Israel tears down 80 year old hotel to make way for Jews ONLY

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let's count the button-pushing in the subject line.

Israel by which we mean the entire country at the behest of the government.

tears down "News of appalling destruction from Palestine!"

80 year old It's old, so it's good. Case closed.

hotel It's in Palestine, you know, the one that rejected Joseph and Mary?

to make way for Jews ONLY It would have been cool if it was "Hamas ONLY".

 

[Thunder]

And "Only Polish Americans" excludes all of those folks and Italians, too. But it's certainly not morally the same as saying "Whites only".

ahh...so discriminating based on nationality and ethnicity and religion is ok..

but discriminating based on race is NOT ok?

what's the difference?

bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.


...and to state for the record (again), I am against any state, country, city, town, village, hamlet, allowing any housing, educational, employment, business discrimination...based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, nationality.

that includes Iran, Palestine, Israel, Germany, the USA, New Zealand, France, Ethiopia, etc etc etc.

do we now all understand by point of view on this issue? Good.



....now, as for Skeptic and Bigjelampro- do you support the right of Israeli apartment complexes, towns, villages, etc...to discriminate based on ethnicity and/or religion?

for example: "this housing complex shall be for Arabs/Jews/Christians only". Are you ok with that?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Hey, I politely asked, no need to get snippy.

Thanks for the evidence.

Can't interpret text as having any sort of formality to it since as of late, or actually most of the time on this forum, responders by and large have been abrasive. Sorry if I interpreted your response as falling into that category.

No on both counts. I interpreted the word "Judaization" in the context of "creating facts on the ground". When you (let) move in enough Jewish settlers on occupied territory, you can then claim at the conference table that that parcel of land should belong to Israel. Mind, East Jerusalem is still occupied territory: Israel may have said it annexed it, but no single state has recognized that.

Jerusalem, as in E. J'lem at least, is disputed territory and can't be widely labeled as occupied based on the artificial and voided armistice line drawn by Jordan. Sure, there's a call, retroactively, for an independent Palestinian state only after the fact, but this doesn't make this artificial and voided armistice line transferrable to the Palestinians, no matter if the Jordanians tried so in 1988.

Point of the matter is, Jews at some point did reside in the places in question, so if you're going by the above definition, might as well stick a "re-" to the front of it.

The Palestinian leadership, however, have been used the term "Judaization" as adopted from the Soviet use of the term with a tinge of alarmist Islamist, just as the Islamic uhmmah by and large have adopted the Soviet post-67 use of 'Apartheid' to Israel.

 

[bigjelmapro]

....now, as for Skeptic and Bigjelampro- do you support the right of Israeli apartment complexes, towns, villages, etc...to discriminate based on ethnicity and/or religion?

for example: "this housing complex shall be for Arabs/Jews/Christians only". Are you ok with that?

This was answered ad nauseum already as pertaining to the 20 apartments being built here to cater to religious Jews, as it is a right to have housing that caters to specific needs/beliefs/etc.

Pigeon holing and alarmist drivel averted, yet again.

 

[Mycroft]

So long as we are clear that accepting that doesn't mean I support it.


I'm not OK with it, but I wouldn't start a thread here about it either. That would be an issue for Germans.

I also think it's important to distinguish between creating a community and excluding people.

If someone wanted to buy or build an apartment building and only rent it to Christians so that all the tenants could live together in Christian fellowship, waking up in the morning praising Jesus with their breakfast before going off to work and then having bible study together in the evening before bed time...why shouldn't they? I wouldn't want to live there personally, but if someone else wanted to be Christian and felt that kind of environment would be good for them, then I'd be the one doing the discriminating if I prevented them from creating it.

It's like the Girl Scouts. Its purpose is to create an environment where girls can do girly things with other girls. If you look at it as being discriminatory against boys, then you're putting your own special spin on it.

 

[Mycroft]

SOT- do you have a problem with a wealthy American buying a large property in a major metropolitan area, building hundreds if not thousands of apartment units, and declaring that the dwellings shall be for white Christians only?

