Israel Passes Law Declaring Itself Nation-State of the Jewish People

[Alabama_Indy10]

Very good move. Apparently Israel being a Jewish state is still controversial after 70 years, so let's enshrine it into law.

[136or142]

Very good move. Apparently Israel being a Jewish state is still controversial after 70 years, so let's enshrine it into law.

Well South Africa was a white state (or Afrikaner) and Likud supported the Afrikaners in South Africa, so I can see the connection.

[Silent Hunter]

Leviticus 19:33-34 springs to mind here.

[Mopsus]

Leviticus 19:33-34 springs to mind here.

Actually reading books, rather than just quoting them out of context, springs to mind here.

[Famous Mortimer]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

[parochial boy]

That's a very generous interpretation of what the homelands were. It would be more akin to Israel declaring a few random patches of unconnected desert in the West Bank as the "Palestinien" state and then stripping all Israeli Arabs of their nationality. Which, thankfully, they haven't done

[America Needs R'hllor]

That's a very generous interpretation of what the homelands were. It would be more akin to Israel declaring a few random patches of unconnected desert in the West Bank as the "Palestinien" state and then stripping all Israeli Arabs of their nationality. Which, thankfully, they haven't done

This. The South African regime abused the black population and displaced them like chess pieces.

The above post also implies that America, for example, should declare itself the nation-state of the "current majority ethnic group", aka whites. Which wouldn't surprise me coming from FM.
(BTW, illegal immigrants from Africa don't get welfare benefits in Israel, but I guess facts don't matter when you want to call all immigrants "welfare immigrants" because that fits your narrative)

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

[DavidB.]

Well South Africa was a white state (or Afrikaner) and Likud supported the Afrikaners in South Africa, so I can see the connection.

This sounds like it was intended as some sort of a gotcha, but you don't really think I mind Israel having done this, do you?

[136or142]

Well South Africa was a white state (or Afrikaner) and Likud supported the Afrikaners in South Africa, so I can see the connection.

This sounds like it was intended as some sort of a gotcha, but you don't really think I mind Israel having done this, do you?

Of course I don't.  I assume the worst about you and you always live down to it.

[DavidB.]

Quite the badge of honor coming from you!

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

De Jure it isn't, De Facto it is.  Israel is hiding behind legal fictions to not allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. Also, holding all the Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem responsible for the terrorist acts of a few of them is the act of a demagogue, which is exactly what Netanyahu is.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

De Jure it isn't, De Facto it is.  Israel is hiding behind legal fictions to not allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. Also, holding all the Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem responsible for the terrorist acts of a few of them is the act of a demagogue, which is exactly what Netanyahu is.

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

And would you also call restricting travel from Sierra Leone while there was an ebola epidemic there "the act of a demagogue"? Israel cannot allow free travel into its sovereign, de-facto borders out of East Jerusalem, otherwise it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens.

Lastly, I'm the last person to defend Netanyahu, but this is not "his" act. Don't blame one person for the geopolitical situation in Jerusalem.

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

De Jure it isn't, De Facto it is.  Israel is hiding behind legal fictions to not allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. Also, holding all the Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem responsible for the terrorist acts of a few of them is the act of a demagogue, which is exactly what Netanyahu is.

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

And would you also call restricting travel from Sierra Leone while there was an ebola epidemic there "the act of a demagogue"? Israel cannot allow free travel into its sovereign, de-facto borders out of East Jerusalem, otherwise it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens.

Lastly, I'm the last person to defend Netanyahu, but this is not "his" act. Don't blame one person for the geopolitical situation in Jerusalem.

1.This wall was built by Israel in 2002, it is not a historical division.  The citizens of East Jerusalem are under the laws of Israel, receive benefits from the government of Israel (though mostly that is for the Jewish population) and pay at least some taxes to the Israeli government.  If that does not make East Jerusalem a de-facto part of Israel, I don't know what more is required.

2.I never mentioned travel, but a comparison with an ebola epidemic is absurd, except I think you genuinely believe it.  A very temporary travel ban based on an outbreak of a serious communicable disease is hardly analogous to the situation of the Arabs in East Jerusalem.  Comparing the Arabs of East Jerusalem to people with serious communicable diseases is pretty sick.

3.I suppose some of that is a fair point, Netanyahu is not solely responsible, but he has frequently inflamed the situation intentionally for his political benefit and he has responded to acts of terror with intentional disproportionality.

