«

»

The Palestinian Question

This was almost certainly done to punish Israel:

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a resolution upgrading Palestine to a “non-member observer state,” from a “non-member observer entity.”

Before the vote and in front of the assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this was the body’s “last chance to save the two-state solution.”

He said despite all the violence and Israeli “aggressions” and its “occupation,” Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority have insisted on harmony and have looked at the “U.N. as a beacon of hope.”

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel. Rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of a state that must now achieve its independence and that is Palestine,” Abbas said.

Pretty words. But Hamas, who control the Gaza, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

The main thing this does is give them access to the International Criminal Court. Does anyone want to be on how long it will before they deluge Israel with accusations of war crimes? About ten seconds? And does anyone doubt what the result of those investigations will be?

33 comments

No ping yet

  1. Thrill says:

    Heh! Erick Erickson tweeted:

    So fictional places can join the UN now. What’s next? Narnia? Neverland? Vulcan?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Kimpost says:

    The main thing this does is give them access to the International Criminal Court. Does anyone want to be on how long it will before they deluge Israel with accusations of war crimes? About ten seconds? And does anyone doubt what the result of those investigations will be?

    Israel (like USA) does not recognize the ICC anyway so that wouldn’t matter much…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  3. InsipiD says:

    Israel (like USA) does not recognize the ICC anyway so that wouldn’t matter much…

    Good for them.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    This was almost certainly done to punish Israel:

    Member nations voted on it to punish Israel? On what basis?

    McCully said a UN resolution is “a poor substitute for direct negotiations between the two parties”.

    But voting in favour of the resolution reflects the long-standing policy of the New Zealand Government.

    In a statement, McCully said: “New Zealand is a long-standing supporter of the two state solution. We believe that Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side, each respecting the other’s right to peace. And we believe that they should arrive at that conclusion through direct talks.

    “As I stated in my address to the UN General Assembly earlier this year, we have never regarded a UN resolution as an adequate substitute for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That is the only way of achieving a durable solution to this question.

    “We remain frustrated that two leaders who live half an hour up the road from each other cannot meet to resolve these matters directly.

    “I said earlier this year that in the absence of any other process for taking this matter forward we would be open to voting for a resolution in the United Nations that reflected our commitment to the two state solution, provided it was expressed in moderate and constructive terms.

    “We have discussed the proposed text of the resolution with Palestinian representatives over recent weeks and they have delivered a resolution that is moderate, constructive, and reflects our commitment to a two-state solution. We will therefore vote for it.

    “In our explanation of vote to the UN our Permanent Representative Hon Jim McLay will make clear our absolute commitment to Israel’s right to safety and security, and condemn the actions of Hamas extremists in recent weeks.

    How on earth does that equate to “punishing” Israel?

    Pretty words. But Hamas, who control the Gaza, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

    Right, but whatever pretty words the Israeli government issues (“I mean they committed to solving all outstanding issues through negotiations”), the Likud Party apparently doesn’t recognise the right of a Palestinian state to exist west of the Jordan River. Their party platform annihilates the slightest chance of a two-state solution.

    “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs”

    That’s in their “Peace and Security” Chapter apparently.

    So fictional places can join the UN now. What’s next? Narnia? Neverland? Vulcan?

    I’m sure somewhere in bowels of this country (i.e. Wellingtonshire) someone is putting together the documentation on behalf of Middle Earth. I really hope Sméagol runs off with it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  5. HARLEY says:

    Heh! Erick Erickson tweeted:

    So fictional places can join the UN now. What’s next? Narnia? Neverland? Vulcan?

    Aztlan?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Mississippi Yankee says:

    In a statement, McCully said: “New Zealand is a long-standing supporter of the two state solution. We believe that Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side, each respecting the other’s right to peace.

    But yet…

    Pretty words. But Hamas, who control the Gaza, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

    Does anyone in your island nation have even the slight grasp on reality? Please inform Mr. McNutty that you can’t have one without the other no matter how hard you with upon that star.
    The Likud Party can lose favor, or even change it’s stance. Hamas on the other hand has a vested interest in keeping the pot boiling. As this point has been driven home here time after time I fully expect you to begin the “Double-speak”

    Mark my words, before this is over Armageddon will have become the preferable solution.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    CM, you have to see this in a larger context, which Volokh gets into:

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/29/what-the-un-palestine-vote-means-and-what-it-doesnt/

    3) The vote must be seen in the context of a long history of past anti-Israel resolutions in the GA. These illustrate both the automatic majority such resolutions enjoy, and their unimportance to actual events. For example, in the 1970s, the parliament of nations overwhelmingly agreed that Zionism is a form a racism, and thus the entire country is illegitimate. In 2009, the GA adopted a resolution that concluded Israel intentionally sought to slaughter innocent Palestinian civilians in the Gaza War – a resolution based on the Goldstone report, which has since been retracted by its eponymous author.

