Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people

[RoccoR]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ Humanity, et al,

I hear people say that, but I don't see the "LAW" behind it.

Oh. And btw, Israel does not illegally occupy territory.

Yes yes... We get it...

Only Israel and zionuts believe it is not illegal. Yawn Yawn Yawn!

(COMMENT)

When the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank; what sovereign government had control and a claim?

And don't tell me the Arab Palestinian Government; because even the PLO had not declare Independence yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

The point was different laws governing different sects / ethnic groups. No doubt, nations do religious / ethnic bigotry. If I had a choice, I'd opt for less thereof.

That is the BASIS for our current global system of nations -- the idea that ethnic groups can self-determine and create a nationality and have sovereignty. That is the basis for the formation of probably every new country in the past 100 years. And yet it doesn't cause a stir in the world until the Jewish people do it. Why is that, do you think?

I wonder how many of those "new" countries created in the last 100 years illegally occupy territory and suppress and blockade their neighbours?

Like North Cyprus, you mean?

Or Morocco.

Morocco was NOT created in the last 100 years!

 

[Humanity]

Indonesia

Ended 20 years ago!

Oh, and Indonesia is over 100 years old!

 

[Humanity]

we are not discussing whether or not there is discrimination (we both agree there clearly is)

End of argument then eh!

Yet, you continue to defend Israels discrimination?

Hmmm

 

[Mindful]

we are not discussing whether or not there is discrimination (we both agree there clearly is)

End of argument then eh!

Yet, you continue to defend Israels discrimination?

Hmmm

So, you're a zealot. Hmmm.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: > Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, Olde Europe, et al,

Our friend P F Tinmore is partially correct. The terms "refugee" and "immigrant" are distinctly different. But it is possible for an immigrant to be a refugee; because a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country is an immigrant.

The point was different laws governing different sects / ethnic groups. No doubt, nations do religious / ethnic bigotry. If I had a choice, I'd opt for less thereof.

That is the BASIS for our current global system of nations -- the idea that ethnic groups can self-determine and create a nationality and have sovereignty. That is the basis for the formation of probably every new country in the past 100 years. And yet it doesn't cause a stir in the world until the Jewish people do it. Why is that, do you think?

Is modern Greece an artificial creation? Not much of a stir about that. But if it's Israel...... Need I say more?

There are DOZENS of countries which give preferential citizenship to immigrants with an ethnic background from that country. Yet somehow when Israel does it....Makes you go hmmmmmm, doesn't it?

Refugees are not immigrants.

(COMMENT)

The term "refugee," by international convention (UNHCR Convention Status of Refugees) → would not apply to most Arab Palestinians for a number of different reasons. Some of the reasons are here, but the list is NOT all-inclusive.

• It shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the UN (ie UNRWA).
• It shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.
• It shall not apply to a person who committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
• It shall not apply to a person who has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of the refugee prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
• It shall not apply to a person who has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN.​

One more point, By the same international convention, EVERY refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order. This is important to notice because many (many) Arab Palestinians openly advocate violence, and pursue a policy of Armed Struggle in violation of the Hague Regulation. Certainly, no one in the mass of people that took action against the Israeli Border Protection Barriers could be considered a refugee by the international definition.
Finally, do not confuse the Consolidated Eligibility Registration Instruction (CERI) as anything other than Instructions on the Registration for UNRWA. While it uses the word "refugee" --- it is not the same as an internationally recognized "refugee" everywhere else in the world. In fact, the UNRWA CERI program is the only agency program that annually grows refugees, as opposed to resolving the problem.

Most Respectfully,
R

Posted before but not watched or understood.

 

[fncceo]

Right of Return ... but only with a receipt.

 

[admonit]

I thought the article interesting, though the paragraph at the end tainted it.

No it did not. It merely found the appropriate expressions for the situation and for the ways in which this (ultra-) right government and its shills defend, or distract from, the sordid state of affairs.

Jews have the right of "return", even if they didn't set foot anywhere near what is now Israel, and neither did 50 generations of their forebears. Arabs do not have that right, not even those still carrying around the keys to their house, which the Jews blew up or bulldozed 70 years ago. Everyone with the most superficial knowledge about Israel knows this, and none posting on this thread belongs into that category.

