Likud seeks to anchor Judea and Samaria legal status in basic law

11 Comments / 11 Comments

1. All this is cheap and meaningless argumentation about secondary aspects.

   What is important — the only actions that are important right now — are two-fold:

   First, populate Shomron and Yehuda with as many Jewish residents, businesses, industries and agricultural enterprises as possible in the shortest amount of time and make certain that no competing Arab state can be developed west of the Jordan River, aside from the festering and pus-filled Arab pimple in and around Gaza.

   Second, annex all of Area C of Shomron and Yehuda, which are areas defined by the Oslo Accords as totally under control of the State of Israel, and put these lands under civil control so their integration into the Jewish state can be done by trained city and regional planners, and not by Israeli politicians whose fingers are in the increasingly bankrupt pockets of the United States of America and the assorted functionaries of our now-fading imperial domain of our once-great country.

   Once the above steps have been effectuated, what is left of the Palestinian Authority will shrivel and dissolve into some 9-10 local fiefdoms run by 21st century equivalents of the traditional Arab urban mukhtars of the Turkish era, to be negotiated with and dealt with individually by an appropriate agency of the government of the State of Israel.

   In the meantime, stop all this endless babble about democracy, what constitutes a Jewish state, and the rest of this nonsense. Because if Shomron and Yehuda are given up for any reason, the long-term outlook for any kind of Jewish state grows dim to anyone other than the kinds of Jews who never seem able to learn anything from the tragedies that have befallen the Jewish nation over some 3000 years of Jewish national weakness and disgusting servility to every breed of goyim both ancient and modern.

   Arnold Harris
   Mount Horeb WI

2. Salomon Benzimra Said:

   Japan, Iceland and others do exactly that and they are never accused of being anti-democratic

   Only Israel is “anti-democratic”. We live unfortunately in a world where values have been turned up-side-down and this is condoned by the West. This is a reflection and a proof of the systematic double standard applied to IL.

3. “the Land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and the birthplace of the State of Israel.” This clause could potentially impact future court decisions relating to the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria.

   this does not appear a very substantial basis to come to the conclusion. Why don’t they just adopt levy or even the Palestine mandate document regarding jewish settlement? This statement can be adopted and still no jews in YS. It is too vague. I would like to see the adoption of something overtly claiming the right of jews or Israels to l live in YS. This sounds like a skirting of the issue or the jewish oliver twist saying to his master “please sir can I have more gruel”.

4. LITMUS TEST: What is more alluring to the members of the GoI? A Jewish national home in Eretz Israel or Nobel prizes and other benefits? Lets be honest with ourselves once and for all.
   Lets listen to the PM representatives “negotiating” with Kerry who represents the Arab League and Abbas, They have already given up chunks of the Land. That includes Peres, Molcho and Livni.
   Lets listen to the puported Chief of Staff Gantz about defending Jewish people and rights. He is not committed to that at all.
   Lets observe the continious destruction of Jewish communities and or homes. Today again the GoI destroyed a home.
   Lets focus on the renewed/extended FREEZE.
   The present constellation will not ever support Jewish rights, not even to Har Habait or Jerusalem

5. Salomon Benzimra Said:

   A certain amount of confusion may have arisen from the phrase “equality of social and political rights” in the Proclamation of the State of Israel in May 1948. I don’t know what the original Hebrew wording is, but it seems more appropriate to refer to “equality of civil and religious rights”, (as stated in the San Remo Resolution), rather than “political.” Peter Beinart and other opponents of Zionist rights hang on the term “political.”
   Any nation-state has the inherent right to draft legislation to preserve its national character. Japan, Iceland and others do exactly that and they are never accused of being anti-democratic. So should the State of Israel confer special collective rights to its founding people – the Jewish people.

   Exactly right – the very principle of Zionism ought to be embedded in Israel’s Basic Laws. If the Israeli Left now opposes Zionism, they should say so openly – but they shouldn’t play word games to avoid a debate on Israel’s national character and the raison d’etre of the Jewish State.

