Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The idea that only a single written down document like a constitution guarentees civil liberties is false. Israel's Chukey Yesod (Lit. Basic Laws), have the same force of law as a codified contituion, just like Great Britain and New Zealand.
I didn't suggest any of that - I was responding to the claim that rights were "constitutionally" guaranteed in Israel.
Either it's a constitution, or it isn't.
Israel's comprehensive set of Basic Laws effectively functions as Israel's Constitution. The United Kingdom has no constitution, whatsoever, so, go after them and try to close the UK down.
Meanwhile, 400 million+ Arabs and Muslims are denied any constitutional rights throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, you're fixated on Israel, with merely 7 million population. Typical of Arabs and Muslims.
You seem to be hyperventilating. If someone was silly enough to claim that Britain's laws were "constitutional," I would point out the same fact.
Israel's comprehensive set of Basic Laws effectively functions as Israel's Constitution. The United Kingdom has no constitution, whatsoever, so, go after them and try to close the UK down.
Meanwhile, 400 million+ Arabs and Muslims are denied any constitutional rights throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, you're fixated on Israel, with merely 7 million population. Typical of Arabs and Muslims.
You seem to be hyperventilating. If someone was silly enough to claim that Britain's laws were "constitutional," I would point out the same fact.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unlike England, Israels democracy is not reinforced by centuries of democratic development, nor by mutually agreedupon constitutional precepts and values. Israel has been in a 60year transitional phase, with few meaningful changes to its political system since the prestate era and little, widelyaccepted constitutional thinking on issues like religion and state, minority rights, or the overall purpose and orientation of the state.
...
While the Basic Laws operate as a de facto constitution, they skirt fundamental issues like separation of powers, the intersection of religion and state, and minority rights. Meanwhile, the amendment of Basic Laws requires the agreement of every party in the current ruling coalition. In June of 2008, this allowed the SephardicOrthodox Shas party to singlehandedly veto a comprehensive reform to the Basic Law: Knesset laws that would have allowed regional elections for up to half of the Knesseta reform that a majority of Knesset members and all three of Israels major political parties supported.
For Israel, the present lack of a coherent constitutionalism affects personal and immediate issues such as marriage and citizenship, state, legislative, and judicial systems, fundamental questions as to Israels purpose and ideological orientation. The countrys lack of a constitution translates into a paucity of clearly articulated values that the state represents and defends. And this translates into tangible challenges and problemsespecially the growing, potentially catastrophic gulf between Israels secular and religious Jews, as well as between its Jewish and Arab citizens.
A single document cannot singlehandedly determine the nature of the Jewish state, or whether it is prepared to view its nonJewish citizens as full partners in some version of Zionism. But a constitution could clear up some of the very basic ambiguities that currently wrack Israeli politics and society.
This leads to two radically divergent understandings of Jewish statehood. In one camp are Lapidstyle secularists who believe that the state should draw its legitimacy and authority from Jewish nationhood rather than from Jewish religious law. In the other camp are religiousZionist and ultraOrthodox Jews who view the state as a vehicle for Judaism, and for the values codified in biblical and rabbinic, or halachic (legal), texts. This plays out most dramatically in debates over Greater Israel: many Israelis view Jewish settlement and military occupation of the West Bank as costly, impractical, and antidemocratic. But a religious Zionist minority argues that Israel would be betraying its mission as a Jewish state if it uprooted Jews living on land within biblical Israel.
Linkie:
The Columbia Current
You seem to be hyperventilating. If someone was silly enough to claim that Britain's laws were "constitutional," I would point out the same fact.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since you insist on pursuing the attempt to equate Israel's system with Britain's:
Unlike England, Israel’s democracy is not reinforced by centuries of democratic development, nor by mutually agreed–upon constitutional precepts and values. Israel has been in a 60–year transitional phase, with few meaningful changes to its political system since the pre–state era and little, widely–accepted constitutional thinking on issues like religion and state, minority rights, or the overall purpose and orientation of the state.
