Israel passes 'Nation State' law enshrining Jewish supremacy

Post the quote. As usual you just make crap up

 

Utter BS and you know it. Stop posting false propaganda

 

As I posted above, Israel is a racist state. Over 50 laws that give rights to Jews that are not given to Palestineans. No other country does this except racist Apartheid rogue Israel.

 

here you go

 

FACT: the FHA allows home owners to racially/ethnically discriminate if they live in the home/building and as long as they don't post discriminatory criteria in an ad.

 

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/HousingProviders

 

<Rule 2/3> Nowhere in you link does it say racial discrimination is allowed.

 

No you are wrong. Civil Rights include political rights. You cannot even have equal rights if you do not have political rights.

Algeria which I admit I do not know much about is clearly not a democracy though I repeatedly come across people slamming the French for their actions there and very recently and it may have been in connection to this I heard it described as a two tier society. Anyway wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Algeria

so that may be what you are wanting for Israel. However that is not what was meant by civil and political rights. The Balfour Declaration was from the Brits not the French and as I have said it is generally thought that what the French have done there and are still doing in Algeria is disgraceful.

On that there was a difference of opinion. The Balfour Declaration did not offer Israel a State. It offered a Jewish Home. American and British non Zionist Jews would not have allowed a State to be offered. Indeed again in 'What Price Israel?' Lilienthal talks about how Zionists were declaring they were not wanting a State in connection with trying to get the approval of American and Western European Jews. Your belief that Palestine was agreed would become a State for just Jews is not true. However it is true that that is what everyone suspected the Zionists were after. They thought that the intent was to govern the country and have the Arabs as basically their slaves. Some Brits, in particular Christian Zionists went along with the Jews taking over another people's land and using them as cheap labour as second class people but there was strong argument against this not least as the world had just decided to value self determination - and for that reason and to satisfy those people, Jews and non Jews - the bit about nothing been done which would interfere with the civil or religious rights of the indigenous population was put in.

It is true that in the negotiations it was only the Zionists who were negotiated with. This is why straight away it can be seen that this falls foul on Section 22 of the mandate.

and yet when the British wanted to bring in Democracy Chaim Weimann would have none of it.

Democracy as obstacle to Zionist plans

As you can see the Brits expected the people whose homeland it was to have political rights. Basically what you have now in Israel is a totally coming back to Jabotinsky's view, and he admired Italian fascism. Netanyahu's father being his secretary having no small part in the influence on Netanyahu. However they totally failed when they did not understand that with Oslo the Palestinians had come to their time when they were ready to accept Israel. They were ready to give up most of their homeland. If they had followed Jabotinsky's ideas they would then have honoured Oslo....but maybe I have that wrong. Maybe it would not be Jabotinsky's position until all of Palestine was taken - possibly parts of other countries as well.

Pisa you are the only person trying to make a case that Palestinians should have no political rights and you are wrong The very reason that the bit was put in that nothing should interfere with the civil and political rights of the indigenous population was to make sure that this did not happen and the disgusting behaviour of the French in Algeria does not change that. The French are not the British. Where the French Governed gays were not hung. Where the Brits Governed they were - and this interestingly also is seen by a difference in countries who were previously colonised by the French and the British.

Weimanm may have believed he was getting Palestine as a State for Jews but even he knew that was not what was offered - though as I said some British Christian Zionists with no humanity seeing Arabs like the leading Jewish Zionists did as sub human probably were open to this. The church of Scotland describes its views of the time as being based on Imperialism, views which they believed most people today found repugnant. Particularly in talking about a land without a people for a people without a land which they believe may have been declared by one of them, they say that was due to the Imperialistic thinking of the time when anywhere that was not ruled by white people was seen as a land without a people. Jews being white would be fine there. Your whole argument seems to be from that base. You do not seem to understand that the indigenous population are people. After WW1 the intent was to stop colonising and to allow for self determination for the indigenous people of the land they were living on.

That is why the line about not interfering with civil and religious rights comes in and civil rights includes political rights within a democratic country. The Brits expected Palestine to be a Democratic country. Of course Weimann understood that if that was so there would not be a Zionist State as the people whose homeland it was would not vote themselves out of everything that belonged to them.

Oh that is not his opinion. That was a fact. After the Balfour Declaration was sent the Brits dropped leaflets of it in Germany and Germany's allies knowing it would break their moral. Germany itself had been thinking of doing something similar but the Brits beat them to it. From other reading I have done Germany was very much the country who the majority of ordinary Jews supported.

what does that have to do with it? I suppose you must have thought that that gave the Germans a genuine reason to hate Jews and to say they lost WW1 for them. Indeed it is even reported that we even dropped leaflets telling Jews they could stop fighting now as they were going to have their own state. The vast majority of German Jews were loyal citizens of Germany and non Zionists. Zionism was mainly a thing of Russian and East European Jews. It did not go down well with Western Jews who preferred Western Europe, the UK and most of all the United States and did not like ethnic nationalism at all.