    4) There is nothing new even in the European position. Since 1980 Europe has maintained that the lands occupied by Jordan and Egypt in their 1948-49 war against Israel is actually
    “Palestinian territory,” which Israel must leave. The European votes are consistent with their accord with almost all major Palestinian demands.

    Maybe not punishment, but “pretext”.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Kimpost says:

    New Zealand might have nobler motives, but Sweden voted yes becase we hate the fucking jews. In fact, most of EU hates them, which is why we punish them with all kinds of free trade agreements.

    Ridiculous. We voted yes, because it was the right thing to do. It should have been done decades ago. United States no-vote on the other hand, was purely political. Having a stand which basicaly says “we’ll vote no, until Israel says otherwise”, really isn’t a stand at all.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  9. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Ridiculous. We voted yes, because it was the right thing to do. It should have been done decades ago.

    And you two will continue to ignore Hamas (with the PA before them) and it’s threats to wipe Israel from the planet.

    Just as long as you can feel better about yourselves neither of you have to give another thought about what transpires thousands of miles away.
    Liberalism truly IS a disease.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  10. stogy says:

    For example, in the 1970s, the parliament of nations overwhelmingly agreed that Zionism is a form a racism

    I’d agree with that, as would a fair few Jewish Israelis. Zionism privileges Jewish citizens of Israel and treats members of other religions as inferiors. I saw this with my own eyes at the security gate to the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem, where an Arab Israeli woman in a headscarf (and a friend of mine) was utterly and completely unnecessarily humiliated by Israeli security forces. If I hadn’t been there and interceded, it would have been a lot worse. Zionism also justifies permanent annexation of large parts of the West Bank and ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem. It’s no different from any other fundamentalist belief – there is no arguing against it because everything is ‘God’s will’.

    and thus the entire country is illegitimate.

    As a Jewish state, yes, a Zionist state is illegitimate. As a state which protects the rights of all of its citizens, Jewish and otherwise, then no, it would not be illegitimate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  11. mrblume says:

    Pretty words. But Hamas, who control the Gaza, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

    So, if, hypothetically, the UN resolution specifically excluded Gaza, you’d all be for it? Please. If I may: Obvious strawman is obvious.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  12. Poosh says:

    As a state which protects the rights of all of its citizens, Jewish and otherwise, then no, it would not be illegitimate.

    Strogy do you accept then that a Palestinian state is illegitimate? You must logically do that. And just about every other country in the MIddle East, which are Muslim States.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Poosh says:

    In fact, just to go a little too far, Britain is surely illegitimate seeing as we by default favour Christians over others, seeing as the entire authority of government and legitimacy lies with the monarch, chosen by our Christian God to lead the people of England, and her appropriated territories.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  14. stogy says:

    A follow up question to MrBlume’s one:

    Pretty words. But Hamas, who control the Gaza, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

    Both Netanyahu and Olmert have called on Hamas not to recognize Israel as a state, but as a Jewish state. Here’s Netanyahu before Congress::

    “It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… ‘I will accept a Jewish state.’ Those six words will change history.”

    Either Netanyahu thinks that the Palestinians will be stupid enough to actually do this (and give up their only negotiating point in return for absolutely nothing), or he has moved to a position so extreme that he knows that no Palestinian will ever accept it. Which do you think it is?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  15. stogy says:

    Poosh, that’s a straw man

    Strogy do you accept then that a Palestinian state is illegitimate? You must logically do that. And just about every other country in the MIddle East, which are Muslim States.

    Palestine, such as it is, is not a Muslim state. You do know that there are Palestinian Christians, don’t you? Who live in the West Bank? The dream of a secular Palestine is still very much alive – as you would find if you googled it.

    And my position on Israel is the same as with any state which describes itself as belonging to a particular religion, whether it be Iran or Nepal, or the US for that matter. The UK has separation between church and state, and is secular – the laws protect freedom of religion and do not permit discrimination based on religion. Whether those rules are always enforced is another matter.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  16. Poosh says:

    Not a strawman. A dream? Myth. ‘Nuff.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  17. stogy says:

    A dream, yes. Myth, no. The 2003 draft constitution for a Palestinian state calls for Islam to be the official religion. However, this is in conflict with Fatah’s own constitution, which calls for a secular state. The Christian community have been pushing back, but at the moment, nothing has been decided. It’s a draft constitution only.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  18. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Stogy.

