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
※→ Coyote, et al,

Now, IF we are going to be "honest" THEN by all means let's do!

Let's be honest about it...

There was NEVER going to be any "meaningful negotiations" as to the who/where/what/why of Jerusalem!

Jerusalem should be, as was set out in 1947, corpus separatum!

(COMMENT)

I make it a practice (as best that I can) "never" to say "never." I don't believe that the Israeli-Arab Palestinian (as oppose to the Israel-Lebonese, the Israeli-Syrian, the Israeli-Jordanian, of the Israeli-Egyptian) was as toxic as it is today. There were misgivings, bad feelings, religious differences and economic disparities, to be sure. But not near as toxic and venomous as they are today. Other factors gradually came into play and compounded the situatution.

For the moment, let's set aside the complication that the Grand-Mufti (and many close associates) had a dubious reputations.

✪→ Yes A/RES/181 (II) (Part IIIA) made the recommendation that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." BUT, it also recommended that the "Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations." And the Arab Legion, and in particular HM the King of Jordan, wanted the control over Jerusalem. The Invasion of Israel by the Arab League set the conditions that prevented the establishment Trusteeship over Jerusalem. While you can say that Israel did not do anthing to help the recommendation along, it was the Jordanians that saw no advantage to puting in place the UN Administrative Authority. After the Six-Day War (1967), the roles were reversed.

✪→ On 29 January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission presented its First Monthly Progress Report. The UNPC had received a communique from the Arab Higher Committee:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
​

✪→ On 16 February 1948, the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee, made it clear:

• "the Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them;
• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.
• The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success.
• and further included the "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

These position statements were well known on the very frontend of the "Stepts Preparatory to Independence" which the Arabs of Palestine declined to partcipate.

Now again, I can see many failures on the part of the Israelis. BUT! Clearly the first steps to obstructing the the establishment of a free City State (a corpus separatum ) were taken by the Arabs Palestinians. They refused to recognize or participate in the A/RES/181 (II) process. They declared they would resist the establishment of the Jewish State, covered by Part II B of the same recomendation. And! The Arab Palestinians carried out the threat of violence [Article 2(4) UN Charter - threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state]; and a plan by members of the Arab League to take an unlawful action → endangering regional peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

No. I also question a democratic society having a state religion - but then, I feel that way about any state that has a "state religion" - that is certainly not unique to Israel. Some states have it as a remnant of a past where the monarchy and religion was entertwined. Others have it in a more active sense, where the religion plays an active role in public life. I also question the capital being Jerusalem since theoretically all that was supposed to be resolved through negotiation not fiat.

I thought the part about Halacha was removed?

So your concerns seem to be centered not around the concept of a State for the Jewish people, or a national language or the other trappings of a national identity such as the flag, holiday calendar, etc. Your main concerns are about a State religion (which you correctly state are in many national constitutions and basic laws) and about Jerusalem specifically. Yes?

Yes.

I have no issue with a state for Jewish people so long as minorities are protected and no group is disenfranchised. I think that is very a very difficult balancing act when you have citizenship that is defined along ethnic/religious lines rather than nationality. Are there any successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a the Homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal?

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Now, IF we are going to be "honest" THEN by all means let's do!

Let's be honest about it...

There was NEVER going to be any "meaningful negotiations" as to the who/where/what/why of Jerusalem!

Jerusalem should be, as was set out in 1947, corpus separatum!

(COMMENT)

I make it a practice (as best that I can) "never" to say "never." I don't believe that the Israeli-Arab Palestinian (as oppose to the Israel-Lebonese, the Israeli-Syrian, the Israeli-Jordanian, of the Israeli-Egyptian) was as toxic as it is today. There were misgivings, bad feelings, religious differences and economic disparities, to be sure. But not near as toxic and venomous as they are today. Other factors gradually came into play and compounded the situatution.

For the moment, let's set aside the complication that the Grand-Mufti (and many close associates) had a dubious reputations.

✪→ Yes A/RES/181 (II) (Part IIIA) made the recommendation that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." BUT, it also recommended that the "Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations." And the Arab Legion, and in particular HM the King of Jordan, wanted the control over Jerusalem. The Invasion of Israel by the Arab League set the conditions that prevented the establishment Trusteeship over Jerusalem. While you can say that Israel did not do anthing to help the recommendation along, it was the Jordanians that saw no advantage to puting in place the UN Administrative Authority. After the Six-Day War (1967), the roles were reversed.

