a majority, since they won't feel like they identify with them. That, again, defeats the purpose of having an Israel in the first place. Plenty of places in the world already that don't officially celebrate Hanukah or Sukkot.

I think that you're being way too cynical about this. Plenty of gentiles have no problem intermarrying with Jews and becoming close friends with them. This would mean that the odds of them repealing Israel's Jewish symbols should become much less likely. And for that matter, half of Israel's Jews are open to the idea of marrying a gentile:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/nearly-half-of-israeli-jews-would-consider-wedding-non-jew-if-in-diaspora-583715

Any nation can make any argument it wants in favor of immigration restriction. If tomorrow the US announced that it doesn't allow ANY immigration for any reason period in the foreseeable future, I will be 100% fine with that.

No non-American is somehow entitled to an American citizenship just because they're well-educated. Who to let in and who to leave out is something that only the (currently) American people have the right to decide via their democratic institutions.

Well, that's uplifting. Though it would be sad for the immigrants who get left out.

That's correct. So?

Well, do you think that it's a good idea for Judaism to remain such a closed tent in the present-day?

 

[WolfBear]

Another terror attack, 3 dead.

Three killed in axe stabbing spree in Haredi city in central Israel

At least 4 more injured in attack carried out by 2 terrorists in predominately ultra-Orthodox Elad, on Israel's Independence Day; municipality asks residents to remain in their homes; police on hunt for car seen leaving the scene

www.ynetnews.com

Very sad.

 

[WolfBear]

Israel apparently received over 40,000 immigrants over the past year:

https://www.jpost.com/aliyah/article-705673

 

[GoldRanger]

I don't know, but since by Jewish law, they would be considered Jewish, I would presume that they would be allowed to immigrate to Israel if they can actually prove their Jewish ancestry.

Also, Israel's Chief Rabbinate has recently began using DNA testing to help determine Jewishness, so I wouldn't be surprised if this idea will eventually be adopted in Israeli immigration policy as well:

Rabbinate DNA tests seek Jewishness in the blood, become a bone of contention

Controversial method began in Moscow, spread to Jerusalem and Sydney, as a private bid to confirm ex-Soviets as Jews. Now it faces a High Court challenge and a thunderous outcry

www.timesofisrael.com

Let's not assume anything please, especially since we're talking about extreme hypotheticals.

Switzerland works just fine.

All Swiss cultures are still Christian European, I bet that helps a ton.

Well, Yeah, but as a general rule, importing a lot of Muslims into any non-Muslim country isn't that good of an idea. You'd have to be really selective for this to actually work.



It allows greater freedom of association, by making it easier for Israeli citizens to hire and marry non-Jews since there will now be more non-Jews within Israel's borders.

That's a really ridiculous statement.

A. Intermarriage is the opposite of the Jewish collective interest, since it acts contrary to the preservation of Judaism.

B. Freedom of association exists as it is, if a Jew is hell bent on marrying a non-Jew for some reason they can do that (only outside of the country at the moment but still, the marriage will be recognized). It has nothing to do with the "number of choices".

It's like claiming that the state should be responsible for creating controversy so that people have more issues to exercise their right to free speech for. It's a moronic proposition.

A state can simultaneously be both democratic and illiberal. Just because a state criminalizes apostasy doesn't necessarily mean that it can't simultaneously be democratic. Democracy doesn't always HAVE TO lead to liberalism.

Israel is explicitly a liberal democracy though, and the majority of Israelis would not welcome criminalizing apostasy. I still don't quite understand why you're hell-bent on changing random Israeli laws in random ways when the current system works great.

Nobody can also guarantee that Israeli Jews' descendants won't ever leave the Jewish faith and join other religions. Should that justify criminalizing apostasy for Israeli Jews?

No, because in this case we're impacting the rights of citizens. In a liberal democracy the citizens have the right to practice any religion they'd like. Non-citizens, however do NOT have some sort of innate right to immigrate.

Also I'm not even sure the Jewish religion allows punishing apostates, and this will impact any attempt to criminalize it.

I have to ask, where are you going with this line of questions? Because to me it seems like you're throwing out some random crap that makes no sense.

