Guardian

Guardian columnist Giles Fraser should know better than to hold Jews to higher standards


priest

Giles Fraser

“Of all people”, opined Giles Fraser in his Nov. 28th Guardian column about the proposed Jewish nation-state law, “Jews know what it is to live in somebody else’s country, without rights, subject to their laws, subject to their prejudices”, before citing the following verse from the Hebrew Bible (Numbers 15:15):

“The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord. The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.”

The point of citing scripture for Fraser is quite simple: 

“the Bible insists that both Jews and non-Jews are to be subject to the same laws, the latter having the same legal protections as the former.”

Fraser argues that this “passage clearly demonstrates that the latest move [the proposed Jewish state law] by the Israeli prime minister…is a direct contradiction of the Hebrew Bible, both in word and in spirit,” before adding:

For the new nationality bill that he and others are currently fighting to get through the Knesset is designed to deny national rights to non-Jewish Israeli citizens.

Of course the key word in that sentence is “national rights”.

As we’ve noted previously, the proposed legislation is “designed to re-emphasise Israel’s fundamental Jewish and Zionist identity,” based on Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which defines Israel as “the Jewish state”.  However, what Fraser fails to explain is that “equal individual rights for all citizens” would continue be protected under the new law.  

The proposed legislation, initiated to fight back against efforts to undermine the Jewish people’s inalienable right to national self-determination in its historic homeland, would include the following principles:

  • The State of Israel is a democratic country, founded on the principles of liberty, justice and peace, and a country which upholds the individual rights of all its citizens in accordance with the law.
  • The State will act to allow all its inhabitants, without regard to religion, race or nationality, to act to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity.

As even Haaretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer (a critic of the proposed law) acknowledged recently, “this law will not strip [non-Jewish citizens] of whatever privileges they already enjoy”.

However, the broader point which critics of the proposal to enshrine Israel as the Jewish state miss – and one which we examined in a previous post – is that Israel is not at all unique in these respects.  Within the democratic West, there are many nations which maintain codified systems of preference for those claiming a particular religious, ethnic, or linguistic connection with the state.

We’d also be remiss if we didn’t note that, though he was raised by a Jewish father and a Christian mother, Fraser later separated completely from his paternal religious tradition by becoming an Anglican priest.  Of course, the Anglican Church is the official Church of England. 

The King or Queen, as  “the head of the Established Church”, MUST be Anglican and can never convert to another religion. Additionally, in the Coronation Oath, he or she pledges to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion as established by law and to be the “Defender” of the Protestant-Christian Faith.  Despite the fact that Christianity is so privileged over all other religions, all citizens are, nonetheless, guaranteed equal civil and political rights under the law.

“Of all people”, Anglicans like Fraser should understand that the Jewish state’s firm desire to maintain a state with a uniquely Jewish character does not in any way undermine the fundamental rights of non-Jews, nor is it at odds with the bible’s insistence that Jews and non-Jews must be equal under the law.

149 replies »

  1. No matter what Israel does or does not do her existence is what drives the Muslim world mad. They cannot accept a Jewish state and the west should wake up and tell the truth. Israel is more than an irritation to them because she exists. All other arguments come from this root. To fall for the propaganda and buy into the pallywood narrative is gullible and reprehensible. And do not forget the glaring hypocrisy of Abbas and co who loudly proclaim the areas they get should be jewfree. Just like the Nazis, alas in the west there are too many who go along with Eurabia and promote another Muslim state whilst fighting against the only Jewish state. They should remeber that the rights of minorities such as Christians are under threat in Islamic nations. This world does not need another state as part of the Caliphate in waiting, it needs Israel and should stop the spread of supremacist political/religous fascism spreading.

  2. Just about every other commentator on Israel refers to it as “The Jewish State”. It matters not how much it is pointed out that 20% of Israel’s population are both not Jewish and enjoy all civic rights these people still call it “The Jewish State”. Then when there is a political move in Israel to define the country as precisely that all hell breaks loose. But that is what we have learnt to expect from “The Anglican State”.

    • Personally I think the new Bill will not change anything and is a passing wind of emotional expression of solidarity. It is debatable as to whether it was a particularly wise political move because Israel remains as is both before and after any intended law, that it doesn’t improve, add or reduce or change anything. There will be no added rights for Jews or less rights for others. What is however interesting about the “new” measures being considered is the barmy frenzied reaction to it. The intensity of it. The nonsense that is generated from it. That anything Israel does or does not do is wrong. How wrong ,cannot be measured. There is no measure for “wrong”.Israel is just wrong in the eyes of these myopic critics who already have a salivating antisemitic audience to preach to.

      In the case goofy Giles Wilson, it takes the form of Jews getting a Bible lesson on how to behave.

    • Then when there is a political move in Israel to define the country as precisely that all hell breaks loose.

      Many Israelis, like myself, are horrified at some of the wording used in various drafts, which would give rabbis a say in our secular legal system by defining what is ‘Jewish’. Apart from which, do you really feel that any part of the proposed new legislation would ever persuade anyone who was even vaguely anti Israel that somehow, Israel was ‘OK’ if its Knesset passed a law defining it as a ‘Jewish State’??

      • I think you make a very serious point. I would point out that I personally am not particularly keen on the proposed legislation for the reason you mention amongst others. As for those who are instinctively anti-Israel neither this legislation or the absence of it is likely to change their views. They are likely to continue to refer to Israel as “The Jewish State” come what may.

        • Mostly when venting their Jew-hatred, be it couched in the ‘politest’ words possible ..

          I myself happen to regard the phrase ‘the Jewish state’ as sneering and insulting. It’s called Israel, and that is how snotty hacks should refer to it.
          What it IS, however, is the state of the Jews.

    • Not sure how one can expect an Anglican vicar of all people, and one who writes for an antisemitic rag, to ‘know better’ …

      • While most of the article concerns private matters, his political deeds are quite revealing, and the weird mentality documented here, defending people suspected of Islamic terror, but condemning Israel. What a despicable bigot and hypocrite.
        He is believed to have met human rights barrister Maya after he wrote a column in support of an al-Qaeda suspect she was representing.