[DavidB.]

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

What? You know this isn't true. The wall is located on the outskirts of the city. Some parts of East Jerusalem are outside it, but big parts are inside it too. You can hop on the light rail at Yafo Street and get out in Beit Hanina (or Pisgat Ze'ev, for that matter) without having a clue that you crossed the green line.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

De Jure it isn't, De Facto it is.  Israel is hiding behind legal fictions to not allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. Also, holding all the Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem responsible for the terrorist acts of a few of them is the act of a demagogue, which is exactly what Netanyahu is.

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

And would you also call restricting travel from Sierra Leone while there was an ebola epidemic there "the act of a demagogue"? Israel cannot allow free travel into its sovereign, de-facto borders out of East Jerusalem, otherwise it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens.

Lastly, I'm the last person to defend Netanyahu, but this is not "his" act. Don't blame one person for the geopolitical situation in Jerusalem.

1.This wall was built by Israel in 2002, it is not a historical division.  The citizens of East Jerusalem are under the laws of Israel, receive benefits from the government of Israel (though mostly that is for the Jewish population) and pay at least some taxes to the Israeli government.  If that does not make East Jerusalem a de-facto part of Israel, I don't know what more is required.

2.I never mentioned travel, but a comparison with an ebola epidemic is absurd, except I think you genuinely believe it.  A very temporary travel ban based on an outbreak of a serious communicable disease is hardly analogous to the situation of the Arabs in East Jerusalem. Comparing the Arabs of East Jerusalem to people with serious communicable diseases is pretty sick.

3.I suppose some of that is a fair point, Netanyahu is not solely responsible, but he has frequently inflamed the situation intentionally for his political benefit and he has responded to acts of terror with intentional disproportionality.

1. They're under the municipal law of Jerusalem, which of course stems from Israel. They receive these benefits as part of them being a part of the municipal city of Jerusalem. But it's not recognized as a part of Israel, and it's clear that while de-jure the Israeli government wants to consider it a part of the country, DE-FACTO it's a disputed territory that could be part of a future Palestine. The Palestinian Authority claims it too. So how could Israel be expected to just grant a citizenship to whoever wants it from such a murky territory?

2. I'm not directly comparing Arabs with that, but it's clear that there are dozens of terror attacks coming directly from there. People are being murdered. If free movement was allowed (which is what has to be allowed for citizens- you can't restrict the movement of citizens), it'd put many, many Israelis in grave danger. That's just the way it is.

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

What? You know this isn't true. The wall is located on the outskirts of the city. Some parts of East Jerusalem are outside it, but big parts are inside it too. You can hop on the light rail at Yafo Street and get out in Beit Hanina (or Pisgat Ze'ev, for that matter) without having a clue that you crossed the green line.

Hmm, I'm aware that you could reach parts of Eastern Jerusalem but from what I know, most of it is beyond at least some barrier, not a wall but a fence. I live in Har Hatzofim, which is actually a Jewish enclave within the East, but for obvious reason we don't get close to the Arabic neighbourhoods. The divide seems pretty clear- Eastern Jersualem can't really be considered a de-facto part of Israel today, in the sense that its residents can't be granted a blanket Israeli citizenship.

I think that the point should be summarized as this- the situation in Jerusalem isn't black and white. It's not completely separate, it's not "de facto part of Israel". It's an extremely complex situation and when you live in a country that is 99% safe, you can't be expecting Israel to act as if it is black and white and just grant a citizenship to everyone in the East of the city. Sitting there from the American safety and asking us to do it is unfair. It's a harsh situation and we need to work together, Israel and the Palestinians, to resolve it in a way that befits everyone. The problem is that the Palestinians were never willing to discuss, while the Israeli government is also not exactly willing to make any advances anymore, especially not with the population so radicalized by decades of gruelling terror attacks.

[136or142]

Apartheid was very specific to South Africa. The situation in Israel now is different, more liberal in some ways (non-Jews can vote), more conservative in others (the goal of Apartheid was that eventually non-whites would get their own states).

Regardless, nothing wrong with this. Every country should pass a law declaring themselves the nation state of the indigenous and/or current majority ethnic group. Makes it harder for NGOs to show up later and tell them that they've ALWAYS been a nation of Eritrean welfare migrants.

Actually, it's already the case that not all non-Jews living in Israel and the territories can vote.  Again, this gets back to John Kerry's comments.  "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?