I think that you're being way too cynical about this. Plenty of gentiles have no problem intermarrying with Jews and becoming close friends with them. This would mean that the odds of them repealing Israel's Jewish symbols should become much less likely. And for that matter, half of Israel's Jews are open to the idea of marrying a gentile:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/nearly-half-of-israeli-jews-would-consider-wedding-non-jew-if-in-diaspora-583715

Willingness to intermarriage doesn't mean the partner fully adopts the culture as their own. The two have nothing to do with each other, really.

Within a couple of generations it's basically guaranteed that a majority of gentiles will find that it has no reason to keep Jewish tradition going. The fact that some are married to Jews is not going to change that if their children are not educated with Jewish culture as the dominant one.

Heck, your own country has people burning the American flag because they don't believe in its ideals! Why do you think anyone should willingly bring this crap into their own country?

Well, that's uplifting. Though it would be sad for the immigrants who get left out.

It's also sad that a lot of people don't get to buy stuff with your money. Why aren't you giving away all your money to the poor, WolfBear?

Well, do you think that it's a good idea for Judaism to remain such a closed tent in the present-day?

Judaism is what it is. If you're talking about the religion, then it's irrelevant what's politically good for it. Orthodox Judaism is not flexible, religious law is what it is as written in holy scripture, and that's that. Trying to force a reform on Judaism will instantly spark a civil war, which the religious Jews will handily win since much of the secular population will sympathize with their position.

 

[GoldRanger]

Israel apparently received over 40,000 immigrants over the past year:

https://www.jpost.com/aliyah/article-705673

Yep, Jewish immigrants, which underscores the importance of keeping Israel a Jewish safe haven, ruled by Jews, primarily for Jews (with others who are already here and are Israeli citizens coexisting in peace).

 

[WolfBear]

Yep, Jewish immigrants, which underscores the importance of keeping Israel a Jewish safe haven, ruled by Jews, primarily for Jews (with others who are already here and are Israeli citizens coexisting in peace).

Not all of them are Jewish according to Jewish law and in any case, Jewish law is illogical in giving Jewish status to someone with extremely distant Jewish ancestry if they simply have the right maternal ancestor(s).

 

[WolfBear]

Let's not assume anything please, especially since we're talking about extreme hypotheticals.



All Swiss cultures are still Christian European, I bet that helps a ton.

Sure, it helps that Swiss cultures are similar to each other. Ditto for Hinduism being a unifying force in most of India.

That's a really ridiculous statement.

A. Intermarriage is the opposite of the Jewish collective interest, since it acts contrary to the preservation of Judaism.

B. Freedom of association exists as it is, if a Jew is hell bent on marrying a non-Jew for some reason they can do that (only outside of the country at the moment but still, the marriage will be recognized). It has nothing to do with the "number of choices".

It's like claiming that the state should be responsible for creating controversy so that people have more issues to exercise their right to free speech for. It's a moronic proposition.

I'm simply invoking libertarians' open borders arguments here. Specifically, libertarians argue that if one wants to hire a specific foreigner, immigration laws would prohibit one from doing this. Likewise, libertarians argue that immigration restrictions could sometimes prevent one from meeting the potential love of one's life.

Israel is explicitly a liberal democracy though, and the majority of Israelis would not welcome criminalizing apostasy. I still don't quite understand why you're hell-bent on changing random Israeli laws in random ways when the current system works great.

Again, I'm simply analyzing libertarians' own logic in regards to immigration. For instance, libertarian law professor Ilya Somin argues that there should be a presumption in favor of open borders because the fear that immigration could result in negative changes could just as easily apply to negative changes that occur as a result of internal processes, such as a country's existing population changing their minds on something. Somin thus argues that if restricting immigration to prevent negative changes is fair game, why not also restricting speech and religion in order to prevent similar negative changes from occurring?

No, because in this case we're impacting the rights of citizens. In a liberal democracy the citizens have the right to practice any religion they'd like. Non-citizens, however do NOT have some sort of innate right to immigrate.

Well, someone who supports open borders could view the distinction between citizens and non-citizens as itself being arbitrary due to the fact that it depends on circumstances outside of one's control, such as where exactly one was born and whom exactly one's parents were:

The Hereditary Aristocracy of Citizenship

We pride ourselves on having abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. But our citizenship system replicates many of the same evils.

reason.com

Also I'm not even sure the Jewish religion allows punishing apostates, and this will impact any attempt to criminalize it.

Israel isn't based on Jewish law, though--is it?