...
While the Basic Laws operate as a de facto constitution, they skirt fundamental issues like separation of powers, the intersection of religion and state, and minority rights. Meanwhile, the amendment of Basic Laws requires the agreement of every party in the current ruling coalition. In June of 2008, this allowed the Sephardic–Orthodox Shas party to single–handedly veto a comprehensive reform to the Basic Law: Knesset laws that would have allowed regional elections for up to half of the Knesset—a reform that a majority of Knesset members and all three of Israel’s major political parties supported.
For Israel, the present lack of a coherent constitutionalism affects personal and immediate issues such as marriage and citizenship, state, legislative, and judicial systems, fundamental questions as to Israel’s purpose and ideological orientation. The country’s lack of a constitution translates into a paucity of clearly articulated values that the state represents and defends. And this translates into tangible challenges and problems—especially the growing, potentially catastrophic gulf between Israel’s secular and religious Jews, as well as between its Jewish and Arab citizens.
A single document cannot singlehandedly determine the nature of the Jewish state, or whether it is prepared to view its non–Jewish citizens as full partners in some version of Zionism. But a constitution could clear up some of the very basic ambiguities that currently wrack Israeli politics and society.
…
This leads to two radically divergent understandings of Jewish statehood. In one camp are Lapid–style secularists who believe that the state should draw its legitimacy and authority from Jewish nationhood rather than from Jewish religious law. In the other camp are religious–Zionist and ultra–Orthodox Jews who view the state as a vehicle for Judaism, and for the values codified in biblical and rabbinic, or halachic (legal), texts. This plays out most dramatically in debates over “Greater Israel”: many Israelis view Jewish settlement and military occupation of the West Bank as costly, impractical, and anti–democratic. But a religious Zionist minority argues that Israel would be betraying its mission as a “Jewish state” if it uprooted Jews living on land within biblical Israel.
Linkie:
The Columbia Current
BTW, U.N. Resolution 181 declared that Israel must draft a constitution as a condition of its statehood.
Yet another violation...
You seem to be hyperventilating. If someone was silly enough to claim that Britain's laws were "constitutional," I would point out the same fact.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since you insist on pursuing the attempt to equate Israel's system with Britain's:
Unlike England, Israels democracy is not reinforced by centuries of democratic development, nor by mutually agreedupon constitutional precepts and values. Israel has been in a 60year transitional phase, with few meaningful changes to its political system since the prestate era and little, widelyaccepted constitutional thinking on issues like religion and state, minority rights, or the overall purpose and orientation of the state.
...
While the Basic Laws operate as a de facto constitution, they skirt fundamental issues like separation of powers, the intersection of religion and state, and minority rights. Meanwhile, the amendment of Basic Laws requires the agreement of every party in the current ruling coalition. In June of 2008, this allowed the SephardicOrthodox Shas party to singlehandedly veto a comprehensive reform to the Basic Law: Knesset laws that would have allowed regional elections for up to half of the Knesseta reform that a majority of Knesset members and all three of Israels major political parties supported.
For Israel, the present lack of a coherent constitutionalism affects personal and immediate issues such as marriage and citizenship, state, legislative, and judicial systems, fundamental questions as to Israels purpose and ideological orientation. The countrys lack of a constitution translates into a paucity of clearly articulated values that the state represents and defends. And this translates into tangible challenges and problemsespecially the growing, potentially catastrophic gulf between Israels secular and religious Jews, as well as between its Jewish and Arab citizens.
A single document cannot singlehandedly determine the nature of the Jewish state, or whether it is prepared to view its nonJewish citizens as full partners in some version of Zionism. But a constitution could clear up some of the very basic ambiguities that currently wrack Israeli politics and society.
