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

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinians have not once attempted to resolve the disputes over Israeli Sovereign Boundaries by peaceful means

There is no dispute.

1. Israel has no borders.
2. Israel has its fat ass parked inside Palestine's borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Then we should add:
Article 9
Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.

Article 18
Freedom of belief, worship and the performance of religious functions are guaranteed, provided public order or public morals are not violated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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".

This has a lot to do with the US violating its own laws. The US is not supposed to recognize coup governments. The PA in the West Bank is a coup government. The government in Egypt is a coup government as are many in Latin America. All recognized by the US as legit.

 

[Hollie]

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".

This has a lot to do with the US violating its own laws. The US is not supposed to recognize coup governments. The PA in the West Bank is a coup government. The government in Egypt is a coup government as are many in Latin America. All recognized by the US as legit.

The PA is “a coup government”? Obviously, you don’t know terms and definitions you’re stumbling over.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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".

This has a lot to do with the US violating its own laws. The US is not supposed to recognize coup governments. The PA in the West Bank is a coup government. The government in Egypt is a coup government as are many in Latin America. All recognized by the US as legit.

The PA is “a coup government”? Obviously, you don’t know terms and definitions you’re stumbling over.

Your ignorance is showing.



Whose Coup, Exactly?

An international community worried by the ‘coup’ accusation might endorse the Fayyad government as the seemingly correct position. But the ‘coup’ claim stumbles over a basic problem — that Abbas’s appointing a new prime minister was itself entirely illegal. The new ‘emergency government’ is illegal, too. According to the Basic Law of Palestine (as amended in 2003), which serves as the constitution of the PA, Abbas can do neither of these things. Nor can the new ‘emergency government’ claim any democratic mandate. This means that Abbas and the Fayyad government are ruling by decree, outside the framework of the Basic Law. So on what basis is that government supposed to govern — and on what basis are foreign governments supposed to deal with it?

According to the Basic Law, Abbas has violated a whole stream of Articles as well as the spirit of its checks and balances, which were designed during the Arafat era partly to limit the power of the presidency. With full US and Israel support (if not their insistence), Abbas has baldly trashed numerous provisions of the Basic Law, including:

Whose Coup, Exactly?

 

[RoccoR]

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're batting ZERO.

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.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Civil Administration was "sovereignty." You get this wrong quite frequently. However, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did relinquish "sovereignty."

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

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

(COMMENT)

Once again, I did not say 1949. I said 1918.

I agree, the Arab Palestinians have never surrendered any territory, because they have never had any sovereigh territory to to surrender.

The Treaty of Sevres → Article 132, is replaced 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 recognized 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.

(COMMENT)

That is not at all what either Treaty said. Your confusing topics again (Part I - Section II - Nationality) with territorial control. Not at all the same thing.

Yes, the Arab Palestinians have the Right to Sovereignty, if in fact, they had some territory that they previously had maintained sovereignty over. BUT! THERE IS NO LAW that requires Israel to surrender any territory to the HoAP that the HoAP had no previous sovereignty over.

The Arab Palestinians have not once attempted to resolve the disputes over Israeli Sovereign Boundaries by peaceful means

There is no dispute.

1. Israel has no borders.
2. Israel has its fat ass parked inside Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter and makes no difference what you think. What does matter and makes a true difference is what Israel protects and defends from Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) incursions; or invasion from any other external nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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, et al,

You're batting ZERO.

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.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Civil Administration was "sovereignty." You get this wrong quite frequently. However, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did relinquish "sovereignty."

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

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

(COMMENT)

Once again, I did not say 1949. I said 1918.

I agree, the Arab Palestinians have never surrendered any territory, because they have never had any sovereigh territory to to surrender.

The Treaty of Sevres → Article 132, is replaced 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 recognized 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.

(COMMENT)

That is not at all what either Treaty said. Your confusing topics again (Part I - Section II - Nationality) with territorial control. Not at all the same thing.

Yes, the Arab Palestinians have the Right to Sovereignty, if in fact, they had some territory that they previously had maintained sovereignty over. BUT! THERE IS NO LAW that requires Israel to surrender any territory to the HoAP that the HoAP had no previous sovereignty over.

The Arab Palestinians have not once attempted to resolve the disputes over Israeli Sovereign Boundaries by peaceful means

There is no dispute.

