Saudi king's private aircraft to ferry terrorists from Gaza to Hajj pilgrimage

Oh boy.... What a fine example of Saudi mouthpiece....

 

And were conquered and lost the land... Just like the native in america did.
Once you are conquered you don't get to keep your toys.

At the time of the UN resolution, the land belongued to the British. Your pally firend didn't own (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Israel is a democracy and it has no loopholes, all citizens are equal. It's a universally recognized fact.

In Saudi Arabia even Saudi women are considered half human, let alone foreigners, let alone non-muslims.

 

Hahahahahaha...Margot he's on a roll. He ought to take to the stage.

 

And you're irrelevant as always... But, hey, we didn't really expected less of you.

 

Oh bull. Borat.. Look at the law as it concerns Nationality and Citizenship.. Its the weirdest load of apartheid cr*p you ever read and its there for anyone to see.

You have never been to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else.


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...riendship-best-way-deal-iran.html#post4674071

 

Actually the British did not own the land. The British were in Palestine for the distinct reason as to establish a independent state. Not colonize the land with immigrants from Europe. Their set task was under article 22 of the League of Nations Covanent which was supposed to use "tuteleage and assistance" to help local population become an independent state. The British themselves actually held NO LEGAL land ownership in Palestine. They were administrating the land, not owning it. Just like all the other mandates created after WWII. So, they were not allowed to give away land, in which was already under private owernship. The majority of Palestine was under private ownership mainly by Palestinian owners, otherwise other Arab or Turkish land lords.

The Native Americans isn't a very good analogy either. There weren't provisions to abide by as there are now.

The first policy used against the Native Americans was to take land and make them dependent on the US government. So, the US started to pass legislative acts and making illegal treaties. In which were to force the Native Americans off the lands (for example the "Indian Removal Act"). The US even started to burn the crops on the Native American land and kill all the Buffalo so the Native Americans would leave the specific land they were on. There were plenty of broken treaties, along with several illegal ones concerning the land. The United States actually realized the land was owned by the Native Americans, otherwise what was the use of breaking treaties? The USA actually at times tried to force assimilation upon the Native Americans.

The Palestinians lost land due to wars, and discriminatory laws. I suppose in that sense it is similar to the Native Americans. After the 1948 war, Israel seized much of the land under the rubric of the "Absentee Property Law". And 88% of the land Israel established on belongs by law to Arab owners, many of which left the country. But again, we aren't living in the early 1800's anymore.

 

Blah blah blah...

The fact on the ground are as I say they are. Might makes right and always have and always will.

 

Not at all. You tried to make a comparison to a completely different era. We live in a time where the international community supports self-determination of all peoples and their right to declare their political status. And aside of that you were completely wrong on the land ownership.

 

In your make believe world maybe. In the real world it's as it always was. The powerful rules. And no I was right about the land. I'm always right when it comes to muzzi and pallies, both of which are just wasting space.

 

It was not my "make believe" world. The idea of self-determination is stipulated under the United Nations Charter. Though, what you say is true, the powerful do rule. Who do you think created the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations?

Now that was just rude.



Your not making up for your pathetic replies to me. This is why I am no longer replying to you, your wasting my time.

 

Ha.. that's your achilles heel.. MIGHT FOR RIGHT.

You don't screw over all your neighbors and friends because of your paranoia... and you certainly do it in complete ignorance.

There are consequences to reckless choices.

 

Rules concerning Nationality and Citizenship have nothing to do with democracy. No country on the planet provides 'equal opportunity' rules for non-citizens to naturalize, Israel is no exception. On the other hand once you are an Israeli citizen you have full rights, which is what democracy is all about.

 

The Democracy Index:

#31 France
#37 Israel
#40 India
#48 Poland
...
#86 Lebanon
...
#93 Palestine
...
#160 Saudi Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

 

Although the history of the world has essentially been one of dictator-ships of some kind, and freedom the characteristic of exceptional regime, almost all contemporary systems describe themselves a a democratic.

For example, The Democratic Republic of North Vietnam and German Democractic Republic are both communist states. President Achmed Sukarno of Indonesia even thought of his regime as "guided democracy"; General Ayub Khan of Pakistan attempted to create "basic democracies"; Sekou Toure in Guinea defined his as the Democratic Party; "economic democracy" being created in Iran by the shah and the one party permitted etc.

