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

[Sixties Fan]

We do not care about worthless accusations of being Nazis, Fascists, etc

Accusations?

I would suggest you go see what your boyfriend has been saying...

If he is not the epitome of a racist Nazi I really do not know what is!

Libels will never get you anywhere

SO ******* SUE ME!

I don't have to.

Your brain is frying like all the other Jew haters out there.

And.....We have Israel.

Am Israel Chai !!

 

[Sixties Fan]

Expert: Argument against Nationality Law is 'contrived'

 

[Shusha]

Arab Palestinians have nationality rights in a hopefully if they can get their act together future state of Palestine.

Arab Israelis can exercise their Israeli nationality in Israel.

A nationality is formed around a culture. You aren't suggesting that Arab Israeli is a separate and distinct culture from Arab Palestinian, are you?

I am to the degree that they've formed something of their own culture with regional differences including dialect, we did talk about that in other threads and doubtless don't agree . But it's irrelevant.

Israel is a new state, imposed on a region with multiple ethnic groups already residing there. It has since decided create a "nationality" law that only includes ONE of those groups despite the fact that most of those groups have been in that region since ancient history. As a state does Israel have the right to do that? Yes. Any state does. Does it make it right? That is questionable. How can you maintain equality?

Think about it - you are citizen of Israel. You have served in the IDF, defended your country, supported it, and were born there. But now - because you are NOT Jewish - you do not have any "national rights" there. There is no way to look at that and not somehow see yourself as a different category of citizen. As an outsider or somehow less than. Why should you fight for Israel and defend it?



Nationality - Wikipedia

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state.[1] Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.[2]

By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are.[3] Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[1][4]

In older texts, the word nationality rather than ethnicity, often used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This older meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Arameans, Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Catalans, Kurds, Kabyles, Baloch, Berbers, Bosniaks, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Sindhi, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit, Copts, Māori, Sikhs, Wakhi and Székelys).[citation needed] ​

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

Arab Palestinians have nationality rights in a hopefully if they can get their act together future state of Palestine.

Arab Israelis can exercise their Israeli nationality in Israel.

A nationality is formed around a culture. You aren't suggesting that Arab Israeli is a separate and distinct culture from Arab Palestinian, are you?

I am to the degree that they've formed something of their own culture with regional differences including dialect, we did talk about that in other threads and doubtless don't agree . But it's irrelevant.

Israel is a new state, imposed on a region with multiple ethnic groups already residing there. It has since decided create a "nationality" law that only includes ONE of those groups despite the fact that most of those groups have been in that region since ancient history. As a state does Israel have the right to do that? Yes. Any state does. Does it make it right? That is questionable. How can you maintain equality?

Think about it - you are citizen of Israel. You have served in the IDF, defended your country, supported it, and were born there. But now - because you are NOT Jewish - you do not have any "national rights" there. There is no way to look at that and not somehow see yourself as a different category of citizen. As an outsider or somehow less than. Why should you fight for Israel and defend it?



Nationality - Wikipedia

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state.[1] Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.[2]

By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are.[3] Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[1][4]

In older texts, the word nationality rather than ethnicity, often used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This older meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Arameans, Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Catalans, Kurds, Kabyles, Baloch, Berbers, Bosniaks, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Sindhi, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit, Copts, Māori, Sikhs, Wakhi and Székelys).[citation needed] ​

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

That is exactly the point:'

There are NO OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE with rights to the land and self determination but the Jewish People.

There never has been.

No other people has ever declared indigenous rights to the land of Israel before 1948.

Self Determination is different from "National Rights" to think of myself as an American.

I am not descendant from the First Nations of America. Not one of them.
I do not have the right to demand the same rights to self determination over their ancestral lands as they do. I never will.

Therefore, if the Apaches choose to declare self-determination over their ancient homeland, no other First Nation can do the same, and neither can any European or Asian who came over after 1492.

Therefore, here we have the Arabs, who came into the land 2400 years after the Jewish People established their Nation, culture, etc, saying that They have exactly the same rights, or worse, they have more rights to self-determination over the land then the Jewish People.

And that is exactly what you and others cannot come to understand.

