Israel Turns Away Darfur Refugees

[Thunder]

Israel has decided to allow 500 refugees from the genocide in Darfur to stay in Israel. The rest wil be sent home.

This is a moment of truth for Israel. Israel exists today, because the world failed to help the Jewish people. Every nation made excuses as to why they could not take in refugees.

"We don't have the capacity for large numbers of refugees"
"They are culturaly different then us"
"They come from an enemy state"

These excuses, led to the 6 million..and now these same excuses are being used in Israel.

Israel cannot be expected to take in 100,000 refugees..or even 25,000..but they can do a lot better then 500.

Israel must take in EVERY refugee they can. Israel must do the maximum it can to save people from genocide. If they fail to do this..if they choose to remain cold to the plight of modern day refugees from genocide, then all the Holocaust monuments, all the Holocaust memorials, all the Holocaust education, all the all the yearly reminders of "Never Again"...are complete and utter....BS.

"When they came for the Jews, I did nothing , for I was not a Jew" -1941

"When they came for the Darfurians, I did nothing, for I was not from Darfur"- 2007

[firecoins]

links?

[webfusion]

This thread is mis-titled.

Israel has a policy (not unlike the policies of virtually every country) to prevent the unauthorized entry of migrants. So, OK, Israel maintains a strict ban on unauthorized migrants from anywhere, but it needs to be mentioned (which parky76 did not bother to do) that Israel's security situation is more sensitive than most nations (especially on the Egyptian border, which is notorious for terrorist activity and smuggling).


Fighting between pro-government militias and rebels in the Western Sudanese region of Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million.

There are currently some 2,500 African refugees in Israel now who have managed to cross illegally over the border. Israel has officially agreed to absorb several hundred of these refugees (mostly Christians fleeing Muslim violence in Sudan).

So the headline title of the thread should read: Israel agrees to absorb refugees -- that is the primary focus of the story.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/894800.html

One of the Sudanese refugees in Israel said in a recent interview:
"This is a country with love for people who come from outside"

NOTE: Israel is home to a large community of black Africans, including those from Nigeria, Somalia, and of course, Ethiopia.

Also, to be fair, of those 50 people Israel sent back across the border to Egypt, a percentage of the illegal infiltrators were from Ivory Coast and Somalia, not Darfur.


(((( http://factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000015.html)))

[Pardalis]

Why Israel? It's nowhere near Sudan.

http://www.worldpress.org/maps/maps/sudan.gif

[webfusion]

Israel must take in EVERY refugee they can.

???

Let's make a deal ----- how about if Israel (with a limited budget, and limited space, and limited natural resources) agrees to take in the same number of refugees that Saudi Arabia takes in. Do you think Saudi Arabia (with no limitations on land, no limited budget, and an incredible oil resource) has any responsibility for these Africans? If not, then why is Israel held to a higher standard in your eyes?

Also, parky76, you said:
"Israel cannot be expected to take in 100,000 refugees..or even 25,000..."

That's not necessarily true. If Israel's track record on refugees from various lands is any indication, the Israeli people would certainly be able to open their hearts and borders and accept large influx ---- but it would need to be organized properly, and financed sufficiently. It couldn't be just an ad-hoc rush of people across the Egyptian frontier (which is exactly what's happening now).

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:0EgOl9NOYEoJ:www.azm.org/TAI/Vietnam.doc+israel+vietnamese+refugees&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Thunder]

Webfusion- you completaly, and I believe consciously, miss the point.

This is not about people fleeing poor economic conditions. This is not about people seeking a better life.

This is about people fleeing GENOCIDE. How much more clearer does this need to be spelled out?

My people..are dead...partially because Europe, the USA, and most of the world...REFUSED to take in Jewish refugees. Their reasons? Very similar to what Israel is saying today.

The collective Jewish people, never fail to remind the world, of this fact, and rightly so. The world failed to help a people on the verge of extinction...and that was a humanitarian crime.

