[anasawad]

Because Israel is special and the nature of statehood and humanity as whole doesn't apply to it ?

Don't worry about the US protection to Israel, the US is going down well before Israel.

[danholo]

What is the 'nature' of statehood?

[Istanbuller]

Because Israel is special and the nature of statehood and humanity as whole doesn't apply to it ?

They have heavy weapons and weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear ones. Mini- super state.

[Rich]

What we need to do is to root out all those traitors within the establishment who support mass immigration into our countries but oppose mass non Jewish immigration into Israel. Those who oppose restricting Muslims immigration into our countries but support Israel controlling Muslim immigration. And finally those that oppose eviction of Muslims from our countries but support the mass eviction of Muslims from Israel that has taken place since the second world war.

Ted Cruz wants to do five things on the first day of his Presidency. One is to rip up the deal with Iran, another is recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capitals. There's little doubt who Ted Cruz's first master is.

[wat0n]

Why six million refugees, Rei? I actually think Israel should take in some Syrian refugees, but not six million.

For instance, the EU has received around 2.9 million first-time asylum applications since 2011 (when the Syrian civil war began), less than half than your proposal and which includes applicants from all over the world (not only Syrians or Muslims). In terms of the percentage of the EU population, this represents 0.57% of the combined population of all EU member states together (508 million).

The 6 million Syrian refugees you mention represent some 70% of the Israeli population of 8.46 million. Certainly Jews, Israeli or otherwise, are not asking Europe to take in some 355 million people (around 70% of the EU countries combined population).

[Political Interest]

Yes

The Israelis are part of the region. It is far easier for Syrians to reach Israel than Europe.

If there were a war in Europe the refugees would go to safer European countries and they would be accepted. Israel as a Middle Eastern state should do the same and accept refugees from its neighbour.

Saudi Arabia might also like to start accepting refugees rather than forcing Syrians to make a dangerous journey to far away lands.

[danholo]

Israeli opinions, a sample from the street:

[youtube]pg47QkaUL_U[/youtube]

[anasawad]

All states will inevitably go through phases of rise and decline, in all aspects, military, economy, socially, etc.
When states or nations in general are secure while at the top, they should be working to secure them selves while declining to survive.
That comes through foreign affairs and alliances in the direct environment and surrounding of the nation.
The difference between nations that survive enough to get the cycle back up again and the nations that falls down and no longer exist is how well they work for that stage of the natural life of a state.

If Israel continued the conflict and aggression against its surroundings, then when it goes through that decline, it will not survive enough to get back up. Since as history clearly shows, when one state decline, anther rise in its place.
When you grow hatred against you. You put yourself in a place of constant threat as once you grow weak, you'll most certainly be destroyed by competing forces.
Israel is growing hatred against it.


For Ted Cruz and removing the deal with Iran.
2 points. 1- Thats not how the system works and its not that easy. 2- He just like Trump will only push the US further down by doing that.

They have heavy weapons and weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear ones. Mini- super state.

And their enemies have heavy weapons and considerably strong. Their enemies include far more than just Palestine and Lebanon. And also have access to nuclear weapons so that option is not on the table as using it would mean the end of Israel, literally.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Israel is growing hatred against it.

Israel defending itself=Israel is growing hatred against it.

according to anasawad logic Israel should lay down before its enemies not gonna happen

also Israel have nukes aimed on every major Arab city in the Middle East FYI

[anasawad]

Israel defending it self against scary scary children. woooooooooooooh, terrifying.
Israel occupying Palestinians= Israel growing hatred against it.
Israel killing thousands of civilians in occupied territories and kicking its people out= Israel growing hatred against it.
Israel assassinating leaders of other nations= Israel growing hatred against it.
Israel oppressing people= Israel growing hatred against it.

None of those include self defense. You know self defense usually comes when someone is attacking you, not when someone tries to respond to you attacking hem. As far as basic logic.

And seriously ? Israel has nukes aimed at every major city in the mid east ?
That is very smart i must say.
I mean Israel can drop nukes against Iranian cities which has the same tribes who expands into Pakistan and has access to Pakistani nukes and trigger a nuclear response against the tiny Israel. VERY smart.
It can also drop nukes against Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Damascus, Amman, etc and die along with them by either the explosion of radiation. Amazingly smart.
It can also drop nukes against the capitals of gulf states, fuck up world economy, and get everyone in the world to wipe it out. Anther smart move.
Or perhaps it can drop a nuke over Mekkah, and get 1 and half billion people going to holy war against it, that if they attacked by knives it would still lead to a full extermination of Israel. Incredibly smart.