This leads to two radically divergent understandings of Jewish statehood. In one camp are Lapidstyle secularists who believe that the state should draw its legitimacy and authority from Jewish nationhood rather than from Jewish religious law. In the other camp are religiousZionist and ultraOrthodox Jews who view the state as a vehicle for Judaism, and for the values codified in biblical and rabbinic, or halachic (legal), texts. This plays out most dramatically in debates over Greater Israel: many Israelis view Jewish settlement and military occupation of the West Bank as costly, impractical, and antidemocratic. But a religious Zionist minority argues that Israel would be betraying its mission as a Jewish state if it uprooted Jews living on land within biblical Israel.
Linkie:
The Columbia Current
BTW, U.N. Resolution 181 declared that Israel must draft a constitution as a condition of its statehood.
Yet another violation...
Since you insist on pursuing the attempt to equate Israel's system with Britain's:
Unlike England, Israels democracy is not reinforced by centuries of democratic development, nor by mutually agreedupon constitutional precepts and values. Israel has been in a 60year transitional phase, with few meaningful changes to its political system since the prestate era and little, widelyaccepted constitutional thinking on issues like religion and state, minority rights, or the overall purpose and orientation of the state.
...
While the Basic Laws operate as a de facto constitution, they skirt fundamental issues like separation of powers, the intersection of religion and state, and minority rights. Meanwhile, the amendment of Basic Laws requires the agreement of every party in the current ruling coalition. In June of 2008, this allowed the SephardicOrthodox Shas party to singlehandedly veto a comprehensive reform to the Basic Law: Knesset laws that would have allowed regional elections for up to half of the Knesseta reform that a majority of Knesset members and all three of Israels major political parties supported.
For Israel, the present lack of a coherent constitutionalism affects personal and immediate issues such as marriage and citizenship, state, legislative, and judicial systems, fundamental questions as to Israels purpose and ideological orientation. The countrys lack of a constitution translates into a paucity of clearly articulated values that the state represents and defends. And this translates into tangible challenges and problemsespecially the growing, potentially catastrophic gulf between Israels secular and religious Jews, as well as between its Jewish and Arab citizens.
A single document cannot singlehandedly determine the nature of the Jewish state, or whether it is prepared to view its nonJewish citizens as full partners in some version of Zionism. But a constitution could clear up some of the very basic ambiguities that currently wrack Israeli politics and society.
This leads to two radically divergent understandings of Jewish statehood. In one camp are Lapidstyle secularists who believe that the state should draw its legitimacy and authority from Jewish nationhood rather than from Jewish religious law. In the other camp are religiousZionist and ultraOrthodox Jews who view the state as a vehicle for Judaism, and for the values codified in biblical and rabbinic, or halachic (legal), texts. This plays out most dramatically in debates over Greater Israel: many Israelis view Jewish settlement and military occupation of the West Bank as costly, impractical, and antidemocratic. But a religious Zionist minority argues that Israel would be betraying its mission as a Jewish state if it uprooted Jews living on land within biblical Israel.
Linkie:
The Columbia Current
BTW, U.N. Resolution 181 declared that Israel must draft a constitution as a condition of its statehood.
Yet another violation...
Shortly after its passage, the US withdrew its support and the resolution died. There was no more 181. It is a non issue.
You're desperately grasping at straws. Israel is the ONLY country among 25 Arab and 57 Muslim shitholes that constitutionally guarantees freedom, human rights and civil liberties to all its citizens, reaffirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court.
Why There Are No 'Israelis' in the Jewish State, Dissident Voice, 6 April 2010A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognised as Israelis, a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the countrys self-declared status as a Jewish state.
Israel refused to recognise an Israeli nationality at the countrys establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between citizenship and nationality. Although all Israelis qualify as citizens of Israel, the state is defined as belonging to the Jewish nation, meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.
Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment.
Why There Are No 'Israelis' in the Jewish State, Dissident Voice, 6 April 2010A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognised as Israelis, a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the countrys self-declared status as a Jewish state.