Israel...represent the collective Jewish people. It is the "Jewish" state. If the Jewish state fails to do the MAXIMUM it can to help refugees from genocide...then who the hell are we to critisize all those nations that did not help us during WW2?

Any by the way, you purposefully failed to mention that the large community of black Africans in Israel...are Jewish. Israel does a great job helping its own people...but thats not what this is about now is it.

-And yes, Africa and the Muslim countries are doing a pathetic job helping the refugees from Darfur. But Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, etc...were not forged from the ashes of a genocide. These nations don't running around yelling "Never Again". They don't remind the world, yearly, of how they failed to help refugees from genocide.

I know you understand...so stop avoiding the real issue here. Its about being consistant. Its about not being hypocrites.

[Pardalis]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypocrate

:confused:

[webfusion]

My people..are dead...partially because Europe, the USA, and most of the world...REFUSED to take in Jewish refugees. Their reasons? Very similar to what Israel is saying today.

Untrue.
Jewish emigration was happening, prior and during WWII, including emigration to the USA, to Palestine, and to many other nations.
You may argue that it didn't happen at a rate high enough, or that the rate was limited by quotas, but the blame for the death of jews in Europe falls on those who perpetrated the genocide, not on those who maintained their internal policies of immigration.

I'm sorry, but I cannot, in good conscience, accept that Israel is obligated, by virtue of the special horror of the Holocaust, to become an open place of refuge for people all around the world, and I absolutely disagree with the statement you made "Israel must take in EVERY refugee they can."

That's a big can of creepy-crawly worms, parky76. Let's not open it.

[Thunder]

"Every" refugee they can..was meant to mean all the refugees from Darfur's genocide that they can handle. They are not the savior of the world. I just want Israel to do the most they can. Are we not a light unto the nations?

If they do an analysis and find that their economy can only handle 10,000 refugees..then let 10,000 come in. But as far as I can see no such study has been done.

This is not only about doing the right thing and practising what we preach. This is a huge PR opportunity for Israel and the Jews.

"Israel takes in and settles 10,000 Darfur refugees while neighboring states take in none, tonight on ABC News"....would do wonders for Israel's image.....don't you think?

[Pardalis]

I agree Israel should do what they can, but I agree with Webfusion that to hold Israel to be more responsible than any other country because of their religious ethnicity and because of the Holocaust is ridiculous.

[webfusion]

"Every" refugee they can..was meant to mean all the refugees from Darfur's genocide that they can handle. They are not the savior of the world. I just want Israel to do the most they can. Are we not a light unto the nations?

Keeping that light turned on and burning brightly costs big $$$$.

(Just ask the palestinians in Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/895004.html))


This is a huge PR opportunity for Israel and the Jews.

Israel is not in the PR business.
Israel is in the survival business.

Even your thread title shows the bias you have --- As I immediately commented: you did not even start this thread with the actual headline:

"Israel takes in and settles 500 Darfur refugees while neighboring states take in none, tonight on ABC News".


Also, one more quick note:

You mentioned that I had "purposefully failed to mention that the large community of black Africans in Israel...are Jewish."

This is not accurate, sorry. I wish you would check your facts. Not all of them are Jewish.
There is a large Falash Mura population of non-Jews, which Israel has been dealing with for years.
The Jewish Agency, in cooperation with the United Jewish Communities (the North American federation umbrella organization), launched a campaign to raise $100-million to help defray the cost of the Falash Mura relocation and absorption.

(google Falash Mura if you unfamiliar with their plight)

[Thunder]

"Israel is in the survival business"..

Please show how accepting, say 10,000 Darfur refugees, would threaten Israel's survival. These are the same arguments that nations made when they refused to take in Jews.

I see this as a great opportunity for Israel. An opportunity to help a people in need, help Israel's image around the world, its a win-win situation.

It saddens me that many Jews see helping refugees from Genocide as an unbearable burden....or a "danger" to Israel's security. I thought we were better then this.