1. Israel has no borders.
2. Israel has its fat ass parked inside Palestine's borders.

(COMMENT)

It does not matter and makes no difference what you think. What does matter and makes a true difference is what Israel protects and defends from Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) incursions; or invasion from any other external nation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is not external.

 

[Sixties Fan]

• Some Israeli Arab leaders speak disparagingly about Israel for publicity. They know that no newspaper would ever mention them if they were dealing with issues such as sewage or a shortage of classrooms in Arab schools. If they say something bad about Israel or provoke the Jews, however, they will certainly receive a headline in the press.
  
  
• Israeli Arab leaders can incite against Israel as much as they wish. Their slander will not change the reality that Israel is the only thriving democracy in the Middle East, and treats its minorities with respect. While minorities are being persecuted and murdered in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and other Arab and Islamic countries, the Arab citizens of Israel are being integrated into the state. They hold high positions in the Supreme Court, the Foreign Ministry, the health sector and even the Israel Police. The majority of the Arabs in Israel can work anywhere they wish, they can travel anywhere in the country, and they will continue to enjoy all the privileges, benefits and freedoms that Jewish citizens do.
  
  
• Some Israeli Arab leaders want Israel to give up its wish to be a Jewish homeland because they are hoping that one day Jews will become a minority in their own country. For far too long, they have been inciting their constituents against Israel and Jews. If these leaders are so unhappy in Israel, perhaps they would consider moving to Ramallah or the Gaza Strip or any Arab country. Perhaps they would care to resign from the Knesset. Why do they refrain from doing so? Because it is in the Jewish homeland, supposedly so harmful to them, that they and their children can live and thrive.
  

(full article online)

The Secret Reason Arabs Reject the Jewish Nation-State Law

 

[USAF 2023]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

What does “ Trolling, no content “ mean? Not allowed to comment on other posts?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Then we should add:
Article 9
Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.

Article 18
Freedom of belief, worship and the performance of religious functions are guaranteed, provided public order or public morals are not violated.

Thanks - I think this gets ignored!

 

[P F Tinmore]

I agree, the Arab Palestinians have never surrendered any territory, because they have never had any sovereigh territory to to surrender.

Then why does the UN call it Palestine and claim that they have territorial integrity?

 

[Coyote]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

Admonit, you need to READ THE RULES. Read the rules pertaining to IP, the need for topical content along with flaming, don't ignore moderator messages in red, and if you have an issue with moderation - take it up with one of the staff via PM, not on the open boards. This is the only public reminder you will get. Now discuss the topic please.

 

[Coyote]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

What does “ Trolling, no content “ mean? Not allowed to comment on other posts?

It means that when you are posting in IP, per the rules - you need to include material relevant to the topic in addition to flames and insults. A post saying simply "You are a dumbass" isn't going to work.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

What does “ Trolling, no content “ mean? Not allowed to comment on other posts?

Indeed, should I not comment on another post. I thought that is what discussion meant.

 

[Coyote]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

What does “ Trolling, no content “ mean? Not allowed to comment on other posts?

Indeed, should I not comment on another post. I thought that is what discussion meant.

See the post above yours.

 

[USAF 2023]

I got a warning "Trolling/No Content" from a moderator, which includes a threat of possible administrative actions.
Here is my public reply:
I don't accept the warning, neither its form, nor its content.
Thats why I prefer to stop "posting or using your site".

What does “ Trolling, no content “ mean? Not allowed to comment on other posts?

It means that when you are posting in IP, per the rules - you need to include material relevant to the topic in addition to flames and insults. A post saying simply "You are a dumbass" isn't going to work.

Agree! Thank you!!

 

[Shusha]

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

The equality of all citizens of Israel is firmly entrenched in law.

 

[Shusha]

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".

Don't be so disingenuous as to claim that "the people" in Article 2 are not the same people in Article 1.

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.


And let's also remember how easy it is to claim a Basic Law on equality in Article 9 while simultaneously declaring that your future state will be deliberately kept free from all peoples for whom that equality would be necessary. Creating a completely homogeneous state and then declaring that all people in that state are equal is rather disingenuous.

 

[Humanity]

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

The equality of all citizens of Israel is firmly entrenched in law.

So why doesn't it then?

 

[Shusha]

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

The equality of all citizens of Israel is firmly entrenched in law.

So why doesn't it then?

Treat all citizens equally? It does.