✪→ On 29 January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission presented its First Monthly Progress Report. The UNPC had received a communique from the Arab Higher Committee:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
​

✪→ On 16 February 1948, the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee, made it clear:

• "the Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them;
• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.
• The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success.
• and further included the "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

These position statements were well known on the very frontend of the "Stepts Preparatory to Independence" which the Arabs of Palestine declined to partcipate.

Now again, I can see many failures on the part of the Israelis. BUT! Clearly the first steps to obstructing the the establishment of a free City State (a corpus separatum ) were taken by the Arabs Palestinians. They refused to recognize or participate in the A/RES/181 (II) process. They declared they would resist the establishment of the Jewish State, covered by Part II B of the same recomendation. And! The Arab Palestinians carried out the threat of violence [Article 2(4) UN Charter - threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state]; and a plan by members of the Arab League to take an unlawful action → endangering regional peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

Now, IF we are going to be "honest" THEN by all means let's do!

Let's be honest about it...

There was NEVER going to be any "meaningful negotiations" as to the who/where/what/why of Jerusalem!

Jerusalem should be, as was set out in 1947, corpus separatum!

(COMMENT)

I make it a practice (as best that I can) "never" to say "never." I don't believe that the Israeli-Arab Palestinian (as oppose to the Israel-Lebonese, the Israeli-Syrian, the Israeli-Jordanian, of the Israeli-Egyptian) was as toxic as it is today. There were misgivings, bad feelings, religious differences and economic disparities, to be sure. But not near as toxic and venomous as they are today. Other factors gradually came into play and compounded the situatution.

For the moment, let's set aside the complication that the Grand-Mufti (and many close associates) had a dubious reputations.

✪→ Yes A/RES/181 (II) (Part IIIA) made the recommendation that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." BUT, it also recommended that the "Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations." And the Arab Legion, and in particular HM the King of Jordan, wanted the control over Jerusalem. The Invasion of Israel by the Arab League set the conditions that prevented the establishment Trusteeship over Jerusalem. While you can say that Israel did not do anthing to help the recommendation along, it was the Jordanians that saw no advantage to puting in place the UN Administrative Authority. After the Six-Day War (1967), the roles were reversed.

✪→ On 29 January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission presented its First Monthly Progress Report. The UNPC had received a communique from the Arab Higher Committee:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
​

✪→ On 16 February 1948, the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee, made it clear:

• "the Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them;
• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.
• The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success.
• and further included the "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

These position statements were well known on the very frontend of the "Stepts Preparatory to Independence" which the Arabs of Palestine declined to partcipate.

Now again, I can see many failures on the part of the Israelis. BUT! Clearly the first steps to obstructing the the establishment of a free City State (a corpus separatum ) were taken by the Arabs Palestinians. They refused to recognize or participate in the A/RES/181 (II) process. They declared they would resist the establishment of the Jewish State, covered by Part II B of the same recomendation. And! The Arab Palestinians carried out the threat of violence [Article 2(4) UN Charter - threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state]; and a plan by members of the Arab League to take an unlawful action → endangering regional peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R[/Q

Jerusalem was supposed to be an “ International City” after 1948 according to the U.N. it wasn’t followed or respected then and Israel isn’t going to “ respect” it now.
Maybe it should; The Palestinians won’t be able to have.their Capital there
i

 

[Shusha]

Yes.

I have no issue with a state for Jewish people so long as minorities are protected and no group is disenfranchised. I think that is very a very difficult balancing act when you have citizenship that is defined along ethnic/religious lines rather than nationality. Are there any successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a the Homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal?

Okay, so here's the thing. That list of Basic Law that I posted most recently and asked you specifically to comment on is NOT Israel's Basic Law. Its Palestine's. I simply switched "Arab" for "Jewish". The wording is straight from Palestine's Basic Law. It has been around since 2003. 15 years. Where was the UPROAR?! The OUTRAGE?! The labels of apartheid and discrimination and just not cool? I don't recall any. Do you?