[Ziggurat]

Funny, but why no mention about the fact that these Darfur refugees felt the need to flee Egypt too? Why does Egypt get a free pass? Oh, right... nevermind.

[Miss Anthrope]

Funny, but why no mention about the fact that these Darfur refugees felt the need to flee Egypt too? Why does Egypt get a free pass? Oh, right... nevermind.

Thank you.

[Darth Rotor]

Funny, but why no mention about the fact that these Darfur refugees felt the need to flee Egypt too? Why does Egypt get a free pass? Oh, right... nevermind.
Why not arm them, train them, organize them, and send them to fight the jinjaweed? That's sorta what the US did for the Bosnian Croats in 1994-1995. Hired a bunch of contractors to help train their forces, then an offensive against the Bosnian Serbs led to a change in fortunes for the factions of Bosnia.

Why do these folks set upon by the jinjaweed have to be eternal victims? Why can't they be empowered to fight back?

Are these people the latest version of The Dispossessed?

DR

[Thunder]

I actually did think about that. Are the Darfur refugees being sent to Israel, so that Israel will then reject most of them and the Arabs and international community can point to Israel and say "see..they rejeect refugees from genocide!! Hypocrites!!!"

I am just hypothesizing, but maybe they Darfurians (sound like a race from Star Trek) wanted to go to a democracy and freedom loving nation? maybe they thought that a western democratic liberal society, like Israel, would help them?

I say, Israel should take in 10,000, then close the doors. They can then justifiably yell to the world:

"Little Israel has done its part...now..nations of the world...do yours!!"

[Darth Rotor]

I actually did think about that. Are the Darfur refugees being sent to Israel, so that Israel will then reject most of them and the Arabs and international community can point to Israel and say "see..they rejeect refugees from genocide!! Hypocrites!!!"

I am just hypothesizing, but maybe they Darfurians (sound like a race from Star Trek) wanted to go to a democracy and freedom loving nation? maybe they thought that a western democratic liberal society, like Israel, would help them?

I say, Israel should take in 10,000, then close the doors. They can then justifiably yell to the world:

"Little Israel has done its part...now..nations of the world...do yours!!"

Great idea. Build a settlement for them, the 10,000 from Darfur, on the West Bank with UN funds. That'll solve the problem, won't it?

DR

[Puppycow]

How about resettling them in Gaza?

It would be nice if everyone in the world could be saved, but they cannot. Africa suffers from overpopulation.

Population in 1950 (millions)
Africa: 221
Europe: 547

1999
Africa: 767
Europe: 729

2050 (projected)
Africa: 1,766
Europe: 628

If you are upset by what is happening in Darfur now, just wait for the future. Instead of accepting refugess, send condoms if you want to help. 10,000 refugees would just be a drop in the bucket. Maybe it would be good PR for a few weeks, but I somewhat doubt it would have any lasting effects. People soon forget.

[Puppycow]

Another problem with Israel accepting refugees from Darfur is shouldn't Palestinian refugees have priority?

[FireGarden]

I am just hypothesizing, but maybe they Darfurians (sound like a race from Star Trek) wanted to go to a democracy and freedom loving nation? maybe they thought that a western democratic liberal society, like Israel, would help them?

There are 100,000 refugees from Sudan in Egypt. They don't like it there and many feel prejudiced against. Some have been shot [by Egyptian border guards] trying to get into Israel -- including one case witnessed by Israeli soldiers on the border.

They've heard that Israel is better and that they can get better wages in Israel.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/856/eg9.htm

While the problem is not new it is getting "worse" according to the Israelis. Khamis, one of the first Sudanese to cross the border from Egypt to Israel maintains that he does not regret the move. "In Israel Sudanese can earn $4 per hour. In Egypt such a wage is unheard of. Moreover, medical care and educational opportunities are far better in Israel than in Egypt."

