• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kangaroos Seen In Israel ?

Kangaroo courts reference perhaps?
 
Arab residents in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens. They have a 'basic law' which is similar to a Constitution and it now was changed to say that only Jews have a right to national self determination, and removed all references to democracy and equal rights.

The west bank is not a part of Israel. Arab residents in areas that Israel annexed from the west bank (East Jerusalem) are (or at least could be if they wish) Israeli citizens.
Basic law is not similar to a constitution. It is a foundation on which a constitution will be made in the future, its is not as robust as a constitution and can be changed easier (some laws with a regular majority and some with more than 50% of the seats, which makes it easy for every government to change them). The law didn't remove anything from previous legislation it only added to the set of basic laws we have today a law that says Israel is the nation state of the Jews.

more about basic laws you can find here (still missing the last one):
http://knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm
 
The west bank is not a part of Israel. Arab residents in areas that Israel annexed from the west bank (East Jerusalem) are (or at least could be if they wish) Israeli citizens.

Israel is occupying the West Bank and taking more of it every day. And no, Arab residents in E. Jerusalem could NOT get citizenship if they wanted. Many of them do want it, and can't get it.
 
Last edited:
The west bank is not a part of Israel. Arab residents in areas that Israel annexed from the west bank (East Jerusalem) are (or at least could be if they wish) Israeli citizens.
Basic law is not similar to a constitution. It is a foundation on which a constitution will be made in the future, its is not as robust as a constitution and can be changed easier (some laws with a regular majority and some with more than 50% of the seats, which makes it easy for every government to change them). The law didn't remove anything from previous legislation it only added to the set of basic laws we have today a law that says Israel is the nation state of the Jews.

more about basic laws you can find here (still missing the last one):
http://knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm

Yes it did:

But the law fails to mention either equality or minority rights -- both of which were integral parts of Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948, which explicitly states that Israel "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/middleeast/israel-nation-state-legislation-intl/index.html
 
50 Years After Six-Day War, East Jerusalem's Palestinians Remain Prisoners in Their City

Study shows how ambivalent Israeli policies and denial of the problem have created a status that doesn't exist anywhere else on earth: Native-born residents who are not citizens of the state in whose capital they live

The daunting lines at the Interior Ministry offices in East Jerusalem result from a combination of discriminatory and disparaging treatment by Israeli authorities, and the shaky legal status of East Jerusalem residents, who require the population bureau’s services far more than ordinary Israelis. That’s because the 320,000 Palestinians of East Jerusalem whose neighborhoods were annexed by Israel a few weeks after the war are permanent residents, not citizens. Israeli law essentially treats them as foreigners who one morning in June 1967 migrated to Israel and settled there.

The legal status of the then-60,000 Arabs who lived in those areas that became part of Jerusalem arose immediately after the war. In a cabinet meeting on June 11, the day after the war ended, Housing Minister Mordechai Bentov (Mapam) said, “To those who support immediate legislation [to annex East Jerusalem], I want to remind them of one thing. We are a democratic country; if there is a law that Jerusalem spreads to all the new territory the Arab residents of the other part of Jerusalem will become Israeli citizens.” Minister Without Portfolio Menachem Begin cut him off. “Not automatically,” he said.
 
The truth is that Israeli society isn’t exactly embracing the East Jerusalemites, as indicated by the incredible obstacles they must overcome to obtain Israeli citizenship. Until a decade ago, few applied for citizenship – it wasn’t socially acceptable and also unnecessary since East Jerusalemites have Jordanian travel papers. But the construction of the separation barrier changed that, and requests for Israeli citizenship have increased dramatically. The number of those actually obtaining citizenship, however, is dropping, with citizenship being granted to only a small percentage of applicants.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...ans-are-prisoners-in-their-own-city-1.5486255
 
Israel is occupying the West Bank and taking more of it every day. And no, Arab residents in E. Jerusalem could NOT get citizenship if they wanted. Many of them do want it, and can't get it.

Israel is occupying the west bank but its under military administration, it wasn't annexed by Israel hence its residents aren't Israeli, they have an autonomy and are Palestinians and vote for their own government, well... at least they used to.
Residents of east Jerusalem are entitled for citizenship, you are plainly wrong.

Yes it did:

But the law fails to mention either equality or minority rights -- both of which were integral parts of Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948, which explicitly states that Israel "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture."

While I do support adding the first paragraph of the Basic law human dignity and freedom, and Basic law freedom of occupation, not mentioning something is not the same as removing. Nothing was changed about the Basic law on human dignity and freedom and this law doesn't stand above it, both have the same status.

Israels declaration of independence doesn't have a legal status, the basic laws legislated in the 90s were meant to do this partly and this law does the same, as the declaration of independence says Israel is a Jewish state.
 
My issue with the West Bank, in addition to the obvious never-ending occupation, is that Israel keeps stealing more and more of it for Israeli citizens, a status the Arab residents of the WB can never hope to gain.
 