So, side by side, the two Basic Laws are virtually identical. Except Palestine adds the requirement for Sharia law as the fundamental basis of law for the country, which Israel does not have. And the state religion, which Israel does not have. The rest is the same. As are dozens of other countries which have virtually the exact same ideals written into their constitutions.

Are there any successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal? Yes. I could give you dozens of examples. Are there successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal, but there are ethnic groups fighting (figuratively and literally) for their own self-determination? Yes. I can give you examples. Are there successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is homeland for only one segment of the population and all are NOT equal? Yes. Certainly. Many. Some are even literally apartheid in that they have laws specifying people by ethnic or religious or gender category have fewer rights than others. Are there a few truly multi-ethnic countries in the world. Yes. A very few. Are there a few truly ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. Yes. Are they deliberately kept that way? Yes.

My point is that NO COUNTRY -- not a single, solitary one -- is being SCRUTINIZED and VILIFIED for ANY of these positions. From active, real apartheid; to deliberate discrimination against other ethnic, religious or gender groups; to complete ethnic homogeneity; to a homeland for a specific people; to a multi-ethnic community, every single one of those countries has escaped international condemnation and global news reports. Every one. Including Palestine. It is an egregious affront to the Jewish people that they can not exist on par with the rest of the planet, but are subjected to unreasonable standards applied to no one else.

 

[jillian]

Unlike the Dutch people, Jews originated in the land of Israel.

Of course YHWH gave South Africa to the Boers. They said so.

Canaan is the ancient name for the land of Israel. The Torah gave Abraham the land of Canaan, which in some cases stretched from southern Syria to the Eastern Sinai and, in other Torah references, was only a small strip hugging the Mediterranean. Under the leadership of Joshua the Israelites conquered Canaan, which had previously been divided into seven city states. Today, the land of Canaan is known as Palestine, Eretz Yisrael and Israel.
The Canaanites​

But Penelope says my mother was a Hittite and my father an Amorite.

Amusing what people make up in their heads.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Now, IF we are going to be "honest" THEN by all means let's do!

Let's be honest about it...

There was NEVER going to be any "meaningful negotiations" as to the who/where/what/why of Jerusalem!

Jerusalem should be, as was set out in 1947, corpus separatum!

(COMMENT)

I make it a practice (as best that I can) "never" to say "never." I don't believe that the Israeli-Arab Palestinian (as oppose to the Israel-Lebonese, the Israeli-Syrian, the Israeli-Jordanian, of the Israeli-Egyptian) was as toxic as it is today. There were misgivings, bad feelings, religious differences and economic disparities, to be sure. But not near as toxic and venomous as they are today. Other factors gradually came into play and compounded the situatution.

For the moment, let's set aside the complication that the Grand-Mufti (and many close associates) had a dubious reputations.

✪→ Yes A/RES/181 (II) (Part IIIA) made the recommendation that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." BUT, it also recommended that the "Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations." And the Arab Legion, and in particular HM the King of Jordan, wanted the control over Jerusalem. The Invasion of Israel by the Arab League set the conditions that prevented the establishment Trusteeship over Jerusalem. While you can say that Israel did not do anthing to help the recommendation along, it was the Jordanians that saw no advantage to puting in place the UN Administrative Authority. After the Six-Day War (1967), the roles were reversed.

✪→ On 29 January 1948, the UN Palestine Commission presented its First Monthly Progress Report. The UNPC had received a communique from the Arab Higher Committee:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
​

✪→ On 16 February 1948, the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee, made it clear:

• "the Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them;
• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• not a single Arab will cooperate with the said Commission.
• The United Nations or its Commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success.
• and further included the "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

These position statements were well known on the very frontend of the "Stepts Preparatory to Independence" which the Arabs of Palestine declined to partcipate.

Now again, I can see many failures on the part of the Israelis. BUT! Clearly the first steps to obstructing the the establishment of a free City State (a corpus separatum ) were taken by the Arabs Palestinians. They refused to recognize or participate in the A/RES/181 (II) process. They declared they would resist the establishment of the Jewish State, covered by Part II B of the same recomendation. And! The Arab Palestinians carried out the threat of violence [Article 2(4) UN Charter - threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state]; and a plan by members of the Arab League to take an unlawful action → endangering regional peace and security.