    First you say:

    Both Netanyahu and Olmert have called on Hamas not to recognize Israel as a state, but as a Jewish state. Here’s Netanyahu before Congress::

    Then you quote:

    “It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… ‘I will accept a Jewish state.’ Those six words will change history.”

    I thought you said last week YOU were there… drinking the water or some such. Let’s assume for a moment you’re not full of shit, I know big stretch but stay with me…

    Did you notice that Hamas controls Gaza ever since they preformed a coup several years ago? And that they forced President Abbas out of the sector and now the Fatah only controls the West Bank? So could you please explain to the class why Netanyahu would call on Hamas to recognize a Jewish state while addressing President Abbas?

    I understand that our new overlord Thrill wants to bring his old libitard buddies back with him (can “the whore that calls himself a man” be far away?) but speaking for myself, I am perfectly happy with our current libitards.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. Mississippi Yankee says:

    To the powers that be:

    Are there certain names and blog nicknames that are banned here? The reason I ask is that TWICE I used the proper name for “the whore that calls himself a man” and twice my comment would not post, happened a week or so ago too. Although I did read his name on a Thrill comment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Thrill says:

    I just tried putting Manwich’s name in a comment and can confirm that it does not work. Interesting feature. I had used it in a post, so that must be the difference.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. stogy says:

    I thought you said last week YOU were there… drinking the water or some such. Let’s assume for a moment you’re not full of shit, I know big stretch but stay with me…

    Yeah, I have been there. I traveled throughout Israel, from the North right down to the Dead Sea, and the West Bank, to Ramallah and the refugee camps outside Bethlehem. But I haven’t been to Gaza. I did drink water while I was there.

    So could you please explain to the class why Netanyahu would call on Hamas to recognize a Jewish state while addressing President Abbas?

    I don’t really see the problem here. He has called on Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Sometimes he has addressed it specifically to Abbas, at other times to Palestinians in general. Hamas clearly see themselves as being part of the call, because Erekat rejected it.

    To give in on this would be to give up on the Palestinian’s main negotiating position, which is the right of return, before negotiations even begin. It would be about the dumbest thing the Palestinians could do, and they already do some pretty dumb things. Netanyahu knows that no Palestinian political leader can give in on this, that’s why he has shifted the ground (starting in 2007) to make it even more impossible for the Palestinians to accept.

    I am perfectly happy with our current libitards.

    They seem a likeable bunch. I am just here to make you feel a little more uncomfortable on issues that really get my goat.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  22. Thrill says:

    And what’s wrong with my libtard buddies? Whether you like them or not, they keep it from getting dull around here, right?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Mississippi Yankee says:

    And what’s wrong with my libtard buddies? Whether you like them or not, they keep it from getting dull around here, right?

    Comment Whore!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Thrill says:

    You make my cynical efforts to boost the site’s traffic sound so dirty, cheap.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Tawdry I say!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. Poosh says:

    Both Netanyahu and Olmert have called on Hamas not to recognize Israel as a state, but as a Jewish state.

    This seems entirely pointless and yet obvious but it isn’t the fact that that Israel doesn’t want a secular state, it’s that it wants a Jewish state. If they said of course, it was to be a secular state, the rockets would still be coming, so it’s entirely BS designed to throw people off – and my it works. I mean you can tell this because if Israel were making a “Muslim” state and they were Muslims no one would have a problem. As if any Palestinian state won’t be a Muslim state with the similar chains being attached to non-muslims you find in most Islamic states. It’s pathetic that people actually fall for this. It is imperative that Isarel is *not* a Jewish state because the arabs, so to speak, plan to flood it with Muslim-arabs and change the culture. They won’t even need to blow up Israel they’ll just breed the Jews out.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Kimpost says:

    I mean you can tell this because if Israel were making a “Muslim” state and they were Muslims no one would have a problem.

    Unless of course neighbouring “Palestine” was trying to maintain a “Jewish” state, and didn’t want it flooded by “Muslims”, and they were achieving this by epanding their “Jewish” territory, step by step, resulting in more and more angry “Muslims”.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  28. AlexInCT says:

    Unless of course neighbouring “Palestine” was trying to maintain a “Jewish” state, and didn’t want it flooded by “Muslims”, and they were achieving this by epanding their “Jewish” territory, step by step, resulting in more and more angry “Muslims”.

