In an interview with the BBC, Emmanuel Nahshon also defends Israel's refusal to grant migrants asylum because it would bring in more asylum seekers.15:21 06.02.16 | 0 comments
Longtime readers of Haaretz know Shoken was never comfortable with the Jewish identity. One of his famous articles (in the 70s) complained how Ezra closed the nation by disallowing exogamy. This agenda has been translated to the otherwise strange melange of Left-wing foreign policy and extreme Right-wing economics. And to this funny article. It is difficult to see what's more absurd: A. D.R. Trying to define a nonexistent Israeli nation against the opposition of nearly everyone actually living in Israel (both Jews and Arabs already have an identity and no need of a new artificial one). And then claiming this definition is more democratic! B. D.R. attacking one of the Left's main arguments for 1967 borders, followed by claiming without this redefinition, there'd be no peace! C. D.R. trying very very hard to pretend the name "Israel" is neutral, and not extremely grounded in Jewish traditions. D. Trying to mix up nationality and religion, pretending the state's definition involved religion. Curiously, all of Israel's founders were utterly secular and were very comfortable with this definition, but that doesn't stop D.R. E. D.R. complaining about foreign influence in "dictating Israel's borders", when the Left never stops trying to invite outside pressure to this effect (Moreover, In the real world, quite a few countries have large diasporas, and membership in said diaspora is never dictated by citizenship. e.g. Armenia and Ireland come to mind. Palestinians are almost in the same spot, if they had a state).