Most Respectfully,
R

They refused to recognize or participate in the A/RES/181 (II) process.

The UN has no authority over territory or borders.The Palestinians were correct in rejecting this proposal.

 

[Coyote]

Sounds like they are saying they don't want any foriegn nationals of "the enemy" in their state. Whether that occurs or not is up in the air. A lot of it is rhetoric. Let's see what happens when they actually form a state - then we can see if there is discrimmination or not.

You don't see that as already being discrimination?

In a final peace treaty, would you support both sides having no "foreign nationals of the enemy" in their State?

I think it would be a sad state of affairs.

 

[Coyote]

You don't see that as already being discrimination?

How can it be when there is no state? When there is nothing to base that on?

Crystal ball time again!

They are the current governments of the two territories. They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty. We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real". What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

It is not pretending it isn’t “real”, it is acknowledging that until there is a state, until it forms a constitution and creates laws, it is little more than rhetoric and you can not hold rhetoric to the same level as law. In fact, aren’t you essentially saying the same thing when you ask people to show any laws Israel has that are arpartheid vs talk?

 

[Coyote]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

Not entirely sure of the meaning or context but, I would suggest that a state free of "foreign national enemies" is an impossibility!

Agree, but the question was more should a state in the process of ending a conflict be able to try to create a state free of people of foreign nationality who are considered enemies due to the conflict.

I think if they wanted to...they could, it is the right of any state. Israel could kick out those who choose to be citizens of Palestine and Palestine could kick out those who choose to be citizens of Israel. But it is a bad idea and would perpetrate a conflict. But right now, it is only rhetoric.

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

I have no issue with a state for Jewish people so long as minorities are protected and no group is disenfranchised. I think that is very a very difficult balancing act when you have citizenship that is defined along ethnic/religious lines rather than nationality. Are there any successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a the Homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal?

Okay, so here's the thing. That list of Basic Law that I posted most recently and asked you specifically to comment on is NOT Israel's Basic Law. Its Palestine's. I simply switched "Arab" for "Jewish". The wording is straight from Palestine's Basic Law. It has been around since 2003. 15 years. Where was the UPROAR?! The OUTRAGE?! The labels of apartheid and discrimination and just not cool? I don't recall any. Do you?

So, side by side, the two Basic Laws are virtually identical. Except Palestine adds the requirement for Sharia law as the fundamental basis of law for the country, which Israel does not have. And the state religion, which Israel does not have. The rest is the same. As are dozens of other countries which have virtually the exact same ideals written into their constitutions.

Are there any successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal? Yes. I could give you dozens of examples. Are there successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is a homeland for only one segment of the population and all are truly equal, but there are ethnic groups fighting (figuratively and literally) for their own self-determination? Yes. I can give you examples. Are there successful democratic states where it is recognized that the state is homeland for only one segment of the population and all are NOT equal? Yes. Certainly. Many. Some are even literally apartheid in that they have laws specifying people by ethnic or religious or gender category have fewer rights than others. Are there a few truly multi-ethnic countries in the world. Yes. A very few. Are there a few truly ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. Yes. Are they deliberately kept that way? Yes.

My point is that NO COUNTRY -- not a single, solitary one -- is being SCRUTINIZED and VILIFIED for ANY of these positions. From active, real apartheid; to deliberate discrimination against other ethnic, religious or gender groups; to complete ethnic homogeneity; to a homeland for a specific people; to a multi-ethnic community, every single one of those countries has escaped international condemnation and global news reports. Every one. Including Palestine. It is an egregious affront to the Jewish people that they can not exist on par with the rest of the planet, but are subjected to unreasonable standards applied to no one else.

First off, there is no Palestinian State. Give them a state and open it up to the same criticisms that apply to any state. My feelings on the role of state religions etc is exactly the same.

I can give you many examples of countries criticized, from Egypt to Myanmar to Iran to Pakistan to Russia for their treatment of minorities or the ro,e of religion in the law.

What examples can you give of successful democracies where only one Ethnic or religious group is enshrined in the basic law above the rest?

 

[MisterBeale]

So Israel has gone full fascist huh?

Not surprising.

Is anyone surprised?

 

[flacaltenn]

it matters less where the border is

As someone with dual citizenship I think that the two countries I have citizenship in would disagree that their borders matter less.