[...] According to the latest statistics, 24.5 per cent of the estimated 4,000 Sudanese in Israel are from the predominantly Muslim war-torn western province of Darfur. The bulk of Sudanese in Israel, an estimated 61 per cent, are from southern Sudan.

Excessively harsh socio-economic conditions and racist attitudes in Egypt seem to be the main reason why Sudanese refugees want to relocate to Israel. Of the Sudanese refugees now resident in Israel 71 per cent report verbal and physical abuse as the main reason for their fleeing Egypt. Some 86 per cent had refugee status with the UNHCR in Egypt, though those crossing the border spent an average of six months in detention upon arrival in Israel. Others are subject to indefinite detention.

[...] Israeli Interior Minister Ronnie Bar-On says the problem of Sudanese refugees in Israel is one of numbers. He argues that if Israel relaxes its immigration policy as far as Sudanese refugees resident in Egypt are concerned the country would be inundated with refugees. "We will invite a flood," he said.

[...] There are an estimated 400,000 Sudanese refugees in Kenya, 400,000 in Chad and 100,000 in Egypt.

Of course, we in Britain have an even more embarrassing problem: Iraqi interpreters and other Iraqis who helped British forces don't seem to have an easy time escaping to Britain. Once here, their application is no different to that of any other asylum seeker. Gordon said he was going to look into it.

I think Switzerland has accepted more Iraqi refugees than Britain.

[Cleon]

Untrue.
Jewish emigration was happening, prior and during WWII, including emigration to the USA, to Palestine, and to many other nations.
You may argue that it didn't happen at a rate high enough, or that the rate was limited by quotas, but the blame for the death of jews in Europe falls on those who perpetrated the genocide, not on those who maintained their internal policies of immigration.

I'm sorry, but I cannot, in good conscience, accept that Israel is obligated, by virtue of the special horror of the Holocaust, to become an open place of refuge for people all around the world, and I absolutely disagree with the statement you made "Israel must take in EVERY refugee they can."

That's a big can of creepy-crawly worms, parky76. Let's not open it.

Wow. I mean, wow.

Webfusion, read a freaking history book. The refusal of "civilized" countries to allow Jews fleeing the Nazis to immigrate is a black mark on the history of the United States, Great Britain, and the world in general. To try and claim otherwise displays a complete ignorance of history. Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis) for a particularly disgusting story.

Congratulations, webfusion, you just explained why Israel has no moral high ground to stand on.

[Mycroft]

Webfusion- you completaly, and I believe consciously, miss the point.

This is not about people fleeing poor economic conditions. This is not about people seeking a better life.

This is about people fleeing GENOCIDE. How much more clearer does this need to be spelled out?

If you were an Israeli arguing with other Israelis that this should be the policy of Israel, that would make a lot of sense. But given that you are a non-Israeli arguing to a lot of other non-Israelis, this is just weird.

I think it's great that Israel is granting refuge to those it is. It would be even greater if they granted refuge to even more people, but I don't see any special obligation on Israel that doesn't apply to any other country.

[Gurdur]

....I think Switzerland has accepted more Iraqi refugees than Britain.

So, for that matter, has Sweden; MANY more. A great many more than the USA, too.

It may well be that Denmark too has accepted still many more than Britain; in fact, Denmark airlifted them out (all those locals and their NOK who had worked with the Danish contingent in Iraq).

[webfusion]

Wow. I mean, wow.

Webfusion, read a freaking history book. The refusal of "civilized" countries to allow Jews fleeing the Nazis to immigrate is a black mark on the history of the United States, Great Britain, and the world in general. To try and claim otherwise displays a complete ignorance of history. Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis) for a particularly disgusting story.


From the Article:
The ship sailed for Europe, first stopping in England, where 288 of the passengers disembarked and were thus spared from the Holocaust. The remaining 619 passengers disembarked at Antwerp, Belgium (which at the time, was not occupied by the Third Reich).