Israel refused to recognise an Israeli nationality at the countrys establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between citizenship and nationality. Although all Israelis qualify as citizens of Israel, the state is defined as belonging to the Jewish nation, meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.
Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment.
Day by day, the anti-Israel alliance is seeking to make the apartheid label stick to Israel. We see this at present in the fortnight of global agitation known as Israel Apartheid Week. But no one should be fooled the real agenda behind branding Israel an apartheid state is the disappearance of the Jewish state altogether.
The real apartheid state of South Africa was rightfully dismantled by the early 1990s. It was first discredited, then delegitimized and finally dismantled to the elation of the world and the enslaved black majority who had lived under its brutality. However, to describe Israel in these terms is, quite frankly, immoral and wicked. Yet on university campuses worldwide, this is becoming a very popular cause.
Radical leftist academics and politicians are teaming up with extremist Muslim elements to pursue this goal. They want to equate Israel with the original apartheid state, yet most of these people know absolutely nothing about apartheid. They have no knowledge of the inner workings of the apartheid system and couldnt even tell you the basic facts about it. But the word itself is an extremely powerful weapon against Israel since it conjures up notions of hatred, discrimination, brutality, racism and prejudice.
Essentially, apartheid was a totalitarian system of governance not unlike many of the regimes in the Arab world today. A white minority subjugated the overwhelmingly black population. It was ideologically driven and obsessed with racial superiority. The superior whites could not mingle with or even sit on a bench with the inferior black peoples. Even the education system was dumbed down for black people because they were deemed mentally inferior.
The towns and cities were white by night as all blacks had to be removed to their shanty towns, which served as cheap labor ghettos for the nation. The black people could not vote, own property or even move freely inside their own country.
Various instruments of state were used to ruthlessly enforce a total segregation, including the police, military and judiciary. In short, it was Aryanism in a new form.
THERE IS absolutely nothing equivalent to this in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel today. Within Israel itself, Arabs and Jews share the same shopping malls, benches, hospitals, theaters and, in many cases, suburbs. The educational institutions do not have a
deliberately dumbed down Arab curriculum and the privilege of voting is given to all. The Knesset has Arab members, and Jews, Arabs and Palestinians often work together at construction sites, businesses, hotels and elsewhere.
Most important of all is the fact that Israel is a democratic state. Not a perfect one, but it does have democratic institutions and is definitely not governed by a totalitarian minority! In the disputed territories, some 98 percent of the Palestinian Arab population now lives under the governance of their own Palestinian Authority, where they have the right to vote and change their leaders at least theoretically. True, Israel has adopted security measures that curtail their movement, but these have been necessitated by the conflict and are legitimate acts of self-defense, rather than acts of racial discrimination.
Actually, the real nature of this conflict has very little to do with politics or race, and everything to do with theology. By this I mean a radical jihadist theology that considers the whole Land of Israel and not just the West Bank as part of the House of Islam.
This theology dictates that all this land must be returned to Islamic rule, by force if necessary. Despite its secular credentials, the PLO has pursued the express mission of destroying the State of Israel since its founding in 1964 because it simply cannot derogate from this Islamic doctrine. The same jihadist theology drives an even more radical Hamas.
This has absolutely nothing to do with apartheid. The State of Israel is a democracy which must answer to its citizens and thus has demonstrated a willingness to make painful concessions to secure a future of peace with its neighbors. In all cases, it alone has paid the real price by giving up land, which has then been used as a launching pad for further acts of terror.
Even in response to Israels most generous peace overtures during the Oslo era, the Palestinians have opted for violence. Waves of suicide bombers attacked Israelis from the porous boundaries surrounding the West Bank. Men, women and children were indiscriminately murdered in buses, restaurants, hotels and shopping malls. To protect herself,
Israel built a security barrier, which in some built-up areas consists of a wall. It was not built to segregate people or discriminate against them, but to protect its own citizens from attack. In this connection, the security fence has been highly successful though even Israelis admit it is regrettable.
