....many times & besides offering Syria the Golan for peace, they gave the Sinai back to Egypt.

That's not fascist expansion. It's the opposite.

And if by any chance Jews ever got such a thing....the world must take it away from those people as soon as possible... Even by BDS

the theatrical wail and the final curtain.

Really, dave. Could you stop with the over the top ohmygod ohmygod ohmygod dramatics?

For once I would like to see you engage with others here on a collegiate level instead of the contrived pretence and self-victimization: like we're out to get you.

So much for the indigenous rights of Jews to their own homeland...

....having self-determination & sovereignty in their own historical homeland.

What other indigenous people in your view have no sovereign rights to their historic homeland? Name another indigenous people you'd label as fascist "poor victims" for having the audacity to want self-determination.

This is the time where you engage on a collegiate level, as you wrote to KingDavid earlier....

Would it be ethnically pure?
Would it have Judaism as a state-religion?
Would it have preferential legal treatment for Jews?
What would be the difference to current Israel, save for changes in territory?

....all people guaranteed equal rights by law, and no difference b/w a future or present Jewish state.

Double-speak for right-wing zionist land theft.



The national fascists would be so proud.

I'm glad we can all see you arguing for Israeli Zionist Empire, shira.

It's what all genuine 2-staters advocate for both peoples.

outside of Israel's borders.

And you apparently are, IMHO, on board with that: such a curious form of ethnic cleansing.

The left has been marginalized, and the right combined with their bootlickers march on to a one state solution.

And this is what is really going to fuck up Israel's shit.

Hard to call them "right wingers" when the only people in the entire region that are to the left of them are other Israeli's that can only be that far left because of the freedoms that they have as citizens of Israel.

They are not "right wing" compared to the Palestinians... or the Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. - Not even close.

.....the Israel Sucks Crowd (ISC) supports.

What do you think? Can they name 1 or 2?

... but that ended long ago.

....who is politically to the Left of Bibi Netanyahu on most domestic/foreign political issues.

Women and Gay rights, abortion, gun control, opposition to terror groups like Hamas....

Just one.

2014
snip* Turning his attention to the international community, Netanyahu in Sunday’s cabinet meeting criticized those who call for “two states for two peoples,” but oppose his “Jewish state” law.

“They rush to recognize a state of the Palestinian people, but they strongly oppose a state of the Jewish people,” he said, referring to countries that have voted to recognize the state of Palestine.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-okays-controversial-jewish-state-bill-sends-it-to-knesset/

Your opinion is not reflected from Weinstein's perspective:

Opposition to the law: Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein has indicated his opposition to the legislation in its current form. “It’s very problematic to me that the government supports [private members’] proposals which raise serious problems,” Weinstein wrote in a legal opinion published by the Walla news site last Thursday. He said that in the proposed bills that have been drafted thus far, including Netanyahu’s, there are “significant changes in the founding principles of constitutional law as anchored in the Declaration of Independence and in the basic laws of the Knesset, which can flatten the democratic character of the state.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-okays-controversial-jewish-state-bill-sends-it-to-knesset/

Nor are your opinions reflected here:

November 2014: 4 Problems With Israel’s ‘Jewish Nation-State’ Law

Members of the Israeli government have renewed a push to create a Basic Law enshrining Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” This time, the effort is being spearheaded by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Although his is meant to be a “softer” version of previous similar bills, it’s still highly problematic for a number of reasons.

Israel’s Basic Laws are meant to serve as the basis for an eventual constitution. In the years immediately after the establishment of the state, Israeli leaders could not agree on whether to write one up, much less what it should look like. In 1950, the Harari proposal was adopted. The Knesset would pass a series of “Basic Laws” as necessary, and each would be issued as a separate chapter, to be combined into a single constitutional document whenever the time came. In 1995, the Supreme Court gave the Basic Laws constitutional status — which means they’re higher than regular laws and are meant to guide the adoption of further laws and practices in the country.