6. A certain amount of confusion may have arisen from the phrase “equality of social and political rights” in the Proclamation of the State of Israel in May 1948. I don’t know what the original Hebrew wording is, but it seems more appropriate to refer to “equality of civil and religious rights”, (as stated in the San Remo Resolution), rather than “political.” Peter Beinart and other opponents of Zionist rights hang on the term “political.”

   Any nation-state has the inherent right to draft legislation to preserve its national character. Japan, Iceland and others do exactly that and they are never accused of being anti-democratic. So should the State of Israel confer special collective rights to its founding people – the Jewish people.

7. Aharon Barak was a leftist – of course Avishai Braverman is a moron.

   You would think a statement defining Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people would be a consensus constitutional principle. One wonders why Braverman considers it objectionable.

8. Opposition MK Avishay Braverman (Labor) issued a response to the proposal, saying, “This is a disaster.”

   “When David Ben-Gurion founded this country it was on the basis of two principles: Israel was to be a Jewish and a democratic state. Now they are trying to annex Judea and Samaria and erode the democratic state.”

   NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT!!!!!

   “A Jewish and Democratic State” is the Israeli definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel. The “Jewish” nature was first defined within the Declaration of Independence of 1948. The “Democratic” character was first officially added in the amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset that was passed in 1985 (amendment 9, clause 7A

   The Jewish nature of the state of Israel was outlined already in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as it was read during the Proclamation ceremony in 14 May 1948. The document defines the state of Israel as “A Jewish State in Eretz-Israel [land of Israel]”, while the word “Democratic” is absent throughout the entire document. However, the document does:

   “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; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”

   The boundaries of the definition of “a Jewish and Democratic State” are a subject to a public discourse in Israel, in context of the relation between state and government. Already in 1994, the question whether Israeli Government (i.e. the Cabinet) is permitted to limit the import of Non-Kosher meat, despite the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation arose. Initially, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that the government is not permitted to limit such import of non-Kosher meat. However, after the Knesset passed some amendments to the basic laws, the limit was included.

   Another debate was on the issue of whether the state is permitted to limit the leasing of national land in certain areas of Israel, as for only Jews. The limitation initially seemed to be in contradiction with the Democratic character of Israel, but some have argued that it is essential in order to preserve the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.

   The Diversity of Israeli Society has produced few main approaches to the definition of “a Jewish and Democratic State”, which the current commonly accepted approach is the combination of all of them: “A Torah State” (Halachic state), “National-Religious State”, “National Culture State”, “The State of the Jewish People”, “The Jewish State”, and “The Jewish State and the State of all its citizens”.

   Concerning the minimal interpretation of “a Jewish State”, Justice Aharon Barak ruled that:

   “What, then are the ‘core’ characteristics shaping the minimum definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State? These characteristics come from the aspects of both Zionism and heritage. At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State and most of its fests and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish People; The heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious and cultural legacy”.
   —Aharon Barak 11280/02

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

9. yamit82 Said:

   BB will Kill the Bill before it’s even brought to a vote.
   I maintain that If Jews have no right to Y&S then certainly what right can Israel claim for Tel Aviv?
   This is not about Law, It goes to the core of who and what is a Jew and Power.

   Yamit, I agree with you – Netanyahu is not going to do anything to anger the Americans and the Arabs and to tie his own hands. This proposed Basic Law would more exactly define the relationship between the state and the land and no wonder the Israeli Left is upset – they don’t consider the land holy in the first place.

10. BB will Kill the Bill before it’s even brought to a vote.

    I maintain that If Jews have no right to Y&S then certainly what right can Israel claim for Tel Aviv?

    This is not about Law, It goes to the core of who and what is a Jew and Power.

11. “According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority,” Levy stated. “Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal.”

    whether Israel controls YS or not JEWS have a legal right to settle all YS. The Jewis legal right existed before the state of Israel and is not subject to the state of Israel. Using the term “at the very least” is already backtracking and brings into question the assertions herein.