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

[rylah]

No, there would not be and you know it.

You simply do not live in the real world... Your zionut world, attempting to defend the indefensible is expected.

Talk about automatic bias.

 

[Humanity]

Oh dear... Here we go AGAIN...

Just so we can make sure we/YOU aren't moving the goalposts again...

You said that my adopted country applies different laws to me by definition.

I told you that the laws applied to me are exactly the same as those of the 'native' peoples of my adopted country.

Which part of that do you not understand?

What ever you are banging on about "normalization" really has nothing to the laws that apply to me or natives!

I sense a serious degree of squirming and utter bullshit coming from you!

Are you a national of your adopted country? Or a permanent resident?

Define your meaning for both before I respond please.

Typical definition is a two fold relationship where you have obligations to your country of nationality AND you can avail yourself of the protection of your country of nationality.

Permanent residency implies a nationality (with above obligations and protections) outside the state in which you happen to be living. You have already said you have dual citizenship so my assumption is that you have two nationalities and are living in one of them. Alternatively you could have two nationalities and be living in a third country.

To be honest, in my adopted country, it matters not whether you are a "national" or "permanent resident". Both are treated equally.

Probably not true. In Canada, where permanent residents have full access to all the services the government offers, such as medical care, education, etc, they are not permitted to vote, run for government office, etc. So they are not "equal".

The nationals have additional privileges and obligations that residents do not have. Do you think that is wrong? In Canada?

Well, poor you in Canada!

Here I have the vote, can run for president should I wish!

So, yes Shusha, it IS true!

 

[Humanity]

South African President Jacob Zuma vows to transform the economy by involving more black business people sidelined for years by the oppressive apartheid regime that ended in 1994.

Amazing how, when shown facts, you start mumbling and dribbling from the corner of you mouth and then contradict your earlier comment!

Hilarious!

 

[Shusha]

Are you a national of your adopted country? Or a permanent resident?

Define your meaning for both before I respond please.

Typical definition is a two fold relationship where you have obligations to your country of nationality AND you can avail yourself of the protection of your country of nationality.

Permanent residency implies a nationality (with above obligations and protections) outside the state in which you happen to be living. You have already said you have dual citizenship so my assumption is that you have two nationalities and are living in one of them. Alternatively you could have two nationalities and be living in a third country.

To be honest, in my adopted country, it matters not whether you are a "national" or "permanent resident". Both are treated equally.

Probably not true. In Canada, where permanent residents have full access to all the services the government offers, such as medical care, education, etc, they are not permitted to vote, run for government office, etc. So they are not "equal".

The nationals have additional privileges and obligations that residents do not have. Do you think that is wrong? In Canada?

Well, poor you in Canada!

Here I have the vote, can run for president should I wish!

So, yes Shusha, it IS true!

So you are a national of two different countries and live in a third country where you are not a national but a permanent resident?

 

[Humanity]

Define your meaning for both before I respond please.

Typical definition is a two fold relationship where you have obligations to your country of nationality AND you can avail yourself of the protection of your country of nationality.

Permanent residency implies a nationality (with above obligations and protections) outside the state in which you happen to be living. You have already said you have dual citizenship so my assumption is that you have two nationalities and are living in one of them. Alternatively you could have two nationalities and be living in a third country.

To be honest, in my adopted country, it matters not whether you are a "national" or "permanent resident". Both are treated equally.

Probably not true. In Canada, where permanent residents have full access to all the services the government offers, such as medical care, education, etc, they are not permitted to vote, run for government office, etc. So they are not "equal".

The nationals have additional privileges and obligations that residents do not have. Do you think that is wrong? In Canada?

Well, poor you in Canada!

Here I have the vote, can run for president should I wish!

So, yes Shusha, it IS true!

So you are a national of two different countries and live in a third country where you are not a national but a permanent resident?

As I have stated, I live in a country that is not my birth country. Whether I am a "national" or "permanent resident" has NO restriction on my status. I have the exact same, EXACT same rights and laws applied to me as someone born in this country.

 

[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".

I think it's important to clarify what we are arguing here.

No one is arguing against the individual rights of anybody.

And no one is arguing against the collective rights of each national peoples. (Well, no one on the Israeli side anyway).