It might matter less where the borders are. Living in the "occupied territories" has had an effect of providing the Palestinians more stability and security than any diaspora alternative. Very large middle class. I'd guess the upper 20% live better than 1/2 of America. And they certainly live better than in "exile" in most Arab states.

It's BECAUSE they have failed to organized a national govt and leadership that I believe their natural comfort level is that tribal city state situation they have now. They even identify politically as being residents of one city or another. PARTLY because of the obstacles the occupation have put in the way of free movement, but also because the FAMILY places of origin are so important.

And they might do just fine. Even better -- WITHOUT a national movement and govt if they HAD local autonomy and control of the greater city boundaries and the connectivity between them. Generous SOLID boundaries could be set for a form a "county" type govt that had a very loose "national federation".

 

[RoccoR]

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

You say this without thinking.

The UN has no authority over territory or borders.The Palestinians were correct in rejecting this proposal.

(COMMENT)

Laws and Authorities are ultimately made and enforced by men. The broad sweeping set of events are:

• Unconditional Surrender- Article 16 - Armistice of Mudros (1918).
• The Allied Powers assumed the political decision capacity (Article 16 Authority) in 1920, as the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) transferred control to the Territorial Civil Administration.
* The Territorial Civil Administration was formalized through the Principal Allied Powers having agreed to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine (1922).
• The Treaty of Sevres → Article 132, is replace by the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) and Turkey reaffirms and renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty. Turkey recognised that the "future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
• The territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (Palestine) as a legal entity will be transferred to the United Nations Palestine Commission - the Government of Palestine; authority being → Article 77(1b) UN Charter (effective date of transfer 1948) → territories placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements.
• Self-Government by the Israelis on termination.
​

The UN does not establish borders and I don't believe that anyone claimed that. Israel, as a matter of self-determination, established its sovereignty; and therein made what adjustments they might in the interest of Israeli National Security. The Arab Palestinians have not once attempted to resolve the disputes over Israeli Sovereign Boundaries by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation. Since 1968 the formal position has been that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." (Article 9, Palestinian National Covenant)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

First off, there is no Palestinian State. Give them a state and open it up to the same criticisms that apply to any state. My feelings on the role of state religions etc is exactly the same.

I can give you many examples of countries criticized, from Egypt to Myanmar to Iran to Pakistan to Russia for their treatment of minorities or the ro,e of religion in the law.

What examples can you give of successful democracies where only one Ethnic or religious group is enshrined in the basic law above the rest?

1. PLENTY of states are (deservedly) criticized for their treatment of minorities, ethnicities, religions, gender, etc, etc, etc. How many are called on to change their constitution? How many are vilified for the language of their CONSTITUTION? So far, only Israel.

2. States are not "given away" like candy. States are not granted by the international community like winning a stuffed teddy at the carnival. States are not held captive by neighbors like stealing newspapers from the front porch. NO ONE can GIVE the Arab Palestinians a state. If they want a state they have to start acting state-like. There is only one way to get a state. And that is to negotiate for one. They have all the agency in the world to start acting state-like. Seriously, its like saying that your teenager "deserves" an apartment so he can live independently, but he refuses to get a job so he can pay for an apartment, and your response is that his sister should just give him an apartment.

3. WTF? So when Arab Palestinians declare their intent by creating Basic Law for their future intended state -- its somehow doesn't count? Its not real? It should be dismissed and ignored? I'm sorry, but when, exactly, should we start taking the Arab Palestinian seriously? Honestly, you all keep acting like Arab Palestinians can't POSSIBLY be held accountable and be held to a standard and then also whine when Arabs aren't allowed to do have agency. Make up your mind. Which is it? Are they real or not real, the Skin Horse wants to know. The Basic Law for Palestine was created by the governing body of Palestine. If you want us to ignore the government of Palestine and pretend that Palestine does not exist, well, fine. But jeez, how can people who are not even competent to write a "real" Basic Law be given a STATE?!

4. Democracies where one ethnic group is enshrined? I've been over this on this thread a dozen times. Every single country which was created around a national ethnic group. Ireland. Slovenia. Spain. All the countries created from the dissolution of the former states of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Ottoman Empire, former Palestine. India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. All of the split aparts of old African nations. Nearly all of the ME countries.