  3. It is always refreshing when Christian clergy criticize Jews.
    Get in line, take a number, just behind the mullahs and all the other mofo’s.

  4. “this law will not strip [non-Jewish citizens] of whatever privileges they already enjoy”.

    i.e fuck all rights.

    This isn’t just a minority. This is 20% (and growing!) of the population. Or about 70% of the native population – think about that one,eh….

    How about un-resolution-181 – fancy abiding by international law and returning their land? The Right of Return for ’48 and ’67 refugees?

    Thought not.

    • “This is 20% (and growing!) of the population.” More likely shrinking as a percentage under current trends in fertility.
      “Or about 70% of the native population” You mean the Jews? More like 80% and growing.

    • 70% of the native population? who are the other 30%? Surely you’re not acknowledging Jews as natives? I thought they are all colonialist land thieves?!

    • How about UN Resolution 181?

      The Arabs unanimously rejected it.

      http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/11/30/reflections-on-the-un-partition-of-palestine/

      The Arabs strongly rejected Resolution 181 and made it abundantly clear that they had no intention to abide by the resolution. This came as no surprise. Since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Arab opposition to a Jewish State of any size was made known by word and deed in the form of terror in the ensuing decades. In the early days of the British Mandate, Jews issued manifestos and made overtures calling for cooperation with their Arab neighbors, hoping that they could build the region together as neighbors, but to no avail.

      Those Arab leaders who condemned the waves of violence against Jews or supported a Jewish state were dealt with in the harshest ways.

      […]

      Resolution 181 represented the rebirth of the Jewish State and also a blow to the proposed two state solution. The Palestinian Arabs rejected an Arab as well as a Jewish State and sought to eliminate Israel, demonstrating that they were far more anti-Jewish than they were ‘pro-Palestinian.’

      Sixty-seven years later, Israel thrives but still faces many foes in the Middle East and emerging foes in Europe and other places. These opponents of Israel, like the rejectionists before them, oppose not the borders, but the very notion of Jewish Statehood. Time has passed but the enmity remains.

    • [How about un-resolution-181 – fancy abiding by international law and returning their land?]

      I personally oppose this bill, at least as so constituted, however UNGR 181 specifically mandates Palestine’s partition into both a ‘Jewish’ and an ‘Arab’ state. To that extent it mandates a ‘Jewish’ state, which is one reason I think the bill is unnecessary.

      • How about making up your mind?
        – If it is ‘mandated’ to be Jewish, then why object to this bill?
        – If it isn’t, shouldn’t it be necessary to plug the gap (for all kinds of reasons)?

        However, this is completely moot, because 181 doesn’t ‘mandate’ anything: it was a recommendation, which one party rejected outright. From that instant onward, it was dead as the dodo, and just as relevant to the current situation as that unfortunate bird.

        • if UNGR 181 has no standing in international law, on what legal basis Israel’s founding? UNGR 181 was how the UN decided to implement the original LoN mandate it inherited and adopted.

          ‘ If it is ‘mandated’ to be Jewish, then why object to this bill?’

          Well, for one thing, it seems unnecessarily exclusory towards Israel non-Jewish minorities. For instance stating that Jews alone have rights to national self determination / national rights was not, so far as I can see, in Avi Dichter’s original 2011 proposal.

          Israel’s non-Jewish minority must have some way to fulfil their national rights in a truly inclusive Jewish and democratic state,

          Likewise delisting Arabic as an official language is, I think, extremely problematical, though Hebrew should of course have primacy.

          Like Peres, like Rivlin, I think Israel’s Jewish statehood is sufficiently protected by its own laws and demography: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The bill is, as I said, primarily about garnering votes and is a trivial use for something so important. It’s only practical effect will be, is, to further alienate Israel’s minorities.

          You may think me wrong, but perfectly reputable Israelis like Peres, Rivlin and Livni agree.

          • Livni is a bigot and an idiot.
            Peres has been senile for years.
            Rivlin is trying to rebrand himself. He is a pompous self-publicist.

            “Israel’s non-Jewish minority must have some way to fulfil their national rights in a truly inclusive Jewish and democratic state” –

            Must have? MUST have? Why, because you said so?
            How exactly does the Carribean minority in the UK ‘fulfil its national rights’?
            Or the Turkish one in Germany?
            Or the Jewish one in the USA?

            This is meaningless sloganeering.

            Israel doesn’t need a ‘legal’ basis. It’s the country of the Jews. End of.

            • Jews needed some kind of imperial or international law to enable them to form their national home or state.

            • Unlike your examples, Israeli-Palestinian Arab or other Christians, Muslims or Druze are native to the land, which rights analogous to those of the Jews concerned. in order for Israel’s Jewish state to remain democratic and retain a modicum of international standing, it must be as inclusivist of those national minorities as possible. Sheket’s bill seems to be unnecessarily exclusory as, I said, Peres, Rivlin, Livni and Lapid agree, their all assuming, like me, Israel is a Jewish state.

              I might add, in Israel ‘Arab’ is a nationality as much as ‘Jew’ is.

              • It’s ‘whom’, “dearie”.
                If that’s what passes for wit in your household, you have a bit of a problem.

                • It’s ‘who’, perfectly correctly, in the same informal English style which, for example, both ‘dearie’ and ‘it[s’ evince.

                  If your only comeback to serious political questions comprises confusing formal with informal English grammatical styles, as suits, it would again suggest your calling Peres senile is a case of the pot calling the kettle black; were it not for the fact that Shimon Peres is clearly rather smarter, more literate, educated and articulate, even in English, even in his 90s, than you likely will ever be.

                • There is nothing “informal” about the contraction it’s.
                  You are (other than the gorilla) the last person on this board who should be commenting on anyone’s literacy.

                • [You seriously cite Wikipedia as a reference? ROFL.]