The truth is that Israeli society isn’t exactly embracing the East Jerusalemites, as indicated by the incredible obstacles they must overcome to obtain Israeli citizenship. Until a decade ago, few applied for citizenship – it wasn’t socially acceptable and also unnecessary since East Jerusalemites have Jordanian travel papers. But the construction of the separation barrier changed that, and requests for Israeli citizenship have increased dramatically. The number of those actually obtaining citizenship, however, is dropping, with citizenship being granted to only a small percentage of applicants.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...ans-are-prisoners-in-their-own-city-1.5486255

Ahhh.... so now they COULD get a citizenship, earlier you wrote they COULDN'T.
clearly from your posts you are pretty ignorant on the Israeli legal system and legal status of Israeli residents\citizens.
 
Ahhh.... so now they COULD get a citizenship, earlier you wrote they COULDN'T.
clearly from your posts you are pretty ignorant on the Israeli legal system and legal status of Israeli residents\citizens.

Clearly that would be you. What I quoted said that it's only attainable for a small %. Your assertion was that they could have it if they wanted, which is not true for most.
 
Israel is occupying the West Bank and taking more of it every day. And no, Arab residents in E. Jerusalem could NOT get citizenship if they wanted. Many of them do want it, and can't get it.

I never said not a single one could have it. The bolded here is what I said.
 
My issue with the West Bank, in addition to the obvious never-ending occupation, is that Israel keeps stealing more and more of it for Israeli citizens, a status the Arab residents of the WB can never hope to gain.

Fine, you have issues, unfortanatly, those issues don't support any of the arguments you've made here:

Israel has stated there will be no two state solution. Only Jews have the right to national self-determination. They just changed their Constitution to say that.

They will never give up the West Bank, nor will they ever let the Arab residents be citizens.
 
From 2016:
The government claims to offer citizenship to eligible residents who came under Israeli sovereignty after 1967. In fact, after many years in which applications were handled relatively efficiently and about half were approved, the process has now all but stopped

...

Recent years, however, have seen a surge in the number of Palestinians seeking Israeli citizenship. But Israel, which in the decade from 2003 to 2013 denied or delayed about half of the citizenship applications by East Jerusalemites, has more recently been failing to accept almost all of them, The Times of Israel has established.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israe...citizenship-approvals-for-east-jerusalemites/

Now, even more want the citizenship. They fear for their resident status with the announcement that Jerusalem will be Israel's United Capitol.
 
Fine, you have issues, unfortanatly, those issues don't support any of the arguments you've made here:

What else does 'Only Jews have the right to national self-determination' mean if not that Palestinians don't? I.E. they have no right to their own state. I.E, no two state solution. The status quo will continue. One state occupying and oppressing a stateless people.
 
What else does 'Only Jews have the right to national self-determination' mean if not that Palestinians don't? I.E. they have no right to their own state. I.E, no two state solution. The status quo will continue. One state occupying and oppressing a stateless people.

You are correct, it means exactly that, the problem is that "Only Jews have the right to national self determination" is not a section in the law you are referring to.
The law says "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people". The west bank and the gaza strip are not a part of the "State of Israel" hence there is no problem to have a two state solution, or with Palestinian right to self determination.
 
You are correct, it means exactly that, the problem is that "Only Jews have the right to national self determination" is not a section in the law you are referring to.
The law says "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people". The west bank and the gaza strip are not a part of the "State of Israel" hence there is no problem to have a two state solution, or with Palestinian right to self determination.

But that's not fair. The Palestinians deserve Jordan, the West Bank AND Israel. For some reason.
 
You are correct, it means exactly that, the problem is that "Only Jews have the right to national self determination" is not a section in the law you are referring to.
The law says "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people". The west bank and the gaza strip are not a part of the "State of Israel" hence there is no problem to have a two state solution, or with Palestinian right to self determination.

Yeah well they consider the West Bank and the Golan 'theirs', so this is problematic. If they don't intend on annexing the West Bank, they wouldn't keep building settlements there.
 
Yeah well they consider the West Bank and the Golan 'theirs', so this is problematic. If they don't intend on annexing the West Bank, they wouldn't keep building settlements there.

The Golan is theirs. And parts of the “west bank” too. Repeated failed efforts to annihilate the Jews from those positions has made it that way, and none of that impact on the ability of the Palestinians to have their own territory, should they ever decide they want it for any other purpose than to keep fighting against Israel’s existence.

You seem to have an issue with that? Prefer that the Arabs continue to have do overs until they get it right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah well they consider the West Bank and the Golan 'theirs', so this is problematic. If they don't intend on annexing the West Bank, they wouldn't keep building settlements there.

What is problematic? The law clearly states "in the State of Israel" and the West Bank is not a part of it, its written very clearly, its not left for interpretation (who considers what).
And who are "they"? I don't consider the West Bank mine
And what does the Golan Heights have to do with anything, its not relative to the two state solution at all.
 
Prior to 1967 the West Bank was Jordan.

Clue

Recognized by a whopping 3 nations of the world outside of Jordan. That said it's more than have recognized the Israeli " annexation " of East Jerusalem iirc
 
Back
Top Bottom