NEVERTHELESS, ISRAELS detractors love to deride the apartheid wall. These same radical leftists espouse democracy but will not allow Israeli officials and scholars to exercise their democratic right to free speech. This is exactly what the apartheid thugs in South Africa
did. They violently brought public meetings to an end if anyone opposed their view. They were scared to death that someone might just have a more truthful and compelling argument than theirs. The democratic rights they claim for themselves, they deny to others.
For sure the Palestinians have suffered, but to place the blame entirely at Israels door is folly. Their failed and corrupt leadership, missed opportunities and willingness to support violence
and terror are also central causes of their suffering. The truth is the apartheid accusation is just another smoke screen in the war against Israel. I should know because I grew up in the dark apartheid era in South Africa and stood against it to my peril.
Why There Are No 'Israelis' in the Jewish State, Dissident Voice, 6 April 2010A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognised as Israelis, a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the countrys self-declared status as a Jewish state.
Israel refused to recognise an Israeli nationality at the countrys establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between citizenship and nationality. Although all Israelis qualify as citizens of Israel, the state is defined as belonging to the Jewish nation, meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.
Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalisation, access to land and employment.
You cannot even tell us what apartheid is, dopey. You're PWNED, again.
Malcolm Hedding, an activist who fought against apartheid in South Africa and who was threatened with detention without trial by the Bureau of State Security. Today, he is executive director of the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem....
Day by day, the anti-Israel alliance is seeking to make the apartheid label stick to Israel. We see this at present in the fortnight of global agitation known as Israel Apartheid Week. But no one should be fooled the real agenda behind branding Israel an apartheid state is the disappearance of the Jewish state altogether.
The real apartheid state of South Africa was rightfully dismantled by the early 1990s. It was first discredited, then delegitimized and finally dismantled to the elation of the world and the enslaved black majority who had lived under its brutality. However, to describe Israel in these terms is, quite frankly, immoral and wicked. Yet on university campuses worldwide, this is becoming a very popular cause.
Radical leftist academics and politicians are teaming up with extremist Muslim elements to pursue this goal. They want to equate Israel with the original apartheid state, yet most of these people know absolutely nothing about apartheid. They have no knowledge of the inner workings of the apartheid system and couldnt even tell you the basic facts about it. But the word itself is an extremely powerful weapon against Israel since it conjures up notions of hatred, discrimination, brutality, racism and prejudice.
Essentially, apartheid was a totalitarian system of governance not unlike many of the regimes in the Arab world today. A white minority subjugated the overwhelmingly black population. It was ideologically driven and obsessed with racial superiority. The superior whites could not mingle with or even sit on a bench with the inferior black peoples. Even the education system was dumbed down for black people because they were deemed mentally inferior.
The towns and cities were white by night as all blacks had to be removed to their shanty towns, which served as cheap labor ghettos for the nation. The black people could not vote, own property or even move freely inside their own country.
Various instruments of state were used to ruthlessly enforce a total segregation, including the police, military and judiciary. In short, it was Aryanism in a new form.
THERE IS absolutely nothing equivalent to this in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel today. Within Israel itself, Arabs and Jews share the same shopping malls, benches, hospitals, theaters and, in many cases, suburbs. The educational institutions do not have a
deliberately dumbed down Arab curriculum and the privilege of voting is given to all. The Knesset has Arab members, and Jews, Arabs and Palestinians often work together at construction sites, businesses, hotels and elsewhere.
Most important of all is the fact that Israel is a democratic state. Not a perfect one, but it does have democratic institutions and is definitely not governed by a totalitarian minority! In the disputed territories, some 98 percent of the Palestinian Arab population now lives under the governance of their own Palestinian Authority, where they have the right to vote and change their leaders at least theoretically. True, Israel has adopted security measures that curtail their movement, but these have been necessitated by the conflict and are legitimate acts of self-defense, rather than acts of racial discrimination.