I have to ask, where are you going with this line of questions? Because to me it seems like you're throwing out some random crap that makes no sense.

My logic here is based on the arguments that open borders libertarian law professors themselves use. You should take a look at Ilya Somin's 2020 book Free to Move to look at these arguments in more detail.

Willingness to intermarriage doesn't mean the partner fully adopts the culture as their own. The two have nothing to do with each other, really.

Within a couple of generations it's basically guaranteed that a majority of gentiles will find that it has no reason to keep Jewish tradition going. The fact that some are married to Jews is not going to change that if their children are not educated with Jewish culture as the dominant one.

Heck, your own country has people burning the American flag because they don't believe in its ideals! Why do you think anyone should willingly bring this crap into their own country?

Do you support criminalizing flag burning?

It's also sad that a lot of people don't get to buy stuff with your money. Why aren't you giving away all your money to the poor, WolfBear?

Because I myself am not filled with money!

Judaism is what it is. If you're talking about the religion, then it's irrelevant what's politically good for it. Orthodox Judaism is not flexible, religious law is what it is as written in holy scripture, and that's that. Trying to force a reform on Judaism will instantly spark a civil war, which the religious Jews will handily win since much of the secular population will sympathize with their position.

Interesting approach. I suppose that it symbolizes many countries' populations' approach towards national borders as well.

 

[WolfBear]

Here's some of what Ilya Somin writes about open borders:

Open Borders Day

archived 17 Mar 2014 05:42:45 UTC

archive.ph

Today is Open Borders Day – an international event created to celebrate the ideal of freedom of movement across international boundaries. Open borders is a radical principle, but also one deeply rooted in American history and in widely held liberal values of liberty and happiness. Allowing free movement across borders would greatly increase individual freedom, and allow millions to escape poverty and oppression. The struggle for free migration is one of the most important human rights issues in the world today.

The open borders ideal does not require complete freedom of movement. It does not, for example, require national governments to let in terrorists, invading armies, or carriers of deadly contagious diseases. It does require that your migration rights should no longer be restricted merely based on the fact that the you were born on the wrong side of a line on the map.

I. The Case for Open Borders.
Hundreds of millions of people live in countries where their probable fate is a life of poverty and oppression. Many of them could escape that terrible fate if only First World governments would allow them to immigrate. Economist Michael Clemens estimates that the economic gains from worldwide open borders are large enough to double world GDP. Enormous numbers of people currently live in poverty not because they are unable to be productive workers, but merely because they are forcibly prevented from working for First World employers who would be willing to hire them. In addition to harming potential migrants, these restrictions also inflict losses on First world employers, landlords, and consumers who would like to hire immigrants, rent to them, or purchase goods and services they produce.

But the benefits of open borders go far beyond purely material gains, great as they are. Many potential migrants are also trapped in societies where they are denied basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and private property. Many of the women among them reside in societies with severe gender-based oppression and discrimination. For hundreds of millions of people living in undemocratic societies, emigration is their only realistically feasible way to exercise political freedom – the right to choose what kind of government they wish to live under.

Perhaps most important, immigration restrictions are severe infringements on individual freedom in and of themselves. They forbid people to live and work where they wish purely based on arbitrary circumstances of birth for which they are not responsible. They also restrict the liberties of native-born citizens who wish to engage in economic and social transactions with migrants.

Some argue that First World governments are not responsible for the poverty and oppression that exists in Third World countries, and therefore we have no moral obligation to let in immigrants fleeing from it. But when we restrict immigration, we do more than simply ignore poverty and oppression created by others. We actively use the threat of force to prevent immigrants from escaping those terrible conditions.

While open borders would be a radical change from current policy, it is an ideal deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The original meaning of the Constitution denies Congress the power to restrict international migration, though it does give it the power to control naturalization. The United States in fact had virtually complete open borders until the enactment of the racist Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and open borders for nearly all non-Asian immigrants until the 1920s. If today’s more restrictionist policies had been followed in the first 130 years of American history, the ancestors of most Americans would never have been allowed to enter the country.

Moving towards open borders would allow the United States to again become what Ronald Reagan called “a promised land… [where] any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here.” Even under current restrictive policies, the US and other Western democracies have taken in numerous immigrants who would otherwise have suffered a much worse fate – myself included. But we still fall far short of the ideal Reagan so eloquently expressed.