                  Hehe, you don’t cite anything, asides Leah.

                • [Hehe, you don’t even understand the difference between a proposal and an accord.]

                  Where do I say they are the same?

      • UNGR 181 was a partition plan, not a law. The UNGR does not mandate anything. It hasn’t the power to do so under the UN Charter. The Mandate came from the League of Nations and was subsequently adopted by the UN under article 80 of its own charter. 181 was a plan that called for further subdividing the original mandate (a Jewish National Home on the lands west of the Jordan River), and was outright rejected by the Arab League, making it moot. Israel was forced to fight for its independence.

        • if UNGR 181 has no standing in international law, on what legal basis Israel’s founding? UNGR 181 was how the UN decided to implement the original LoN mandate it inherited and adopted.

          • “if UNGR 181 has no standing in international law, on what legal basis Israel’s founding?”
            Already answered. The LoN Mandate is the legal basis, not a UNGA resolution.

            “UNGR 181 was how the UN decided to implement the original LoN mandate it inherited and adopted.”
            Wrong. It was a compromise proposal to the parties to solve a dispute and was rejected by one of the parties.

            • “if UNGR 181 has no standing in international law, on what legal basis Israel’s founding?”
              Already answered. The LoN Mandate is the legal basis, not a UNGA resolution.]

              But UNGR 181 is how the LoN’s successor, UN, decided to fulfil its legal obligation to implement Article 80 / the Mandate, which decision Israel accepted, thence declaring its independence and statehood.

              C has to do with A via its intermediary, B. In this case, the connection is a legal one.

              “UNGR 181 was how the UN decided to implement the original LoN mandate it inherited and adopted.”
              Wrong. It was a compromise proposal to the parties to solve a dispute and was rejected by one of the parties.]

              It was how the LoN’s successor, the UN, decided to fulfil its legal obligation to implement Article 80 / the Mandate, which decision Israel accepted, thence declaring its independence and statehood.

              C has to do with A via its intermediary, B. In this case, the connection is a legal one.

              • If UNGR 181 had no legal standing, why did Palestinian Jews wait round their radios that night in November 1947, with excitement and anticipation? Why did it matter to them and their leaders? Why did they care for the outcome?

              • “C has to do with A via its intermediary, B. In this case, the connection is a legal one.”
                A logical argument, however not a sound one.

                “But UNGR 181 is how the LoN’s successor, UN, decided to fulfill its legal obligation to implement Article 80 / the Mandate, which decision Israel accepted, thence declaring its independence and statehood.”

                This was a proposal by the General Assembly to fulfill the UN’s legal obligation, and one which further truncated the territory of that Mandate (or Trusteeship), i.e., there was no mandate for an Arab state west of the Jordan River. Israel did accept it – had the Arabs also accepted it their would have been the basis of a treaty, a binding international agreement, i.e., International Law. But as we know the Arabs rejected it and the proposed borders became moot. Israel was accepted as a UN Member State anyway, without a final border agreement with the Jordanians who were occupying part of the Mandate and the Egyptians who were also in occupation. Under the armistice agreement Israel had less territory than was provided for under the original Mandate, but more than the UNGA proposal.

                • None of which changes the fact that the Palestinian Jewish leadership incorporated UNGR 181 as the secular basis for Israel’s legitimacy, asides Jews’ natural rights, and the IDF planned to secure its allocated territory.

                  You’re arguing with history.

                • You’re arguing with Ben Gurion, who thought UNGR 181 LEGitimated founding a Jewish state, and with the IDF, which thought its borders generally binding, albeit excepted by military contingencies. Why did the IDF feel constrained to generally observe UNGR 181’s borders unless generally legally binding?

                  They both thought UNGR 181 generally LEGitimizing or legal, and/or generally legally binding, else why did they feel legitimized or constrained by UNGR 181?

                  You’re arguing with Palestinian and Israeli Jews of the 1947-1949 period.

            • You clearly think Israel had a virginal birth and conception. You think her great grand-and great great grandfathers, the Balfour Declaration and LoN Mandate, supernaturally and timebendingly inseminated her mother’s ovum without her grandfather and father’s intermediate begettings, Article 80 and UNGR 181.

              • You are projecting. It’s you who thinks that Israel was born pristinely on the basis of some pure-as-the-driven-snow ‘international law’ legalism.
                She was not.
                She was born in blood, because enough Jews took up arms and established the facts on the ground.
                That was the greatness of B-G: he may have spoken the right words to the hypocritical world, but he knew that what was important was what the Jews did, not what the world thought.

                • It’s you who think Christian-like: you deny the historical fact that Ben Gurion incorporated UNGR 181 into the Declaration of Independence, where he is it constitutes part of the basis for Israel’s founding.

                  You’re arguing with history, with Ben Gurion’s having clearly thought UNGR 181 legitimated Israel’s founding to some extent, along with Jews’ natural rights.

                  You want to erase from history the essential part UNGR 181 plays in Israel’s founding, just as Christianity needed to erase from the history the fact that Jesus had a human, physical, probably Jewish father, probably Joseph.

                  You, Leah and Fritz hate the UN so much, you have deny the essential part it played in Israel’s birth, and the fact that David Ben Gurion clearly thought it legitimated Israel’s founding, alongside natural Jews’ right to it. You have to erase from history one of Israel’s parents, and give her a virginal birth.

                • [You are projecting. It’s you who thinks that Israel was born pristinely on the basis of some pure-as-the-driven-snow ‘international law’ legalism.]

                  I have never said that. But Ben Gurion clearly thought UNGR 181 legitimated Israel’s founding. It constituted an essential plank of the basis of her founding, which is why it is mentioned as such in the Declaration of Independence.

                  None of which changes that Jews had to fight those who would abort Israel in the womb.

                  Two things can be true at the same time.

                • [That was the greatness of B-G: he may have spoken the right words to the hypocritical world]

                  What, are you suggesting that Ben Gurion was insincere when he said UNGR 181 constituted part of the basis of Israel’s founding? Are you suggesting he was lying? That he didn’t think UNGR 181 played role in legitimating Israel’s founding?

