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

[Humanity]

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

Jew traits

If that is "demonization" you need to get a slightly thicker skin!

 

[Indeependent]

Well, I don't agree that Israel should annex all of Jerusalem.

"declare loyalty to Israel" or get deported?

Well, that would be an interesting move. How many countries have a law like that?

No country should be forced to live with a hostile population actively trying to destroy the State. In civil conflicts like this one, the solution is to divide the territory and form nations around a specific ethnic population, almost always with a minority of other ethnicities. This is all I am proposing and I'm proposing it equally for both Israel and Palestine. Each citizen, currently living in the territory, is given the choice of declaring citizenship -- Israeli or Palestinian -- and residing in their State of citizenship as safe, loyal citizens. Should they choose to relocate, they are given compensation to assist them with doing so. Seems fair and reasonable, and allows each citizen to choose what is best for them and their family.

Except there is a slight issue over land.

Who will decide that? Israel?

God.
And thus far the Jews seems to be the winners.

 

[Indeependent]

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

Jew traits

If that is "demonization" you need to get a slightly thicker skin!

I’d rather have Jew traits than sacrifice my children as bullet proof vests.

 

[Shusha]

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

Making negative assumptions about the future behaviour of Israel and accusing Israel of an apartheid condition which they have not actually created is most certainly not fair criticism of Israeli politics and policies. It can only be demonization.

 

[Shusha]

Well, I don't agree that Israel should annex all of Jerusalem.

"declare loyalty to Israel" or get deported?

Well, that would be an interesting move. How many countries have a law like that?

No country should be forced to live with a hostile population actively trying to destroy the State. In civil conflicts like this one, the solution is to divide the territory and form nations around a specific ethnic population, almost always with a minority of other ethnicities. This is all I am proposing and I'm proposing it equally for both Israel and Palestine. Each citizen, currently living in the territory, is given the choice of declaring citizenship -- Israeli or Palestinian -- and residing in their State of citizenship as safe, loyal citizens. Should they choose to relocate, they are given compensation to assist them with doing so. Seems fair and reasonable, and allows each citizen to choose what is best for them and their family.

Except there is a slight issue over land.

Who will decide that? Israel?

Borders between States can only be set by treaty between the Parties involved. The only exception I can think of is a unilateral ceding of territory. Israel could do that.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I’d rather have Jew traits than sacrifice my children as bullet proof vests.

I can't be the only one here who finds the thought that subhumanity could have bred offspring to be extremely disturbing, can I?

 

[Mindful]

For, it is not. Shusha is willfully confusing quite different things, namely, national self-determination and segregation / apartheid.

Second, no, racial / ethnic self-determination is not the "BASIS for our current global system of nations", much as racists and nationalists try to make it so.

Third, in order to demonstrate the above, consider:

"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of South Africa is unique to White South Africans."

Acceptable? How about this:

"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Germany is unique to Aryan Germans."

Acceptable? Obviously neither is. Therefore, neither is this: "1. C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."

So, "it doesn't cause a stir in the world until the Jewish people do it" is an obvious falsehood, and quite likely a lie with the purpose of deceiving about the Basic Law officially declaring Israel an apartheid state. Obviously, it caused quite a stir when others did it. There is no direct line between national self-determination and creating a privileged ethnic group within a nation with the objective of discriminating against all others. Confusing the two, and trying to make it appear as if everybody did it, is hasbara, plain and simple.

Shusha's posting didn't surprise me at all, given his/her propensities. It'd be disappointing if you actually, after thorough consideration, agreed with that.

You're forced to set up a false equivalence in order to dismiss my point and falsely demonize Israel. You've introduced apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany as though they were equivalent to national self-determination. They are not. If you wanted to bring up national self-determination you could have brought up Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzevogina, Macedonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Moldova, Estonia, Armenia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. Maybe you would have brought up peoples who seek, but not yet have achieved self-determination: First Nations peoples of US and Canada, Tibet, Catalonia, Western Sahara, Palestine.