Due to the people whose home it had been for up to thousands of years not being negotiated with the mandate did not go by the Mandate rules. It wouldn't stand up in any court of law today and your belief that it was intended not to give the Palestinians any Political rights is simply not true. You are describing what the Zionists wanted as if it was what happened. Even they knew they had to keep quiet about wanting a State. That is why they told non zionists Jews they were not after one If you read early papers you will see the Brits trying to get the Zionists to share what they had through outside donations with the people of Palestine to make it a state for all its people. The Zionists refused, of course because their intent was always to take away the homeland of another people. Interestingly the knesset refused to even discuss the bill to make Israel a State for all it's citizens.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/or...i-edelstein-knesset-jews-nationality-law.html

Getting in early with taking away the rights of non Jews to have a political voice it seems and given that the bill this OP is on was passed by almost as little a majority as Brexit, it might have done well to allow Israel its last chance at democracy.

on a flawed premise. The Palestinians should have been the obvious people to have been negotiated with. Instead when their views were heard they were ignored. How can international law decide that the people who the Mandate is largely about do not exist. It did not go by the Mandates rules and it most certainly did not say that the Palestinians were not to have Political rights or that the Indigenous people of Palestine had no rights which is what that would amount to. It very definitely was not about giving a foreign people another people's land for them to govern over them. Many though mentioned concerns that they thought that was what the Zionists were after. They also wanted vastly more land.

I don't buy your argument that because Palestine was not a Western style Nation State the people who had been living there for as long as was known, had worked the soil, built the villages and towns and created its history have no rights. Of course Israel has erased their history. As the clip I gave said the people were as advanced as the Turks. You speak of them as if they were cattle to be moved around by proper human beings, the Zionists, at will. No it was the Arabs home the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, it was their country even if they only recently had got the conception of having a nation state. Self Determination was promised to them for the fighting and dying for the Brits defeating the Ottoman Empire. A Jewish home, which many were describing as a cultural home was what was offered to the Zionists in return for them getting the US into the War on the side of the Brits - and that was confirmed as the motivation by British archives which came out a few years ago.

 

No they didn't ... Arab Jews trickled into Israel in waves in 1948, 1953, 1956, 1967 and 1973.

 

Germany wasn't a country either.. in fact many place were city states or Duchies , Principalities etc.

 

My dear forum members !
Europe killed 6 million Jews and in return Allah gave them 25 Million Muslims.
Some of you do not like Israel .. because you are pro Jihado Islamo Paleshtino wall of lie supporters..
So if that small country wants to pass a Nation State law .. so be it.
God bless them.

 

Indeed. So care to show me some country where the country is meant to be for 1 specific ethnic group and it's culture,.. by law?
Thank you.

 

The Fair Housing Act bans discrimination in housing sales and rentals, but does make exceptions for owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.

this is according to the USA's Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Which god?

 

What's your source on how many Jews lived in the Middle East, not just Palestine, in 1918?

 

I have always heard 500,000 to 700,000..

At one point I read up on the history of the Arab Jews separately by country... how many, what they did, when they left.

There were still Jews in Libya in the early 1970s.. and they are still in Bahrain.

 

Yes, I think 1m is way too high for the number of ME Jews in 1918.

 

One must be a Shia Muslim to enjoy FULL citizenship in Iran.

http://www.ihrr.org/ihrr_article/vi...orities-in-the-islamic-republic-constitution/

 

Really? I had no idea.

 

Pakistan has discriminatory laws against non-Muslims.

http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/inequality-and-discrimination-faced-by-religious-minorities-in-pakistan/

 

yup, laws of discrimination on the books in several Muslim nations.

https://clarionproject.org/these-five-muslim-countries-discriminate-against-muslims/

 

So does India and they have 150 million muslims.

 

That is exceptionally far from pronouncing that the country, by law is ment for 1 ethnicity, it's culture and it's religion.

 

in practise the religious discrimination in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations is MUCH worse than in Israel.

go ahead and tell me one can leave a full and successful life as a Jew in these nations, or the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Libya, Sudan, Kuwait.

I can use a good laugh.

 

Actually, its consistent with the Israeli declaration of independence and in its basic law (the informal constitution).

I sure as hell can't understand this move. It sure looks to me to be prejudicial to at least 20% of the Israeli population.