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

[USAF 2023]

The Palestinians have declared that the Jewish people have no right to prey at the Western Wall

Thats going well then

Is it a law?

Ever hear the phrase “ Actions speak Louder then Words?”According to the U.N. Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to their Religious Sites but refused. If you prohibit someone from doing something they have the Right to do, why does it matter whether it’s written or not and why don’t you condemn it? Ecause you are a.

Oh dear, did you forget your meds today?

If you want to try and post that again when you have taken them then you may actually make some sense!

Do you really want to discuss what the UN says? That one always sends you zionuts like you running for cover!

https://www.quora.com/Why-werent-Je...rusalem-when-it-was-under-Jordanian-Arab-rule

To say that the Israelis were given the Right to Worship and have access to their Holy Sites is a lie. However we all know that the Pro Palestinian Team is an expert when it comes to that. You are an.

 

[Shusha]

it does matter if it is written into the laws. For example throughout this conversation, we have had posters claiming Israel is apartheid, but where in the laws is there anything supporting this claim? The same arguments are brought up over discrimmination for example. There is what is in the state's laws on side... And then how people choose to act on the other.

To be read in conjunction:

The Inequality Report

The Discriminatory Laws Database

Since the "Report" had been filed, Netanyahu and his reactionary coalition partners got to work, and the situation got much, much worse. The Nationality Law is set to speed up things even more, as Jewish nationality gets even more weight against the already feeble, and barely, if at all, implemented protections against discrimination.

The Adalah Scam

 

[USAF 2023]

No rub, Palestine was vested wholly with the sovereignty of the Jewish nation.

Got a link?

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine does not categorize people into different rights.

Sure they do. You don't hear them yelling "Rip the hearts out of Jews and Arabs equally!"

Is it written in the law anywhere?

It doesn’t have to be written into “ law” The Palestinians have declared that the Jewish people have no right to prey at the Western Wall. Just one small example
Ironically, Tinmore posted a You Tube Video not too long ago in which a Palestinian Young Woman very reluctantly stated that Palestinians and Israelis could live together but basically Palestine was for the Palestinians.

it does matter if it is written into the laws. For example throughout this conversation, we have had posters claiming Israel is apartheid, but where in the laws is there anything supporting this claim? The same arguments are brought up over discrimmination for example. There is what is in the state's laws on side... And then how people choose to act on the other.

 

[Humanity]

If your argument is that there is nothing wrong with or discriminatory about Catalans living in a Spanish state, built around the nationality of the Spanish people, and being forced (by law) to speak Spanish (Castillian) -- then there is nothing wrong or discriminatory about Arabs living in a Jewish state, built around the nationality of the Jewish people.

You sure are mixing a lot of things up here so let me see if I can dissect this part...

Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain, built around the Catalan culture and people. No one is forced to speak Spanish (by law or otherwise unless you want to consider the Franco regime and he force Spanish on the Catalans and didn't ban Catalan language).

The clamor for independence by the MINORITY of Catalans is one of folly.

There is no overriding religion in Spain that operates above the civil law as there is in Israel. Catalans are not second class citizens in Spain.

You appear, not for the first time, to be wanting your cake and eat it but with rather confused views, rather one sided, zionist views.

 

[USAF 2023]

Palestine does not categorize people into different rights.

Sure they do. You don't hear them yelling "Rip the hearts out of Jews and Arabs equally!"

Is it written in the law anywhere?

It doesn’t have to be written into “ law” The Palestinians have declared that the Jewish people have no right to prey at the Western Wall. Just one small example
Ironically, Tinmore posted a You Tube Video not too long ago in which a Palestinian Young Woman very reluctantly stated that Palestinians and Israelis could live together but basically Palestine was for the Palestinians.

it does matter if it is written into the laws. For example throughout this conversation, we have had posters claiming Israel is apartheid, but where in the laws is there anything supporting this claim? The same arguments are brought up over discrimmination for example. There is what is in the state's laws on side... And then how people choose to act on the other.

You forgot a few links like the one where the Jordanians denied the Israelis the Rights to their Religious Sites, Abbas stating no Israelis in Palestine or where they state Israel would not have any access to the Western Wall if they ever had control of it. Nice try though!!!!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

yet they're distinctly Kurds plain and simple.

What makes them distinctly Kurds?

They weren't Kurds until they were called Kurds. Like everybody else, they weren't until they were.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians have declared that the Jewish people have no right to prey at the Western Wall

Thats going well then

Is it a law?

Ever hear the phrase “ Actions speak Louder then Words?”According to the U.N. Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to their Religious Sites but refused. If you prohibit someone from doing something they have the Right to do, why does it matter whether it’s written or not and why don’t you condemn it? Ecause you are a.