My post, Cleon, specifically refers to the fact that "Jewish emigration was happening, prior and during WWII, including emigration to the USA, to Palestine, and to many other nations.
You may argue that it didn't happen at a rate high enough, or that the rate was limited by quotas, but the blame for the death of jews in Europe falls on those who perpetrated the genocide, not on those who maintained their internal policies of immigration."

I stand by that statement.


Israel is not going to open her doors wide-open to any large-scale ad-hoc non-jewish immigration, not from Darfur, not from Tibet, nor from Kalamazoo.

[Cleon]

I stand by that statement.

Then you're wrong. Sorry.

The West's unwillingness to allow Jewish refugees has been recognized and apologized for by every Western power--it's really odd that you try to whitewash it.


Israel is not going to open her doors wide-open to any large-scale ad-hoc non-jewish immigration, not from Darfur, not from Tibet, nor from Kalamazoo.Ah, yes. Racist Israel at its best, once again.

[FireGarden]

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005139

Although 85,000 Jewish refugees reached the United States between March 1938 and September 1939, due to American immigration restrictions on the number of immigrants this level of immigration was far below the number seeking refuge.

At the 32-country Evian Conference convened in 1938 to consider the plight of refugees, no country except the Dominican Republic was prepared to increase immigration quotas.

In 1939, both Cuba and the United States refused to admit over 900 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the St. Louis. The ship was forced to return to Europe where, ultimately, many of the passengers perished in concentration camps or killing centers.

[...] During World War II, even as reports of Nazi genocide filtered to the West, the U.S. Department of State failed to relax its strict limits on immigration. Despite British restrictions, limited numbers of Jews entered Palestine during the war through "illegal" immigration (Aliyah Bet) or other means. Great Britain itself limited its own intake of immigrants, though the British government did permit the entry of some 10,000 unaccompanied Jewish children in a special Kindertransport (Children's Transport) program. At the Allies' 1943 Bermuda Conference, no concrete proposals for rescue emerged.

[...] Officially neutral Switzerland took in approximately 30,000 Jews, but turned back thousands more at the border. Spain accepted a limited number of refugees and then speedily sent them on to the Portuguese port of Lisbon. From there, thousands managed to sail to the United States in 1940-1941, although thousands more were unable to obtain U.S. entry visas.

[...] Between 1945 and 1948, the British interned thousands of illegal immigrants to Palestine in detention camps on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus.

With the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Jewish refugees began streaming into that new sovereign state. Thanks to revised immigration policy, the United States admitted 400,000 DPs between 1945 and 1952, roughly 20 percent of them Jewish Holocaust survivors.

[Gurdur]

...Israel is not going to open her doors wide-open to any large-scale ad-hoc non-jewish immigration, not from Darfur, not from Tibet, nor from Kalamazoo.


Very funny, since the large-scale and Israel-encouraged immigration of Russians to Israel is made up of Russians whose connection to Jewishness is very often more than theoretical and dubious.

[webfusion]

Very funny, since the large-scale and Israel-encouraged immigration of Russians to Israel is made up of Russians whose connection to Jewishness is very often more than theoretical and dubious.


Point taken.

[ImaginalDisc]

I suppose it's true what Joel Rosenberg says, "People do not notice hypocrisy for the same reason that fish do not notice water."

[steverino]

-And yes, Africa and the Muslim countries are doing a pathetic job helping the refugees from Darfur... These nations don't run around yelling "Never Again".

That's because some of the leaders in these "Muslim countries" are plotting to create a genocide in Israel, and are running around yelling "Let's Do It Again."

[Polaris]

Why not arm them, train them, organize them, and send them to fight the jinjaweed? That's sorta what the US did for the Bosnian Croats in 1994-1995. Hired a bunch of contractors to help train their forces, then an offensive against the Bosnian Serbs led to a change in fortunes for the factions of Bosnia.

Why do these folks set upon by the jinjaweed have to be eternal victims? Why can't they be empowered to fight back?

Are these people the latest version of The Dispossessed?

