Your own definition derps you. Unless witnesses provided aren’t evidence anymore.
Fwiw, I won’t be going down this rabbit hole. It’s a silly argument about a silly topic. If Kav changes a single SCOTUS opinion because of the political theatre he chose to pursue as a career, he should be fuckin hung.
Personally, I don’t think that little of Kav. He seems like an alright guy aside from the beer choices
I apply this logic to all SCOTUS members.
The Druze are Druze. They are not “arab” in the political, religious, or ethnic sense you are talking about. The Druze generally vote to the right of the right. Not remotely related to the lesser angels in Bibi’s increasingly strange coalition government.
Again back to the original question, you claim the Basic Law is unfair to Druze. How?
(And quoting random Army officers saying it is “unfair” is meaningless. I’m an IDF Army officer, just like basically every Israel who was drafted, served, and continues to serve until retirement in the reserves. That’s like finding a person on the street. I could find you a quote from a Knesset member and IDF member, who says we should all covert to Islam and suck the dick of the Sultan. They never get into specifics. The law is above. How is it “unfair”?)
Well, it seems they’re angry because they’re good enough for the draft and for getting killed, but not good enough to be mentioned in the Basic Law.
Ok, how about these guys? Random as well?
At the rally, by contrast, the former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo castigated the new law and empathized with the anger over it from Israeli minorities.
“What has been done is an injustice to 20 percent of Israel’s population, and first and foremost to the Druze who have faithfully served the state from the day of its establishment,” said Pardo. “This is not about right or left. This is not an issue of which party you vote for. It’s a matter of values.”
Former IDF chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi told the news channel from the rally that he was there to show his support for the Druze community. “I’m here to tell them I’m with them, I’ve known them for decades, we have fought alongside each other, and have died together.”
So how would you modify the law to make it fair to the Druze? Do the Druze need their own state now? Stand by your claim that it is “unfair”.
The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
We appeal - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
Great, another cut-and-paste. So, how does the Basic Law conflict with your block quote?
It removes any references to “equality” and “democracy”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the changes in the Basic Law explained by Bibi and his supporters as the answer to the alleged “democratic” bias of the Supreme Court that supposedly discriminates against the “Jewishness” of the State of Israel and is the tool of the Arabs and the dreaded Left?
That’s a bit like saying chocolate ice cream removes references to “equality” and “democracy”. Those concepts and guarantees (specifically freedom of religion, freedom from individual discrimination, etc) are enshrined in different, far more important, places.
I have no idea how it was explained in all circumstances, but, in general, the purpose of this was to make it clear that Israel was a Jewish state, much like Norway is a Norse state, or Germany, a German state, or Japan Japanese. Note, it does not deny anyone any individual liberty, and, in fact, in contrast to all other states’ similar laws, enshrines certain things like Arabic having a “special status” (i.e., all government signs have to be bilingual).
If anything, the main explanation of the Basic Law is to specifically reject the new means of genocide of the Jewish people being attempted by those who hate Israel, which is the “One State Solution” proposed by Ilan Omar and other anti-Semites.
For those that don’t know, the “One State Solution” is a merger between the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority and the land of Israel – coupled with an “Arab Right of Return” whereby Arabs throughout the Middle East (and anywhere) could move to the new country, swamp it with people, and then kill and conquer the Jewish people simply by having lots of babies who grow up to be bombers.
This law, in particular, wholly rejects the idea of an “Arab Right of Return”.
And this is why the Left is pissed. One less opportunity to commit genocide.
All the other complaints are just window dressing.
Thereby making Israel a haven of Peace and Prosperity like the rest of the Middle East, @Jewbacca? (Very, VERY extreme sarcasm meant…)
So the State of Israel, which has survived three major attempts to wipe it from the map, had to change it’s Basic Law do defend itself against a couple of US congresswomen? Seriously?
Ah yes, the obsession with the Israel Arab fertility “ticking bomb”. I understand the fearmongering subsided somewhat with the drop of fertility rates.
Which Left? I’m genuinely confused. The UK Labour Party and it’s plethora of upper middle class antisemitic lefties who post thinly velied antisemitic rants against “Zionists”? You needed to change the Basic Law because of them?