Actually, the real nature of this conflict has very little to do with politics or race, and everything to do with theology. By this I mean a radical jihadist theology that considers the whole Land of Israel and not just the West Bank as part of the House of Islam.
This theology dictates that all this land must be returned to Islamic rule, by force if necessary. Despite its secular credentials, the PLO has pursued the express mission of destroying the State of Israel since its founding in 1964 because it simply cannot derogate from this Islamic doctrine. The same jihadist theology drives an even more radical Hamas.
This has absolutely nothing to do with apartheid. The State of Israel is a democracy which must answer to its citizens and thus has demonstrated a willingness to make painful concessions to secure a future of peace with its neighbors. In all cases, it alone has paid the real price by giving up land, which has then been used as a launching pad for further acts of terror.
Even in response to Israels most generous peace overtures during the Oslo era, the Palestinians have opted for violence. Waves of suicide bombers attacked Israelis from the porous boundaries surrounding the West Bank. Men, women and children were indiscriminately murdered in buses, restaurants, hotels and shopping malls. To protect herself,
Israel built a security barrier, which in some built-up areas consists of a wall. It was not built to segregate people or discriminate against them, but to protect its own citizens from attack. In this connection, the security fence has been highly successful though even Israelis admit it is regrettable.
NEVERTHELESS, ISRAELS detractors love to deride the apartheid wall. These same radical leftists espouse democracy but will not allow Israeli officials and scholars to exercise their democratic right to free speech. This is exactly what the apartheid thugs in South Africa
did. They violently brought public meetings to an end if anyone opposed their view. They were scared to death that someone might just have a more truthful and compelling argument than theirs. The democratic rights they claim for themselves, they deny to others.
For sure the Palestinians have suffered, but to place the blame entirely at Israels door is folly. Their failed and corrupt leadership, missed opportunities and willingness to support violence
and terror are also central causes of their suffering. The truth is the apartheid accusation is just another smoke screen in the war against Israel. I should know because I grew up in the dark apartheid era in South Africa and stood against it to my peril.
You cannot even tell us what apartheid is, dopey. You're PWNED, again.
Malcolm Hedding, an activist who fought against apartheid in South Africa and who was threatened with detention without trial by the Bureau of State Security. Today, he is executive director of the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem....
Day by day, the anti-Israel alliance is seeking to make the apartheid label stick to Israel. We see this at present in the fortnight of global agitation known as Israel Apartheid Week. But no one should be fooled the real agenda behind branding Israel an apartheid state is the disappearance of the Jewish state altogether.
The real apartheid state of South Africa was rightfully dismantled by the early 1990s. It was first discredited, then delegitimized and finally dismantled to the elation of the world and the enslaved black majority who had lived under its brutality. However, to describe Israel in these terms is, quite frankly, immoral and wicked. Yet on university campuses worldwide, this is becoming a very popular cause.
Radical leftist academics and politicians are teaming up with extremist Muslim elements to pursue this goal. They want to equate Israel with the original apartheid state, yet most of these people know absolutely nothing about apartheid. They have no knowledge of the inner workings of the apartheid system and couldnt even tell you the basic facts about it. But the word itself is an extremely powerful weapon against Israel since it conjures up notions of hatred, discrimination, brutality, racism and prejudice.
Essentially, apartheid was a totalitarian system of governance not unlike many of the regimes in the Arab world today. A white minority subjugated the overwhelmingly black population. It was ideologically driven and obsessed with racial superiority. The superior whites could not mingle with or even sit on a bench with the inferior black peoples. Even the education system was dumbed down for black people because they were deemed mentally inferior.
The towns and cities were white by night as all blacks had to be removed to their shanty towns, which served as cheap labor ghettos for the nation. The black people could not vote, own property or even move freely inside their own country.
Various instruments of state were used to ruthlessly enforce a total segregation, including the police, military and judiciary. In short, it was Aryanism in a new form.