II. The Burden of Proof for Justifying Migration Restrictions.
There is a wide range of objections to free international migration. But nearly all of them are either inaccurate (such as the claim that immigration increases welfare spending), or can be addressed through less draconian means than consigning millions of people to lives of poverty and oppression. For example, there are lots of more humane ways to control “political externalities” – possible negative effects of immigration on government policy.

Most importantly, any negative effects of immigration must be weighed against the truly enormous benefits – in terms of both freedom and happiness. In order to justify migration restrictions, the harms they prevent must be both large enough to outweigh those benefits and impossible to prevent by less repressive means.

Like other important individual liberties, the right to free migration cannot be absolute. Just as there are extreme situations where we might be justified in restricting freedom of speech or freedom of religion, so too there are extreme situations where immigration restrictions would be justified. But just as restrictions on other important freedoms should meet a high burden of proof, the same goes for immigration restrictions that use the threat of force to compel people to live in poverty and oppression. At the very least, we must demand strong evidence that the restrictions prevent real harms large enough to outweigh the benefits of free migration – including the benefits for the rights and freedom of immigrants themselves. Open Borders Day is an excellent time to seriously consider whether our present immigration policies even come close to meeting that burden.

FWIW, I don't support fully open borders because I don't believe that humans are interchangeable, but I nevertheless believe that freer migration could nevertheless significantly improve a lot of people's lives.

 

[GoldRanger]

Not all of them are Jewish according to Jewish law and in any case, Jewish law is illogical in giving Jewish status to someone with extremely distant Jewish ancestry if they simply have the right maternal ancestor(s).

1. All religious law is illogical, but it is what it is, it's not going to change, and forcing it to change is impossible.

2. I've already said it but I'll repeat: Judaism is not only the Jewish religion. Even those of the immigrants who are not strictly Jews according to religion are still Jewish by any other definition. Religious law doesn't matter as much as you think.

Sure, it helps that Swiss cultures are similar to each other. Ditto for Hinduism being a unifying force in most of India.

Ditto Judaism being a unifying force in Israel.

Introduce Hindu people en masse to Switzerland, or Jewish people en masse to India, or any other such combination, and you'll see how things start going downhill pretty quickly.

I'm simply invoking libertarians' open borders arguments here. Specifically, libertarians argue that if one wants to hire a specific foreigner, immigration laws would prohibit one from doing this. Likewise, libertarians argue that immigration restrictions could sometimes prevent one from meeting the potential love of one's life.

And why are we pretending that libertarian beliefs are either the "correct" or dominant ones?

Again, I'm simply analyzing libertarians' own logic in regards to immigration. For instance, libertarian law professor Ilya Somin argues that there should be a presumption in favor of open borders because the fear that immigration could result in negative changes could just as easily apply to negative changes that occur as a result of internal processes, such as a country's existing population changing their minds on something. Somin thus argues that if restricting immigration to prevent negative changes is fair game, why not also restricting speech and religion in order to prevent similar negative changes from occurring?

What does this Somin guy and his theories have to do with Israel? We're in a thread about Israel, not about libertarian jibbering.

Well, someone who supports open borders could view the distinction between citizens and non-citizens as itself being arbitrary due to the fact that it depends on circumstances outside of one's control, such as where exactly one was born and whom exactly one's parents were:

The Hereditary Aristocracy of Citizenship

We pride ourselves on having abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. But our citizenship system replicates many of the same evils.

reason.com

So what? It's really irrelevant whether citizenship is "arbitrary" or not. A lot of things are beyond our control and are the result of a random chance of birth, social and economic class, skin color, height, genetic diseases etc. Trying to somehow control all of them is impossible.

Citizenship is what it is, a country exists to obey the wishes of its citizens, regardless of how that citizenship came to pass.

Israel isn't based on Jewish law, though--is it?

No, but there are powerful political factions who are very insistent that Israel should attempt to at least not overtly break Jewish law, and they can't be ignored or dismissed.

My logic here is based on the arguments that open borders libertarian law professors themselves use. You should take a look at Ilya Somin's 2020 book Free to Move to look at these arguments in more detail.

Again, why is libertarianism relevant in a thread about Israel?

Do you support criminalizing flag burning?

No, although I view such practices with disdain. This has nothing to do with my actual argument though.