Constitutional democracies have many characteristics. The existance and rule of law is a very important one. Those who make and enforce the law, must themselves be subject to law, all government acts must be legal and subject to control by appropriate authorities.

This makes laws, in which on Israel's Knesset website call them the 'basic laws', very applicable to questioning Israel's legitimacy as a democracy. Including laws in which can be interpreted as discriminatory. Since in a democracy there should be impartial justice for all. Especially when denying the right of return of a people that Israel is obliged to allow, and accepted as a condition for their membership to the United Nations.

 

BORAT:

http://electronicintifada.net/conte...ls-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

Lawsuit challenges Israel’s discriminatory citizenship definition
HUMAN RIGHTS

6 April 2010

A group of Jews and Arabs are fighting in the Israeli courts to be recognized as “Israelis,” a nationality currently denied them, in a case that officials fear may threaten the country’s self-declared status as a Jewish state.

Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country’s establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between “citizenship” and “nationality.” Although all Israelis qualify as “citizens of Israel,” the state is defined as belonging to the “Jewish nation,” meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.

Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of “Arab” nationality on ID cards make it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.

The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens, most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with “Jewish” and “Arab” being the main categories.

The group’s legal case is being heard by the high court after a district judge rejected their petition two years ago, backing the state’s position that there is no Israeli nation.

The head of the campaign for Israeli nationality, Uzi Ornan, a retired linguistics professor, said: “It is absurd that Israel, which recognizes dozens of different nationalities, refuses to recognize the one nationality it is supposed to represent.”

The government opposes the case, claiming that the campaign’s real goal is to “undermine the state’s infrastructure” — a presumed reference to laws and official institutions that ensure Jewish citizens enjoy a privileged status in Israel.

Ornan, 86, said that denying a common Israeli nationality was the linchpin of state-sanctioned discrimination against the Arab population.

“There are even two laws — the Law of Return for Jews and the Citizenship Law for Arabs — that determine how you belong to the state,” he said. “What kind of democracy divides its citizens into two kinds?”

Yoel Harshefi, a lawyer supporting Ornan, said the interior ministry had resorted to creating national groups with no legal recognition outside Israel, such as “Arab” or “unknown,” to avoid recognizing an Israeli nationality.

In official documents most Israelis are classified as “Jewish” or “Arab,” but immigrants whose status as Jews is questioned by the Israeli rabbinate, including more than 300,000 arrivals from the former Soviet Union, are typically registered according to their country of origin.

“Imagine the uproar in Jewish communities in the United States, Britain or France, if the authorities there tried to classify their citizens as ‘Jewish’ or ‘Christian,’” said Ornan.

The professor, who lives close to Haifa, launched his legal action after the interior ministry refused to change his nationality to “Israeli” in 2000. An online petition declaring “I am an Israeli” has attracted several thousand signatures.

Ornan has been joined in his action by 20 other public figures, including former government minister Shulamit Aloni. Several members have been registered with unusual nationalities such as “Russian,” “Buddhist,” “Georgian” and “Burmese.”

Two Arabs are party to the case, including Adel Kadaan, who courted controversy in the 1990s by waging a lengthy legal action to be allowed to live in one of several hundred communities in Israel open only to Jews.

Uri Avnery, a peace activist and former member of the parliament, said the current nationality system gave Jews living abroad a far greater stake in Israel than its 1.3 million Arab citizens.

“The State of Israel cannot recognize an ‘Israeli’ nation because it is the state of the ‘Jewish’ nation … it belongs to the Jews of Brooklyn, Budapest and Buenos Aires, even though these consider themselves as belonging to the American, Hungarian or Argentine nations.”

International Zionist organizations representing the diaspora, such as the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Agency, are given in Israeli law a special, quasi-governmental role, especially in relation to immigration and control over large areas of Israeli territory for the settlement of Jews only.

Ornan said the lack of a common nationality violated Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which says the state will “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex.”

Indications of nationality on ID cards carried by Israelis made it easy for officials to discriminate against Arab citizens, he added.

The government has countered that the nationality section on ID cards was phased out from 2000 — after the interior ministry, which was run by a religious party at the time, objected to a court order requiring it to identify non-Orthodox Jews as “Jewish” on the cards.

However, Ornan said any official could instantly tell if he was looking at the card of a Jew or Arab because the date of birth on the IDs of Jews was given according to the Hebrew calendar. In addition, the ID of an Arab, unlike a Jew, included the grandfather’s name.

