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

[Humanity]

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.

In YOUR opinion...

Seems that there are a lot of opposing opinions hence the thread.

 

[Humanity]

Judaism IS a religion.

I disagree that Judaism is a strictly a religion

It's that good old cake eating time again!

I mean, seriously?

And then didn't you suggest that Jewish is ethnic/cultural and not religion?

I think that you are protesting a little too much and ending up going round in circles.

 

[Shusha]

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.

In YOUR opinion...

Seems that there are a lot of opposing opinions hence the thread.

You are either applying the same standards to Israel or you are applying different standards to Israel.

This thread has certainly demonstrated that that Israel is held to a totally different standard.

 

[Shusha]

Judaism IS a religion.

I disagree that Judaism is a strictly a religion

It's that good old cake eating time again!

I mean, seriously?

And then didn't you suggest that Jewish is ethnic/cultural and not religion?

I think that you are protesting a little too much and ending up going round in circles.

Wow. This isn't exactly hard. The Jewish people have a rich culture which includes dozens of attributes. One of those attributes is religion. The collective of all these attributes is what makes one culturally and ethnically Jewish.

 

[Shusha]

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?

Yes. But we are discussing Constitutions here. The question on the table is why excluding minority languages as official languages is to be accepted when other countries do it and vilified when Israel does it.

And why constitutionally compelling people to speak a language is fine when it's Castilian and vilified when it's Hebrew. (Even though that is not actually in Israel's basic law).

What is the STANDARD for the nations of the world? The objective standard. If Israel meets that standard you can't not fairly condemn her. If your standard is one that virtually no state meets it's a false standard.

Just taking language as a starting point, what is the objective global standard for Basic Laws and Constitutions?

 

[Humanity]

Yes. But we are discussing Constitutions here. The question on the table is why excluding minority languages as official languages is to be accepted when other countries do it and vilified when Israel does it.

Catalan is NOT an excluded minority language! Why would you think that?

And why constitutionally compelling people to speak a language is fine when it's Castilian and vilified when it's Hebrew. (Even though that is not actually in Israel's basic law).

You are ignoring the fact that, living in a country with a different language to your own mother tongue, knowing the local language is of some importance.

I haven't vilified Israel for expecting people to know/learn Hebrew! Just another assumption Shusha!

I am resident in a country that is not my birth country and, unless I speak the local language then I would be pretty limited to my life. My adopted country ALSO has a language requirement to be resident not citizen, resident.

 

[Humanity]

This thread has certainly demonstrated that that Israel is held to a totally different standard.

No, I don't hold Israel to a different standard.... Israel does it to herself!

That is something that you really need to see but, as you have shown, you will not see this and then start making contradictory comments and try to apply reverse psychology in saying that these 'laws' are to protect Jewish culture and NOT discriminate against minorities.... You can surely see that however you dress that up it is still discriminating.

Perhaps you would like to adopt 'positive discrimination' as a term to describe the protecting and defending of Jewish culture in Israel?

 

[Olde Europe]

No, I don't hold Israel to a different standard.

No one does.

Why, you have to ask, is it that a bill mandating equal treatment for all Israeli citizens is being disqualified before it even reached the floor?

Oh, the outrage. Equal treatment, equality before the law, that is, the most basic standard for a society's fairness, was to be written into ordinary law (not even the Constitution, where it really belongs), but even that had the reactionary majority in the Knesset in spluttering apoplexy. Not ever shall such abomination even be discussed between the people's representatives, let alone voted on, so as to have those representatives stand up for the standards to which they are willing to adhere (or rather not).

The whole "different standard" scam is yet another over-used tool in the hasbara peddlers' box.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

You are oblivious to the fact that Israel has two rights systems. There are citizens rights where all citizens have (more or less) equal rights. Then there are nationality rights. Only the Jewish nationality has access to these rights.

The World Zionist Organisation-Jewish Agency (Status) Law is linked to a second body of Israeli law and jurisprudence that distinguishes between citizenship (in Hebrew, ezrahut) and nationality (le’um). Other States have made this distinction: for example, in the former Soviet Union, Soviet citizens also held distinct “national” identities (Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek and so forth), but all nationalities had equal legal standing. In Israel, by contrast, only one nationality, Jewish, has legal standing and only Jewish nationality is associated with the legitimacy and mission of the State. According to the country’s Supreme Court, Israel is indeed not the State of the “Israeli nation”, which does not legally exist, but of the “Jewish nation” 58 National rights are reserved to Jewish nationality. For instance, the Law of Return serves the “in-gathering” mission cited above by allowing any Jew to immigrate to Israel and, through the Citizenship Law 59, to gain immediate citizenship. No other group has a remotely comparable right and only Jews enjoy any collective rights under Israeli law.

Landmark UN report backs Israel boycott​

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/landmark-un-report-backs-israel-boycott

 

[Olde Europe]

You are oblivious to the fact that Israel has two rights systems. There are citizens rights where all citizens have (more or less) equal rights. Then there are nationality rights. Only the Jewish nationality has access to these rights.

