My reponse to Willy’s questions regarding the Israeli immigration policy is… what’s your point? Did you apply and were turned down? They wouldn’t let you play on their golf courses? Do you know of anyone who has suffered because of this policy (I can only think of Meyer Lansky, for some reason)? If not, then why are you complaining? I’m skittish about complaints regarding the policies of other nations unless genuine suffering can be demonstrated. It’s not enough just to say something is wrong. You’ll need more evidence than nitpicking the Isreali right of return.
It’s easy to find flaws in the policies of any government and relatively speaking, this one seems pretty minor in light of the policies and practices of the neighbors. And that’s not even taking terrorism into account. The criminal justice systems of Egypt and Syria are not exactly kind and gentle.
So Jews have a place to go. Good. I’m certainly not proud of my own country’s history in erecting barriers (“None is too many”) to Jewish immigration before and during WW2.
Jewish ideology a threat? Sure, if you think a bunch of people who like literacy, intellectual pursuit and self-reliance are threatening. Better watch those Asian whiz kids, too.
Brian ,
Maybe I am wrong but it seems that the ideals of Israel and the ideals of Arabs are at the brink of putting a large part of the rest of the world into a position of choosing sides and making war. The right of return policy is just one example, from one side, of the kind of religious / race preference that is at the root of this all. A Palestinian, born in what is Israel, does not have the freedom to visit his homeland that is extended to people who are three or four of five generations from having ever been to Israel. None the less Israel, extends rights of return to anyone, anywhere in the world that meets their religious / racist criteria while denying the same to their very neighbors. The neighbors aren’t winning any prizes either. Also Brian, I am not refering to criminals and the justice system, I am refering to law obiding, civilized people.
Jewish Idealogy a threat? Sure, if you think weapons of mass destruction in the hands of religious racist is a threat. And while we are at it, lets do all we can to keep these weapons out of the hands of the other religious racist in the mix. Using religious / racist reasons to propogate war is not acceptable. If anyone has figured this out it should be Israel.
All right, tom, let’s put your cite and my cite together, and we have an answer about naturalization in Israel. According to your cite, to be naturalized, one must be “entitled to reside in Israel permanently and have settled or intend to settle in Israel.”
My cite states “A non-Jew may apply for permanent residence status if the applicant can show special reasons for wishing to live in Israel. The granting of such status is at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior and is rather rare. Christian clergy are the most common example for obtaining this status.”
To be naturalized outside the Law of Return, you must have the right to reside in Israel and such right is at the complete discretion of the Minister of the Interior and is rather rare.
So, the Minister of the Interior may prevent a non-Jew from becoming an Israeli citizen, but cannot stop a Jew from becoming an Israeli citizen.
Again, tom, I’m passing no judgment on the Law of Return. Exclusionary does not necessarily mean “bad”. To apply US values for a moment, discrimination based on religion or ethnicity is permissible if it significantly advances a compelling governmental interest. If this criteria applied in Israel, the Law of Return may very well pass muster.
And perhaps the dispute we are having here is one of terms. Arguably, the Law of Return is not exclusionary. But Israeli immigration law as a whole is.
Though some may think this has no further relevance, AFAIK the reason for the Right of Return being created originally was the immigration problems the Holohcaust showed existed.
The numbers are really and truly horrifying. Pretty much all countries had immigration quotas (for Jews) that were extremely small. Canada had an anti-Semitic Immigration minister at the time, so we weren’t much help.
Ships that made it to North America full of Jews were sent back, like the St. Louis. Many more Jews could get out than we thought, but no one would take them.
If Jews are persecuted anywhere in the world, they can be assured there is a place (although not terribly safe, right now) that they can go. No one will turn them away or talk about quotas. That is why the Right of Return policy exists. Discriminatory towards non-Jews? Maybe a little. Necessary? Yeah.
Discriminatiry towards Jews? Maybe a little. Necessary? Yeah. Laurange , If you can see that these kinds of immigration quotas hurt Jews in a big way 50 years ago, why would you wish to support the same sanctions against other people?
LaurAnge goggles at how her point was missed entirely
Israel has no sanctions against people, as far as I know. They have a special provision to allow Jews to have a haven from persecution. The quotas instituted by American and European countries were very specific things: they would decide exactly how many Jews were allowed in per year. VERY few. Actually, a Carribean country (I can’t remember which) allowed more Jews in over the course of the war than Canada did.
How is this in any way like Israel’s immigration policy?
Um, I fail to follow why this was necessary. The West knew that Hitler was killing Jews, why was it necessary to refuse them refugee status?
But you just said it was necessary. How can it now be such a problem if you basically supported it in 1943?
Do you care to comment on the fact that none of the other Arab nations are willing to accept Palestinians? Remember, they were kicked out of Jordon as well.
AHHHH…yeah…persecution…a haven from…in the middle of a host of Arab nations? Amidst suicide bombings and aggression since its inception? A haven from persecution? It is a haven for persecution. It is one of the most likely places in the world for Jews to be persecuted for their racist / religious practices. The safe haven argument is sooo ironic. If Jews need a safe haven they should negotiate a squat of land somewhere else. If they want to be near their holy places then they should learn to share and make every effort to overcome their own racial / religious ideals as well as helping their neighbors to overcome theirs.