                  Are you saying he incorporated a lie into the Declaration of Independence?

                  [but he knew that what was important was what the Jews did, not what the world thought.]

                  One of which, clearly, was instructing the IDF that its Plan Dalet generally observe the borders of the state envisaged by UNGR 181, except where military necessity dictated otherwise.

                • Sorry, this was mainly directed at you:

                  It’s you who think Christian-like: you deny the historical fact that Ben Gurion incorporated UNGR 181 into the Declaration of Independence, where he is it constitutes part of the basis for Israel’s founding.

                  You’re arguing with history, with Ben Gurion’s having clearly thought UNGR 181 legitimated Israel’s founding to some extent, along with Jews’ natural rights.

                  You want to erase from history the essential part UNGR 181 plays in Israel’s founding, just as Christianity needed to erase from the history the fact that Jesus had a human, physical, probably Jewish father, probably Joseph.

                  You, Leah and Fritz hate the UN so much, you have deny the essential part it played in Israel’s birth, and the fact that David Ben Gurion clearly thought it legitimated Israel’s founding, alongside natural Jews’ right to it. You have to erase from history one of Israel’s parents, and give her a virginal birth.

    • [The Right of Return for ’48 and ’67 refugees?]

      One reason the conflict broke out and festered, resulting in the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian refugees, was precisely Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians’ opposing any kind of Jewish right to return to the land of Israel in anything above the tiny numbers imperial Christianity and Islam allowed, lest it reverse the exile divinely appointed Jews as punishment.

      UNGR 181 specifically granted such a right of Jews to immigrate to a Jewish state. Both these elements i.e. a Jewish right to return to the land and a Jewish state Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians rejected (actually going to war with their allies to expel Palestinian Jews, or worse). Indeed, it seems, in no small part they technically still do e.g. Abbas refuses to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, despite UNGR 181’s mandating one, or indeed any kind of historical right of Jews to return to the land to live in above tiny numbers, a right UNGR 181 mandated a Jewish state to preserve.

      That is why the best solution remains: 2 states for 2 peoples, with 2 rights of return, division of Jerusalem, old and new, borders on the 1967 lines or with 1:1 territorial compensation.

      The bill I believe unnecessary for Israel’s Jewish statehood, which still must strive to be as inclusive of its Israeli and/or Palestinian Arab Muslim, Christian and/or Druze minority as possible, while still still maintaining that Jewish statehood. It is a challenge, but not impossible for those of good will or faith.

      But Abbas has never, I think, truly ever accepted the 2 states for 2 peoples formula, whereas several Israeli leaders explicitly have, whatever their or other Israeli sins.

            • The Balfour Declaration was itself deemed to require more than mere imperial dictum, hence the LoN’s granting it the status of (what then passed for) international law with the Mandate, itself ratified by its successor, the UN.

              Zionism wouldn’t have gotten very far without international law/

              • “LoN’s granting it the status of (what then passed for) international law…”

                Are you saying that it wasn’t “real” International Law, i.e., not legitimately international law? What? You just make this stuff up?

                “…with the Mandate, itself ratified by its successor, the UN.”

                It was adopted by the UN under its charter as all other treaties and obligations of the League of Nations.

                UNGA 181 has nothing to do with that. UNGA 181 was a General Assembly resolution, i.e., not a legally binding mandate.

                • Re the LoN, it is sometimes said that the Mandates were simply ratifying a priori imperial ‘facts on the ground’. Nevertheless the LoN’s decisions were the only forms of international law then in existence, and the precursor of the UN’s.

                  UNGR 181 had of course ‘to do’ with the Mandate and Balfour Declaration, in that the Mandate and Balfour Declaration clearly had ‘to do’ with Article 80, even has A has ‘to do’ with C via its intermediary B. UNGR 181 was how the UNGA decided to implement ArtIcle 80 and thus, ultimately, both Mandate and Balfour Declaration.

                  Moreover, again, if none of these had any standing in international law, then neither did the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, Article 80, UNGR 181 and ultimately Israel’s founding.

                • Nevertheless the LoN’s decisions were the only forms of international law then in existence, and the precursor of the UN’s
                  Nonsense, learn history.

                • [Nonsense, learn history.]

                  Learn it yourself, and learn how to +argue+ your case, rather than merely +assert+ it.

                • Why should I argue with nonsense? If you do not know the facts, but believe in your false assertions, it´s your problem. Once again, learn history before making statements which demonstrate your ignorance.

                • Ah, Dalet, the thing that cost the pupil of Hourani his last marginal reputation as scientist.

                • Zacc doesn’t understand the difference between PROPOSALS (rejected outright by one party) and agreements/accords etc.

                • International law has existed since the mid-19th century. However, its philosophical origins are found in 16th century thinkers such as Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Alberico Gentili, and Hugo Grotius, with Vitoria sometimes considered the “father of international law.” Two sophisticated legal systems developed in the Western World: the codified systems of continental European states (American Civil Law) and English common law, upon which the judge-made law of the United States is primarily based. In the 20th century, the two World Wars and the formation of the League of Nations (and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization) all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, founded under the UN Charter. The UN has also been the locus for the development of new advisory (non-binding) standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict, as well as by agreements implemented by other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. The development and consolidation of such conventions and agreements has proven to be of great importance in international relations.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#History

  5. Ah, Giles Fraser. The same question keeps popping up. Is it just ignorance or is it something a bit more sinister.
    Five people brutally slain in a Synagoue. Quick, Europe, vote for a Palestinian State!
    No Jews will be allowed to live in a state of Palestine. Quick, Europe, vote for a Palestinian state!
    “Palestine” is a part of the Arab Nation, Sharia will be the source of its laws. Quick, Europe, vote for a Palestinian state!