The UN Charter, Article 1.2 states definitively that its purpose is, in part: 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; (emphasis mine)

The Constitution of Slovenia, as an example, states: the fundamental and permanent right of the Slovene nation to self-determination; and from the historical fact that in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation we Slovenes have established our national identity and asserted our statehood, the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia hereby adopts.. (emphasis mine)

Slovenia is a state of all its citizens and is founded on the permanent and inalienable right of the Slovene nation to self-determination. (emphasis mine)

Instead of bringing up those examples you introduced two times and places in history which were conditioned, not on the self-determination of a peoples, but on the discrimination, pogroms, persecution and genocides of another peoples. There is no equivalence here. A declaration of self-determination, of itself, is not the persecution of another peoples, nor does it create conditions of persecution of another people. I am relatively certain there is no uproar about Slovenia's declaration of self-determination, nor of any other peoples'. And I am certain you will not declare Slovenia an apartheid state. There is a double standard here operating because its Israel.

And, let's be clear. The REASON why Israel feels the need to include a statement like this in their Basic Law is because their absolute, inherent right to self-determination is continually being denied by Arabs, Arab Palestinians and globally by useful idiots like you. The need to entrench this statement in law is RESULT of discrimination, persecution and pogroms directed against the Jewish people who are being actively prevented from having the same rights of other peoples, and whose desire to have the same rights as other peoples is being deliberately and falsely conflated with apartheid and with Nazism.

The moral equivalence is sickening, and mendacious.

And worst of all, not even intelligent.

 

[Shusha]

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

Jew traits

If that is "demonization" you need to get a slightly thicker skin!

That is not demonization. That is just plain and simple antisemitism. Claiming that an entire peoples collectively hold certain "traits" which can be identified with those peoples is standard, old school antisemitism.

Demonization is where you wrongly condemn a peoples for something they have not done. Like build Bantustans.

 

[Humanity]

Well, I don't agree that Israel should annex all of Jerusalem.

"declare loyalty to Israel" or get deported?

Well, that would be an interesting move. How many countries have a law like that?

No country should be forced to live with a hostile population actively trying to destroy the State. In civil conflicts like this one, the solution is to divide the territory and form nations around a specific ethnic population, almost always with a minority of other ethnicities. This is all I am proposing and I'm proposing it equally for both Israel and Palestine. Each citizen, currently living in the territory, is given the choice of declaring citizenship -- Israeli or Palestinian -- and residing in their State of citizenship as safe, loyal citizens. Should they choose to relocate, they are given compensation to assist them with doing so. Seems fair and reasonable, and allows each citizen to choose what is best for them and their family.

Except there is a slight issue over land.

Who will decide that? Israel?

God.
And thus far the Jews seems to be the winners.

If only she existed!

 

[Coyote]

Arab Israelis are not being moved to Bantustans.

Yet!

Sure. Let's demonize an entire peoples because of what you imagine they might do in the future. Seems fair. /sarcasm

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

What makes you antisemitic is that demonizing is all you do.

Oh dear, another retarded liar zionut!

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

You don’t, it is just another attempt to derail the thread into personal attacks. Ignore it.

Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti Semitic, I think some tend to use it as a means of stifling opposition. When it becomes potentially anti Semitic, imo, is when Israel is held to a different standard than other comparable countries or it turns in to a conversation on “the Jews”. Recognizing the rights and grievances of minorities or the Palestinians is not anti Semitic.

Israel is different in some ways in that it is in the midst of an unresolved territorial conflict, a capital claimed two peoples, mixed indiginous populations, territory populated by a stateless population with diminished rights, a it is the only nation I am aware of who’s right to even exist is still being argued generations later.

 

[Humanity]

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

Making negative assumptions about the future behaviour of Israel and accusing Israel of an apartheid condition which they have not actually created is most certainly not fair criticism of Israeli politics and policies. It can only be demonization.

STOP MAKING SHIT UP!

Jesus! Team Israel are on good liar form today!

Can you please show me where I accused Israel of apartheid?

Consummate liars!!

 

[Coyote]

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

Making negative assumptions about the future behaviour of Israel and accusing Israel of an apartheid condition which they have not actually created is most certainly not fair criticism of Israeli politics and policies. It can only be demonization.

We do that often with the Palestinians as well as to how their future state would be Jew free or governed.

 

[Humanity]

Yet!

Sure. Let's demonize an entire peoples because of what you imagine they might do in the future. Seems fair. /sarcasm

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

What makes you antisemitic is that demonizing is all you do.

Oh dear, another retarded liar zionut!

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

You don’t, it is just another attempt to derail the thread into personal attacks. Ignore it.

Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti Semitic, I think some tend to use it as a means of stifling opposition. When it becomes potentially anti Semitic, imo, is when Israel is held to a different standard than other comparable countries or it turns in to a conversation on “the Jews”. Recognizing the rights and grievances of minorities or the Palestinians is not anti Semitic.