In that light:

"There are absolutely no 'rights' in Israel arising from being Jewish as opposed to being Arab."​

Followed by:

"Another useful idiot."​

Quite.

As much as I admire your posting style - I am not sure treating hasbara peddlers as serious interlocutors isn't a disservice to debate.

Also mind my actual words. There are no rights IN Israel which advantage Jews over Arabs. All are equal in law.

Actually there is inequality. Arabs don't have to serve 3 years in the army and risk their lives fighting for their country.

And the price they pay for not serving is they are locked out of a lot of jobs and promotions that IDF service confers. Jews don’t have to serve either, if they are Hasidic.

So, Israeli Arabs, because they don't serve in the army, again are victims? It's ridiculous.
Yes, ultra-orthodox Jews are not obliged to serve in the army. But, yet, thouzands of them are serving, including in battle units. And the Israeli society doesn't consider the law honest and tries to change the law. The High Court declared it unconstitutional and currently it is reconsidered.
It's noteworthy though, that you recall ultra religious Jews, when you need to justify Israeli Arabs regarding military service, but you forget about them while accusing Israel in discrimination of Arab citizens.

 

[admonit]

The fear is there because that is not how they see events unfolding and there is some legitimacy in those fears. Land loss and confiscations through absentee landowner laws look VERY DIFFERENT to an Arab than to a Jew. Where as Israeli Jews are seeing a society where Arab citizens have the same “rights” as Jews, Arabs see a society where they are discriminated against, despised, do not have the same land rights. They have seen some of their political parties banned, make a fraction of the income their Jewish counterparts do and receive a fraction of the investment in their communities but by the Israeli government. Are the fears really irrational? I don’t think so.

I think maybe you are in some respects conflating Arab Palestinians and Arab Israelis. We are speaking here strictly of Arab Israeli citizens.

Confiscations happened to BOTH Arabs and Jews. Internally displaced absentee landowners should be restored where possible, and compensated where not. For BOTH Arabs and Jews. Sorting it out is a mess, but Israel's court system appears to me to be fair and if anything slightly discriminatory towards Israeli Jews rather than Israeli Arabs. If you have specific examples you want to discuss, I'd be glad to go into more detail.

Israeli Arabs, by definition, have not had ANY land loss in terms of sovereignty. (And actually, Palestine has not experienced any actual "land loss" either since the territory is still disputed.)

I disagree with you that Arab Israelis see a society where they are discriminated against, despised and do not have the same rights. Again, I'd be glad to discuss any specific cases with you, but I think you are conflating Arab Israelis with Arab Palestinian rights, especially in Area C. Remember the Supreme Court has upheld the decision that there can be no such thing as Jew-only communities while there can be Arab-only communities. Its affirmative action.

Yes, I don't disagree that there is discrimination (as there is everywhere in the world) but I also see Israel working to address that discrimination for all its citizens.

To my knowledge, the only political party banned in Israel was a Jewish one, but feel free to link me.

I did a LOT of research into the economic disparity between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and if you correct for the very small number of working Arab women (a cultural thing and not a discrimination thing) and for the Bedouin peoples (again a cultural thing and not a discrimination thing) there is not much of a wage gap between Arab and Jewish Israelis. And that wage gap can be largely attributed to education -- the more highly educated, the higher the wage. Arabs tend to go to school for fewer years than Jews. Why is that? Is it a cultural thing or a discrimination thing? Or something else at play?

For example, this article is good ( The paradox of being an Arab member of Israel's Knesset )

I'm not surprised that you like revelations of a well known hater of Israel and supporter of terrorists.

 

[admonit]

Remember, we are not discussing whether or not there is discrimination (we both agree there clearly is) - - we are discussing whether or not there is an institutionalized and systematic deliberate oppression of Arab citizens of Israel.

May be it would be better to move directly to discussion about apartheid in Israel?

 

[Mindful]

The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This was to spare Arab citizens the need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, many Arabs have volunteered for military duty and the Druze and Circassian communities are subject to the draft.

From JVL.

 

[Humanity]

I understand the complexities, because they exist in our schools, but our schools are funded heavily through local taxes, so it is easy to see why funding is so variable.

But let’s look at the one example in Jerusalem. That did not look good imo. What are your thoughts there?