Because I myself am not filled with money!

You still have a non-zero amount that you could give out, but you won't, because you're a hypocrite. You expect others to give up finite resources to random people on your whim, yet you refuse to do the same even though you can do it literally any time.

Interesting approach. I suppose that it symbolizes many countries' populations' approach towards national borders as well.

One of the many problems of the modern age is that people are no longer thinking pragmatically. We need to deal with reality as it is, not as we'd like it to be.

 

[WolfBear]

1. All religious law is illogical, but it is what it is, it's not going to change, and forcing it to change is impossible.

2. I've already said it but I'll repeat: Judaism is not only the Jewish religion. Even those of the immigrants who are not strictly Jews according to religion are still Jewish by any other definition. Religious law doesn't matter as much as you think.

And extending the Jewish tent even further is unrealistic even for liberal-minded, eh?

Ditto Judaism being a unifying force in Israel.

Introduce Hindu people en masse to Switzerland, or Jewish people en masse to India, or any other such combination, and you'll see how things start going downhill pretty quickly.

There aren't enough Jews in the world to make a difference in India's demographics. As for Hindus in Western Europe, my impression was that they assimilated pretty well. Much better than Muslims, in fact. The only concern might be having them spread leftism in the West.

And why are we pretending that libertarian beliefs are either the "correct" or dominant ones?

They appeal to my inner sense of righteousness:

Immigration restrictions and racial discrimination share similar roots

But the link between the two issues is often ignored. Exclusionary immigration policies are unjust for many of the same reasons as is racial discrimination by the state. Both restrict freedom and o…

thehill.com

What does this Somin guy and his theories have to do with Israel? We're in a thread about Israel, not about libertarian jibbering.

Libertarian open borders theories apply broadly, including to Israel. Somin has previously criticized Israel's immigration policy in the past for being too selective.

So what? It's really irrelevant whether citizenship is "arbitrary" or not. A lot of things are beyond our control and are the result of a random chance of birth, social and economic class, skin color, height, genetic diseases etc. Trying to somehow control all of them is impossible.

Those aren't the result of government control, though. Though to be fair, I certainly don't mind having the government push to achieve greater equity in regards to this as well through things such as wealth redistribution.

Citizenship is what it is, a country exists to obey the wishes of its citizens, regardless of how that citizenship came to pass.

That's true, certainly enough. I'm just asking for greater amounts of noblesse oblige towards non-citizens and foreigners.

No, but there are powerful political factions who are very insistent that Israel should attempt to at least not overtly break Jewish law, and they can't be ignored or dismissed.

Interesting.

Again, why is libertarianism relevant in a thread about Israel?

Because its principles apply broadly?

No, although I view such practices with disdain. This has nothing to do with my actual argument though.

OK.

You still have a non-zero amount that you could give out, but you won't, because you're a hypocrite. You expect others to give up finite resources to random people on your whim, yet you refuse to do the same even though you can do it literally any time.

FWIW, I actually did donate to charity several times. But the amounts that I donated weren't that large.

One of the many problems of the modern age is that people are no longer thinking pragmatically. We need to deal with reality as it is, not as we'd like it to be.

Very true, unfortunately.

 

[GoldRanger]

And extending the Jewish tent even further is unrealistic even for liberal-minded, eh?

It's currently in a sweet spot and shouldn't be fiddled with. Somebody whose only tie to Judaism is a great-grandparent is very unlikely to be considered "under the Jewish tent" by any definition.

There aren't enough Jews in the world to make a difference in India's demographics.

It's a hypothetical.

As for Hindus in Western Europe, my impression was that they assimilated pretty well. Much better than Muslims, in fact. The only concern might be having them spread leftism in the West.

Ah, so there is a concern.

They appeal to my inner sense of righteousness:

Immigration restrictions and racial discrimination share similar roots

But the link between the two issues is often ignored. Exclusionary immigration policies are unjust for many of the same reasons as is racial discrimination by the state. Both restrict freedom and o…

thehill.com

Libertarian open borders theories apply broadly, including to Israel. Somin has previously criticized Israel's immigration policy in the past for being too selective.

Good for you. And I or Israelis in general should care because...?

Those aren't the result of government control, though.

Wealth certainly is, social status can, arguably, be too.