“Flash your ID card and whatever government clerk is sitting across from you immediately knows which ‘clan’ you belong to, and can refer you to those best suited to ‘handle your kind,’” Ornan said.

The distinction between Jewish and Arab nationalities is also shown on interior ministry records used to make important decisions about personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and death, which are dealt with on entirely sectarian terms.

Only Israelis from the same religious group, for example, are allowed to marry inside Israel — otherwise they are forced to wed abroad — and cemeteries are separated according to religious belonging.

Some of those who have joined the campaign complain that it has damaged their business interests. One Druze member, Carmel Wahaba, said he had lost the chance to establish an import-export company in France because officials there refused to accept documents stating his nationality as “Druze” rather than “Israeli.”

The group also said it hoped to expose a verbal sleight of hand that intentionally mistranslates the Hebrew term “Israeli citizenship” on the country’s passports as “Israeli nationality” in English to avoid problems with foreign border officials.

B Michael, a commentator for Yedioth Aharonoth, Israel’s most popular newspaper, has observed: “We are all Israeli nationals — but only abroad.”

The campaign, however, is likely to face an uphill struggle in the courts.

A similar legal suit brought by a Tel Aviv psychologist, George Tamrin, failed in 1970. Shimon Agranat, head of the high court at the time, ruled: “There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. … The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of diaspora Jewries.”

That view was echoed by the district court in 2008 when it heard Ornan’s case.

The judges in the high court, which held the first appeal hearing last month, indicated that they too were likely to be unsympathetic. Justice Uzi Fogelman said: “The question is whether or not the court is the right place to solve this problem.”

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

 

Thanks Margot. As if we needed more proof, here is a lengthy rant about Israeli democratic status without a single word or an example of an actual non-democratic law that would discriminate Israeli citizens based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. You are entitled to your rants, Margot, but not to your facts. Thanks for playing though.

PS just a reminder, democracy is the equal treatment of citizens, immigration and naturalization rules by definition deal with non-citizens and therefore have no affect on the democratic status of a state.

 

I'd like my post that got stuck as the last post on the previous page to at least be acknowledged:

Although the history of the world has essentially been one of dictator-ships of some kind, and freedom the characteristic of exceptional regime, almost all contemporary systems describe themselves a a democratic.

For example, The Democratic Republic of North Vietnam and German Democractic Republic are both communist states. President Achmed Sukarno of Indonesia even thought of his regime as "guided democracy"; General Ayub Khan of Pakistan attempted to create "basic democracies"; Sekou Toure in Guinea defined his as the Democratic Party; "economic democracy" being created in Iran by the shah and the one party permitted etc.

Constitutional democracies have many characteristics. The existance and rule of law is a very important one. Those who make and enforce the law, must themselves be subject to law, all government acts must be legal and subject to control by appropriate authorities.

This makes laws, in which on Israel's Knesset website call them the 'basic laws', very applicable to questioning Israel's legitimacy as a democracy. Including laws in which can be interpreted as discriminatory. Since in a democracy there should be impartial justice for all. Especially when denying the right of return of a people that Israel is obliged to allow, and accepted as a condition for their membership to the United Nations.

 

Khalil, your post is acknowledged and it does not add anything to the discussion as it fails to come up with a single example of an Israeli law that discriminates Israeli citizens (please notice the word 'citizens') based on race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabian Islamic Banana republic ranked #160 in the Democracy Index is flying Hamas terrorists and the murderers of Israeli civilians to Hajj, all expenses paid.

 

Would not stop them for voting, going to court so how doe sit hinder them?

 

I'll give you a better reply later. For now though, I'd like to just point out that you said "nationality and citizenship laws have nothing to do with democracy." I was simpily implying that law is a crutial factor in a democracy.

I'll give you a better reply in a few hours, I have to leave to school now.


EDIT: I'd like to say that I wasn't trying to holler "Israel is no democracy". I was just jumping in to say that law is very applicable. Especially laws that the Israel on their Knesset website call "the basic laws".

 

Boohoohoo... Don't let the door hit you... One less apologist to take care.

 

Tell that to your muzzi friend... They seem to have miss that when they lost over and over again...

 

You mean because freeloaders have better weapons?

 

In 1948??? you're kidding right?

Your muzzi friend lost.