I completely understand and completely disagree. There are mutliple indiginous groups, not just one. But you believe only one has rights to that region. And that is the problem - each side only believes in the legitimacy of their side's position.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

 

[Shusha]

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

Only the Jewish people have nationality rights IN ISRAEL. Others have nationality rights elsewhere. That is actually how the global system currently works. Citizens have national rights in their nation.

Are you suggesting that the Jewish people should have nationality rights in Palestine? Or not?

Arab Israeli citizens have nationality rights where?

Ever heard of the Arabian Peninsula?
Being Arabs they would have the right to any of the nationalities
created in the past century. Saudi, Yemenite, etc, etc.
It all depends on where their ancestors came from in the first place within that Peninsula, would it not?

Irish Americans are Americans, but their ancestral roots are in Ireland.

Arab Israelis are Israelis, but their ancestral roots are in Arabia.

One gets the gist.

My grandparents are Scottish and German and I live in the US.

What is my nationality?

Not enough information for us to determine. You may be a national of nearly any country and have residency in the US. To which country do you have obligations and can avail yourself the protection of? That is your nationality.

BUT the national rights of the Scots people are held in their ancestral homeland, which is Scotland. The national rights of the German people are held in Germany. The national rights of the Scots and German people are not held in the US. (The First Nations peoples of the Americas hold national rights there).

"National rights" are the rights of a cultural or ethnic group (a people) to have self-determination - that is to determine the qualities which will make up their state. This usually entails building the state around and incorporating the culture of that particular peoples -- the language, the holidays, the life celebrations, sometimes the legal framework, social rules, symbols, religious ideals, customs, clothing, food, values, etc.

If you self-identify as Scots and are accepted by them and wish to live ias culturally Scottish and be part of the the self-determination of the Scots people the place to do that is not in the US. No matter how long you or your ancestors have been living in the US, you will not have Scottish national rights in the US. Those are in Scotland. (This does not in any way affect your US nationality. Or your rights as a national of the US).

In fact, the entire point of rejecting "settler colonialism" is to prevent local indigenous cultures from being overrun, conquered, cleansed and disappeared. You wouldn't suggest that Scotland must stop being Scottish in order to accommodate her minorities, would you? You wouldn't expect Scotland to proclaim Pakistani as an official language and write the Constitution of Scotland for the self-determination of the Pakistani people, would you?

 

[Humanity]

You wouldn't suggest that Scotland must stop being Scottish in order to accommodate her minorities, would you? You wouldn't expect Scotland to proclaim Pakistani as an official language and write the Constitution of Scotland for the self-determination of the Pakistani people, would you?

What a ridiculous argument!

You wouldn't expect the First Minister in Scotland to declare that Scotland is "exclusively" Scottish. Would you?

 

[Sixties Fan]

For many years, we have been disappointed by the court. The nation-state law is an attempt at redemption. Ironically, the forefathers of this law are in fact Aharon Barak and his faction. The citizens of Israel, by way of their elected representatives, are trying to restore some of the freedom they once had, before the court decided to educate us. I have reiterated this point many times: The Supreme Court justices, including Aharon Barak, are no better than we are at understanding values. Their job description does not include telling us what is good and what is bad, or defining for us what is true. All we've ever asked of them is to rule according to the law – to decide whether one act or another complies with or violates the existing, written law.

But they, in turn, adopted Plato's Republic, in which the philosopher king rules over the ignorant masses. They found a clever way to impose a tyranny of the minority over the majority. The nation-state law was designed to slightly rectify this gross imbalance. Judicial activism is guided by hubris and aggression – the belief that you understand better than others what is worthy and the aggressive tendency to dismiss the will of the voters. Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, as it is known by its official name, offers the tools to restore some of the eroded Jewish identity.

(full article online)

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/08/03/the-jews-deserve-justice-too/

 

[USAF 2023]

You wouldn't suggest that Scotland must stop being Scottish in order to accommodate her minorities, would you? You wouldn't expect Scotland to proclaim Pakistani as an official language and write the Constitution of Scotland for the self-determination of the Pakistani people, would you?

What a ridiculous argument!

You wouldn't expect the First Minister in Scotland to declare that Scotland is "exclusively" Scottish. Would you?

Yet it’s OK. To have a “ Palestinian State?”