    Funny how you seem to be pissed at Israel expanding it’s territories. Far more than you should be at Palestinians lobbing rockets that kill Israelis. The again, your concern seems totaly one sided, with occasional lip service to not make it too blatantly obvious, but that was already pointed out. I am betting you where front and center when demands that Israel return land it conquered during the many wars the Arabs foisted on it, because it was wrong of those pesky Jews to actually fight back and win instead of rolling over and dying, be returned? Israel made huge mistakes returning any of those lands. All it did was embolden these scumbags into doing more of the same. Fuck them all.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  29. stogy says:

    Israel doesn’t want a secular state, it’s that it wants a Jewish state

    “Israel” doesn’t want anything. The demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is only five years old, and a fabrication of the Israeli fundamentalist right.

    The intention isn’t to stop the missiles, but to delay a settlement for long enough for Israel to get the bits of the West Bank it still wants but doesn’t have.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  30. Kimpost says:

    There’s nothing one-sided with:

    1. Israel should end the occupation and retreat to 1967 borders. In cases where they aren’t willing to do that, they should try anyway. Where it just isn’t possible they should offer mutually agreed land swaps. Including important water rights.

    2. Palestinians need to accept Israel, forget about the right to return, and accept land swaps.

    3. Both parties need to accept a shared Jerusalem.

    Yes, they should give back the land they won “fair-and-square” in battle against other Arab countries. Just. Hand. It. Over. :)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  31. AlexInCT says:

    “Israel” doesn’t want anything. The demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is only five years old, and a fabrication of the Israeli fundamentalist right.

    From Wikipedia of all places:

    On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine. On 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,” a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15 May 1948.[9][10][11]

    That bolding is mine Stogy. Try a different lie/talking point.

    1. Israel should end the occupation and retreat to 1967 borders.

    Not only no, but hell no. There should be consequences to being stupid and wanting to commit genocide.

    2. Palestinians need to accept Israel, forget about the right to return, and accept land swaps.

    I think the odds of me winning the Powerball lottery are higher than this ever happening. And this should be the precondition to any and all negotiations.

    3. Both parties need to accept a shared Jerusalem.

    Fist you have to get the mass-wanna-be-murderers to give up that desire, though.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  32. stogy says:

    “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel,”

    That’s Interesting, Alex, and I suppose it would follow from the partition based on the political situation at the time. See this is why I used to come here. I actually used to learn stuff, and challenge some of my ideas, right or wrong.

    I am not sure that this is a slam dunk argument though.

    The “recognize Israel as the Jewish State” call did really begin with Olmert. Don’t believe me? That’s OK. Here’s Daniel Pipes:

    Starting about 2007, a new focus has emerged, of winning acceptance of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert set the terms: “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.”

    (Daniel Pipes and I seldom agree on anything. And this is no exception, but the whole article is definitely worth a read). Pipes goes on to say:

    Olmert was Israel’s worst prime minister but he got this one right. Arab-Israeli diplomacy has dealt with a myriad of subsidiary issues while tiptoeing around the conflict’s central issue: “Should there be a Jewish state?” Disagreement over this answer – rather than over Israel’s boundaries, its exercise of self defense, its control of the Temple Mount, its water consumption, its housing construction in West Bank towns, diplomatic relations with Egypt, or the existence of a Palestinian state – is the key issue.

    I argue instead that this is the means by which Israel gets all of the other things while drawing out the process of negotiations over something that is inherently wrong.

    There is no Israeli constitution, but the Basic Laws of Israel have been considered a defacto constitution for some time (the problem being that there should be no higher law than the Talmud, the Torah etc.). The Israeli declaration of independence has no status as a constitutional or legal document. It also refers to the rights of all religions. The phrase “the Rock of Israel” was used rather than mention God, as secularists were strongly opposed to any mention of God in the document. “The Rock of Israel” could therefore mean whatever people wanted it to mean. However, the Basic Laws do form the basis of Israeli law, and they refer to the fact that

    “7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (…) (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (…)”

    So, according to Barak,

    “What, then are the ‘core’ characteristics shaping the minimum definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State? These characteristics come from the aspects of both Zionism and heritage. At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State and most of its fests and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish People; The heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious and cultural legacy”.

    So essentially, the state of Israel is founded on principles that are undemocratic, unjust and racist. They are wildly contradictory with the call for a secular state with freedom of religion. Just as an example, two secular Jewish friends of mine tried to organize a non-religious wedding – you should have seen the trouble it caused (and they completely failed). Altogether, the principles are not so different from the Palestinian draft constitution, which sidelines Palestinian Christians and other minorities minorities. Failure to properly investigate attacks on Mosques and Churches was always going to be the result.

    just btw, the last time I quoted from Wikipedia (nothing core to my argument), you declared that I had lost just because I had quoted from Wikipedia. Just sayin’ is all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  33. AlexInCT says:

    The “recognize Israel as the Jewish State” call did really begin with Olmert. Don’t believe me? That’s OK. Here’s Daniel Pipes:

    Starting about 2007, a new focus has emerged, of winning acceptance of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert set the terms: “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.”

