CRITICAL ANALYSIS: One Nation, Divided Under Law (The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict & Ferguson)


First, Israel is already a Jewish state, and second, from the perspective of its Arab citizens, it’s a state that’s already seen as a preferential rather than full democracy. And passage of this gratuitous and provocative new law will only widen the growing and still irreconcilable gap between the two.

But now in the highly charged world of Israel’s political right, it’s made its biggest advances to date in the effort to enshrine Israel’s Jewish identity, as one of its Basic Laws that provide the foundation for the country’s legal and political system in the absence of a formal constitution, which Israel does not have. The bill’s defenders (among them Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu) maintain that it states the obvious, is long overdue, and is also essential to making clear to the Arab world (and the Palestinians in particular) that there can be no right of return for Palestinians into Israel proper.

“The natural and best way is for the ‘national’ character of a state to be ensured by the very fact that it has a particular majority.” And, as if taking its cue from the Zionist leader, that’s just what the Israelis have done.

It’s a Jewish state not just through declarations but through deeds as well. History, tradition, law, symbols, and practice anchor Israel’s Jewish nation-state identity through its ancient biblical connections; centuries of exilotic longing; a Law of Return; a national anthem that puts a return to Jewish Zion upfront; a flag that depicts a Jewish prayer shawl and star of David; a Hebrew language unique to only one nation-state; and, above all, as Jabotinsky had hoped, a population of 8 million, 6 million-plus of whom are Jews. It’s hard to believe that despite the secular character of Israel that aliens arriving in Tel Aviv wouldn’t quickly realize that they had landed in a distinct nation-state run by Jewish Israelis.

And yet a series of laws (most notably the Law of Return and the 1952 Citizenship Law) explicitly favor Israeli Jews. Other administrative rules and regulations give preference to Jewish and Zionist organizations in matters relating to access to land and housing. Then there is systemic, institutional, and societal discrimination that simply does not ensureequal allocation of state budgets and symmetrical benefits to Arab and Jewish communities. The clear absence of a shared public square where Israeli Jews and Arabs can participate equally and take pride in the symbols of the state — national anthem, flag, state holidays — can only reinforce a sense of isolation and separation. That Israeli Arabs may well enjoy more rights than citizens of many Arab countries and would likely not choose to live elsewhere, including in a putative state of Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza, are often arguments used to rationalize their second-class status. But these arguments really don’t work. If you are a real democracy then you make a determined commitment to try to be one, and that means doing everything possible to ensure that all citizens of the stare are treated equally in a de jure and de facto manner too.

1. Either democracy is the enemy in the sense that it is, like communism, and other collective ideologies, a method of propagating fears to suppress individual innovation, self-faith, God, diversity and success out of envy and self-asceticism.

2. Perhaps the issue is gerrymandering or manufacturing of facts, by battling democracy through republican-esque funding and manufacturing consent.

3. Israel never intent on being a democracy and can’t be do to religious and exclusive foundation thus rendering it incompatible with modern institutions and international peace. Apartheid, not democracy.

4. Keep in mind total population of Palestinians in the world outnumbers the total number of Israelis: 11 million Palestinians to approximately 9 million Israelis. (If we want to count Jews then we ought to count Muslims, which would be no comparison). Obviously, the Palestinians are not in Israel and the majority have left Palestine due to the occupation; but this diaspora of refugees would not exist if Israel wasn’t there. Democracy, or apartheid?

“Israel is a relatively young country. If you looked at the United States in 1830, roughly 60 years after independence, you would have found a nation where women couldn’t vote (and many white males, too), blacks were slaves, and native Americans’ lands were seized and tribes forcibly relocated. In a way, Israel’s situation was much closer to America’s in the 1950s, when millions of African-Americans suffered de facto and de jure discrimination. So it’s critically important to give maturing democracies an opportunity to deal with inequalities and discriminatory policies. After all, it took America a full century and half, a civil war, and a bitterly contested civil rights movement to reconcile the promise contained in the Declaration of Independence with the reality that our Constitution validated chattel slavery. And by the looks of Ferguson, Missouri, we still have a ways to go before eliminating the patterns of racial discrimination in our system.”

  • America Today: Mike Brown murdered; Eric Garner murdered; prison-system; jim crow…not very promising for ‘democracy’ or ‘State of Israel’.

‘LIBERTAD’


44_7d9c0e0d1d23e60ab9b56699a4aaef4a

Libertarian wave in America. Not sure if it’s a good thing. Label themselves crusaders of genuine freedoms; as does the Republican Party which takes us to war and deprives us of individual rights.

I am all for individual freedom but I don’t know if Libertarians bring anything new – they seem to echo the same message as republicans without having actual plans. All libertarians seem to do is point out the problem. They criticize. They judge. But they have no alternative – no solution – which makes me think their idea of what the problem is might be in fact wrong – which ultimately perpetuates these problems for all americans.

Rand Paul calls for low taxes and less government. He wants involvement in some conflicts abroad but not all. Well, dear Rand Paul, it seems you are part of the wrong political party because we are in involved in every country in the world precisely because of the Bush doctrine of preemption.

I am no fundamentalist by any means because I never want to feel like my beliefs are trampling on the freedom of another. I do respect self-reliance and I do acknowledge that in our world there is potential for certain people or groups to abuse the laws of nature and to use power for the wrong reasons – like starting war, protecting interests, for the sake of vanity, bigotry, greed, etc.

Rand Paul and the Republicans love portraying themselves as the harbingers of justice – the true americans – protecting individual freedom.

Why do you support the Republican Party? Why are you Islamo-phobes? Why don’t you acknowledge the flaws of anarchical-capitalism as exhibited first hand by close Bush-family ally Saudi Arabia? If you are champions of individual rights why do you discourage social liberty and promote conservative controls of human behavior?

Republicans and Libertarians love portraying Democrats as the anti-christ; as the enemies of individualism simply because they do not advocate it to such an extent that ends up violating the individual rights of others. You see dear friends, there is a huge difference between capitalism and imperialism – the latter being the product of fundamentalist-capitalism, bigotry, and fascism.

There is no perfect system, or ideology. Only God is perfect. The rest is subjective. We must deal with society with this in mind – distinguishing between true individualism and pseudo-individualism. The problem of today’s world is precisely that  – the Pseudo.


Liberalism is truth.

There is One God.

Religion is pointless.

Freedom is in free, secular faith.

Be open minded.

Be kind.

Truth and Justice will be known.

Africa, France, Colonialism & the Fight For Social Justice


Perhaps if the French asked themselves why fundamentalists are targeting French interests.

According to an article on France 24, french judges have suggested that jihadists in Mali are trying to portray France as the aggressor, while France insists that it is merely responding to extremists in the region.

The article failed to mention however any possible reason why these so-called jihadi extremists as they are so-quickly called are motivated to carry out such attacks against France.

Maybe its the same reason the people of Iran revolted in 1979′ against Western interventionism for reaping all of the nations’ oil wealth at the expense of the Iranian people.

I wonder if this has ANYTHING to do with it.

No, no. The French, like the Americans, will have you believe they are simply exporting Western-values of capitalism and democracy — the Crusader spirit, if you will.

I’m sure that does nothing to rile up those jihadists. Jesus.