Yeah, for sure, not all of them are democratic. There is mix of dictatorships, monarchies and all sorts of different crazy ass political structure -- but again who says Israel has to be a democracy? (It is. But who says it has to be?)

 

[Humanity]

but again who says Israel has to be a democracy? (It is. But who says it has to be?)

Israel, IMHO, is not a true democracy. Democracies treat all citizens equally. Israel doesn't!

No one says that Israel MUST be a democracy however, of all the failed political ideals, democracy is about the best to follow.

It feels that Israel, rather than looking to build a true democracy, is putting 'laws' in place to block a fair and equal democracy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

• Unconditional Surrender- Article 16 - Armistice of Mudros (1918).

There was no surrender in the 1949 Armistice agreements, nor have the Palestinians ever surrendered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Territorial Civil Administration was formalized through the Principal Allied Powers having agreed to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine (1922).

Administration, not sovereignty. Actually, Britain acted more like a military occupation than an administration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Treaty of Sevres → Article 132, is replace by the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) and Turkey reaffirms and renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty. Turkey recognised that the "future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The land was transferred to the new states where the residents would be the citizens. The Palestinians had the right to sovereignty that was reaffirmed by subsequent UN Resolutions.

 

[Olde Europe]

First off, there is no Palestinian State. Give them a state and open it up to the same criticisms that apply to any state. My feelings on the role of state religions etc is exactly the same.

I can give you many examples of countries criticized, from Egypt to Myanmar to Iran to Pakistan to Russia for their treatment of minorities or the ro,e of religion in the law.

What examples can you give of successful democracies where only one Ethnic or religious group is enshrined in the basic law above the rest?

I find, while it looks plausible on first glance, the "there is no Palestinian State" argument is a rather weak one. After all, it's likely the same set of politicos who form the ruling / legislative bodies during the last years of the Palestinian authorities and the first years of an eventual Palestinian State. So, what is to be expected from them other than what they've done before? One might even turn it around: Now that the PA has very little authority, and thus very little actually rests on getting their Basic Law right, what does it tell us if they don't?

Yet, we should rather look at the Basic Law itself, not at the falsification:

Article 1

Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.


Article 2

The people are the source of power, which shall be exercised through the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, based upon the principle of separation of powers and in the manner set forth in this Basic Law.


Article 3

Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.


Article 4

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.​

Easy enough to realize the larger first paragraph is missing in the (real) Basic Law, for it was just part of an introductory text written by the speaker of the "Palestinian Legislative Council". There are also other changes that made the falsification far more damning than the Basic Law really is. Still, there are troubling aspects in it, but there's one Article 2 that clarifies beyond doubt that there is not just "one Ethnic or religious group [] enshrined in the basic law above the rest". It declares "The people are the source of power". Not, Arabic people, or Muslim people, "the people". And certainly it doesn't declare national self-determination unique to one subgroup. "The people".

Surprise, surprise, you will not find that paragraph in the mendacious pap posted here:

Take a look at this:

The continuous attachment of the Jewish people to the land of their fathers and forefathers, on which this people has historically lived, is a fact which has been expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The strength of this attachment is confirmed by its consistency over time and place, by keeping faith with and holding on to national identity, and in the wonderous accomplishments of struggle. The organic relationship between the Jewish people, their history and their land has confirmed itself in their unceasing effort to prompt the world to recognize the rights of the Jewish people and their national entity on equal footing with other nations.

Israel is part of the larger Jewish world and the Jewish people are part of Israel.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Judaism is the official religion in Israel. Respect for the sanctity of all other religions shall be maintained.

Halacha shall be the principle source of legislation.

Hebrew shall be the official language.



Admirable or Apartheid?

Funny how that goes with the hasbara peddlers.

Of course, your question about "successful democracies where only one Ethnic or religious group is enshrined in the basic law above the rest" is an unfair one, since arguably such democracies cease to be democracies, certainly they cease to be successful ones.

 

[P F Tinmore]

• The territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (Palestine) as a legal entity will be transferred to the United Nations Palestine Commission

The UN dropped the ball. They never showed up to protect the people and territory in their trust. This left Palestine open for illegal military conquest.