It's hardly an analogous situation.  These Arabs were born in Eastern Jerusalem.   A better analogy would be the denial of the vote in Canada to indigenous Canadians which occurred for a long time.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seek-israeli-citizenship/

So you think East Jerusalem should be a part of Israel? If the Palestinian leaders agree, I'm all for it. Once it becomes a part of Israel, all East Jerusalem residents should get a citizenship.

East Jerusalem is de facto a part of Israel.

But it's not really a part of Israel. It might be a part of Palestine in a future agreement. Once the borders become clear, everyone inside of Israel should receive a citizenship. Before that? No reason to do it, especially not when so many terror attacks come out of Eastern Jerusalem.

De Jure it isn't, De Facto it is.  Israel is hiding behind legal fictions to not allow the Arabs in East Jerusalem to vote. Also, holding all the Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem responsible for the terrorist acts of a few of them is the act of a demagogue, which is exactly what Netanyahu is.

Nope, Jerusalem is actually divided by a wall. Despite what Israeli politicians try to tell the world, it's not a united city and never has been. There's an actual, physical barrier dividing the East from the West. So both De Jure and De Facto it isn't part of Israel right now.

And would you also call restricting travel from Sierra Leone while there was an ebola epidemic there "the act of a demagogue"? Israel cannot allow free travel into its sovereign, de-facto borders out of East Jerusalem, otherwise it jeopardizes the safety of its citizens.

Lastly, I'm the last person to defend Netanyahu, but this is not "his" act. Don't blame one person for the geopolitical situation in Jerusalem.

1.This wall was built by Israel in 2002, it is not a historical division.  The citizens of East Jerusalem are under the laws of Israel, receive benefits from the government of Israel (though mostly that is for the Jewish population) and pay at least some taxes to the Israeli government.  If that does not make East Jerusalem a de-facto part of Israel, I don't know what more is required.

2.I never mentioned travel, but a comparison with an ebola epidemic is absurd, except I think you genuinely believe it.  A very temporary travel ban based on an outbreak of a serious communicable disease is hardly analogous to the situation of the Arabs in East Jerusalem. Comparing the Arabs of East Jerusalem to people with serious communicable diseases is pretty sick.

3.I suppose some of that is a fair point, Netanyahu is not solely responsible, but he has frequently inflamed the situation intentionally for his political benefit and he has responded to acts of terror with intentional disproportionality.

1. They're under the municipal law of Jerusalem, which of course stems from Israel. They receive these benefits as part of them being a part of the municipal city of Jerusalem. But it's not recognized as a part of Israel, and it's clear that while de-jure the Israeli government wants to consider it a part of the country, DE-FACTO it's a disputed territory that could be part of a future Palestine. The Palestinian Authority claims it too. So how could Israel be expected to just grant a citizenship to whoever wants it from such a murky territory?

2. I'm not directly comparing Arabs with that, but it's clear that there are dozens of terror attacks coming directly from there. People are being murdered. If free movement was allowed (which is what has to be allowed for citizens- you can't restrict the movement of citizens), it'd put many, many Israelis in grave danger. That's just the way it is.


I think that the point should be summarized as this- the situation in Jerusalem isn't black and white. It's not completely separate, it's not "de facto part of Israel". It's an extremely complex situation and when you live in a country that is 99% safe, you can't be expecting Israel to act as if it is black and white and just grant a citizenship to everyone in the East of the city. Sitting there from the American safety and asking us to do it is unfair. It's a harsh situation and we need to work together, Israel and the Palestinians, to resolve it in a way that befits everyone. The problem is that the Palestinians were never willing to discuss, while the Israeli government is also not exactly willing to make any advances anymore, especially not with the population so radicalized by decades of gruelling terror attacks.

This is what you wrote initially:
"Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?"

Without continuing this debate over whether East Jerusalem is or isn't a de-facto part of Israel, it seems clear to me you are acknowledging that depriving East Jerusalem Arabs of the right to vote in Israeli elections (short of receiving citizenship, which as they article I linked to made clear, now that these Arabs are actually starting to do that, all sorts of roadblocks are being put up to prevent them from receiving citizenship) is in no way comparable to the inability of non citizens to vote in any other country.  You yourself seem to have just argued that East Jerusalem is a unique situation.

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is what you wrote initially:
"Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?"

