They had free elections in 2006, when Hamas won. Oddly enough, nothing since then.
What is religously âfundamentalistâ about their immigration policy, pray tell? I know what you think, but I also know that youâre wrong.
the close to 6 million Jews who live there would seem to have some sort of legitimate tie, you know, like human beings do to the lands in which they live? Like Palestinians?
Who cares about who lived where 2,000 or 60 years ago? Justice demands rights based on where people live now.
there is no particular reason to consider it âone land.â These borders are all simply the products historical developments and political decisions. Prior to 1918, the land that some people call Israel and others Palestine was divided into about half a dozen different Ottoman provinces, none of which were called Israel or Palestine (interestingly, none of the people who lived there called it âPalestineâ until the early 20th centuryâArabs and Jews each had other terms for it, and Palestine was primarily used by Western Christians)
It was only in 1918 with the arrival of the British that this became âone landâ in the form of the Mandate adopted a few years later.
This is not to delegitimise the rights of Palestinian Arabs or pretend they didnât exist, but the fact is that speaking of this as âone landâ from an Arab perspective is a fairly recent phenomenon, as most of the Arab residents there prior to 20th century were neither organized by the state nor self-identified as living in one discrete geographic entity.
No, I canât find fundamentalist states that support Israel at all.
Jewishy is to Jewish as truthiness is to truth? Thanks for the non-explanation explanation. Maybe when you have some time off from spray-painting swastikas on synagogues, you can come up with something a little less evasive.
It is âfundamentalistâ in that only one âfundamentalâ religion is guaranteed full rights (including immigration) in Israel.
I canât make you understand something you donât want to understand. You wear your ignorance like a halo.
Contrary to popular misconception, anybody with a Jewish grandparentâeven if they arenât Jewishâmay qualify for the Law of Return. The Law dates back to the early days of the state and was a response to the Nuremberg Laws; i.e., Israel didnât want to be in the position of rejecting people who were too Jewish for the Nazis but not Jewish enough for the Jewish state.
For all others, there are processes for naturalization, as with any country, and they apply to Arabs as well. I donât believe that at this point Israel grants citizenship through marriage.
I am pretty sure the Ottomans considered it âone landâ for many hundreds of years before 1918.
Youâve revealed your bigotry here with all the grace of a circus clown pulling down his baggy pants. Thanks for the chat.
No, they didnât. You donât have to believe me, just look at an Ottoman map from the period. There was no province of Palestine, or any such thing. As I said, that region was divided up in to 5 or 6 provinces, the borders of which at times included areas that are now Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Just do a google image search for âottoman map palestineâ it should be the second image.
The laws of naturalization in Israel are beyond racist, Iâll give you that.
The fact that many Palestinians and Jewish Israelis share the same Semitic âgeneticâ heritage is not lost on the world.
It was part of the âOttoman Empireâ, one land.
Your wisdom will never be appreciated.
Please read what I wroteâI said it was not a discrete geographical entity. The people living in the Sanjak of Akko had as much in common with people living in the Sanjak of Damscus as they did with the Mutassarifllik of Jerusalem. they did not identify as being member so the same land, other, perhaps, than the empire, which means that their identity was not as âPalestinians,â or even âArabs,â but as Ottomans.
You were the one who said that this was âone landâ So when you said that, did you mean the entire Ottoman Empire? Are you advocating for a Pan Arab state? Otherwise, you were clearly mistaken.
Arguably, they are not âracistâ at all, as that implies a certain immutability.
Iâm not arguing for it, but in fact, any Palestinian who got a legitimate halachic conversion would qualify for the Law of Return.
I see where you lean on the Tibet question . . . .
I am saying that that âone landâ had relative peace for hundreds of years until the arrival of European Zionist Colonizers and their British supporters.
I believe I said âBeyond Racistâ since they are willing to discriminate against their own genetic relatives. Israel, does, have that going for them.
If you are into that kind of thing.