 

[Coyote]

I am to the degree that they've formed something of their own culture with regional differences including dialect, we did talk about that in other threads and doubtless don't agree . But it's irrelevant.

Israel is a new state, imposed on a region with multiple ethnic groups already residing there. It has since decided create a "nationality" law that only includes ONE of those groups despite the fact that most of those groups have been in that region since ancient history. As a state does Israel have the right to do that? Yes. Any state does. Does it make it right? That is questionable. How can you maintain equality?

Think about it - you are citizen of Israel. You have served in the IDF, defended your country, supported it, and were born there. But now - because you are NOT Jewish - you do not have any "national rights" there. There is no way to look at that and not somehow see yourself as a different category of citizen. As an outsider or somehow less than. Why should you fight for Israel and defend it?



Nationality - Wikipedia

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state.[1] Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.[2]

By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are.[3] Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[1][4]

In older texts, the word nationality rather than ethnicity, often used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This older meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Arameans, Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Catalans, Kurds, Kabyles, Baloch, Berbers, Bosniaks, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Sindhi, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit, Copts, Māori, Sikhs, Wakhi and Székelys).[citation needed] ​

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

I am to the degree that they've formed something of their own culture with regional differences including dialect, we did talk about that in other threads and doubtless don't agree . But it's irrelevant.

Israel is a new state, imposed on a region with multiple ethnic groups already residing there. It has since decided create a "nationality" law that only includes ONE of those groups despite the fact that most of those groups have been in that region since ancient history. As a state does Israel have the right to do that? Yes. Any state does. Does it make it right? That is questionable. How can you maintain equality?

Think about it - you are citizen of Israel. You have served in the IDF, defended your country, supported it, and were born there. But now - because you are NOT Jewish - you do not have any "national rights" there. There is no way to look at that and not somehow see yourself as a different category of citizen. As an outsider or somehow less than. Why should you fight for Israel and defend it?



Nationality - Wikipedia

Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state.[1] Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state. What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.[2]

By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are.[3] Such determinations are part of nationality law. In some cases, determinations of nationality are also governed by public international law—for example, by treaties on statelessness and the European Convention on Nationality.

Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state.[1][4]

In older texts, the word nationality rather than ethnicity, often used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth). This older meaning of nationality is not defined by political borders or passport ownership and includes nations that lack an independent state (such as the Arameans, Scots, Welsh, English, Basques, Catalans, Kurds, Kabyles, Baloch, Berbers, Bosniaks, Kashmiris, Palestinians, Sindhi, Tamils, Hmong, Inuit, Copts, Māori, Sikhs, Wakhi and Székelys).[citation needed] ​

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

That is exactly the point:'

There are NO OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE with rights to the land and self determination but the Jewish People.

There never has been.

No other people has ever declared indigenous rights to the land of Israel before 1948.

Self Determination is different from "National Rights" to think of myself as an American.

I am not descendant from the First Nations of America. Not one of them.
I do not have the right to demand the same rights to self determination over their ancestral lands as they do. I never will.

Therefore, if the Apaches choose to declare self-determination over their ancient homeland, no other First Nation can do the same, and neither can any European or Asian who came over after 1492.

Therefore, here we have the Arabs, who came into the land 2400 years after the Jewish People established their Nation, culture, etc, saying that They have exactly the same rights, or worse, they have more rights to self-determination over the land then the Jewish People.

And that is exactly what you and others cannot come to understand.

I completely understand and completely disagree. There are mutliple indiginous groups, not just one. But you believe only one has rights to that region. And that is the problem - each side only believes in the legitimacy of their side's position.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

If they also have Native American ancestry yes.

 

[Coyote]

70 years after the establishment of a Jewish state was declared, now it became a basic (constitutional) law.

The full text of the law:

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

2 — The symbols of the state

A. The name of the state is “Israel.”

B. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

C. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

E. Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

3 — The capital of the state

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

4 — Language

A. The state’s language is Hebrew.

B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

5 — Ingathering of the exiles

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

6 — Connection to the Jewish people

A. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

B. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

C. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

8 — Official calendar

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

9 — Independence Day and memorial days

A. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

10 — Days of rest and sabbath

The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

11 — Immutability

This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

I am going to refer back to the OP...because I want to point out something which I think does make this basic law different than those constitutions of other countries with multi ethnic populations.