Without continuing this debate over whether East Jerusalem is or isn't a de-facto part of Israel, it seems clear to me you are acknowledging that depriving East Jerusalem Arabs of the right to vote in Israeli elections (short of receiving citizenship, which as they article I linked to made clear, now that these Arabs are actually starting to do that, all sorts of roadblocks are being put up to prevent them from receiving citizenship) is in no way comparable to the inability of non citizens to vote in any other country.  You yourself seem to have just argued that East Jerusalem is a unique situation.

In the raw, legal sense, it is comparable. If they aren't citizens, they won't be able to vote in Israeli state elections. As simple as that. As residents of Jerusalem, they should and can be able to vote in municipal elections.

The complex question is about granting them a citizenship, with all that entails (including free movement into Israel and the right to vote). This one is, indeed, incomparable.

[136or142]

This is what you wrote initially:
"Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?"

Without continuing this debate over whether East Jerusalem is or isn't a de-facto part of Israel, it seems clear to me you are acknowledging that depriving East Jerusalem Arabs of the right to vote in Israeli elections (short of receiving citizenship, which as they article I linked to made clear, now that these Arabs are actually starting to do that, all sorts of roadblocks are being put up to prevent them from receiving citizenship) is in no way comparable to the inability of non citizens to vote in any other country.  You yourself seem to have just argued that East Jerusalem is a unique situation.

In the raw, legal sense, it is comparable. If they aren't citizens, they won't be able to vote in Israeli state elections. As simple as that. As residents of Jerusalem, they should and can be able to vote in municipal elections.

The complex question is about granting them a citizenship, with all that entails (including free movement into Israel and the right to vote). This one is, indeed, incomparable.

So, if in reality, the Arabs (or Palestinians) and not just in East Jerusalem can not defacto receive citizenship, then defacto this is an Apartheid situation.  Or, as John Kerry put it " "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Or, as I wrote initially,  this is what this mostly symbolic law is the start of: an attempt by the Likud government with its coalition partners to find a way to keep the disputed territories as part of Israel (with increasing Jewish settlements) while finding de jure legal technicalities for why Arabs in the disputed territories (though maybe not in Israel Proper) can never vote in Israeli elections.

Essentially, this is the start of a process to end up with a legal framework for an apartheid state, or, to legally claim a distinction from the two possibilities that Kerry stated as some kind of phony 'third option.'

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is what you wrote initially:
"Er, maybe because these non-Jews aren't citizens? In Eastern Jerusalem, for example, the Arabs don't have an Israeli citizenship but they can vote in the municipal elections.

Can non-citizens vote in your country?"

Without continuing this debate over whether East Jerusalem is or isn't a de-facto part of Israel, it seems clear to me you are acknowledging that depriving East Jerusalem Arabs of the right to vote in Israeli elections (short of receiving citizenship, which as they article I linked to made clear, now that these Arabs are actually starting to do that, all sorts of roadblocks are being put up to prevent them from receiving citizenship) is in no way comparable to the inability of non citizens to vote in any other country.  You yourself seem to have just argued that East Jerusalem is a unique situation.

In the raw, legal sense, it is comparable. If they aren't citizens, they won't be able to vote in Israeli state elections. As simple as that. As residents of Jerusalem, they should and can be able to vote in municipal elections.

The complex question is about granting them a citizenship, with all that entails (including free movement into Israel and the right to vote). This one is, indeed, incomparable.

So, if in reality, the Arabs (or Palestinians) and not just in East Jerusalem can not defacto receive citizenship, then defacto this is an Apartheid situation.  Or, as John Kerry put it " "If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both"

Or, as I wrote initially,  this is what this mostly symbolic law is the start of: an attempt by the Likud government with its coalition partners to find a way to keep the disputed territories as part of Israel (with increasing Jewish settlements) while finding de jure legal technicalities for why Arabs in the disputed territories (though maybe not in Israel Proper) can never vote in Israeli elections.

Essentially, this is the start of a process to end up with a legal framework for an apartheid state, or, to legally claim a distinction from the two possibilities that Kerry stated as some kind of phony 'third option.'

Lol what even? None of what you said makes sense, it just seems like a mash of assumptions and projections. I never implied that Palestinians will "never" be able to vote, I'm a 2SS proponent and would like them to have their own country where they can vote. Appartheid has nothing to do with it. This is a symbolic law that's meant to ruffle some nationalistic feathers so that Likud can gain support from its increasingly radical base.