    • Re the LoN, it is sometimes said that the Mandates were simply ratifying a priori imperial ‘facts on the ground’. Nevertheless the LoN’s decisions were the only forms of international law then in existence, and the precursor of the UN’s.

      UNGR 181 had of course ‘to do’ with the Mandate and Balfour Declaration, in that the Mandate and Balfour Declaration clearly had ‘to do’ with Article 80, even has A has ‘to do’ with C via its intermediary B. UNGR 181 was how the UNGA decided to implement ArtIcle 80 and thus, ultimately, both Mandate and Balfour Declaration.

      And, again, if none of these had any standing in international law, then neither did the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, Article 80, UNGR 181 and ultimately Israel’s founding.

      • Nevertheless the LoN’s decisions were the only forms of international law then in existence, and the precursor of the UN’s
        Nonsense, learn history and the ‘defintion’ of international law.
        it is sometimes said that the Mandates were simply ratifying a priori imperial ‘facts on the ground
        The mandates were altered due to political changes on shifting ground.
        Three ideologies, three religions and a many interests were confronted when the Ottoman empire ceased to exist, the imperialist of Great Britain and France, the nationalist of Arabs and of Jews, the socialist of Jews, the state interest of reemerging Egypt, the increasing state interest of the Arab elites in the mandates of Syria, Iraq and Jordan ,the religious zeal of the Hashemites and the Sauds, and other Islamic interest groups, diverse Christian in the Holy Land, the old Jewish wish to return to the promised land, oil interests, …

        • None of which changes the fact that LoN’s Mandate had legal standing, as did its successors Article 80 and UNGR 181, hence Palestinian Jews’ breathlessly waiting for the November 30th 1947 vote.

          • That’s all very nice. You can write paragraph after paragraph about International Law and its origins, but at the end of the day General Assembly resolutions are still not legally binding.
            Which of these things is different from the others:
            a) LoN Mandate
            b) Article 80 UN Charter
            c) UNGA resolutions

            Answer: c

            • Nope. UNGR 181 was how the UN decided Article 80 should be implemented. Israel’s declaration explicitly incorporates it as the basis of her secular legitimacy, as Plan Dalet specifically designates its territory and borders as those of the ‘Hebrew state’ it seeks to secure, albeit necessarily tweaked in hostile circumstances.

              You need to argue with Ben Gurion and the IDF, not me.

              • “Nope. UNGR 181 was how the UN decided Article 80 should be implemented.”
                Certainly. AND lacking the power to enact law made such a proposal to the parties for their consideration. The Zionists accepted, the Arabs rejected. Israel was then admitted to the UN with territories which were not included in the partition plan. That’s how legally binding it was.

                • Legally binding or not, Ben Gurion clearly thought UNGR 181 LEGitimated founding a Jewish state, while Plan Dalet sought to generally observe the borders UNGR 181 set for a Jewish state.

                  Palestinian Jews clearly thought it was to some extent both legally significant and binding!

            • [Which of these things is different from the others:
              a) LoN Mandate
              b) Article 80 UN Charter
              c) UNGA resolutions

              Answer: c]

              UNGR 181 differed in that it comprise a) and b) final implementation. It is specifically references in Israel’s declaration of independence as the basis for her secular legitimacy, alongside Jews’ natural rights. Plan Dalet specifies its chief goal is to secure the territory it allocates for a Jewish state.

              You clearly don’t know your Israeli or Zionist history.

              • You can repeat this as many times as you like: you are still making things up.
                181 had nil relevance as soon as it was rejected by the Arabs.
                You obviously don’t understand that a contract needs two parties to be a valid legal document.
                You don’t know Israeli or Zionist history, nor do you understand how the law works.
                B-G disagreed with you when he said that what’s important is what the Jews do.

                • Ben Gurion and the Declaration clearly assume UNGR 181 underpins Israel’s legitimacy. Plan Dalet clearly refers to the borders envisaged therein, clearly stipulation the importance of generally observing them, except where military necessity dictates otherwise.

                  You can’t answer the simple question, To which borders of a Hebrew state does it refer, if not UNGR 181’s?, because you are too cowardly, intellectually or otherwise, to admit you were wrong.

        • They cared about the UNGA vote because it would give +legitimacy+ to a Jewish state, ‘legitimacy’, from the Latin root, ‘lex’, meaning ‘law’.

          International law has existed since the mid-19th century. However, its philosophical origins are found in 16th century thinkers such as Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Alberico Gentili, and Hugo Grotius, with Vitoria sometimes considered the “father of international law.” Two sophisticated legal systems developed in the Western World: the codified systems of continental European states (American Civil Law) and English common law, upon which the judge-made law of the United States is primarily based. In the 20th century, the two World Wars and the formation of the League of Nations (and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization) all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, founded under the UN Charter. The UN has also been the locus for the development of new advisory (non-binding) standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict, as well as by agreements implemented by other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. The development and consolidation of such conventions and agreements has proven to be of great importance in international relations.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#History

          • When I wrote learn history and the definition of international law, I didn`t mean copypaste wikipedia which only gives a first insight, at best. That`s obviously the best you can do. But don`t expect that I or others have regards of your low level.

            • It’s quite funny how he copypastes from Wiki, understands nothing, and still repeats his absurd mantra about 181 …

              • My mantra that Palestinian Jews hoped the UNGA would ratify establishing a Jewish state in 1947, that the IDF planned precisely to secure the land UNGR 181 allocated them?

                Yeah, that mantra…

              • The nascent Palestinian/Israeli Jewish leadership clearly thought UNGR 181 had some legitimacy since a) they both waited for and rejoiced to hear of it and b) directed the IDF to secure the land it allocated, in the form of Plan D.

                But in your imagination, none of this history occurred…

                • Wow, you really really can’t (a) read, (b) analyse facts and arguments, (c) draw sane conclusions.
                  No, the mantra that 181 had legal force. The mantra that a proposal can force anyone to do anything.
                  That mantra.
                  The one you keep repeating in the hope that mere repetition would lend it a semblance of credibility.
                  That, and using persuader words:
                  “clearly thought” – well, well, now you can read people’s minds across the decades, too …
                  Whenever someone like you resorts to the word ‘clearly’, I know that s/he is in trouble.