In Part 1, A and B I totally agree with, nothing wrong there, other nations do that. C is problematic to me because It states that this national Right is unique to Jewish people in Israel. Why is this needed given that A and B already enshrine the importance of Jewish people and culture to the state?

It is this particular clause that makes it markedly different then say Slovenia, which you used as an example:

...the fundamental and permanent right of the Slovene nation to self-determination; and from the historical fact that in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation we Slovenes have established our national identity and asserted our statehood.

It does not claim that this national right is unique to only Slovenes. It refers not to a people but a nation albeit Slovene. I think distinctions matter, one is inclusive (theoretically) the other is exclusive and very specifically in who among its people’s has national rights and self determination. I think if this part had been left out, critics would not had much to stand on.

 

[RoccoR]

OFF TOPIC
※→ Coyote, et al,

The discussion centered on "indigenous peoples" is pretty difficult unless you are prepared to define the meaning and terms of "indigenous." It is a pretty loosely used description.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

If they also have Native American ancestry yes.

(COMMENT)

Conventional wisdom says that all humans (as a species) radiate from a central point in Ancient Ethiopia (southeast Africa), and started to migrate between 60-65 and 70-75 thousand years ago.

Are the American Indians truly indigenous? Or were they immigrants to a people that were there 14 thousa

From Who are we decended?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

Sorry, but the delusion that :

The Jews seem to be "imposing" their will on all other "ancient people" of the land.

There is no such thing.

The Jewish People are the most ancient of those people. The Palestinian Arabs are not. Neither would be the Greeks, the Romans or any other people who stayed after they invaded and conquered the land after the Jewish People had established themselves over 3000 years ago.

There are no Philistines.
There are no Amorites.
There are no Hitites, etc. to come and claim the land as the ancient people from that very place.
There are no Romans, Greeks, Crusaders claiming anything over the Jewish People's rights to their ancient homeland.

Are you to tell me that all people who now inhabit Kurdistan (even though not allow to declare Independence) have the same National rights as the descendants of the ancient Kurds?
Do the Yazidis who fled to that area have the right to demand some National rights to the land, which should only be for the Kurdish people?

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

It is a very simple example, which shows how the descendants of the Jewish People are the ones with the rights for any National self-determination definition on that land.

It does not take away one bit the rights of all of those who are not Jewish, and are either citizens or residents of Israel.

Their rights are written in the laws of the land.

What they do not have the right to do, as Arabs, etc, is to demand that Israel be their Ancestral national anything in place of the Jewish People's rights, which is Exactly what the Muslim Arabs have been doing in the past decades with their endless "The Jews are from Europe", "There was no Temple Mount", "There were no Jews in the area", etc, which continues to come hard and furious from the Arab side.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.

--------------
Individual rights, Netanyahu said, are anchored in many of the Jewish state’s (existing) laws, but not so Jewish national rights. No one was harmed by the Nationality Law and no one intends to to harm anyone’s individual rights.

(full article online)

Netanyahu at Cabinet Meeting: Israel is the National State of the Jewish People, Exclusively
-------------
The only reason why so many are complaining is because it is the State of the Jews.

Any other place on the planet, they will never care less.

I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

That is exactly the point:'

There are NO OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE with rights to the land and self determination but the Jewish People.

There never has been.

No other people has ever declared indigenous rights to the land of Israel before 1948.

Self Determination is different from "National Rights" to think of myself as an American.

I am not descendant from the First Nations of America. Not one of them.
I do not have the right to demand the same rights to self determination over their ancestral lands as they do. I never will.

Therefore, if the Apaches choose to declare self-determination over their ancient homeland, no other First Nation can do the same, and neither can any European or Asian who came over after 1492.

Therefore, here we have the Arabs, who came into the land 2400 years after the Jewish People established their Nation, culture, etc, saying that They have exactly the same rights, or worse, they have more rights to self-determination over the land then the Jewish People.

And that is exactly what you and others cannot come to understand.

I completely understand and completely disagree. There are mutliple indiginous groups, not just one. But you believe only one has rights to that region. And that is the problem - each side only believes in the legitimacy of their side's position.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

If they also have Native American ancestry yes.

I disagree. He ancestry is not the important element.