DR

Because if they are allowed to fight back, then there's gonna be twice as much fighting.

[Darth Rotor]

Because if they are allowed to fight back, then there's gonna be twice as much fighting.
So?

Why are the Iraqis, Tamils, Taliban, and Chechens the only ones who get to have "fun" these days? What are you, some kind of spoilsport? (Did you note the facetiousness in that reply?)

I object to the insidious application of victim status applied to one side here, where empowerment might, after a few sharp skirmishes and some bloody noses in jinjaweed circles, create a different condition than "sheep ready for shearing" among the jinjaweed's selected prey. Yes, I know, it is not in the interests of the government in the Sudan to have a civil war, but if an unequal power balance is sustained, the predators won't be deterred from preying.

When the sheep draws a knife, as it were, and slashes the guts of a wolf, wolves in general may become more circumspect in attacking sheep.

DR

[Polaris]

So?

Why are the Iraqis, Tamils, Taliban, and Chechens the only ones who get to have "fun" these days? What are you, some kind of spoilsport? (Did you note the facetiousness in that reply?)

I object to the insidious application of victim status applied to one side here, where empowerment might, after a few sharp skirmishes and some bloody noses in jinjaweed circles, create a different condition than "sheep ready for shearing" among the jinjaweed's selected prey. Yes, I know, it is not in the interests of the government in the Sudan to have a civil war, but if an unequal power balance is sustained, the predators won't be deterred from preying.

When the sheep draws a knife, as it were, and slashes the guts of a wolf, wolves in general may become more circumspect in attacking sheep.

DR

It's a shame intonation doesn't translate online.

I would have noticed the facetiousness in your reply without the parenthetical - but I think you missed my facetiousness in the post of mine you replied to. A few jinjaweed rolling in the dust trying to keep their intestines from spilling out is an image that brings a smile to my face, as a matter of fact. Since the international community seems dedicated to wringing its hands and saying "oh how terrible" and not much else, arming the victims of the jinjaweed and teaching them how to kill those scum of the earth would have total support from me.

[Darth Rotor]

It's a shame intonation doesn't translate online.

My bad. :cool:

DR

[Polaris]

My bad. :cool:

DR

NP

[portlandatheist]

Why Israel? It's nowhere near Sudan.

http://www.worldpress.org/maps/maps/sudan.gif

Because Israelis are a lot nicer and accepting of immigrants. Also, many of them have a “soft spot” for people in their predicament. I don’t agree completely with the OP but I do think Israel should be as welcoming as they can to these refugees. I wish the US would be more welcoming to Iraqi refugees as well.

Then you're wrong. Sorry.

Ah, yes. Racist Israel at its best, once again.

Ah yes, you say Israel is “racist” for having more lenient immigration qualifications for Jews than non Jews? I suppose the same thing could be said about Japan being racist for treating Japanese differently than non Japanese with their immigration policy, are they just as “racist”? Such statements are absurd in the extreme. Israel is extremely multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial with equal protection under the law, can’t say the same for their neighbors.

[Cleon]

Yes, yes, heard it before. Save it.

[portlandatheist]

Yes, yes, heard it before. Save it.

For whatever its worth, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) defines anti-Semitism as:

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel

Source: http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

You make the claim that Israel is racist because their immigration policy favors Jews (once they are citizens, everyone has equal protection under the law). I’m just wondering if you feel the same way about Japan as you do Israel (or just about any other country for that matter). In other words, do you hold a double standard for Israel’s behavior in this regard or would you hold the same criticism for other “racist” immigration policies that we see across the globe? Is Israel a “racist” endeavor?

[Cleon]

Yes, yes, heard it before. Save it.

Apparently the message here was missed.

[Darth Rotor]

For whatever its worth, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
And three bucks might get you a cup of coffee and Starbucks.

Can you tell me who founded this center? Was it exiled Palestinians? Was it Hutus? Was in Armenians? Swedes? Brazillians?

Am I close?