What we are arguing is that the Jewish people have collective national rights (self-determination, sovereignty, cultural expression) in Israel. Arab Palestinians have collective national rights in "Palestine" (and also in Jordan and also in Syria).

So there is no removal or denial of rights going in here (Well, on the Israeli side anyway).

It may help to think of national rights as being LIMITED by territory. People can only have national rights in the local territory where they had their cultural genesis. Everyone has collective, cultural, national rights. But those rights can only be exercised in limited territory. Thus the Scots people can not have a Scotland in Europe and another one in Africa and another one in Asia and another one off the coast of Australia. (This IS the essence of indigenous rights over colonization).

What you are arguing is ONLY Jewish people have national rights in Israel. There is a difference between saying Jewish people have national rights in Israel and saying national rights in Israel are UNIQUE to the Jewish people.

 

[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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

 

[Coyote]

Oh dear... Here we go AGAIN...

Just so we can make sure we/YOU aren't moving the goalposts again...

You said that my adopted country applies different laws to me by definition.

I told you that the laws applied to me are exactly the same as those of the 'native' peoples of my adopted country.

Which part of that do you not understand?

What ever you are banging on about "normalization" really has nothing to the laws that apply to me or natives!

I sense a serious degree of squirming and utter bullshit coming from you!

Are you a national of your adopted country? Or a permanent resident?

Define your meaning for both before I respond please.

Typical definition is a two fold relationship where you have obligations to your country of nationality AND you can avail yourself of the protection of your country of nationality.

Permanent residency implies a nationality (with above obligations and protections) outside the state in which you happen to be living. You have already said you have dual citizenship so my assumption is that you have two nationalities and are living in one of them. Alternatively you could have two nationalities and be living in a third country.

To be honest, in my adopted country, it matters not whether you are a "national" or "permanent resident". Both are treated equally.

Probably not true. In Canada, where permanent residents have full access to all the services the government offers, such as medical care, education, etc, they are not permitted to vote, run for government office, etc. So they are not "equal".

The nationals have additional privileges and obligations that residents do not have. Do you think that is wrong? In Canada?

Nationals are citizens right? Permanent residents are not.

 

[rylah]

Typical definition is a two fold relationship where you have obligations to your country of nationality AND you can avail yourself of the protection of your country of nationality.

Permanent residency implies a nationality (with above obligations and protections) outside the state in which you happen to be living. You have already said you have dual citizenship so my assumption is that you have two nationalities and are living in one of them. Alternatively you could have two nationalities and be living in a third country.

To be honest, in my adopted country, it matters not whether you are a "national" or "permanent resident". Both are treated equally.

Probably not true. In Canada, where permanent residents have full access to all the services the government offers, such as medical care, education, etc, they are not permitted to vote, run for government office, etc. So they are not "equal".

The nationals have additional privileges and obligations that residents do not have. Do you think that is wrong? In Canada?

Well, poor you in Canada!

Here I have the vote, can run for president should I wish!

So, yes Shusha, it IS true!

So you are a national of two different countries and live in a third country where you are not a national but a permanent resident?

As I have stated, I live in a country that is not my birth country. Whether I am a "national" or "permanent resident" has NO restriction on my status. I have the exact same, EXACT same rights and laws applied to me as someone born in this country.

Are You now saying that there's a country in which a non-citizen during a naturalization process can vote and get into office?

Show me that country.

 

[rylah]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

Now You're advocating for a more exclusive language than the one You criticize.

 

[rylah]

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".

I think it's important to clarify what we are arguing here.

No one is arguing against the individual rights of anybody.

And no one is arguing against the collective rights of each national peoples. (Well, no one on the Israeli side anyway).

What we are arguing is that the Jewish people have collective national rights (self-determination, sovereignty, cultural expression) in Israel. Arab Palestinians have collective national rights in "Palestine" (and also in Jordan and also in Syria).

So there is no removal or denial of rights going in here (Well, on the Israeli side anyway).

It may help to think of national rights as being LIMITED by territory. People can only have national rights in the local territory where they had their cultural genesis. Everyone has collective, cultural, national rights. But those rights can only be exercised in limited territory. Thus the Scots people can not have a Scotland in Europe and another one in Africa and another one in Asia and another one off the coast of Australia. (This IS the essence of indigenous rights over colonization).

