Earlier this year, Benjamin Netanyahu overseen the designation of Israel as an officially "Jewish state", disenfranchising those from other backgrounds who live there, downgrading their language, denying that they have any say in self-determination and making further claims on illegally annexed territory. Last week he made the following statement as part of a Twitter rant. At the risk of angering Godwin, that is just flabbergasting, and if you had told me that it had come from an aspiring German politician in the 1920s, I would not have disbelieved you. Discuss.
Netanyahu is a hard right politician. Israel has a lot of hard right and far right Jews. This is an unfortunate truth. Anyone who doubts this is a fool and we must stop assuming that any exploration of this is anti-semitic and that we cannot question the actions and policies of elected Israel politicians. It isn't (and no, Mr. Corbyn, I am not defending your anti-semitic remarks by recognising that). However, I am not too bothered by the Jewish state designation or the legislation surrounding it, which doesn't do what you purport it does. The only questionable element is it's reference to Jewish settlements. Israel is a Jewish state. What about all the countries that have official religions, including those where various versions of Christianity are the official religion or Islam? Do all those countries disenfranchise people outside those official religions? What about countries with official languages who have immigrant communities? Storm in a teacup where all that is concerned, and no, non-jews have not been disenfranchised. In terms of the tweet, it's typical Netanyahu saber rattling, and ironic saber rattling at that given his crybaby whining over Iran as it forms part of a speech directed at Iran while renaming a nuclear research centre. It's not about land grabbing or invasions if that's what you thought. Funny that you gave me a "fantasy world" rep this morning for saying I think about things before defaulting to a position. You looked at the tweet and put your own spin on it without knowing the context. I decided to look it up because I don't immediately default to the "Israelis are Nazis" hyperbole that certain people do. Funny dat.
I'm not sure it's an untrue statement. Historically, weak states are controlled, dominated, exploited, annexed, conquered, or destroyed by their stronger neighbors. If you can't fight, you have to deal. If you have to deal, it's always better to do so from a position of strength.
Jewish Arabs already face discrimination. The new law states that the right to exercise national self-determination there is "unique to the Jewish people". So yeah, that disenfranchises everyone else. Your implication was that others don't think about their positions (of course I was aware of the context of the rant) reflecting your pompous delusion that your views are somehow more correct for virtue of being politically centrist, as had been pointed out in the post you were responding to.
I made no comment about being centrist. That's you and 14th Doc applying it to my comment about the so called white power symbol. But yes, people who blindly default to the said partisan position are non-thinkers. It's not pompous to recognise that. The world is complex and it simply doesn't stand up to ratyional thought that all partisan positions on one side will be correct, especially in the age of mass media and social media driven outrage, hyperbole, meme and dubious facts. You're nobody to talk about pomposity anyway, the way you sneer down your nose at so many of the rest of us. You've always thought yourself better than most of us. So pot, kettle. As for "unique to the Jewish people", that does not equate to disenfranchisement. It's a rhetortical sentence. It doesn't remove any democratic rights from non-Jewish Israelis. Now, if further legislation follows that did, then I'd agree they were being disenfranchised.
Whatever. As I've told you before, I'm not interested in participating in your endless pissing contests. You took umbrage (as you tend to) at being negrepped, I've corrected your statement on why you deserved it. The most widely respected newspaper in Israel disagrees with you. According to them the new basic law intended to "brutally stamp out Israel's Declaration of Independence and reinforce the supremacy of the Jewish majority at the expense of the rights of minorities". There are even members of Likud who have had problems with this. In being "not too bothered", you align yourself with Netanyahu and the most reactionary elements.
Which is why it is you always neg repping me and insulting me and not the other way around. You're far more obsessed with your own self appointed superiority than I am. The difference is I don't pretend I'm not. Funny that "the most respected newspaper in Israel" also called your bluff on the tweet, isn't it? Unlike you I read legislation all the time. What is relevant here is the legal impact of the legislation in question, and a 2011 has nothing to do with legislation passed in 2018. You complained about the 2018 and claimed it took away rights. It doesn't. I responded to you explicitly on the legislation you brought you. You are being thoroughly disingenuous by referring to comments made 7 years before the legislation passed - and as the links I provided above show, from equally respect New York Times, demonstrates that the version of the legislation proposed years ago is not what was passed this year. Had you bothered to read my links instead of prioritising your sneering you'd know this already. And no, I don't align with Netanyahu remotely, as should be damned obvious from the multiple times I have criticised Israel political policy and even my comment above. Still, I've got Jewish heritage so maybe I'm just like the rest, eh? Must be an Israeli apologist somehow. Twat. Maybe Dinner has a point...
Here is an editorial from 2018 saying the same things, and referring to Netanyahu as the "Apartheid Prime Minister" as a result.