The most obvious problem is that enshrining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people makes constitutional the second-class status of Arab citizens. Netanyahu’s bill does mention democracy and individual rights, but (unlike the Declaration of Independence) it does not refer to the equality of all Israel’s citizens. By tying Israel’s identity only to one people, it gives them constitutional privileges no other community can have access to.

The discrimination against Arab citizens is already well-documented; such a bill would further undermine their status. Constitutional protection would be afforded only to Jewish citizens, and lawmakers could legitimately claim that land appropriation and allocation, distribution of funds, and citizenship rights should be oriented only toward Jews. Of course this already takes place to a large degree, but efforts have been made to address these problems. Enshrining Israel as a place belonging only to Jews, meaning that non-Jews live there not by right but by circumstance only, would reverse these gains, and facilitate even more restrictions if Jewish leaders so desired.

A second, related, problem is that the bill and others like it weaken the commitment to democracy. By privileging Jewishness (itself a vague term) over democracy — the bill does not lay out the set of fundamental rights associated with democratic regimes — such a Basic Law would elevate Jewish ideas, practices and religious rules over the range of individual freedoms that come with democracy if the two were perceived to be in conflict with each other.

A third concern is that the Basic Law would institutionalize halacha as the inspiration or basis for Israeli law. Netanyahu’s bill has called only for Mishpat Ivri to be inserted into the Basic Law, rather than halacha itself. Mishpat Ivri refers to elements of Jewish religious law concerned not with religious aspects of public life but “civil” or other elements of modern jurisprudence, like property rights.

True, Mishpat Ivri has served as the foundation for some of contemporary Israeli law. But giving even this element of Jewish law constitutional protection reinforces Jewish rules and norms, and particularly Orthodox Jewish rules and norms, given the dominant role of Orthodox Jewish law in existing legal codes dealing with personal status and religious affairs. This, in turn, reinforces the two problems I identified above.

The fourth problem with the bill has to do with the borders of the state. By constitutionally defining the State of Israel as a Jewish state at a time when members of the government pushing the bill are trying to expand the state’s official borders, it’s possible that the “Land of Israel” might be brought into the discussion. Ultra-nationalists and religious nationalists expect the State of Israel to encompass the whole Land of Israel (i.e., the West Bank). Because no government has, since 1967, specifically defined Israel’s borders, a Basic Law that defines Israel as Jewish involves an implicit reference to these expanded borders, and gives constitutional force to efforts to annex these lands. It also complicates peacemaking, as Israeli negotiators might be constrained in what they can offer by the Basic Law.

These concerns might seem alarmist. If the Basic Law is enacted, will the government really start disenfranchising Arab citizens? Is Orthodox Jewish law going to suddenly be imposed? Will the government annex large tracts of land in the West Bank? Probably not. But that’s not the point of the criticism of the proposed Basic Law. Giving constitutional protection to these things — elevating one set of religious-based ideas and one ethno-national community over another one — lays the groundwork for a range of legal efforts to do so in the future, and makes it that much harder to oppose them.

Indeed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the promotion of these bills is a result of circumstance — efforts to “protect” Israel’s Jewish character in light of Palestinian resistance to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and the global “delegitimization” campaign against the state, or a result of narrow, ultra-nationalist ideology (Israeli politicians from the right regularly make these claims). Neither is it an appropriate basis to begin what should be a long, serious conversation about an Israeli constitution.

The need for such a Basic Law is debatable, but if it’s going to be pushed, then we need to discuss the complexities of religion and social relations in Israel — not to mention the impact on its relationships with those outside of Israel. If the mention of Israel’s Jewish character in the Declaration of Independence and two existing Basic Laws is not enough, the creation of a Basic Law about Israel’s Jewish nature could refer instead to Israel’s Jewish identity, rather than tying the state to a particular nation so that only one people have constitutional protection. It should also define in very narrow terms what is meant by “Jewish state.” Finally, it needs to specify the equal importance of a commitment to full democracy and equality, by setting out what this means in practice. This should include explicit protection for minority rights. An Arab citizen’s decision not to sing Hatikvah, for example, should not be cause for accusations of disloyalty.

