Naw, it was ruined by Shot from Guns way before that. Well, as far as a pit thread can be ruined.
So how has that being working out for you?
Well, I’m thinking about all the narrow-minded people in my religio-ethnic group.
I am no longer a Congregationalist of Swiss Descent.
There. carry on.
So what the hell are you doing in Saudi Arabia?
You might want to read the rules of the road extremely carefully before you go calling me an Anti-Semite.
I did not say I was Anti-Semetic. I said I no longer am a Jew.
I stand by that OP. The lunatic fringe in Israel that has pushed for this abhorrent law has only themselves to blame when they are measured up against the Nazis and found to be only slightly lacking in form if not content.
It is despicable in the extreme.
ETA: What SteveG1 said.
If you are not Jewish, why did my statement bother you? And, are you denying the validity of the statement?
While many first world nations have these sorts of debates, Israel is different because unlike (for example) the US or the UK or Australia it permits anyone of a certain religion to become a citizen without question. It is an unashamedly bigoted nation. Undoubtedly at a practical level the US and the UK and Australia (again, for example) have very significant bigotry, but not having explicitly bigoted laws is a step in the right direction. The equivalency that posters above posit is false.
I swear to og. Will someone please invent a time machine that can go backwards so we can take out Abraham, or whoever started this whole mess. Abrahamic religions, their divisions thereof, and what qualifies a person as membership of them have been the cause of more fussing fighting, wars and general ass-hattery than anything else I can think of in history.
Israel is arguably the source of the majority of the strife in the middle east.
Changing it, slowly but profoundly.
Nonsense. There is no “bigotry” in having a safe-haven law, favouring persons of a certain national ethnicity dispersed by a diaspora; that is simply part and parcel of historical reality - that some groups found themselves, as a result of cicumstance, in unique trouble. Moreover, Israel is far from alone in having such laws: many countries do, including many first-world ones. Here’s a list:
For example, Germany:
The German law, like the Israeli law, was a result of the “displaced persons” (DP)problem following WW2: that millions of people had, in effect, no citizenship and no-where to go, as a result of war; moreover, in some cases, such as the Jews, moillions had died because no-one wanted to take them in.
The “bigotry” here lies in singling out Israel for particular condemnation for a problem (dealing with illegal immigration) which is common to all, and compounded by the historical ignorance which uniquely denounces Israel for having a ‘safe haven’ law created as a result of historical circumstance - again, very common in the world.
The absurdity of blaming all Jews (not just Israelis, but Jews) for this, demonstrated by the OP, is, of course, just icing on the cake of ignorant and stupid.
If you mother isn’t a Jew, you have nothing to worry about.
The ‘right of return’ under discussion is unique, in being afforded to people with no material connection to the territory.
Shhh - you’re not supposed to say that. They’re perennial victims, and that’s all we need to know.
Not so. Read the link - most if not all “rights of return” are afforded to people with no material connections to the territory.
Their motivations for importing cheap labor without giving them any route to becoming citizens, however, could certainly be argued to stem from a desire to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.
Yeah, how dare I call someone out for being a bigot. Shame on me.
You said that you were no longer a Jew… because you were so ashamed of the actions of a *minority *that you’re judging *the entire disparate group *based on the activities of those few.
But oh no, you’re not a bigot at all.
Hey guys, I heard that a Black guy robbed someone yesterday. I’ve decided to be scared of and angry at all Black people now. But you can’t call me a bigot, because a Black guy *really did *rob someone.
Indeed; this tends to be the nature of the immigration problem everywhere - rich first world types want the cheap nannies, fruit pickers, road workers etc. from the third world, but they want them to go home after they are done and not stay, because they aren’t ‘like us’, don’t ‘have our values’, will ‘swamp real (whatevers)’.
Forgetting that once upon a time their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were the “cheap nannies, fruit pickers, road workers etc.”.
Me? I’ve not had to go yet. 
Russian and Ugandan Jews seem pretty happy with it lately.
While I haven’t done an absolutely comprehensive reading, ISTM the list on Wikipedia comprises:
1/ 2nd and 3rd world nations with bigotted immigration laws I wouldn’t personally want to hold up as an example of appropriate behaviour.
2/ nations which give a right of return to people with recent antecedents who were citizens of that nation (grandparents or better, mostly)
3/ nations who allow persons or fairly recent descendents of persons who were displaced in living memory to return.
A first world nation that says anyone at all has a right of return if they are Jewish even if they have as much connection to Israel as I do to Charlemagne has gone well beyond “we allow people who once lived here or are close descendents of such people to become citizens” and is into “we are bigotted against anyone who isn’t Jewish”.
I really don’t know why you’d be arguing. ISTM people on the other side of this argument want it both ways. They wouldn’t for a second deny that Israel is a Jewish state but don’t seem to want to get to grips with what that means.
It’s like saying “I’m not racist because I don’t single out black people for discrimination. I just discriminate against everyone who isn’t white”.
Huh? The very example I specifically quoted - Germany - doesn’t fit any of your categories, so I can safley say you are incorrect.
Germany is not a “2nd or 3rd world country”. Ethnic Germans living in Poland were not “recent descendants of citizens”.
I guess modern Germany is bigoted for allowing ethnic Germans who were displaced by WW2 citizenship?
Nonsense.
People on your side of the debate are simply ignorant of modern history, what “nationalism” has meant, and what bigotry really means.
Israel is a “Jewish state” as Germany is a “German state” as Greece is a “Greek state”. Yet people on your side never rally against any of the other countries in the world which self-identify as nationalist nation-states - only Israel. You never “get to grips” with what singling out one country out of all the others “means”.
No, people on your side of the debate are analogous to those who complain that all forms of affirmative action are “racist”, ignorant of or ignoring the historical context of racism.
Rights of return are designed to ameliorate the bigotry imposed by others which deprives members of a particular ethnicity of a home - for example, by forcibly expelling or killing them (as happened to the “ethnic Germans” in Eastern Europe following WW2, and as happened to the Jews following WW2 and several times since).
Certainly, in the perfect world everyone would sink kumbayah together and ethnicity would not matter in the slightest. Unfortunately there are nasty people who don’t believe this, who in fact expell or murder those of different ethnicities. Again, in the perfect world, everyone would be happy to let these poor expelled folk settle in their countries - but that, too, doesn’t happen.
Since we do not live in the perfect world, the next best thing is for “rights of return” to exist. Perhaps these mechanisms have outlived their usefullness - or perhaps not.
Why are you specifically criticizing the Arab League countries? How many Palestinian refugees our western wealthy countries are taking in?
Well…I was irritated at the dera