    Maybe the problem is with your reading comprehension. It is very clear to me that what Pipes is saying is that Olmert was the first to say that they would no longer leave any illusion that Israel is a Jewish state. That was done in response to the continued demand that Israel allow resettlement sure to guarantee a flood of Arabs would destroy the Jewish state.

    (Daniel Pipes and I seldom agree on anything. And this is no exception, but the whole article is definitely worth a read). Pipes goes on to say:

    Olmert was Israel’s worst prime minister but he got this one right. Arab-Israeli diplomacy has dealt with a myriad of subsidiary issues while tiptoeing around the conflict’s central issue: “Should there be a Jewish state?” Disagreement over this answer – rather than over Israel’s boundaries, its exercise of self defense, its control of the Temple Mount, its water consumption, its housing construction in West Bank towns, diplomatic relations with Egypt, or the existence of a Palestinian state – is the key issue.

    I argue instead that this is the means by which Israel gets all of the other things while drawing out the process of negotiations over something that is inherently wrong.

    LOL!, Man, you sure are willing to twist yourself into a pretzel to pretend you have a point. You really want to pretend that Pipes is saying anything other than the fact that this is the first time someone in charge basically drew the line and said no way will we accept anything that will stop Israel from being a Jewish state? Yeah, sure. Nice try.

    There is no Israeli constitution, but the Basic Laws of Israel have been considered a defacto constitution for some time (the problem being that there should be no higher law than the Talmud, the Torah etc.).

    The USSR, North Korea, Cambodia, China, and so on, all had constitutions, and yet, their people were worse off than those of Israel. Fuck, even the EU constitution is a freaking joke. If your concern is that they use religious text to rule their land, I remind you that their neighbors are ruled by a far more barbaric religious text. And in case you forgot, our original system of laws all came from religious texts. The thing went to hell once we tried to forget that.

    The Israeli declaration of independence has no status as a constitutional or legal document. It also refers to the rights of all religions. The phrase “the Rock of Israel” was used rather than mention God, as secularists were strongly opposed to any mention of God in the document. “The Rock of Israel” could therefore mean whatever people wanted it to mean. However, the Basic Laws do form the basis of Israeli law, and they refer to the fact that

    “7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (…) (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (…)”

    So what’s your point here? That until this particular item was codified it really meant nothing or didn’t exist? I see a lot of meaningless words trying to obfuscate the fact that the country was established as a Jewish state, so you can keep pretending you had a point. Epic fail on your part.

    So, according to Barak,

    “What, then are the ‘core’ characteristics shaping the minimum definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State? These characteristics come from the aspects of both Zionism and heritage. At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State and most of its fests and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish People; The heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious and cultural legacy”.

    Hmmm.. Your anti-semtism shows. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with how some South American or East Asian countries address the same issue. You might suddenly see that they do not differ much with what Israel says: they just get a pass because Jew haters only seem to like to focus on Israel as the bad guy.

    So essentially, the state of Israel is founded on principles that are undemocratic, unjust and racist. They are wildly contradictory with the call for a secular state with freedom of religion. Just as an example, two secular Jewish friends of mine tried to organize a non-religious wedding – you should have seen the trouble it caused (and they completely failed). Altogether, the principles are not so different from the Palestinian draft constitution, which sidelines Palestinian Christians and other minorities minorities. Failure to properly investigate attacks on Mosques and Churches was always going to be the result.

    WTF does this have to do with whether Israel saw itself as a Jewish state at its founding or your ludicrous claim that they just decided to do that 5 years ago? It smacks of desperate anti-semitic nonsense to confuse the issue.

    And I have never heard stories of the Israelis fucking over the minorities living amongst them, unless you think prosecuting and imprisoning those living amongst them for working with the death cultists to kill Jews ounts as an evil act aagainst collborators (the Palestinians kill thoe they suspect and drag them through the street, but they get a pass). Wha I constantly hear are stories pretending the Islamists are doing nice, while the ones where they terrorize, and even kill, their minorities get ignored by the press and people like you.

    just btw, the last time I quoted from Wikipedia (nothing core to my argument), you declared that I had lost just because I had quoted from Wikipedia. Just sayin’ is all.

    No, you cut and pasted some shit, pretended it gave you a leg to stand upon, then showed your anti-semitism, while throwing in how you have Jewish friends, to give yourself cover, and failed miserably to disprove the fact your talking point was a damned lie. Thanks for playing, though.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      

Comments have been disabled.