Even better would be a serious effort to debate and write a full constitution, which might highlight the Jewish character of the state in the preamble or, if it ends up in the main text, written up alongside the full democratic commitments of the state.

None of these ideas are easy, either. But then, they shouldn’t be, given the momentous nature of the debate.

Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/israel/209785/4-problems-with-israel-s-jewish-nation-state/#ixzz3sw6Bwn00

The Jewish Nation State Basic Law is complete rubbish.

It's the same with the German and the Italian state respectively. Israel is the only democracy in the world that defines itself as an ethnocracy, as there are people in the Jewish state who aren't Jewish. If Israel was a full democracy like France, Italy or Germany, all citizens of the Jewish state would be Jews, no exception. Actually, if Israel was a full democracy it wouldn't be the Jewish state, it would be the Israeli state and all citizens would be Israelis.

The article from the Forward is a really good one, and it reflects pretty much what I'm thinking.

...and especially due to their indigenous status in their own historic homeland, Jews like any other people have a right to self-determination in their own land.

Just like the French, Italian, or German people. When it comes to Israel, Judaism is a nationality - not a religion. That's the key to understanding Zionism. How would you become ethnic Chinese after becoming a citizen there, unless your recent ancestors were Chinese? Same problem in your view....

There's nothing undemocratic about a Jewish state - which it already has been for 67 years - and nothing that assigns automatic 2nd class status to non-Jews living there who are guaranteed equal rights by law.

I also have a problem with all forms of nationalism, but to a lesser degree, especially when it doesn't lead to outright injustice. When it comes to Israel, I think the idea of a Jewish state is a stupid idea which I'm somewhat opposed to, but as long as non-Jewish Israelis have at least a minimum of democratic rights, it's not really that bad.

I disagree completely with your arguments about the rights of the "Jewish People", simply because I don't believe that peoples have any rights whatsoever; all rights are based on the individual, and the rights of a group of people are simply the sum of the rights of the individuals in that group.

Nevertheless, the issue here isn't whether the "Jewish People" should have special rights or not. It's really whether those who aren't Jewish in Israel should be able to keep their democratic rights or not - this bill about a Jewish State Basic Law seems to undermine those rights, and that's why I'm so strongly opposed.

...them & not be singularly focused on Israel.

Jewish nationalism is no worse than any other. It's actually a moral cause given the history of the Jewish people & the world's hatred of Jews. Not stupid, but necessary.

With that said, the ultra-nationalists have no problem with it and unfortunately
there are many of them here in the US, not just Israel.

This is sort of where the Jewish State and the Democratic State part ways.

Jokes aside, this is one of the ways that Israel can become an Apartheid state. Other ways include subordinating the judicial branch under the legislative one by making the Knesset oversee the appointment of High Court judges and oversee their powers, or start replacing Arab communities with Jewish ones in the Negev. There are of course other avenues to achieve Apartheid; making the the education system even more unequal, exarcerbating the housing crisis, loyalty laws, closing down news outlets, disbanding Moslem organizations, attacking pro-democracy NGO's, new security measures etc.

The current Israeli leadership seems hellbent on making Israel into an Apartheid state and I fear that they might succeed.

It's a deliberate blood libel used as part of a coordinated campaign of stochastic terrorism intended to provoke hatred and violence.

couldn't have said it better myself.

Israel is very close to lose its status as a democratic country. If Israel ceases to be the only democracy in the Middle-East, what will the new slogan be - "Israel, the only Apartheid state in the Middle-East"?

Palestinians born there, denied citizenship rights - no public education or healthcare, no land ownership, no access to professions.

Lebanon's a democracy, BTW.

This is a perfect example demonstrating how unhinged & batshit extreme these accusations of Israeli Apartheid are, considering the real thing is ignored and denied (Lebanon) while far weaker stupid claims about Apartheid Israel continue.

Deal with it and stop looking for excuses everywhere else.

that they also live in the real world.

Perhaps deniers have something in common: an unbalaced view or mania that makes them eternal victims while denying the victimization of others.

Intellectual dishonesty or deep ignorance.

There's simply no comparing the two.