DR

[Thunder]

i see nothing wrong with applying a double standard to israel...as israel demands that a double standard be applied to it. it wants to have nuclear waepons but not join the NPT. it wants billions in aid from the usa. it wants to enact its own version of apartheid in the west bank. it routinely discriminates against its non-jewish citizens. all this...while demanding that it be seen as a western style democracy.

israel indeed..demands a double standard..and thats exactly what they should get.

favoring jews in its immigration policy is not racist. this is a right that all nation states have.

but many of the other things israel does are indeed racist..and nothing should prevent them from getting the label they surely deserve.

[Darth Rotor]

favoring jews in its immigration policy is not racist. this is a right that all nation states have.
What, the right to favor jews in immigration status?
but many of the other things israel does are indeed racist..and nothing should prevent them from getting the label they surely deserve.
*sings*

Look for, the Yiddish label . . .

parky, PWD harms coherence. (Trust me, I have done it.)

DR

[portlandatheist]

And three bucks might get you a cup of coffee and Starbucks.

Can you tell me who founded this center? Was it exiled Palestinians? Was it Hutus? Was in Armenians? Swedes? Brazillians?

Am I close?

DR

Honestly, I'm not very familiar with it, I guess its now called "European Fundamental Rights Agency" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Fundamental_Rights_Agency

[Darth Rotor]

Honestly, I'm not very familiar with it, I guess its now called "European Fundamental Rights Agency" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Fundamental_Rights_Agency
OK, more Eurocracy, interesting charter.

Thanks.

DR

[portlandatheist]

it routinely discriminates against its non-jewish citizens.
I think this would depend on what you consider Israel's legitimate borders (a separate topic) and I would agree with you if we are speaking of the West Bank, but if we consider an Israeli city like Nazareth, the majority of which are ethnic Arabs and not Jews, I don't see the racism. They are mostly Muslim, and they have the same rights as their fellow Israelis(correct me if I'm wrong). They join the military, they vote, they practice their faith or lack thereof, etc. Are they discriminated against in some way for being non Jewish?

[webfusion]

I think this would depend on what you consider Israel's legitimate borders (a separate topic) and I would agree with you if we are speaking of the West Bank, but if we consider an Israeli city like Nazareth, the majority of which are ethnic Arabs and not Jews, I don't see the racism. They are mostly Muslim, and they have the same rights as their fellow Israelis(correct me if I'm wrong). They join the military, they vote, they practice their faith or lack thereof, etc. Are they discriminated against in some way for being non Jewish?

In Nazareth?
Sure, your assessment is accurate.

[portlandatheist]

i see nothing wrong with applying a double standard to israel...as israel demands that a double standard be applied to it.
Israel doesn't deserve to be treated differently than any other country, when Israel demands special treatment, Israel is wrong and its perfectly legitimate for you to call double standard where one exists. That's perfectly fair criticism. It's not fair to demand Israel to have different standards than you would expect from any other country. Two wrongs do not make a right. Reasonable and unreasonable behavior should be judged as such, not one standard for one nation, and a different standard for the other.

[UserGoogol]

Ah yes, you say Israel is “racist” for having more lenient immigration qualifications for Jews than non Jews? I suppose the same thing could be said about Japan being racist for treating Japanese differently than non Japanese with their immigration policy, are they just as “racist”? Such statements are absurd in the extreme. Israel is extremely multi cultural, multi religious, multi racial with equal protection under the law, can’t say the same for their neighbors.

Japan isn't really the best example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan) you could pick of a "not racist" country. They're actually quite a bit racist, as far as first world countries go.

[Dr Adequate]

And three bucks might get you a cup of coffee and Starbucks.

Can you tell me who founded this center? Was it exiled Palestinians? Was it Hutus? Was in Armenians? Swedes? Brazillians? I don't see your point, but for what it's worth, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia was established by the European Union, or the European Community as it was known back then before everyone realised how wussy that sounded.