See, now you're moving the goalposts by making it both racial and religious.

 

[Beerina]

In the United States, it is illegal and a federal crime to build a housing complex for a specific racial, ethnic, or religious community. If the complex tried to keep out folks of a racial, ethnic, or religious groups that they do not like, they would face a massive federal lawsuit.

I think this is a great policy...as it works to make the USA a more tolerant and inclusive society.

You assume so, however that may not be the case. Remember that, before said laws can be passed, you first have to persuade the majority of the people using what?

Anybody? Anybody?

That's right! Free speech!

The laws then get passed so the majority can get their good hate on and a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've done Something Wonderful to the Evils of the World.

It's still the social pressures that makes people dislike something, and increases the actual tolerance.



Ya know, that theory suggests a prediction. Study the curve of general acceptance of that position, before and after the law, and see if the law retards or accelerates the growing acceptance.

 

[Thunder]

its amazing how some people in this thread will excuse and even justify religious and ethnic discrimination.

even more ironic is how they belong to the political ideology that supposedly supports and defends "liberating people from tyranny and oppression".

calling for liberation from tyranny and oppression...and then excusing and defending religious and ethnic discrimination. that's the Right-wing for ya.

 

[davefoc]

its amazing how some people in this thread will excuse and even justify religious and ethnic discrimination.

even more ironic is how they belong to the political ideology that supposedly supports and defends "liberating people from tyranny and oppression".

calling for liberation from tyranny and oppression...and then excusing and defending religious and ethnic discrimination. that's the Right-wing for ya.

One of the things that strikes me as particularly intellectually dishonest is the penchant some people have for deciding that the people that disagree with them are doing so because those people are a member of a group. It is a common practice of Fox News and some of the partisan Republicans that post or have posted to this forum to categorize everybody that disagrees with them as left wing extremists. Your comment about the Right-wing strikes me as similarly intellectually dishonest.

In this issue there are at least competing ideas about right and wrong that aren't necessarily strongly affiliated with the right or the left. On one hand allowing people to group as they see choose is a pretty important right and if a bunch of Jewish people want to live only near other Jewish people of a particular denomination in their own building is it an appropriate purpose of government to stop them? On the other hand, ethnically restrictive real estate deeds and ethnically restrictive leasing is harmful to minorities and to society as a whole. Balancing these interests should be a goal of good governance, but knee jerk assumptions that there is one perfect path and if a particular government isn't completely in sync with what one's idea of the perfect path isn't particularly reasonable IMHO.

 

[Mycroft]

One of the things that strikes me as particularly intellectually dishonest is the penchant some people have for deciding that the people that disagree with them are doing so because those people are a member of a group. It is a common practice of Fox News and some of the partisan Republicans that post or have posted to this forum to categorize everybody that disagrees with them as left wing extremists. Your comment about the Right-wing strikes me as similarly intellectually dishonest.

In this issue there are at least competing ideas about right and wrong that aren't necessarily strongly affiliated with the right or the left. On one hand allowing people to group as they see choose is a pretty important right and if a bunch of Jewish people want to live only near other Jewish people of a particular denomination in their own building is it an appropriate purpose of government to stop them? On the other hand, ethnically restrictive real estate deeds and ethnically restrictive leasing is harmful to minorities and to society as a whole. Balancing these interests should be a goal of good governance, but knee jerk assumptions that there is one perfect path and if a particular government isn't completely in sync with what one's idea of the perfect path isn't particularly reasonable IMHO.

Wow, Dave. It's not often that I agree with you, but you're right on the money with this one.

 

[davefoc]

Wow, Dave. It's not often that I agree with you, but you're right on the money with this one.

Actually, I think we might agree on many things. I just think we tend to disagree on the things we discuss.

 

[WildCat]

...and to state for the record (again), I am against any state, country, city, town, village, hamlet, allowing any housing, educational, employment, business discrimination...based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, nationality.

that includes Iran, Palestine, Israel, Germany, the USA, New Zealand, France, Ethiopia, etc etc etc.