                • Actually, I have never used the expression ‘legal force’.

                  I said it had some ‘legal standing’ and conferred ‘legitimacy’ on founding a Jewish state, which is why Palestinian Jews, high and low, both hoped for, and rejoiced at, the UNGA voting for the same, and why the Palestinian-Israeli Jewish leadership directed the IDF to secure UNGR 181’s territory for the Jewish state.

                  It remains the basis for Israel’s existence in international law, derived, as it is, from the Balfour Declaration, LoN Mandate and Article 80.

                • The nascent Palestinian/Israeli Jewish leadership clearly thought UNGR 181 had some legitimacy since a) they both waited for and rejoiced to hear of it and b) directed the IDF to secure the land it allocated, in the form of Plan D.

                  Your allegations miss facts unless you mistake your imagination as fact.

                  The main Jewish underground army in Palestine (Hagannah) had begun working on a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion even before the partition plan was approved in November 1947.
                  The plan was revised in December of that year, after the declaration of partition and again on March 10, 1948 – that is the revision that is before us. The plan was meant to be activated only after the British left. As it states:
                  This plan rests on the general assumption that during its implementation, the forces of the [British] authorities will not be present in the country.
                  However, in March of 1948, Haganah intelligence estimated that the situation regarding the defense of Jerusalem was desperate, since it was proving impossible to supply the city due to the Arab blockade. Operation Nachshon, was launched in April 1948 to lift the blockade of the Jerusalem road and relieve the capital. It was the first large scale Haganah operation and many view it as a part of Plan D. On the other hand, Yitzhak Levi, head of the Jerusalem Shai (Hagannah intelligence service) did not include operation Nachshon in his account of the implementation of Plan D in his book, Nine Measures (in Hebrew, Tish’a Kabin)

                • [The plan was revised in December of that year, after the declaration of partition]

                  i.e. to take account of UNGR 181.

                  Yes, I know, thank you.

                • No, you didn`t know, because you wrote
                  The nascent Palestinian/Israeli Jewish leadership clearly thought UNGR 181 had some legitimacy since a) they both waited for and rejoiced to hear of it and b) directed the IDF to secure the land it allocated, in the form of Plan D.
                  That´s wrong. Plan D was one contigency plan in case of Arab invasion. It was altered due to the fighting on the ground which immediately began after UNGR 181 on shifting military ground.
                  It was quite clear that Israel would not have the capability at this point to secure all territory outlined by the UN resolution, especially in case of an Arab invasion.

                • [No, you didn`t know, because you wrote That´s wrong. Plan D was one contigency plan in case of Arab invasion. It was altered due to the fighting on the ground which immediately began after UNGR 181 on shifting military ground.
                  It was quite clear that Israel would not have the capability at this point to secure all territory outlined by the UN resolution, especially in case of an Arab invasion.]

                  Plan Dalet, March 10, 1948

                  ‘a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders.’

                  This refers to the territory allocated in UNGR 181

                  ‘f) Generally, the aim of this plan is not an operation of occupation outside the borders of the Hebrew state.’

                  This also refers to the territory allocated in UNGR 181, or rather non-Jewish/Hebrew territory beyond it.

                  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html

                • Sorry, should have quote objective a) more fully

                  ‘(a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state] against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.’

                  ‘areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders…areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state]’

                  There you go: clear references to the borders of the territory UNGR 181 allocates, as well as territory within and without.

                  UNGR 181’s allocation constitutes the basis for the Hebrew state according to Plan, Dalet, albeit ‘tweaked’ in hostile circumstances. But UNGR 181’s borders are the basis.

                • “clear references to the borders of the territory UNGR 181 ” – with those last 5 words written in invisible ink?

                • So firstly you brought up the December alteration as influenced by the UN legally non binding vote, now you put the March plan forward when refuted. The March plan which never was executed at whole was coordinated with the timetable of the British mandate`s end, the declaration, the desired recognition by other states, the coming invasion and the changed military situation in March when the Jewish forces were in forehand against the Arab voluntary forces let by former Nazi agents.

                • [“clear references to the borders of the territory UNGR 181 ” – with those last 5 words written in invisible ink?]

                  No, with this

                  ‘areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders…areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state]’

                  To which borders refers it other than UNGR 181’s?

                • [The March plan which never was executed at whole was coordinated with the timetable of the British mandate`s end, the declaration, the desired recognition by other states, the coming invasion and the changed military situation in March when the Jewish forces were in forehand against the Arab voluntary forces let by former Nazi agents.]

                  Asides scarcely making grammatical sense, none of which changes the fact that the final plan envisages securing UNGR 181’s allocated territory as basis for the ‘Hebrew state’.

                  The Palestinian Jewish leadership and IDF accepted UNGR 181’s borders as basis for the state’s territory, just as it was incorporated into the May Declaration.

                • Sorry, Leah pet, I should have quoted this more fully, too

                  ‘(a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlement and concentration which are located outside the borders [of the Hebrew state] against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.’

                  So, dear, those borders: to which does it refer other than UNGR 181’s?

                  It’s a simple question, to which I hope you give a simple answer.

                • You can be as snidely patronising as you want, you ridiculous little man, but 181 is not mentioned anywhere. It’s purely your overheated imagination that pretends it’s there.