The elements to be measured (and this is in the UN Declaratiin of Indigenous Rights) are:

1. Self identification with the peoples.
2. Acceptance by the collective as part of the peoples.
3. Participation in the culture.


It's not about a blood test. It's about being part of the people.

 

[Shusha]

70 years after the establishment of a Jewish state was declared, now it became a basic (constitutional) law.

The full text of the law:

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

2 — The symbols of the state

A. The name of the state is “Israel.”

B. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

C. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

E. Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

3 — The capital of the state

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

4 — Language

A. The state’s language is Hebrew.

B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

5 — Ingathering of the exiles

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

6 — Connection to the Jewish people

A. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

B. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

C. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

8 — Official calendar

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

9 — Independence Day and memorial days

A. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

10 — Days of rest and sabbath

The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

11 — Immutability

This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

I am going to refer back to the OP...because I want to point out something which I think does make this basic law different than those constitutions of other countries with multi ethnic populations.

In Part 1, A and B I totally agree with, nothing wrong there, other nations do that. C is problematic to me because It states that this national Right is unique to Jewish people in Israel. Why is this needed given that A and B already enshrine the importance of Jewish people and culture to the state?

It is this particular clause that makes it markedly different then say Slovenia, which you used as an example:

...the fundamental and permanent right of the Slovene nation to self-determination; and from the historical fact that in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation we Slovenes have established our national identity and asserted our statehood.

It does not claim that this national right is unique to only Slovenes. It refers not to a people but a nation albeit Slovene. I think distinctions matter, one is inclusive (theoretically) the other is exclusive and very specifically in who among its people’s has national rights and self determination. I think if this part had been left out, critics would not had much to stand on.

I think you are trying to make a distinction where there is none.

So you think that the Slovene declaration means that the Russian minority in Slovenia should have national rights in Slovenia?

You would have no problem with the declaration wording being: ... the fundamental and permanent right of the Jewish nation to self-determination and from the historical fact of a millennia long struggle for national liberation, we Jews have established our national identity and asserted our Statehood.

 

[Olde Europe]

It does not claim that this national right is unique to only Slovenes. It refers not to a people but a nation albeit Slovene. I think distinctions matter, one is inclusive (theoretically) the other is exclusive and very specifically in who among its people’s has national rights and self determination. I think if this part had been left out, critics would not had much to stand on.

If that part 1C had been left out, it would have been better, but not that much.

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Germany is the historical homeland of the Aryan people, in which the State of Germany was established.

B. The State of Germany is the national home of the Aryan people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.​

How would including the above into the German Constitution not constitute a mortal threat to Jews living in Germany? It may not actualize itself right away, but you'd see Jews heading for ports nonetheless, quite understandably so. At the very least, these provisions would tell them in no uncertain terms they are not welcome, not "at home" in Germany.

As much as I understand the Jews' determination never again to be a harassed (or worse) minority in their homeland, how they go about achieving this aim matters, and a great deal.

But, here's the thing I do not understand. The Basic Law was passed, 1C included. The determination to exclude Muslims and Druze from Israel's national self-determination, and the Druze, the Jewish majority's most loyal allies, are acrimonious over it. Do you really think that would have been much different if the part 1C had been left out? The intention that led to that law would still be there, just slightly less visible, and that intent is to confine the minorities to ever smaller portions of land, while grabbing the entirety of the Westbank, including the Bantustans there. Which, of course, is a recipe for continuous, endless strife, and ultimate disaster. So, why cling to "if only they had left out 1C"?

What I am trying to say is, I watch you arguing that law without ever seriously taking the perspective of those excluded from being at home in Israel, excluded from Israel's national self-determination. That's puzzling, and that's why I repeatedly bring up Germany and Aryans, which sharpens the point somewhat unfairly, I guess.

 

[Coyote]

OFF TOPIC
※→ Coyote, et al,

The discussion centered on "indigenous peoples" is pretty difficult unless you are prepared to define the meaning and terms of "indigenous." It is a pretty loosely used description.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

If they also have Native American ancestry yes.

(COMMENT)

Conventional wisdom says that all humans (as a species) radiate from a central point in Ancient Ethiopia (southeast Africa), and started to migrate between 60-65 and 70-75 thousand years ago.