"The EUMC was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (OJ L 151, 10 June 1997) which was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1652/2003 of 18 June 2003."

We Europeans are of course experts on racism and xenophobia, especially the Krauts and the Wops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/23/ngerm23.jpg

[Ziggurat]

i see nothing wrong with applying a double standard to israel...as israel demands that a double standard be applied to it. it wants to have nuclear waepons but not join the NPT.

You say that as if it's contradictory. But it isn't: if a country wanted to obtain nuclear weapons, not joining the NPT is exactly what it should have done. There's no double standard involved. So what the hell are you talking about? You're completely incoherent.

[Dr Adequate]

OK, more Eurocracy, interesting charter. If you guys ever manage to raise James Madison from the dead, please let us know. We'd like to borrow him.

[Thunder]

there are numerous ways in which israel discriminates against non-jews. education funding is one, the right to purchase state land is one, the legitimacy of anti-arab political parties in the knesset is another.

israel claims to be the only western liberal democracy in the middle east. and as such..it should get special support from the west. and at the same time, it trys to justify its nationalist views and extreme treatment of the palestinians by arguing "this is the middle east..why should we be expected to act any different then other middle east countries?"

so which is it? should we expect them to act like a liberal secular democracy...or a middle eastern dictatorship? they want it both ways..and they cant have it.

[webfusion]

...Israel wants it both ways..and they cant have it.


Sure we can. Watch and see...

[FireGarden]

there are numerous ways in which israel discriminates against non-jews. education funding is one,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4121695.stm

Established in 1997, it was the first mixed school in Israel to host fully integrated classrooms teaching in both Arabic and Hebrew.

The Hand-in-Hand enterprise, of which the Galil school is a part, runs three schools. Other branches are in Jerusalem and in the Arab village of Kfar Kara, in Wadi Ara.

Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population, but the schooling system has traditionally remained rigorously segregated, with separate languages and curricula for Jewish and Arab students.

The following is from 2001,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm

The Israeli government operates two separate school systems, one for Jewish children and one for Palestinian Arab children. Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children colors every aspect of the two systems. Education Ministry authorities have acknowledged that the ministry spends less per student in the Arab system than in the Jewish school system.

[...] Palestinian Arab children attend schools with larger classes and fewer teachers than do those in the Jewish school system, with some children having to travel long distances to reach the nearest school. Arab schools also contrast dramatically with the larger system in their frequent lack of basic learning facilities like libraries, computers, science laboratories, and even recreation space. In no Arab school did we see specialized facilities, such as film editing studios or theater rooms that we saw as a sign of excellence in some of the Jewish schools we visited. Palestinian Arab children with disabilities are particularly marginalized, with special education teachers and facilities often unavailable in the system, despite the highly developed special education programs of the Jewish school system.

And from 2004:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/12/isrlpa9228.htm

The construction of new classrooms in Palestinian Arab communities has been largely frozen since 2003, despite an estimated shortage of 1,500 classrooms. Existing schools are often in poor repair, and lack basic learning facilities like libraries, computers, science laboratories and recreation space. Many Arab communities lack kindergartens for children aged three to four, although almost all children in the Jewish public education sector are enrolled in such kindergartens by age three. Palestinian Arab children with disabilities and Bedouin children in the Negev Desert are particularly disadvantaged and receive comparatively less funding and fewer services.

There are charities in Israel that work to put things right. Look up the AbrahamFund.

http://www.abrahamfund.org/main/siteNew/

[portlandatheist]

Thanks for the information FireGarden, I stand corrected. I strongly believe that Jews and Arabs(and others) in Israel deserve equal treatment and opportunity. Fortunately people are working hard to make that happen.
parky76: yes, we should expect them to act like a liberal secular democracy, not a Mideastern dictatorship, they can't/shouldn't have it both ways. That's why we are right to criticize the racist, ultra nationalists of Israels far right but it would be unfair to characterize Israel as a whole by these extreme groups and these groups should be marginalized.