I hate to break it to you this hard, but this is not the 1940s. Weapons with devastating effects are actually available everywhere, and can be built by almost all the nations that are considerably hostile to Israel, and many already have it.
And anther simple fact you should have been able to figure out. Weapons are usually not stored in major cities, so when you nuke a city, you're not actually destroying the country, you just make them and everyone allied or friendly to them go on an all out war against you and only stop when you're completely gone.
Now lets assume Israel did start a nuclear war, for what ever reason. Israel, with 8-9 million people and about 40-50 thousand square kilometers land. By modern weapons which everyone has, how much time does it take for that land with everyone in it to be completely cleansed ? 2 hours ? a day ?
I mean you do realize that if you nuked the mid east, you're declaring an all out war against ALL Muslims, and that if you used all your nukes against them at once, you're still not going to kill them all, and also going to bump into 4 nuclear powers right ?

[skinster]

Good trolling, Rei. I approve.


I voted other though; given how Israel treats African refugees, I don't think it'd be safe for any others to be sent there.

[redcarpet]

Syria isn't an African state, you're lawyer's tactics are brazen.

[danholo]

Good trolling, Rei. I approve.


I voted other though; given how Israel treats African refugees, I don't think it'd be safe for any others to be sent there.

Had an African refugee in my class who was treated very well. On the other hand, I'm sure he was a minority. Many are treated as 'infiltrators'/'criminals' and thrown to this prisons.

[The Sabbaticus]

Good trolling, Rei. I approve.


I voted other though; given how Israel treats African refugees, I don't think it'd be safe for any others to be sent there.

Meanwhile the 'Rohingya' are allegedly the most 'persecuted minority on the face of this planet', yet neighbouring Muslim-majority Bangladesh continues to keep its borders closed to them.

How many refugees did Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and Iran take in since they ignited and fuelled the civil war in Syria?

[Hindsite]

I do not think it is a good idea for Israel to accept Syrian refugees unless they can determine the refugees are Jews. After all Israel was establish after WWII to be a safe haven for the Jews as a Jewish state.

[Rei Murasame]

Are European nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Europeans? Are Asian nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Asians? Or is that totally not allowed under this post-1945 politically correct system of inconsistency and madness?

It always amazes me how people are able to apply logics to the Jewish state that they would never apply anywhere else.

[Hindsite]

Are European nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Europeans? Are Asian nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Asians? Or is that totally not allowed under this post-1945 politically correct system of inconsistency and madness?

It always amazes me how people are able to apply logics to the Jewish state that they would never apply anywhere else.

I believe that should be left up to each country to decide as they see fit. If the people of Israel want to accept Syrian refugees, then that is their decision to make. However, I was just giving my view on what I believe would be in their best interest.

[The Sabbaticus]

Actually, I do apply the same logic to European nations.

In fact, recently I read a Dutch article on the history of the UN refugee convention, and only the Western world had originally signed off on this document. Asian nations did not, particularly India and Pakistan, over the definition of refugees in relation to the partition of Colonial India. China apparently followed later, but we all know they apply it haphazardly, e.g. in the case of North Korean refugees.

The rest of the world followed later, but some only to the later protocol.

Also, only Yemen is a signatory party on the Arabian peninsula. Surprise, surprise. Meanwhile no one is fleeing towards Iran, despite it being a signatory party. I wonder why.

[wat0n]

Are European nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Europeans? Are Asian nations allowed to be 'safe havens' for Asians? Or is that totally not allowed under this post-1945 politically correct system of inconsistency and madness?

It always amazes me how people are able to apply logics to the Jewish state that they would never apply anywhere else.

Well, I'm amazed at how you suggest Israel should welcome a wave of refugees equivalent to 70% of its population while it seems Europe should not.

I think it's worthwhile to take into account that the African refugees skinster mentioned - and who are being treated harshly but not too differently from how, say, Australia deals with refugees - already represented around 0.5-0.6% of the population of Israel back in 2012. I am not sure if this proportion has held since then.

Even then I think Israel should take Syrians in, maybe some 50,000 Syrian refugees or so subject of course to a throughout security check and the like. Israel could actually reap some benefits from doing so.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, I'm amazed at how you suggest Israel should welcome a wave of refugees equivalent to 70% of its population while it seems Europe should not.

Well, I'm only being as reasonable as can be expected given the rubric being dealt with here. After all, by anti-racist logic, no one should be haggling over the percentages anyway. To haggle over percentages is to problematise the migrants and assume that 'helping people is a burden'. By anti-racist logic, there would actually be no upper ceiling to the number of migrants that should be accepted, especially if you consider that the existence of ethno-states is supposedly 'morally reprehensible' in the first place. Haggling over percentages as though there is a number of migrants which would be 'too many outsiders', is an extension of the idea of ethno-states because it is based on the assumption that there is a way of life and alleles within the host nation which deserves special protection.

I'm only taking the anti-racist idea to its logical conclusion and applying it to an example nation, in this case, Israel. Suddenly everyone has objections, suddenly there is talk about safe havens, states that have ethnic character, and haggling over percentages. It's really interesting.

There is also a notable lack of European social democrats in this thread, which is another interesting factor. Usually all of them are in these kinds of threads calling for the abolition of the concept of ethno-states and all the logic that flows from it. This time there is a kind of relative silence. I'm wondering why.