Or do you mean the Israeli Left? Because that’s Bibi-speak.
You’ve got it all wrong! They are an anti-racist party! They told me so!
God, how unlucky is Jezz. So pro-Jewish but always in the wrong book at the wrong time.
“I have this book that claims that Jews control the banks and the media”
“This is bloody brilliant! I need to write a foreword for the new edition! I’m concerned that a foreword peddling the worst of the early 20th century antisemitic tropes won’t be enough to disgust the general public so I’ll just add some paragraphs denoucing NATO as “occupiers” and praising Comrade Stalin”
I want to thank loppar for giving a really great example of how dishonestly liberals debate issues, using several examples in one thread.
Here we have the “false limitation”, coupled with some mild sexism.
Note the original post was a Congresswoman with “other anti-Semites”. While it is a silly (and sexist) idea to minimize the effect of any Congressman on the very powerful foreign affairs (or whatever the exact name is) committee, the key phrase is “other anti-semites” – those “others” being people like Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar who proposed “Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state” — of course, with the end goal being ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians.
The coalition behind the one state solution are the most hard core of those who desire the extermination of the Jewish people. They are serious people, full of hate. So extreme even most Palestinians reject them. This is known to anyone serious about the issue. And yet loppar limits the proponents to “couple of US congresswomen”.
Liberal dishonesty at it finest. Thanks for the example!
Ah, the “liberal lie by omission” coupled with “half truth.”
Here the phrase omitted was " coupled with an “Arab Right of Return” whereby Arabs throughout the Middle East (and anywhere) could move to the new country, swamp it with people . . . "
Now anyone with a TV has seen millions of not-so-peaceful Muslims completely changing the demographics of France, Germany, etc. So much so there is a semi-serious proposal to turn the now-burned Notre Dame into a mosque to reflect the “new France”.
So, of course, the swamping of a One-State Israel by immigration aspect of an “Arab Law of Return” was just omitted by one of our local dishonest liberal.
And here is the half truth: roughly 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. There was some concern among far-right Jewish groups that they were having a lot of babies and would, eventually, become the majority. Turns out, Israeli Arabs are among the richest, and most well-educated, demographic in Israel. (Turns out, we Israelis suck at apartheid.) Anyway, like rich people in most places, they don’t have lots of kids. So this fear was unfounded (and silly to begin with – Israeli Arabs have always been Arabs who are happy to live among Jews – and vice versa).
But, again, demographic change by people already in Israel is not the concern with a “One State Solution” – the concern is – as clearly stated, but omitted by the dishonest liberal – the millions of potential hostile immigrants in such a scenario. Ask the Berliners about this. And why “Mohammed” is the most common boy name in Berlin.
Which Left? I’m genuinely confused. The UK Labour Party and it’s plethora of upper middle class antisemitic lefties who post thinly velied antisemitic rants against “Zionists”? You needed to change the Basic Law because of them? Or do you mean the Israeli Left? [/quote]
And now we have “distraction” and “Straw man”.
It’s not particularly important which “Left” I am talking about as the Left writ large tends to work (more or less) in amazing harmony, regardless of underlying motivation. But, hey, let’s distract from the issues and make a big deal out of a minor point and distract from the debate! And declare victory!
Note the straw man in the middle: “The UK Labour Party and it’s plethora of upper middle class antisemitic lefties who post thinly velied antisemitic rants against “Zionists”? You needed to change the Basic Law because of them?”
Well, the answer to that is “not particularly” – as stated clearly up thread, the Basic Law was changed to defeat the idea of a Arab Right of Return and One State Solution – ideas being toyed with by all sorts of Leftists – self-hating Diaspora Jews, suicidal Jews in Israel’s Supreme Court (a residual leftist bastion), BDS morons on US college campuses (who say Israel is a horrible place by having a Right of Return for Jewish people), etc. Doesn’t particularly matter which “Left”.
Finally, a Leftist favorite – projection.