Oh dear, did you forget your meds today?

If you want to try and post that again when you have taken them then you may actually make some sense!

Do you really want to discuss what the UN says? That one always sends you zionuts like you running for cover!

https://www.quora.com/Why-werent-Je...rusalem-when-it-was-under-Jordanian-Arab-rule

To say that the Israelis were given the Right to Worship and have access to their Holy Sites is a lie. However we all know that the Pro Palestinian Team is an expert when it comes to that. You are an.

Off topic. That was a Jordan thing. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it.

 

[USAF 2023]

The Palestinians have declared that the Jewish people have no right to prey at the Western Wall

Thats going well then

Is it a law?

Ever hear the phrase “ Actions speak Louder then Words?”According to the U.N. Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to their Religious Sites but refused. If you prohibit someone from doing something they have the Right to do, why does it matter whether it’s written or not and why don’t you condemn it? Ecause you are a.

Oh dear, did you forget your meds today?

If you want to try and post that again when you have taken them then you may actually make some sense!

Do you really want to discuss what the UN says? That one always sends you zionuts like you running for cover!

https://www.quora.com/Why-werent-Je...rusalem-when-it-was-under-Jordanian-Arab-rule

To say that the Israelis were given the Right to Worship and have access to their Holy Sites is a lie. However we all know that the Pro Palestinian Team is an expert when it comes to that. You are an.

Off topic. That was a Jordan thing. The Palestinians had nothing to do with it.

I was challenged to provide proof and I did.
Your “ topic” is “ Apartheid “. It works both ways... No comment about the Palestinians claim that if they had control Israel would be denied access to the Western Wall? Of course not. Typical Team Palestine Double Standard Keep Trying!!!!

 

[Coyote]

This country, the law avers, will not become just a "country of its citizens" whose main ideology is "man's honor and freedom" nor will it become a bi-national state. It will be a Jewish state with equal rights for minorities.

What bore witness to the greatness of the hour, albeit by means of irony and intentional malice, was the sight of Arab MKs tearing the law to bits in front of the cameras. If anything, this showed beyond doubt how necessary and important the law is. The Arab MKs displayed their real opinion of Israel and their unending subversion, support for Hamas and the Mavi Marmara, their serving as microphones for terrorists and IDF haters, are justification enough for a clear and precise Nationality Law.

(full article online)

From the Hebrew press: On the Nationality Law

The difficulty with that is when you have a religious state, then it is extremely hard to have real equality for minority religions.

 

[Coyote]

Does Slovenia have different categories of citizenship? One for ethnic Slovenes and one for others?

Israel does not have different categories of citizenship. All citizens are equal in law.

So there is one unitary Israeli citizenship?

 

[Coyote]

I disagree. Here is the issue. Other ethnic groups may share a religion but they are not themselves a religion and that does seperate Judaism from being just an ethnic group.

This makes no difference whatsoever. All cultures have some combination of religion and a list of other attributes which form the culture. This doesn't mean that the culture and nationality of the Jewish people should be treated differently than other cultures or that different rules should apply to them.

It absolutely makes a difference. Judaism IS a religion. Slovene is not. Kurd is not. If you are creating a Slovene state, religion may or may not play role in it. The ethnic group is not defined by its religion. Judaism is and to that extent religion plays a strong public role and there is a constant tension between secular and sacred forces in governance.

 

[RoccoR]

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

I agree.

But I also think that the allegation of "apartheid" is a very crafty PSYOPS way of furthering a politically motivated work-around [Article 7 Crimes Against Humanity - Paragraphs (1j) and (2h) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court].

it does matter if it is written into the laws. For example throughout this conversation, we have had posters claiming Israel is apartheid, but where in the laws is there anything supporting this claim? The same arguments are brought up over discrimination for example. There is what is in the state's laws on side... And then how people choose to act on the other.

(COMMENT)

If one actually reads the Law, you'll find that there is a critical requirement [Element to the Offense - Article 7 (1j) Crime Against Humanity of "Apartheid"] that needs addressed. This element is:

Element #4: The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic
oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.​

A critical thought here is that it involves "one racial group over any other racial group or groups." The racial component is a very slippery slope. And in a concerted effort within the UN attempted to make the determination "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" through the application of A/RES/3379 (XXX) 10 November 1975 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination damage to the State of Israel was done before corrective action could be taken. When the international judicial system actually and formally wrote the law, the UN had to revoke the Resolution 3379 (XXX). The revocation was in the form of A/RES/46/86 16 December 1991 Elimination of racism and racial discrimination, wherein the UN "Decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975." Over the last quarter century, a plethora of attempts have been made by a numerous anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist Arab Consortiums to make the element of race in the matter of the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict to stick; with no success.