Israel is different in some ways in that it is in the midst of an unresolved territorial conflict, a capital claimed two peoples, mixed indiginous populations, territory populated by a stateless population with diminished rights, a it is the only nation I am aware of who’s right to even exist is still being argued generations later.

Interesting comment...

"when Israel is held to a different standard than other comparable countries" - When Team Israel holds Israel to a different standard it seems to be acceptable and, when you read through the multitude of comments here that is EXACTLY what Team Israel does...

I mean, seriously, how many other countries/peoples were chosen by 'god'? How many other people consider themselves the 'chosen ones'?

It is this arrogance, this blind faith (faith being another word for ignorance) that is used time and again by Team Israel to try and differentiate themselves from the rest of humanity!

The arrogance and the hypocrisy is astonishing!

 

[Humanity]

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

Making negative assumptions about the future behaviour of Israel and accusing Israel of an apartheid condition which they have not actually created is most certainly not fair criticism of Israeli politics and policies. It can only be demonization.

We do that often with the Palestinians as well as to how their future state would be Jew free or governed.

Spot on!

 

[Shusha]

STOP MAKING SHIT UP!

Jesus! Team Israel are on good liar form today!

Can you please show me where I accused Israel of apartheid?

Consummate liars!!

Post #698

Arab Israelis are not being moved to Bantustans.

Yet!

The obvious implication is apartheid. And you are demonizing Israel for something they have not, in fact, done based on a belief you have that they will do such a thing at some point in the future. That is NOT fair criticism of Israel's policies. That is demonization.

 

[Coyote]

Sure. Let's demonize an entire peoples because of what you imagine they might do in the future. Seems fair. /sarcasm

I'm not demonizing anyone... Certainly not "an entire peoples"!

There in lies a common issue with Team Israel...

The distinction between people and politics!

My critisizing Israeli politics and policies does not, as you might claim, make me antisemetic!

What makes you antisemitic is that demonizing is all you do.

Oh dear, another retarded liar zionut!

Show me one post where I demonize Jews

You don’t, it is just another attempt to derail the thread into personal attacks. Ignore it.

Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti Semitic, I think some tend to use it as a means of stifling opposition. When it becomes potentially anti Semitic, imo, is when Israel is held to a different standard than other comparable countries or it turns in to a conversation on “the Jews”. Recognizing the rights and grievances of minorities or the Palestinians is not anti Semitic.

Israel is different in some ways in that it is in the midst of an unresolved territorial conflict, a capital claimed two peoples, mixed indiginous populations, territory populated by a stateless population with diminished rights, a it is the only nation I am aware of who’s right to even exist is still being argued generations later.

Interesting comment...

"when Israel is held to a different standard than other comparable countries" - When Team Israel holds Israel to a different standard it seems to be acceptable and, when you read through the multitude of comments here that is EXACTLY what Team Israel does...

It depends on who in Team Israel you mean...and in what particulars.

I mean, seriously, how many other countries/peoples were chosen by 'god'? How many other people consider themselves the 'chosen ones'?

Islam, Christianity...

It is this arrogance, this blind faith (faith being another word for ignorance) that is used time and again by Team Israel to try and differentiate themselves from the rest of humanity!

The arrogance and the hypocrisy is astonishing!

Ugh...Christians and Muslims act the same...they believe God made them special through special prophets who spoke for Her.

Humanity, don’t you see that in these words you are demonizing? You are making generalizations about Jews as a group, not Israeli policies or culture

 

[Indeependent]

Well, I don't agree that Israel should annex all of Jerusalem.

"declare loyalty to Israel" or get deported?

Well, that would be an interesting move. How many countries have a law like that?

No country should be forced to live with a hostile population actively trying to destroy the State. In civil conflicts like this one, the solution is to divide the territory and form nations around a specific ethnic population, almost always with a minority of other ethnicities. This is all I am proposing and I'm proposing it equally for both Israel and Palestine. Each citizen, currently living in the territory, is given the choice of declaring citizenship -- Israeli or Palestinian -- and residing in their State of citizenship as safe, loyal citizens. Should they choose to relocate, they are given compensation to assist them with doing so. Seems fair and reasonable, and allows each citizen to choose what is best for them and their family.

Except there is a slight issue over land.

Who will decide that? Israel?

God.
And thus far the Jews seems to be the winners.