What you are arguing is ONLY Jewish people have national rights in Israel. There is a difference between saying Jewish people have national rights in Israel and saying national rights in Israel are UNIQUE to the Jewish people.

The problem with the word is the one in the law has a different meaning and connotation.
'Exclusive' was specifically not used neither in Hebrew nor in English; unique' is none discriminatory and more in hand with the paragraph's historic context.

 

[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.

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".

I think it's important to clarify what we are arguing here.

No one is arguing against the individual rights of anybody.

And no one is arguing against the collective rights of each national peoples. (Well, no one on the Israeli side anyway).

What we are arguing is that the Jewish people have collective national rights (self-determination, sovereignty, cultural expression) in Israel. Arab Palestinians have collective national rights in "Palestine" (and also in Jordan and also in Syria).

So there is no removal or denial of rights going in here (Well, on the Israeli side anyway).

It may help to think of national rights as being LIMITED by territory. People can only have national rights in the local territory where they had their cultural genesis. Everyone has collective, cultural, national rights. But those rights can only be exercised in limited territory. Thus the Scots people can not have a Scotland in Europe and another one in Africa and another one in Asia and another one off the coast of Australia. (This IS the essence of indigenous rights over colonization).

What you are arguing is ONLY Jewish people have national rights in Israel. There is a difference between saying Jewish people have national rights in Israel and saying national rights in Israel are UNIQUE to the Jewish people.

I'm not clear what the difference would be.

 

[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.

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

What are they saying? How is it different?

If the Basic Law was written, "we Jews" instead of the Jewish people it would be okay?

 

[Coyote]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

Now You're advocating for a more exclusive language than the one You criticize.

How?

 

[Coyote]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

What are they saying? How is it different?

If the Basic Law was written, "we Jews" instead of the Jewish people it would be okay?

No, the issue is "unique to"

 

[Sixties Fan]

Nu — So Israel Is not the Jewish State?

 

[Shusha]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

What are they saying? How is it different?

If the Basic Law was written, "we Jews" instead of the Jewish people it would be okay?

No, the issue is "unique to"

I'm not understanding what you believe is different about "unique to" that is not the same as, say, "we Jews".

 

[rylah]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

Now You're advocating for a more exclusive language than the one You criticize.

How?

Let's exaggerate the effect on the minorities, say each country had so much diverse population that it was something like the Russian federation. Compared to Russia, "We Slovene" sounds very uncomfortable for 2 reasons:

a. In Russia a citizen of any nationality or ethnicity is "Rossiyanin", Russian citizenship does not change one's ethnicity into Russian. In Slovenia it's "We Slovenes" the ethnicity.
b. Ethnic Russians, Ukrainians and Belarus are Slav people, their church is called "Pravo-Slavna", they've been calling themselves Slovane, and here they hear "We Sloveni nation... our national identity", but Russians and Belarus are not given a vote in Slovenia for some reason.

 

[Coyote]

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".

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

What are they saying? How is it different?

If the Basic Law was written, "we Jews" instead of the Jewish people it would be okay?

No, the issue is "unique to"

I'm not understanding what you believe is different about "unique to" that is not the same as, say, "we Jews".

We Jews doesnt exclude, it leaves open room for the others. Saying unique shuts out anyone else definitively and without question. It is unique to this one group only and no cirizen not of that group, but still a national is excluded.

 

[Shusha]

The second statement says explicitly, "we Slovenes" and you somehow take that to mean we Slovenes and those Russians who live here too. Yet when The Jewish people say, "we Jews" you take it to mean not only JUST the JEWS but also extend it to mean that even the rights of individuals are affected.

Why doesn't "we Jews" mean the same to you as "we Slovenes"? I think your answer is going to be that the Jews write it explicitly. Why do you think the Jewish people felt it necessary to write it explicitly?

Because they are not saying we Jews.

What are they saying? How is it different?

If the Basic Law was written, "we Jews" instead of the Jewish people it would be okay?

No, the issue is "unique to"

I'm not understanding what you believe is different about "unique to" that is not the same as, say, "we Jews".

We Jews doesnt exclude, it leaves open room for the others. Saying unique shuts out anyone else definitively and without question. It is unique to this one group only and no cirizen not of that group, but still a national is excluded.

But "We Jews" defines who is included, therefore excluding anyone who is not in the defined group. There is no difference in concept.