A second critical factor is that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." [Article 2(7), Chapter I of the UN Charter] It takes no real understanding of International Law to know that Basic Law of Israel is in the "domestic jurisdiction." This is a matter for the Israelis and the Israelis alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

You sure are mixing a lot of things up here so let me see if I can dissect this part...

Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain, built around the Catalan culture and people. No one is forced to speak Spanish (by law or otherwise unless you want to consider the Franco regime and he force Spanish on the Catalans and didn't ban Catalan language).

The clamor for independence by the MINORITY of Catalans is one of folly.

There is no overriding religion in Spain that operates above the civil law as there is in Israel. Catalans are not second class citizens in Spain.

You appear, not for the first time, to be wanting your cake and eat it but with rather confused views, rather one sided, zionist views.

This thread concerns the Basic Laws and Constitutions of various countries, and specifically, whether or not Israel's Basic Law is out of line with the Basic Laws and Constitutions of other countries and therefore deserves condemnation.

Spain's Constitution not only claims Spanish (Castillian) as the official language, it requires every citizen to know that language. It is a Constitutional, legislated requirement that every citizen MUST learn Castillian, regardless of their mother tongue.

The answer to the question posed in this thread, then, when comparing Basic Laws and Constitutions, is that Israel's Basic Law is NOT out of line with other States. It is virtually identical to other States and therefore Israel can not be condemned for her Basic Law or Constitution. The fact that Israel's Basic Law IS condemned when it is identical to other Basic Laws and Constitutions is problematic.


A secondary question which has come up is whether or not the Basic Laws and Constitutions create the condition of "second class citizens". Team P insists that the wording of Basic Law creates conditions of second class citizenship in Israel, but also insists that citizens of other countries, with virtually identical wording, does not create conditions of second class citizenship. Arabs are second class citizens in Israel because of the Basic Laws. Catalans are not second class citizens in Spain despite the same Basic Laws. So the problem, clearly, is not in the law itself.

This thread should NEVER have gotten the pages and pages of posts that it has. Because the answer to the opening post is clear and obvious and absolutely without argument: When Israel MEETS the standard of a majority of other countries in the world it CAN NOT possibly be condemned for it unless you subscribe to a special standard for Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Does Slovenia have different categories of citizenship? One for ethnic Slovenes and one for others?

Israel does not have different categories of citizenship. All citizens are equal in law.

So there is one unitary Israeli citizenship?

Um. Yes. There is no difference in law between any Israeli citizenships EXCEPT that some citizens are exempt from military service due to their ethnicity.

 

[Shusha]

It absolutely makes a difference. Judaism IS a religion. Slovene is not. Kurd is not. If you are creating a Slovene state, religion may or may not play role in it. The ethnic group is not defined by its religion.

Judaism IS a religion. But the Jewish peoples ethnic and cultural collective is MORE than just their religion. Just as MOST cultural groups have a religion but are MORE than their religion. If you are creating a Slovene state you are taking the collective culture of being Slovene, which may, or may not include religious aspects. You said it yourself -- the ethnic group is not defined by its religion. The Jewish people are also NOT defined by their religion. Their religion is a part of their culture, even a large part, but they are not defined by their religion. They also have history, and language and all the other parts which make up a culture.

To disable the Jewish people from their culture because of the aspect of religion is to create separate rules for them.

(Btw, as a side note, I disagree that Judaism is a strictly a religion. One can not simply adopt certain doctrines and become Jewish. It doesn't work like that. If you want to differentiate between the strict religion of the Jewish people as opposed to the fullness of their culture, I'd suggest you speak of B'Nei Noach as the religion and Judaism or Jewishness as the cultural collective).

 

[Humanity]

To say that the Israelis were given the Right to Worship and have access to their Holy Sites is a lie.

Now come on dumbass, I want to see where I said that?

The # of the comment where I said that will do!

It's ok, I will wait...

 

[Humanity]

The Jewish people are also NOT defined by their religion.

Did you really write that?

 

[Humanity]

I disagree that Judaism is a strictly a religion

And that???

Wow, it just gets madder!!

 

[Humanity]

Spain's Constitution not only claims Spanish (Castillian) as the official language, it requires every citizen to know that language. It is a Constitutional, legislated requirement that every citizen MUST learn Castillian, regardless of their mother tongue.

Well, Catalonia has FOUR official languages.

I fail to see what the issue would be with a citizen living in Spain, France, Germany, UK or any other country for that matter, speaking the language of that country. I mean come on, a French child being born in France and refusing to learn French.

An interesting development around Europe has been the requirement for language tests. Currently a friend of mine a Brit by birth but living in a different European country, is studying the local language so that he can apply for residency, NOT citizenship, residency. Makes sense don't you think?