                • I forgot your low level of education, sorry about that. That`s why you have to correct yourself constantly. Stupid people like you can never admit faults otherwise they were not stupid. Politically accepting the partition plan as put forward by the UN vote has its impact on the military planning, but Dalet was designed before the UN vote and the then starting war with Arab voluntary forces. Dalet doesn`t support any of your assertions which you cannot grasp, self evidently.
                  Naturally the plan was altered according to political and military necessities, from November 1947 on, in December 1947, in March 1948 and in May 1948.
                  Concerning the timetable, the coordination of the declaration and military preparations with negotiations about the diplomatic recognition by important states, which was reached on the base of the UN partiition plan, with the withdrawal of British forces (leaving a lot of the military equipment to Arab forces), the impending invasion and the already looming defeat of the Arab voluntary forces, let by former Nazi agents, briefly, that you don´t understand the complexity of the situation, forget it. Dalet was designed for a coming Jewish state anyway, not for the specific UN territory. With the declaration taking the UN plan into account, the Dalet had to be modified accordingly.
                  Your logical fallacy has a name. End of lesson in policy, history and logic. Now you are on your own.

                • And yet, Fritz, despite my allegedly poor education, I successfully demonstrate that Ben Gurion and the Declaration assume UNGR 181 confers confers an essential legitimacy to Israel’s founding. They hardly assume UNGR 181 is not legal, do they?

                • Exactly, Leah pet, you can’t answer my simple question, because the answer is quite clearly, Yes, Plan Dalet refers to borders of a Hebrew state which can only be those of UNGR 181.

                  Thank you for acknowledging the truth, however indirectly or cowardly.

                • Likewise, Fritz, the final, March version of Plan Dalet clearly refers to the borders of the Hebrew/Jewish state envisioned by UNGR 181, stipulating they generally be observed except where military necessity dictates otherwise.

                  Thanks for proving my point, yet again.

                • OK. Leah, answer my simple question. Where Plan Dalet speaks of the ‘borders of the Hebrew state’, to which plan of those borders does it refer? Can you supply any evidence that it refers to a plan other than that of UNGR 181, as the majority of commentators have thought for most of the last 66 years? Can you supply a map of the borders of the Hebrew state to which Plan Dalet allegedly refers, alternate to UNGR 181’s?

                • As I already wrote you are on your own as you idiosyncratically believe to be confirmed by a refutation of your unfounded allegation. Even the finalized plan didn`t follow the exact line given by the Partition plan, but the military possibilities and the wish of protection of the Jewish population. The UN vote was important step as acknowledged by Ben Gurion, but only part of a process.
                  As we can see at the outcome of the war, Israel held land which was not within the Partition Plan. So what??

                • Dear Fritz,

                  had you bothered to actually read what I write, you would know that I repeatedly acknowledge that, while Plan Dalet clearly stipulates a general need to observe the ‘borders of the Hebrew state’ i.e. those set by UNGR 181, it also says these are necessarily subject to military contingencies to protect Palestinian Jews.

                  But that does not change the fact that these contingencies are the exceptions to the general rule that UNGR 181’s borders are to be observed where possible.

                  In other words, Plan Dalet, like Ben Gurion in the Declaration of Independence, clearly holds UNGR 181 both affirming and constraining, that is both LEGitimizing and de facto legally constraining (for that is the root of ‘lex’, ‘ligere’, ‘to bind, constrain’).

                  Plan Dalet clearly stipulates that, military contingencies aside (because, yes, only one party accepted them, while the other rejected them, by force), the borders set by UNGR 181 generally constrain i.e. legally affirm and constrain.

            • It’s a higher level than anything than you have to offer. In your revisionist history, Palestinian Jews were wasting their time hoping for the UNGA to vote for establishing a Jewish state, since their decision had no legal standing whatsoever.

              • Another reading comprehension failure and strawmen.
                I never suggested that they were ‘wasting their time’.
                Has nobody ever explained to you how to argue without such basic fallacies?

                • But according to you, the UNGA vote had no legitimacy whatsoever, that it could confer no legitimacy on Palestinian Jewish hopes for statehood, that Palestinian Jews vainly hoped for the UNGA to confer legitimacy on the founding of a Jewish state, that its ratifying the founding of a Jewish state had no legitimacy to confer upon those Palestinian Jews’ hope for and enacting the same!

                • You erroneously claim Palestinian Jews +primarily+ hoped the UNGA would propose a plan the Arabs would accept, when, in fact, this was a secondary consideration.

                  The +primary+ consideration was that the UNGA would propose founding a Jewish state at all, and thus confer +legitimacy+ on the same.

                  In the event it was only the primary consideration that mattered.

                • “You erroneously claim Palestinian Jews +primarily+ hoped the UNGA would propose a plan the Arabs would accept” – did I? Really? Where?

                • [Oh, dear … because the Jews (worldwide, in fact) hoped that the Arabs might accept it. There would then be a signed legal accord. But only then.]

                  You claim thereby Palestinian Jews listened to the UNGA vote outcome, not primarily because awaiting a vote in favour of i.e. legitimating a Jewish state, but because they primarily wanted Arabs to accept it.

                  Which is nonsense.

              • Plan Dalet, March 10, 1948

                ‘a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders.’

                This refers to the territory allocated in UNGR 181

                ‘f) Generally, the aim of this plan is not an operation of occupation outside the borders of the Hebrew state.’

                This also refers to the territory allocated in UNGR 181, or rather non-Jewish/Hebrew territory beyond it.

                http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html

                • Can`t you understand what you linked source says?
                  (b) This plan is based on three previous plans:
                  1. Plan B, September 1945.
                  2. The May 1946 Plan.1
                  3. Yehoshua Plan, 1948.2
                  (c) Since these plans were designed to deal with the situation inside the country (the first two plans deal with the first phase of incidents, while the third plan deals with the possibility of invasion by regular armies from the neighboring countries), the aim of Plan D is to fill the gaps in the previous three plans and to make them more suitable for the situation expected to obtain at the end of British rule in the country.

                  1. This is Plan Gimmel or Plan C.
                  2. This is an early version of Plan D, so called after Yehoshua Globerman, a Haganah commander killed in early December 1947. Plan D itself was finalized on 10 March, 1948.

                • Sorry, Fritz, old boy, it seems to me you who cannot read: the final version of Plan Dalet clearly stipulates that ‘the borders of the Hebrew state’ i.e. those set by UNGR 181 be generally observed, except where military contingency (i.e. to protect Palestinian Jewish communities, as you say) dictates otherwise.