Are the American Indians truly indigenous? Or were they immigrants to a people that were there 14 thousa

From Who are we decended?

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly...well said.

 

[Coyote]

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.


I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

We will have to agree to disagree on this, since I don't want to derail this into another thread on who is indiginous. There are multiple indiginous groups there, and they all have rights.

The question is - how do you maintain equality? In most modern countries citizenship confers nationality rights.

Why does it have to be in place of? Why can't any citizen of Israel have nationality rights in Israel? If a Palestinian state is ever established, there will likely be Jewish communities within it. Jewish communities in those areas should have every right to nationality rights within Palestine.


I think that remains to be seen. Most other modern countries do not confer nationality rights only to one ethnic group.

That is exactly the point:'

There are NO OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLE with rights to the land and self determination but the Jewish People.

There never has been.

No other people has ever declared indigenous rights to the land of Israel before 1948.

Self Determination is different from "National Rights" to think of myself as an American.

I am not descendant from the First Nations of America. Not one of them.
I do not have the right to demand the same rights to self determination over their ancestral lands as they do. I never will.

Therefore, if the Apaches choose to declare self-determination over their ancient homeland, no other First Nation can do the same, and neither can any European or Asian who came over after 1492.

Therefore, here we have the Arabs, who came into the land 2400 years after the Jewish People established their Nation, culture, etc, saying that They have exactly the same rights, or worse, they have more rights to self-determination over the land then the Jewish People.

And that is exactly what you and others cannot come to understand.

I completely understand and completely disagree. There are mutliple indiginous groups, not just one. But you believe only one has rights to that region. And that is the problem - each side only believes in the legitimacy of their side's position.

Are people of European ancestry indigenous to the US, in your opinion?

If they also have Native American ancestry yes.

I disagree. He ancestry is not the important element.

The elements to be measured (and this is in the UN Declaratiin of Indigenous Rights) are:

1. Self identification with the peoples.
2. Acceptance by the collective as part of the peoples.
3. Participation in the culture.


It's not about a blood test. It's about being part of the people.

You can have indiginous cultures. And you can have indiginous people. Palestinians, regardless of culture are indigninous - descended from indiginous. Their rights are the same.

 

[Coyote]

It does not claim that this national right is unique to only Slovenes. It refers not to a people but a nation albeit Slovene. I think distinctions matter, one is inclusive (theoretically) the other is exclusive and very specifically in who among its people’s has national rights and self determination. I think if this part had been left out, critics would not had much to stand on.

If that part 1C had been left out, it would have been better, but not that much.

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Germany is the historical homeland of the Aryan people, in which the State of Germany was established.

B. The State of Germany is the national home of the Aryan people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.​

How would including the above into the German Constitution not constitute a mortal threat to Jews living in Germany? It may not actualize itself right away, but you'd see Jews heading for ports nonetheless, quite understandably so. At the very least, these provisions would tell them in no uncertain terms they are not welcome, not "at home" in Germany.

As much as I understand the Jews' determination never again to be a harassed (or worse) minority in their homeland, how they go about achieving this aim matters, and a great deal.

But, here's the thing I do not understand. The Basic Law was passed, 1C included. The determination to exclude Muslims and Druze from Israel's national self-determination, and the Druze, the Jewish majority's most loyal allies, are acrimonious over it. Do you really think that would have been much different if the part 1C had been left out? The intention that led to that law would still be there, just slightly less visible, and that intent is to confine the minorities to ever smaller portions of land, while grabbing the entirety of the Westbank, including the Bantustans there. Which, of course, is a recipe for continuous, endless strife, and ultimate disaster. So, why cling to "if only they had left out 1C"?

What I am trying to say is, I watch you arguing that law without ever seriously taking the perspective of those excluded from being at home in Israel, excluded from Israel's national self-determination. That's puzzling, and that's why I repeatedly bring up Germany and Aryans, which sharpens the point somewhat unfairly, I guess.

I will have to think on this, you make good points.

But here is another question - if you exclude 1C - is it any different than what Slovenia has? Part of the argument is that Israel is doing what other nations have done but were not criticized for it. And they have a point there. How do you counter this?

 

[Coyote]

70 years after the establishment of a Jewish state was declared, now it became a basic (constitutional) law.