Though to be fair, I certainly don't mind having the government push to achieve greater equity in regards to this as well through things such as wealth redistribution.

How does this jive with your libertarian beliefs?

That's true, certainly enough. I'm just asking for greater amounts of noblesse oblige towards non-citizens and foreigners.

And I ask you for greater amounts of noblesse oblige toward people poorer than you.

We can both keep asking.

Because its principles apply broadly?

You're shoehorning an ideology that has nothing to do with Israel, acting as if its principles are a matter of widespread consensus when it's patently untrue. I consider this a derail.

FWIW, I actually did donate to charity several times. But the amounts that I donated weren't that large.

Israel has also "donated citizenship" to non-Jews in some cases (such as SLA members and their families after the end of the Lebanon occupation).

You claim that's not enough though. Well, then open up your wallet to larger donations. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't try to push others into giving away their hard-earned life-giving resources without doing the same yourself.

 

[WolfBear]

How does this jive with your libertarian beliefs?

I just want to clarify that I sympathize with libertarians on immigration; much less so overall.

I think that a lot of libertarians are nuts:

The Libertarians Can’t Save This Election. The Libertarians Are Nuts.

ORLANDO, Florida—It was just a couple of hours before the Libertarian Party’s final presidential debate. C-SPAN cameras were firing up; delegates were...

slate.com

 

[GoldRanger]

If anyone thinks the terrorist attacks are just by extremists and aren't representative of the Palestinians as a whole, think again. This is trending on Palestinian networks:

 

[Arch Dornan]

@GoldRanger when Israel formed how slow did your Arab neighbours turn on the heat on your fellow Jews that they immigrated to Israel?

 

[49ersfootball]

Another terror attack, 3 dead.

Three killed in axe stabbing spree in Haredi city in central Israel

At least 4 more injured in attack carried out by 2 terrorists in predominately ultra-Orthodox Elad, on Israel's Independence Day; municipality asks residents to remain in their homes; police on hunt for car seen leaving the scene

www.ynetnews.com

Jesus Christ.

 

[GoldRanger]

@GoldRanger when Israel formed how slow did your Arab neighbours turn on the heat on your fellow Jews that they immigrated to Israel?

They were completely berserk even before the formation of Israel.

One example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

This lovely massacre included Arabs pulling random Jewish civilians from their homes and cutting off their penises. 133 Jews were killed. All this a full 19 years before the formation of Israel, and that's not the earliest example.

After this the mob ... attacked the house of the local rabbi, called Slonim, where a number of men and women had taken refuge ... But the Arabs came in through the windows ... and made short shrift of the thirty-eight persons in the room. Their throats were slit and both men and women were horribly mutilated.

I must say here, for the matter was raised in an official communiqué by the Palestine government and led to most unpleasant consequences for me personally, that the two doctors and I found that the dead in Slonim's house had had their genital organs cut off; in the case of the women, their breasts. This was really nothing very extraordinary: it was the usual practice of Arab mobsters in those days, and still is.

 

[Arch Dornan]

They were completely berserk even before the formation of Israel.

One example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

This lovely massacre included Arabs pulling random Jewish civilians from their homes and cutting off their penises. 133 Jews were killed. All this a full 19 years before the formation of Israel, and that's not the earliest example.

Not very polite of them.

Although knowing those pogroms they had to deal with lots of shit before they had to move again.

When Israel came to being that was when this huge migration movement happened and the neighbors suddenly got it in their heads to force their Jewish population to move to Israel while taking what they left behind.

Such as operation Magic Carpet for Yemen, operation Ezra and Nehemiah for Iraq and operation Goshen for Egypt.

It's like once Israel came to being your neighbours switched their programming from tolerating a huge number of them to telling them to go away. It helps when there's economic opportunities for a Jewish immigrant but that's a bonus when the state you're living in as a citizen tells you you're a none person and about to be fucked by the locals who hate you.

 

[GoldRanger]

 

[Arch Dornan]

Reminds of the time they snuck into houses to kill children with thunderous applause.

If anyone thinks the terrorist attacks are just by extremists and aren't representative of the Palestinians as a whole, think again. This is trending on Palestinian networks:

I can believe it with the way things are set up.

If they could get away with a bounty of Jewish body parts and necklace trophies they'd do it.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm honestly sympathetic to the idea of Israel pushing the Palestines out of the West Bank completely. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.