The World Zionist Organisation-Jewish Agency (Status) Law is linked to a second body of Israeli law and jurisprudence that distinguishes between citizenship (in Hebrew, ezrahut) and nationality (le’um). Other States have made this distinction: for example, in the former Soviet Union, Soviet citizens also held distinct “national” identities (Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek and so forth), but all nationalities had equal legal standing. In Israel, by contrast, only one nationality, Jewish, has legal standing and only Jewish nationality is associated with the legitimacy and mission of the State. According to the country’s Supreme Court, Israel is indeed not the State of the “Israeli nation”, which does not legally exist, but of the “Jewish nation” 58 National rights are reserved to Jewish nationality. For instance, the Law of Return serves the “in-gathering” mission cited above by allowing any Jew to immigrate to Israel and, through the Citizenship Law 59, to gain immediate citizenship. No other group has a remotely comparable right and only Jews enjoy any collective rights under Israeli law.

Landmark UN report backs Israel boycott​

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/landmark-un-report-backs-israel-boycott

Thanks.

Here's what I quoted 600 posts ago:

But in Israel, Zeidan pointed out, “officials are often breaking the law if they do not discriminate. It is their job to discriminate.”

This state-sanctioned racism is achieved by establishing “nationalities” separate from citizenship. The primary nationalities in Israel are “Jew” and “Arab”. The state has refused to recognise an “Israeli nationality”, a position supported by the Israeli supreme court, precisely to sanction a hierarchy of rights.

Individual rights are enjoyed by all citizens by virtue of their citizenship, whether they are Jews or Palestinians. In this regard, Israel looks like a liberal democracy. But Israel also recognises “national rights”, and reserves them almost exclusively for the Jewish population.

National rights are treated as superior to individual citizenship rights. So if there is a conflict between the two, the Jewish national right will invariably be given priority by officials and the courts.​

Maybe, just maybe, you'll get lucky.

 

[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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

 

[Olde Europe]

Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid


For the first 20 years of the country’s existence, they [Palestinians] lived under martial law and to this day are subjected to oppression on the basis of not being Jewish. That policy of domination manifests itself in inferior services, restrictive zoning laws and limited budget allocations made to Palestinian communities; in restrictions on jobs and professional opportunities; and in the mostly segregated landscape in which Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel live. Palestinian political parties can campaign for minor reforms and better budgets, but are legally prohibited by the Basic Law from challenging legislation maintaining the racial regime. The policy is reinforced by the implications of the distinction made in Israel between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um): all Israeli citizens enjoy the former, but only Jews enjoy the latter. “National” rights in Israeli law signify Jewish-national rights. [...]

The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid Convention, which sets forth that the crime of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. The Rome Statute specifies in its definition the presence of an “institutionalized regime” serving the “intention” of racial domination. Since “purpose” and “intention” lie at the core of both definitions, this report examines factors ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension — especially, the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in law and the design of Israeli State institutions — to establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.

That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose was found to be evident in the body of laws, only some of which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One prominent example is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area “in which the law of the State of Israel applies”. The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of “public purpose” as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal. [...]

This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime. It first examines how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law. This fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance. Different methods are deployed depending on where Palestinians live. This is the core means by which Israel enforces apartheid and at the same time impedes international recognition of how the system works as a complementary whole to comprise an apartheid regime. [...]

The report concludes that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the proposition that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people, which amounts to the commission of a crime against humanity, the prohibition of which is considered jus cogens in international customary law. The international community, especially the United Nations and its agencies, and Member States, have a legal obligation to act within the limits of their capabilities to prevent and punish instances of apartheid that are responsibly brought to their attention. More specifically, States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a State in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end. Civil society institutions and individuals also have a moral and political duty to use the instruments at their disposal to raise awareness of this ongoing criminal enterprise, and to exert pressure on Israel in order to persuade it to dismantle apartheid structures in compliance with international law. The report ends with general and specific recommendations to the United Nations, national Governments, and civil society and private actors on actions they should take in view of the finding that Israel maintains a regime of apartheid in its exercise of control over the Palestinian people.​

 

[Humanity]

Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid


For the first 20 years of the country’s existence, they [Palestinians] lived under martial law and to this day are subjected to oppression on the basis of not being Jewish. That policy of domination manifests itself in inferior services, restrictive zoning laws and limited budget allocations made to Palestinian communities; in restrictions on jobs and professional opportunities; and in the mostly segregated landscape in which Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel live. Palestinian political parties can campaign for minor reforms and better budgets, but are legally prohibited by the Basic Law from challenging legislation maintaining the racial regime. The policy is reinforced by the implications of the distinction made in Israel between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um): all Israeli citizens enjoy the former, but only Jews enjoy the latter. “National” rights in Israeli law signify Jewish-national rights. [...]

The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid Convention, which sets forth that the crime of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. The Rome Statute specifies in its definition the presence of an “institutionalized regime” serving the “intention” of racial domination. Since “purpose” and “intention” lie at the core of both definitions, this report examines factors ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension — especially, the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in law and the design of Israeli State institutions — to establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.