The full text of the law:

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

2 — The symbols of the state

A. The name of the state is “Israel.”

B. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

C. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

E. Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

3 — The capital of the state

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

4 — Language

A. The state’s language is Hebrew.

B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

5 — Ingathering of the exiles

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

6 — Connection to the Jewish people

A. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

B. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

C. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

8 — Official calendar

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

9 — Independence Day and memorial days

A. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

10 — Days of rest and sabbath

The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

11 — Immutability

This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

I am going to refer back to the OP...because I want to point out something which I think does make this basic law different than those constitutions of other countries with multi ethnic populations.

In Part 1, A and B I totally agree with, nothing wrong there, other nations do that. C is problematic to me because It states that this national Right is unique to Jewish people in Israel. Why is this needed given that A and B already enshrine the importance of Jewish people and culture to the state?

It is this particular clause that makes it markedly different then say Slovenia, which you used as an example:

...the fundamental and permanent right of the Slovene nation to self-determination; and from the historical fact that in a centuries-long struggle for national liberation we Slovenes have established our national identity and asserted our statehood.

It does not claim that this national right is unique to only Slovenes. It refers not to a people but a nation albeit Slovene. I think distinctions matter, one is inclusive (theoretically) the other is exclusive and very specifically in who among its people’s has national rights and self determination. I think if this part had been left out, critics would not had much to stand on.

I think you are trying to make a distinction where there is none.

So you think that the Slovene declaration means that the Russian minority in Slovenia should have national rights in Slovenia?

You would have no problem with the declaration wording being: ... the fundamental and permanent right of the Jewish nation to self-determination and from the historical fact of a millennia long struggle for national liberation, we Jews have established our national identity and asserted our Statehood.

The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

I think it is an important distiction to those who are excluded - the Israeli law explicitely states who is included in that national right. The Slovenian law doesn't.

The second statement has the potential to include more than just Jews under the "Jewish nation".

 

[rylah]

Only the Jewish people have nationality rights IN ISRAEL. Others have nationality rights elsewhere. That is actually how the global system currently works. Citizens have national rights in their nation.

Are you suggesting that the Jewish people should have nationality rights in Palestine? Or not?

Arab Israeli citizens have nationality rights where?

Arab Palestinians have nationality rights in a hopefully if they can get their act together future state of Palestine.

Arab Israelis can exercise their Israeli nationality in Israel.

A nationality is formed around a culture. You aren't suggesting that Arab Israeli is a separate and distinct culture from Arab Palestinian, are you?

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

The problem with this is that there were two distinct nationalities within the territory. Could not be more clear. Hence the conflict. The solution is to form two states. Always has been. Standard procedure globally in cases like this.

Indeed, natives and colonial settlers.

Indeed, "Palestinian" in the native language means "colonial settlers".

 

[Olde Europe]

But here is another question - if you exclude 1C - is it any different than what Slovenia has? Part of the argument is that Israel is doing what other nations have done but were not criticized for it. And they have a point there. How do you counter this?

I know of no Western state that would confine nationality, or national self-determination, to a portion of their citizenry, and the Slovenes certainly do not do that. Their Constitution speak about "Slovenes" as citizens of Slovenia, and that includes the Hungarian and Italian minorities. In other words, I'd counter it in (pretty much) the same way you did, above. Moreover, the Slovenian Constitution then moves to, without a single doubt, establishing equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of ethnic, religious (etc.) differences; neither does it establish a "nationality" for ethnic Slovenes, from which it excludes all who are not. And that's the whole point.

 

[Coyote]

Arab Israeli citizens have nationality rights where?

Arab Palestinians have nationality rights in a hopefully if they can get their act together future state of Palestine.

Arab Israelis can exercise their Israeli nationality in Israel.

A nationality is formed around a culture. You aren't suggesting that Arab Israeli is a separate and distinct culture from Arab Palestinian, are you?

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law...showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

The problem with this is that there were two distinct nationalities within the territory. Could not be more clear. Hence the conflict. The solution is to form two states. Always has been. Standard procedure globally in cases like this.

Indeed, natives and colonial settlers.

Indeed, "Palestinian" in the native language means "colonial settlers".

No it doesn't.