Yes, obviously. It's mitigated by the enormous extent to which the UK does not actually take its own CoE-ness seriously, and in fact I suspect that the psychological resistance of so many citizens against having one state religion ascribed to them, often inaccurately, has contributed to the demise of religion in Britain as a whole and CoE especially. Of course, I am very much in favour of that demise, so I'm not complaining.
That article still doesn't support the claim of disenfranchisement. It claims discrimination. Is it superficial discrimination in that it implies inferiority for a social group? Yeah, I'd go with that. But, like I said above, it is rhetorical. My concern is does it restrict democratic rights for non-Jews. It doesn't. That's why "disenfranchisement" is hyperbolic language. This legislation is basically a load of chest beating bullshit from Netanyahu and his cronies. When they pass legislation that actually undermines non-Jewish Israelis in real terms, that's when I'll be right there with you. Right now this is no more discriminatory than the Queen calling herself defender of "THE" faith. I am concerned with the legal effect, not your anti-Isreali outrage or superficial rhetoric from Netanyahu and his goons.
What a load of utter tosh. Does the UK respect equality of religion and freedom of expression? Yes. So what is the disenfranchisement? Just because the UK chooses to identify itself with it's historical religion? The UK making that choice doesn't equate to discrimination or disenfranchisement as long as religious freedom and democratic values are respected and upheld in law. Same for Israel. It is a Jewish nation. How can anyone credibly argue against that? It has the right to regard itself as such. What is important is that it doesn't enact laws that remove basic human rights and civil liberties from its citizens, Jewish or otherwise. It hasn't done so. Now, if you want to talk about the land grabbing, then there is an argument for breach of basic human rights. But this latest act, nah. I don't see the thread starter starting threads to complain about Muslim states that oppress minority religions. Where's all his threads about that?
I will fully admit to being predisposed toward Jews in general and Israel in particular my entire life. Probably as a result of my dad's influence. He had two Jewish men (from New York) on his gun crew in Korea. He described them as "two of the finest men he ever knew". He was deeply upset when they were both killed in an enemy shelling.
Says the guy who posted "I don't even like Jews" on another forum that inconveniently was found by someone here.
You've heard my explanation. It was in response to being called (repeatedly) a shill for Israel. Which I found annoying.
I'm aware of that. But it is easier to say UK for non-Britons given that the Queen is head of the Church of England and defender of "the faith" as I said above. Your tedious nitpick changes nothing in respect of the overall point.
Not interested. You've proven your bigotry by equating all Middle Eastern people with terrorists. I also have little doubt, given your religiously motivated bigotry, that you consider Jews inferior.
read it... yeah... this one is a bit of a stretch. although the comment someone made regarding race trolls adopting anything they can play coy over if confronted isn't.
Beyond that one single (out of context) statement do you have ANY actual evidence that I am anti Semitic?
To a great extent, yes; but its identification of the head of state with the CoE is one instance where it doesn't. Again, you can easily argue that the whole thing lacks all seriousness anyway, and thus it is effectively meaningless, and I'd agree with that. But to the extent that the Queen's function as head of state, and her identity as head of the Church are taken seriously, it clearly undermines the religious self-determination of the subjects. Any citizen of Israel who disagrees with that can argue against it, and they did. Nations don't have rights. Humans do, and arguably governments do as well, but legitimately only in service to the democratic will and the human rights of their people. So what gives a government the right to say anything about the Jewish, CoE, or otherwise ethnic or religious identity of its people? What legitimate function does the government serve by doing so? Muslim states disenfranchise their citizens in exactly the same way, and usually lots of other ways as well. If anyone were to claim that those states' citizenry was free, I'm sure the issue would come up more often. But because we know that they're not, the point is mostly moot, for the same reason that you rightly call out @Dinner for his racism but refrain from writing the same amount of posts to say that the KKK is racist.
Yes. Semitic people aren’t just Jews but many people hailing from the Middle Eastern region, and they include Arabs and other smaller ethnic groups in the region. According to you those people are latent terrorists. It’s exchanges like this that once again prove how ignorant you are. In this case because you obviously don’t know who is a Semitic person and also because you’re deliberately avoiding having to address your racism towards people in the region.
I know that. But most people associate the term "anti Semitic" with "hatred of Jews". You are too smart not to know El Chup that people routinely make broad, generalist statements in discussions or even (sometimes especially) in highly charged debates. That's simply the nature of communication.
No one is having their rights taken away. If you want to see true repression go to Saudi Arabia where the legal penalty for anyone publicly stating they have a religion other than Islam gets sentenced to death by beheading. All citizens still get to vote so no one is disenfranchised and the Irish antisemite can piss off with his nonsense.