                  But these contingencies remain exceptions to the general rule the borders set by UNGR 181 be observed i.e. are, to some extent, constraining i.e. are legal.

                • The point I made is still valid, ‘Dalet’ existed before the UNGA vote and was altered afterwards, according to the diplomatic and military necessities, UNGR 181 didn`t causally required ‘Dalet’, but the decision of an own state did it. When Ben Gurion declared the idnependence leaning on the Partition Plan, ‘Dale’ had to be acommodated and adjusted tot his diplomatic commitment, The never finalised ‘Dalet’ as the constant alterations due to contingency indicate was furthermore never executed, some parts were according to an ongoing discussion.
                  To be empirical secured, all plans and modifications have to be published, but causally and logically it is obvious.
                  The only ‘confirmation’ was that I always wrote that plans are getting altered due to facts on the ground, and altered conditions like f.e. the UN vote constituted for the frontiers..

            • For both you and Leah:

              the words of David Ben Gurion:

              ‘On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

              This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

              ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

              WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.

              THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it 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; 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 STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.’

              http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx

              • So you can’t tell the difference between what a statesman said in order to implement a state of affairs, and the legal force (or lack of it) of a UN proposal?

                Then you don’t understand B-G at all.

                (legal effect, legal force – these all mean the same. 181 had none of this, since it was rejected.)

                Legitimacy – that’s a highly nebulous philosophical concept that means nothing in practical terms. It’s often used by antisemites when claiming that Israel ‘lacks legitimacy’. It’s an expression of their furious impotence, their inability to dismantle Israel, that fictional country, that chutzpadik entity of chutzpadik jumped-up Jews who don’t know their proper place. I tell them: “So what are you going to do about it? Israel is there, and it’s the country of the Jews. Choke on it.”

                • ‘Legitimacy – that’s a highly nebulous philosophical concept that means nothing in practical terms.’

                  Except David Ben Gurion clearly thought UNGR 181 conferred a legitimacy on Israel’s founding that was by no means nebulous, rather was so important it necessitated mention in its declaration of dependence. It is the only reference therein to secular legitimacy, legality, law or what have you, and is the secular plank that underpins Israel’s founding alongside Jews’ natural right to so do,

                  At least it is according to David Ben Gurion, even if not to you!

                • Ben Gurion clearly thought UNGR conferred on Israel’s founding a +secular+ legitimacy alongside its natural one, that is a legality so far as the world or nations were concerned, as bequeathed by the UNGA.

                  Why else would he refer to it unless he thought it bequeathed on Israel a secular legitimacy?

                  +legitimacy+, from the Latin ‘lex’ meaning ‘law’.

              • Congratulations! You’ve proven that Ben-Gurion was a masterful politician. Unfortunately, that’s not what you set out to prove.
                Grade: F

                • No, dear, you have just gone into Denial of Israeli History overdrive. Ben Gurion clearly refers to UNGR 181 in the Declaration of Independence, and clearly says it is part of the basis upon which the state of Israel is founded. He would scarcely say that unless he thought it legitimated Israel’s founding to some extent.

                  You’re like a Christian: you would rather erase one of Israel’s parents, the UN, from history, and give her a virgin birth.

  6. Any piece that starts “Of all people, Jews…” might as well start “I’m not an antisemite, but…” The proposed Bill preserves the human and civil rights of every individual, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu or secular, who lives in Israel. It does not give any person or group the right to overturn the Jewish character of the State and replace it with one inimical to Jews. It’s not rocket science.

  7. I personally oppose the bill as unnecessary (Israel’s character as a Jewish state is already protected by both its (e.g. the Law of Return) and international law (e.g. UNGR 181), as well as Jewish demography). It merely constitutes domestic right-wing Israeli gesture politics, designed to garner votes by making Israeli Jews feel more included (i.e. in their a priori own state, as if they needed it, and for why?), but inevitably making Israeli Arab Muslims and Christians feel less included / more excluded from the same.

    However, I do not think Fraser reads his bible very closely, the passage in question clearly referring to ‘strangers” participation in the sacrificial cult of the Tabernacle or Temple i.e., in Fraser’s (correctly read) analogy, Israeli Arab Muslims, Christians or Druze’s participation in the specifically Jewish state (= temple/tabernacle sacrificial cult) of Israel.

    Such participation in Fraser’s analogy,constituting something like a voluntary participation in the specifically Jewish state of Israel, would be something akin to a loyalty oath to the Jewish state, as non-Jews, or at least a willingness to participate in it +qua a specifically Jewish state+.

    Again, I oppose the law. But Fraser’s reading is careless.

      • Leah, you’re a dumb fuck. UN Res 181 isn’t ‘law’? Then , as asked many many times, on what basis does Israel exist?

        Oh yeah,divine right.

        lol

      • If UNGR 181 had no legal standing, why did Palestinian Jews wait round their radios that night in November 1947, with excitement and anticipation? Why did it matter to them and their leaders? Why did they care for the outcome?

        If UNGR 181 had no legal standing, why did Palestinian Jews wait round their radios that night in November 1947, with excitement and anticipation? Why did it matter to them and their leaders? Why did they care for the outcome?

        If Palestinian Jews thought UNGR 181 had no legal standing, why was the Hagannah/IDF’s Tokhnit Dalet intended precisely to secure the land UNGR 181 allocated them?

        • Oh, dear … because the Jews (worldwide, in fact) hoped that the Arabs might accept it. There would then be a signed legal accord. But only then.
          T.D. was precisely because 181 had no legal enforcement behind it; only the Jews could do that.
          Again: do you understand that 181 was a PROPOSAL?

  8. The absurd is that the law talks only about national rights and not about civilian rights.
    It seems that israel is being scrutinized with zoom x1000 binoculars while at the same time her enemies are being looked at with blind eyes.
    The Jews have a prosperous and secure country and that bothers their europeans counterparts.