At least these nations had the fortitude to say exactly what their policy was. Israel policy is based upon your race and religion. If you aren’t Jewish by one of these standards, your admittance is completely left to the discretion of the Religious state. Do you not see the irony in Israel making prisoners of people based upon their race / religion? Forcing them into refugee camps and denying them access to citizenship on racial / religious / discretionary grounds?
Telemark, The “necessary” comment was meant in utter sarcasm. It was no more necessary for Canada to reject people on racial / religious grounds than it is for Israel or Jordan or Syria or anyone else. Sarcasm dude.
In almost every state, immigration is left to the discretion of the state. The US does it…to legally immigrate, you need to prove that you’re healthy, will contribute to the society, and won’t be a drain on it. And, even if you fulfill the requirements, only a limited number of people are allowed in each year.
Israel isn’t the only nation to grant automatic citizenship because of ancestry, either. Ireland does it. If your parent or grandparent was born in Ireland, you can claim Irish citizenship, even if the parent or grandparent left. I believe Germany has a similar law.
Yes and any people living here illegally are the targets of military strikes and we regularly bulldoze their places of dwelling and strip them of any and all human rights. NOT. We work vigorously with refugees to make a place for them here where thay can and do become productive citizens without regard to their race / religion.
And these countries should also closely examine the repercusions of using inherent rights as a part of national policy.
Well, no, we deport people living here illegally. At any rate, the West Bank and Gaza Strip aren’t part of Israel…they’re land taken from Jordan and Egypt respectively that is occupied by Israel, since 1967. Any refugee camps that exist were not set up by Israel, but by Jordan and Egypt. Of course, the easiest way to make the Palestinians citizens would be to annex the West Bank and Gaza, but I don’t think the Palestinians would stand for that. I get the impression that most Palestinians don’t want to be citizens of Israel. They want their own state.
Don’t conflate the Law of Return with the Palestinian problem…they’re two different issues. If Israel abolished the Law of Return today, the Palestinian problem would still exist.
I have to say that you have really oversimplified the issue here, Sweet Willy. Israeli immigration policy is a consequence of undeniable history, and it will stay like it is. It cannot become more open to its Arab neighbors because it would destroy the state within a few weeks. Its exclusionary immigration policies are necessary, not that unusual, and still more inclusionary than any of its neighbors.
But I really have to take issue with this line:
Israel does know how to share its holy sites. Their has been a Muslim Waqf presiding over Temple Mount since Israel captured it in 1967. Israel has guaranteed Arab prayer rights there in all but the most extreme circumstances. Israel has preserved Muslim holy sites and allowed them to be expanded. Compare that, please, to any Jewish site under Arab rule right now. Compare that to the Old City of Jerusalem between 1948-1967, when it was under Jordanian rule. Compare it to the synagogue in Jericho, to the Tomb of Joseph. Hey, just for shits and giggles, compare it to the current mosque construction project basically on top of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
It seems to me that the Israelis are not the ones with the problem sharing.
What might be the American response if, for example a percentage of Mexicans regularly committed terrorist acts against U.S. citizens, backed by a substantial percentage of Mexican immigrants who felt that we had illegally confiscated their land and should be driven out - and further, if the U.S. was closely surrounded on all sides by hostile Hispanic nations, some of whom had recently launched military action against the U.S. or given aid to anti-U.S. terrorists?
Israel and the U.S. are in entirely different circumstances. It should be possible to discuss allegations of wrongdoing in the Mideast without indulging in pointless hyperbole.
Your cite specifically referred to “permanent resident status” which (in the U.S. and Canada, at least, so I am projecting it onto Israel) is wholly separate from naturalization. Your site is devoted to providing legal assistance to people moving to Israel and my (wholly unsubstantiated) assumption is that they do not even mention naturalization for non-Jews simply because they never encounter any non-Jews applying for citizenship.
My site provides nothing more than a general outline of Israeli naturalization laws and I am pointing out (with nothing more than an argument from absence) that the section dealing with non-Jews who are not covered by separate special situations does not mention any specific barriers or obligations.
Therefore, my position is that no one currently posting to this thread knows what the exact rules regarding non-Jews applying for citizenship are. They could be prohibitively bound in red tape. They could have all sorts of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim or anti-Gentile regulations embedded in them, for all I know. They might accept anyone who shows up at their doorstep.
Barring evidence, I suggest that claims that the Jews do have a restrictive policy on naturalization (mild, moderate, severe, or extreme) are premature specualtion.
As long as they are white Europeans fleeing Soviet oppression.
I suspect that the survivors of the Mariel boatlift might have a different view of how hard we work to “make a place” for them.
All those Haitians that got dumped back in their own country for the TonTon Macoute to attack with machetes were probably thankful for our help.
The Guatemalans who have been shipped home to the arms of the death squads that we trained and funded were, I’m sure, thankful that we believe we did it without regard to race or religion.
And, of course, there is the periodic case of the U.S. citizen who has been rounded up and unceremoniously dumped in Yucatan because the INS decided that he “had” to be an illegal alien based on his appearance and ability to speak Spanish.
Jackmanii , I did not bring the immigration policy of other counrties into this. I am taking Israels policy for what it is worth at face value. Others have insisted on comparative scenarios where they assume the lesser of two evils is somehow still OK in the grand scheme of things. Direct your comments elsewhere. I am only defending my position based on what is thrown out there.
What rights to travel or visit holy sites have you seen curbed in Israel? The only restriction that I recall is that Jewish Israelis are urged to not go to the Dome of the Rock, as that would be a provocation. Certainly, Muslims regularly travel to that site.
.