My thoughts thus far are that the claim "Arab schools receive half the funding of Jewish schools" has not been demonstrated, let alone the claim that the cause of the funding discrepancy is an institutionalized, systematic, deliberate discrimination against Arab Israelis.

And if the discussion is concerning "East Jerusalem" there are all sorts of confounding factors to consider, not the least of which is jurisdiction. Public schools, private schools, religious schools, secular schools, Israeli funding, Palestinian funding, Israeli curriculum, Palestinian curriculum.

And are we accepting the annexation of "East Jerusalem" by Israel? Or are we denying it? Is Israel responsible for the education of non-Israeli citizens in "East Jerusalem" because they annexed it and it is now part of Israel? Or are we claiming that Israel has no responsibility for education of non-Israeli citizens in "East Jerusalem" because its not Israel's territory. Can't have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways!

Israel declares Jerusalem as its undivided capital so there is no "East Jerusalem" in the way you are trying to use the term!

Seems a rather lame argument from you on this one. IF Israel considers Jerusalem as its undivided capital then of course it has responsibilities in "East Jerusalem" equal to its responsibilities in "West Jerusalem".

 

[Humanity]

we are not discussing whether or not there is discrimination (we both agree there clearly is)

End of argument then eh!

Yet, you continue to defend Israels discrimination?

Hmmm

So, you're a zealot. Hmmm.

How do you work that out?

 

[Mindful]

The point was different laws governing different sects / ethnic groups. No doubt, nations do religious / ethnic bigotry. If I had a choice, I'd opt for less thereof.

That is the BASIS for our current global system of nations -- the idea that ethnic groups can self-determine and create a nationality and have sovereignty. That is the basis for the formation of probably every new country in the past 100 years. And yet it doesn't cause a stir in the world until the Jewish people do it. Why is that, do you think?

I wonder how many of those "new" countries created in the last 100 years illegally occupy territory and suppress and blockade their neighbours?

Oh. And btw, Israel does not illegally occupy territory. The other three mentioned (Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia do).

Northern Cyprus is not recognised by any country in the world, except Turkey.

Yet still we drive back and forth between north and south.

 

[Mindful]

we are not discussing whether or not there is discrimination (we both agree there clearly is)

End of argument then eh!

Yet, you continue to defend Israels discrimination?

Hmmm

So, you're a zealot. Hmmm.

How do you work that out?

Don't need to work it out. It's self evident.

 

[Mindful]

I understand the complexities, because they exist in our schools, but our schools are funded heavily through local taxes, so it is easy to see why funding is so variable.

But let’s look at the one example in Jerusalem. That did not look good imo. What are your thoughts there?

My thoughts thus far are that the claim "Arab schools receive half the funding of Jewish schools" has not been demonstrated, let alone the claim that the cause of the funding discrepancy is an institutionalized, systematic, deliberate discrimination against Arab Israelis.

And if the discussion is concerning "East Jerusalem" there are all sorts of confounding factors to consider, not the least of which is jurisdiction. Public schools, private schools, religious schools, secular schools, Israeli funding, Palestinian funding, Israeli curriculum, Palestinian curriculum.

And are we accepting the annexation of "East Jerusalem" by Israel? Or are we denying it? Is Israel responsible for the education of non-Israeli citizens in "East Jerusalem" because they annexed it and it is now part of Israel? Or are we claiming that Israel has no responsibility for education of non-Israeli citizens in "East Jerusalem" because its not Israel's territory. Can't have it both ways.

No, you can't have it both ways!

Israel declares Jerusalem as its undivided capital so there is no "East Jerusalem" in the way you are trying to use the term!

Seems a rather lame argument from you on this one. IF Israel considers Jerusalem as its undivided capital then of course it has responsibilities in "East Jerusalem" equal to its responsibilities in "West Jerusalem".

East and West London also have municipal problems.

Ever driven through Peckham?

 

[fncceo]

East and West LA have their issues as well...

 

[Mindful]

East and West LA have their issues as well...

Ah but.....Jerusalem is different, you see.

 

[fncceo]

East and West LA have their issues as well...

Ah but.....Jerusalem is different, you see.

Yea, no decent Mexican food in Jerusalem.

 

[Mindful]

East and West LA have their issues as well...

Ah but.....Jerusalem is different, you see.

Yea, no decent Mexican food in Jerusalem.

lol.

Nor in some parts of USA either.