That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose was found to be evident in the body of laws, only some of which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One prominent example is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel, the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951 provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area “in which the law of the State of Israel applies”. The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept of “public purpose” as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively, Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal. [...]

This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime. It first examines how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law. This fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance. Different methods are deployed depending on where Palestinians live. This is the core means by which Israel enforces apartheid and at the same time impedes international recognition of how the system works as a complementary whole to comprise an apartheid regime. [...]

The report concludes that the weight of the evidence supports beyond a reasonable doubt the proposition that Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people, which amounts to the commission of a crime against humanity, the prohibition of which is considered jus cogens in international customary law. The international community, especially the United Nations and its agencies, and Member States, have a legal obligation to act within the limits of their capabilities to prevent and punish instances of apartheid that are responsibly brought to their attention. More specifically, States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a State in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end. Civil society institutions and individuals also have a moral and political duty to use the instruments at their disposal to raise awareness of this ongoing criminal enterprise, and to exert pressure on Israel in order to persuade it to dismantle apartheid structures in compliance with international law. The report ends with general and specific recommendations to the United Nations, national Governments, and civil society and private actors on actions they should take in view of the finding that Israel maintains a regime of apartheid in its exercise of control over the Palestinian people.​

I cannot agree that Israel is an apartheid state.

However, IMHO, it is sailing VERY close to it!

Having witnessed apartheid in S. Africa I know what apartheid is!

In some ways I feel that using apartheid to describe Israel actually deflects from the issues there and gives Team Israel a nice easy focus to argue that Israel is indeed not an apartheid state whilst ignoring the true imbalance within.

 

[Olde Europe]

I cannot agree that Israel is an apartheid state.

However, IMHO, it is sailing VERY close to it!

Having witnessed apartheid in S. Africa I know what apartheid is!

In some ways I feel that using apartheid to describe Israel actually deflects from the issues there and gives Team Israel a nice easy focus to argue that Israel is indeed not an apartheid state whilst ignoring the true imbalance within.

Suit yourself.

Apartheid is the creation of separate legal systems to bring about the domination of one societal group over another. Israel falls squarely within that definition, aspects different from SA's apartheid regime notwithstanding.

Most of the aspects of the "true imbalance within" emanated from, or are exacerbated by, the apartheid regime's crime against humanity. Methinks, you just refuse to see the forest for the trees.

 

[USAF 2023]

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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* liar!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said that the Israelis have no right to pray at

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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* LIAR!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said the Israelis have no right to pray at the Western Wall. You challenged me, wanting to know if it was a law and I responded
I then stated the U.N. gave Israel the Right to their Sacred Religious Sites which you challenged and I provided proof

 

[Humanity]

Suit yourself.

Don't worry... I will

Apartheid is the creation of separate legal systems to bring about the domination of one societal group over another. Israel falls squarely within that definition, aspects different from SA's apartheid regime notwithstanding.

I am guessing you did witness apartheid in S. Africa?

How does something fall "squarley" within a definition but be different? Interesting concept. Is it like calling a banana an orange because they are classified as fruit?

 

[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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* liar!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said that the Israelis have no right to pray at

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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* LIAR!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said the Israelis have no right to pray at the Western Wall. You challenged me, wanting to know if it was a law and I responded
I then stated the U.N. gave Israel the Right to their Sacred Religious Sites which you challenged and I provided proof

You my friend clearly have mental health issues and should not be trying to get involved in adult conversation.

You accuse me of saying something yet you cannot show me where or when?

You are a ******* liar and an idiot!

GO GET SOME HELP MORON!

 

[USAF 2023]

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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* liar!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said that the Israelis have no right to pray at

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...

I already did you.

No you didn't ******* moron.... Quote the comment # where I said that!

Show me and the rest of this board where I said that!

Fact is you can't because you are a ******* liar!

You are the ******* LIAR!!! I stated that the Palestinians have said the Israelis have no right to pray at the Western Wall. You challenged me, wanting to know if it was a law and I responded
I then stated the U.N. gave Israel the Right to their Sacred Religious Sites which you challenged and I provided proof

You my friend clearly have mental health issues and should not be trying to get involved in adult conversation.

You accuse me of saying something yet you cannot show me where or when?

You are a ******* liar and an idiot!

GO GET SOME HELP MORON!

I did you Moron! Wanting to know if it was a “ law?” What the **** is that supposed to mean? Challenging me on what the U. N. Position was regarding Israel’s rights to their religious sites? **** YOURSELF

 

[Olde Europe]

How does something fall "squarley" within a definition but be different? Interesting concept. Is it like calling a banana an orange because they are classified as fruit?

No, it's calling an apple and apple, even though one might be green, the other red.

You didn't read the report, did you?

 

[Humanity]

How does something fall "squarley" within a definition but be different? Interesting concept. Is it like calling a banana an orange because they are classified as fruit?

No, it's calling an apple and apple, even though one might be green, the other red.

You didn't read the report, did you?

Well, yes, I read the report... It is NOT apartheid as I have seen with my own eyes!

So, in your opinion, it is apartheid, just a different version?