THERE IS absolutely nothing equivalent to this in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel today. Within Israel itself, Arabs and Jews share the same shopping malls, benches, hospitals, theaters and, in many cases, suburbs. The educational institutions do not have a
deliberately dumbed down Arab curriculum and the privilege of voting is given to all. The Knesset has Arab members, and Jews, Arabs and Palestinians often work together at construction sites, businesses, hotels and elsewhere.
Most important of all is the fact that Israel is a democratic state. Not a perfect one, but it does have democratic institutions and is definitely not governed by a totalitarian minority! In the disputed territories, some 98 percent of the Palestinian Arab population now lives under the governance of their own Palestinian Authority, where they have the right to vote and change their leaders at least theoretically. True, Israel has adopted security measures that curtail their movement, but these have been necessitated by the conflict and are legitimate acts of self-defense, rather than acts of racial discrimination.
Actually, the real nature of this conflict has very little to do with politics or race, and everything to do with theology. By this I mean a radical jihadist theology that considers the whole Land of Israel and not just the West Bank as part of the House of Islam.
This theology dictates that all this land must be returned to Islamic rule, by force if necessary. Despite its secular credentials, the PLO has pursued the express mission of destroying the State of Israel since its founding in 1964 because it simply cannot derogate from this Islamic doctrine. The same jihadist theology drives an even more radical Hamas.
This has absolutely nothing to do with apartheid. The State of Israel is a democracy which must answer to its citizens and thus has demonstrated a willingness to make painful concessions to secure a future of peace with its neighbors. In all cases, it alone has paid the real price by giving up land, which has then been used as a launching pad for further acts of terror.
Even in response to Israels most generous peace overtures during the Oslo era, the Palestinians have opted for violence. Waves of suicide bombers attacked Israelis from the porous boundaries surrounding the West Bank. Men, women and children were indiscriminately murdered in buses, restaurants, hotels and shopping malls. To protect herself,
Israel built a security barrier, which in some built-up areas consists of a wall. It was not built to segregate people or discriminate against them, but to protect its own citizens from attack. In this connection, the security fence has been highly successful though even Israelis admit it is regrettable.
NEVERTHELESS, ISRAELS detractors love to deride the apartheid wall. These same radical leftists espouse democracy but will not allow Israeli officials and scholars to exercise their democratic right to free speech. This is exactly what the apartheid thugs in South Africa
did. They violently brought public meetings to an end if anyone opposed their view. They were scared to death that someone might just have a more truthful and compelling argument than theirs. The democratic rights they claim for themselves, they deny to others.
For sure the Palestinians have suffered, but to place the blame entirely at Israels door is folly. Their failed and corrupt leadership, missed opportunities and willingness to support violence
and terror are also central causes of their suffering. The truth is the apartheid accusation is just another smoke screen in the war against Israel. I should know because I grew up in the dark apartheid era in South Africa and stood against it to my peril.
Palestine is occupied by Israel which is the only government. One government treating some its subjects differently.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Wanker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWanker is a pejorative term of English origin, common in Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It initially referred to an onanist but has since become a general insult. It is synonymous with tosser.
You cannot even tell us what apartheid is, dopey. You're PWNED, again.
Malcolm Hedding, an activist who fought against apartheid in South Africa and who was threatened with detention without trial by the Bureau of State Security. Today, he is executive director of the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem....
Palestine is occupied by Israel which is the only government. One government treating some its subjects differently.
Except, you never fought against apartheid in South Africa, as the author did, nor, do you live in Israel, as the author does.
Therefore, you're PWNED, again.
You are the Forum Dunce.
Palestine is occupied by Israel which is the only government. One government treating some its subjects differently.
Except, you never fought against apartheid in South Africa, as the author did, nor, do you live in Israel, as the author does.
Therefore, you're PWNED, again.
You are the Forum Dunce.
Deflection.