Does it include Brooklyn?

Last Wednesday, the New York City Council voted to approve an eight-block rezoning that holds as its centerpiece a proposed 17 buildings of affordable housing. Known as the Culver El Estates, the plan includes 68 apartment units to be built by the Orthodox Jewish community that inhabits the area, Borough Park. Unlike most of New York City’s 178,000 public housing units, which average two bedrooms, a majority of the units at Culver El will consist of four- or five-bedroom apartments—intentionally large dwellings to fit the family size of the ultra-Orthodox.

The developer of the Culver El project is the South Brooklyn Community Organization, an arm of the umbrella Hasidic organization Agudath Israel, which, according to a spokesman, has developed more than 300 affordable housing units in New York—most of which have been heavily subsidized by federal or state funds. But this new rezoning initiative, some non-Orthodox residents claim, arrived abruptly, with little word of its development outside the insular Orthodox community, even though it occupied a large, central location in an ethnically diverse neighborhood.

“It’s built for a population―a subset of the population―in the neighborhood,” said area resident Liena Zagare, who blogs about the neighborhood at The Kensington Prospect. “That doesn’t seem right.”

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/43728/home-front/

Don't you think you should be more concerned about the same thing happening in your own back yard, subsidized by taxpayers no less?

 

[mortimer]

Does it include Brooklyn?

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/43728/home-front/

Don't you think you should be more concerned about the same thing happening in your own back yard, subsidized by taxpayers no less?

It's not quite the same...

When pressed, though, Israel batted away assumptions that units would go exclusively to Orthodox Jews. “They will,” he said of the neighbors hailing from Pakistan, Mexico, Bangladesh, and elsewhere, “have the opportunity to buy just like anybody else.”

The difference here is, even though the housing project is aimed at ultra-Orthodox Jews, legally those of other religions/races cannot be denied an opportunity to purchase, unlike the project described in the OP.

 

[WildCat]

It's not quite the same...



The difference here is, even though the housing project is aimed at ultra-Orthodox Jews, legally those of other religions/races cannot be denied an opportunity to purchase, unlike the project described in the OP.

We'll see how many of the 68 go to people who are not ultra-orthodox Jews. We do know they are custom-tailored to the needs of ulta-orthodox Jews.

 

[Thunder]

are ALL of Moskowitz's developments for ultra-Orthodox Jews...only????

 

[WildCat]

are ALL of Moskowitz's developments for ultra-Orthodox Jews...only????

It's ok if just some of them are?

 

[Thunder]

I wonder if Israel would allow religious Muslims build a massive apartment complex or neighborhood in East Jerusalem, to be lived in by religious Muslims ONLY?

somehow...I doubt it.

Let's never forget that Israel is a Jewish state, not a Muslim state.

 

[mortimer]

We'll see how many of the 68 go to people who are not ultra-orthodox Jews. We do know they are custom-tailored to the needs of ulta-orthodox Jews.

I don't think there are any U.S. laws against tailoring a housing development for a particular group, but there are certainly laws against selling only to buyers of a particular racial or religious group.

 

[Thunder]

I don't think there are any U.S. laws against tailoring a housing development for a particular group, but there are certainly laws against selling only to buyers of a particular racial or religious group.

how about a housing development only for members of the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian.

..which just happens to be the "church" of Aryan Nations.

 

[davefoc]

I don't think there are any U.S. laws against tailoring a housing development for a particular group, but there are certainly laws against selling only to buyers of a particular racial or religious group.

I am somewhat familiar with California laws regarding this kind of thing and any attempt to restrict the sale of rental or real estate to any particular ethnic group would be illegal unless some kind of exception could be found.

What I don't know, is what kinds of exceptions allow the operation of convents, monasteries and other kinds of religiously oriented habitations. If there is an exception it probably would be the exception that allows for that kind of thing. If there isn't a specific legal exception that allows for them to exclude non-adherents then I wonder if they could be subject to discrimination based lawsuits and other legal difficulties if somebody wanted to press the issue.