Liberals/the Left are very big on accusing the other side of doing what they do. For example, Trump (again, not my favorite person) is somehow an anti-Semite (despite, you know, all his married kids marrying Jewish people and Ivanka converting) and Israel loving him. And yet, Ilan Omar and other actual antisemitic turds like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton (leader of the Crown Heights Pogrom) are not only welcome parts of the Democratic Party, but the wanna be presidential candidates mostly all went and kissed Sharpton’s blood stained ring. The American Left has a real mainstream antisemitism problem – while the right has a couple of dudes from trailer parks who wield Tiki torches – who are soundly rejected.
And yet the Leftists constantly scream that Republicans are antisemitic. Projection, in other words.
Here, I am accused of “Bibi Speak”. Well, Bibi is a bright guy, but a politician, so I am quite sure he says lots of shady things, so I guess that is what I am being accused of.
Bibi did stand up to Obama’s proposals for Israelis to all go die, so Bibi is a hated figure for bucking the most recent Left mosiach. So maybe that’s the insult.
Anyway, whatever the exact meaning, it’s apparently an accusation of being dishonest in a debate (somehow).
Well, parsing through loppar’s response, anyone can see the sophistry at work and see the projection.
Again, thank you for your post. I’ve never seen a single post that has almost all of the Left’s approaches all mixed together. Able reader of Saul Alinsky, you are.
Gotta go. We’re taking in some distant cousins from Ashdod today. The peaceful neighbors have lobbed over ~700 missiles, targeting homes and schools, while launching them from on top of apartment buildings – and thus knowing we won’t respond.
Mostly ineffectual. They did manage to kill a Rabbi, who apparently dedicated his life to helping the poor and disabled. So they’ve got that going for them. I’m sure that brings a lot of joy.
Wife said to go to Decathlon (like an Academy sports) to buy 7 cots. There’s apparently already a line.
Well…
I have to admit that @Jewbacca and @loppar are two of my “go-to” guys for information, insights and opinions…(and hopefully will continue to be so…)
I hate to see the two of them with such diametrically opposed views…but I guess when it comes to the Middle East…and Israel in particular…there simply is no “in-between”…
Such is Life.
No. You’re intentionally obfuscating the issue. There are millions and millions of rabid anti semites in the world. Israel has survived 70 years with the existing Basic Law. How do Bibi’s changes “protect” Israel from outside enemies?
Unless, of course, you’re taking about the “internal enemy”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the very Trumpian stance of the Israel extreme right wingers - the "State of Israel is under an attack from an internal enemy - the recent evil progressive Israel Supreme Court rulings about Bedouin settlements in the Negev and deportation of illegal immigrants, in the name of so-called “democracy” means that they’ve united themselves with the Israeli left and the dreaded one fifth of Arabs into “one state” zealots hell bent on destroying the country with uncontrolled immigration of suicide bomber rearing Muslim mothers".
So the Basic Law changes have nothing to do with Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah, instead it’s simply an Israeli version of “owning the libs”.
As Trump is implying that Democrats hate America and want to destroy it with illegal immigrants, so Israeli right wingers claim that anyone who voted for Benny Gantz and Kahol Lavan wants to destroy Israel with the “one state solution” and Muslim immigrants.
Umm… I’m confused. “Obama won the 2008 election after being indoctrinated by Saul Alinsky” is a talking point employed by anti-semites and the likes of Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich. You know, “Jews are behind socialism” trope.
How does this fit into your “Obama wants to destroy Israel” narrative?
I’m not criticizing Israel, I’m criticizing their current government. @Jewbacca is trying to conflate the two.
I think you’re overreacting here. I certainly wouldn’t call loppar some diehard liberal or whatever this constant “Left this and Left that” stuff you’re accusing him of. He’s about as level headed as it gets on here.
Neither am I…and remain a staunch supporter of Her existence and survival, despite the wails of the pseudo-bleeding hearts.
My criticism during the years of President Obama was with Netenyahu, NOT with the State of Israel. Netenyahu painted the President as being antisemitic (which I’ve stated over and over I did not think he was)…and the Right ran with it.
To be fair, with the level of mouth breathing required to bite on the birther conspiracy, they knew pushing him as a Jew hater would be a slam dunk.
The same people who demanded to see all sorts of birth certificate proof (then ignored it anyways) have no problem with Trump not releasing his taxes.
Well it doesn’t actually matter that he said he would like a dozen times. Keeping them a secret is just about pissing off the Dems.
Plus Trump’s a white guy