If only she existed!

God created the genders, God is not a gendet.

 

[Shusha]

We do that often with the Palestinians as well as to how their future state would be Jew free or governed.

No we don't. For starters, their future state is ALREADY Jew-free.

 

[Coyote]

We do that often with the Palestinians as well as to how their future state would be Jew free or governed.

No we don't. For starters, their future state is ALREADY Jew-free.

I have seen multiple claims by those claiming no Jews would be allowed in a Palestinian State. That is as much speculation and demonizing as speculating Israel’s new law will lead to greater discrimination. We don’t know what a Palestinian State will bring or what eventual constitution will be decided upon.

 

[Olde Europe]

You are forcing me to argue the other side here by your application of false equivalence, namely apartheid comparisons. Let’s consider that...

We have three areas under consideration, 4 actually...and we have multiple systems of law in play: PA, Israeli civil law, Israeli military law. PA law is in effect in areas controlled by Palestinians, Military law is used on Palestinians in Israeli controlled areas while Israeli civil is in effect on Israelis in those same territories (which in itself creates serious injustices) and Israel itself where Israeli civil law is in effect. There is also a difference in the law itself and then the actions of civil authorities and society in how they choose to apply it. To claim apartheid you need to show the laws that support it.

Apartheid created, by law, a completely segregated society in which blacks had legally imposed redirected rights, could only live in deceptively named and resource poor “homelands” and were subject to laws that enforced seperation and inferior status. In Israel itself what laws do that?

The law in this topic only states that Jews can expertise the right of self determination IN Israel. That means others can’t create a seperate state within Israel as part of self determination, if iI understand it correctly. It doesn’t seem like it would effect non Jews much, especially since they removed the settlement part. But I am a little uneasy...I think we will have to see how this plays out in civil society. It is not apartheid however. Arab Israelis are not being moved to Bantustans.

That's pretty amazing. No, I do not "force" you to do anything other than to defend your "Agree", or drop it, as I think you should. And no, we do not have to consider four areas, as in the context of the basic law we have just one area, that is, the region within which that basic law is in force. Moreover, apartheid at the core is a state that creates two different sets of laws to privilege one group over another. How that plays out in detail is subject to national differences and flavors. You do an admirable job of digging up evidence of the Israeli state systematically depriving Arabs of educational opportunity by systematic underfunding of their schools. That's the bantustan right there.

Finally, there is no "false equivalence", and, once again, I ask:

"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of South Africa is unique to White South Africans."

Acceptable? How about this:

"The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Germany is unique to Aryan Germans."

This is not equating Israel to Nazi Germany - that would be preposterous. It's just to point out what an atrocity this basic law actually is.

National self-determination either includes all citizens, or it creates an apartheid state. There is no third. The exclusion of Arabs from national self-determination - which should be the right of all citizens (as it is the right of all citizens of EU member states) - may well be a frontal assault on Arab voting rights, for that is how national self-determination usually, mainly plays out. It is also, in conjunction with "the development of Jewish settlement", a recipe for more rigorously discriminatory housing and land use, and more and more rigorous discrimination against Arab settlements. It is, most notably an assault on the 2000 Ka'adan ruling, which struck down long-standing discriminatory housing and land use policies. Under the current basic law, that ruling is obsolete, and with that, the creation of segregated communities became much easier and it would no longer be subject to successful challenges. See this for a primer:

The purpose of the Admissions Committees Law is no secret in Israel. Fifteen years earlier, on March 8th, 2000, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling that the town of Katzir, built on state land by the Jewish Agency, could not deny the right of the Arab Ka'adan family to live in the town simply on the basis that they were not Jewish. This was the first time that Palestinian citizens of Israel, a fifth of the state's population, successfully challenged the legality of "Jewish-only" communities, many of which, though small, were strategically located to prevent the expansion of Palestinian towns and had bylaws that forbade the leasing of property to non-Jews, though built on confiscated Palestinian lands.​

The monumental outrage over this ruling was a harbinger of things to come.

This basic law has nothing to do with forbidding the creation of a separate state within Israel, it just excludes Arabs (non-Jews) from the right of self-determination. They shall have no influence on the government that serves them, and, in that light, Arab Israelis aren't even citizens in the definition usually applied in Western democracies.

It's sure to get worse. Once the discrimination increases, and legal challenges to it are sure to become ever more pointless as that basic law filters through the court system and the re-interpretation of law, what's left to counter it?