And since when does racism get anyone on a terrorist list?
As soon as they act on it.
Such as by banning representation for or fireboming the race they're biased against.
Or demolishing their homes, or shooting artillery into where they live, or bombing them with planes, or telling them to get into a building, it would be safe, then blowing up the building...
And since when does racism get anyone on a terrorist list?
As soon as they act on it.
Such as by banning representation for or fireboming the race they're biased against.
Or demolishing their homes, or shooting artillery into where they live, or bombing them with planes, or telling them to get into a building, it would be safe, then blowing up the building...
Yeah, but that stuff was performed under the tenable position of 'defending Israel', not 'let's kill Arabs'. I'm sure many Israeli's are racist enough to hate Arabs, but enough to indiscriminately shell them? It's not a huge leap I guess, I dunno if it's one I'm willing to make though.
3lwap0 on
0
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited January 2009
i like how this story isn't being carried by US news sites.
So, what seems to be the effect of this move within Israel? Obviously, not all Israelis are fond of actions like this by the more extreme elements within the government, and I would imagine voting Arab Israelis are even more pissed. Isn't this a somewhat dangerous move, politically speaking? Isn't it possible it could backfire?
So, what seems to be the effect of this move within Israel? Obviously, not all Israelis are fond of actions like this by the more extreme elements within the government, and I would imagine voting Arab Israelis are even more pissed. Isn't this a somewhat dangerous move, politically speaking? Isn't it possible it could backfire?
They've basically got the support of 100% of the Jewish voting bloc for the war right now. They're exploiting that to remove Arab representation from the Knesset.
And it's not "just" the extremists, either. It's nigh-unanimous. It wouldn't surprise me if the Druze guy in Kadima voted for it, too.
We have: a group of people voting to change the composition of Knesset. The change is composition removes a lot of X people who think Y way. You're presuming that they're trying to change it so hard because of the type of person they are, X (in this case, Arab), rather than the way they think, Y (in this case anti Gaza war, etc.). I can't seem to garner any reasoning for that other than "well it's obvious, come on".
Oh, I get it now.
"Uncle Tom" Arabs are OK, but those uppity Arabs who express their own opinions aren't.
still, i can't find any mention of it on CNN or nytimes
Google news usually takes some time to pick up a story.
And yeah, neither FoxNews nor CNN are carrying it.
That would explain why NRO hasn't chirped up with some half-assed defense of the idea coupled with hand-wringing about how if the situation was reversed the world would be cheering the Palestinians in between burning their jewfigies.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
ITT we learn (or reaffirm) that Israel has a lot in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Fixed.
In all seriousness, the similarities are becoming amazing. Removing political opposition, demonizing a race of people, and hey, Gaza is basically an open air concentration camp inclusive of genocide.
I love how, once I clarified my analogues, no one said shit (but continued to attack them in their original form). I speak English as a third language and there are literally a dozen+ people commenting on what I'm saying, and I'm responding to as many as I can- and yet there are still people in the background, not offering up any arguments, only 'yeah, you're dumb!' shouts over the commotion.
Now, I clarified exactly what I meant with my analogy, if you search my posts in this thread. If you want to call my analogies stupid, once I've fully clarified them, then quote me and explain what's wrong. I'm doing the best I can to respond to everyone. Go ahead and I'll do my best to explain what I meant, if you're still unclear.
I think that people kept responding to your older posts because your "clarifications" did not seem to reference or expand upon your past analogies in a substantial way.
The criticisms that people made of your analogies tended to be equally valid both before and after your more recent posts.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
ITT we learn (or reaffirm) that Israel has a lot in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Fixed.
In all seriousness, the similarities are becoming amazing. Removing political opposition, demonizing a race of people, and hey, Gaza is basically an open air concentration camp inclusive of genocide.
Israel uber alles....
I think thats a little extreme. Its more like a jewish Iran, you know Theocratic state where the oppositon needs to get the aproval of the goverment before running. Torture and intimidation of people that object.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Fixed.
In all seriousness, the similarities are becoming amazing. Removing political opposition, demonizing a race of people, and hey, Gaza is basically an open air concentration camp inclusive of genocide.
Israel uber alles....
You forgot "let's strip local palestinian population from all of their legal possessions, and put them on fun 150 kilometer walk through desert without water or equipment*." And then they wonder why palestinians are so pissed.
* Does anyone remember actual name of this incident? It was from early history of Israel, around occupation of Gaza.
Fixed.
In all seriousness, the similarities are becoming amazing. Removing political opposition, demonizing a race of people, and hey, Gaza is basically an open air concentration camp inclusive of genocide.
Israel uber alles....
You forgot "let's strip local palestinian population from all of their legal possessions, and put them on fun 150 kilometer walk through desert without water or equipment*." And then they wonder why palestinians are so pissed.
* Does anyone remember actual name of this incident? It was from early history of Israel.
I would just like to point out, for posterity, that the above quotes are Godwinning Israel.
I wonder what circle of internet hell that corresponds to.
At this point I am beginning to think that there is some merit to the Evangelical position on Israel.
Allow me to propose a secular version: let Israel slide deeper and deeper into an extremist religious theocracy. That way, when it provokes nuclear war with Iran and/or Pakistan, a smaller percentage of sane people will die in the fallout.
Is this another version of your 'I wish they would all die' post from the other thread?
We have: a group of people voting to change the composition of Knesset. The change is composition removes a lot of X people who think Y way. You're presuming that they're trying to change it so hard because of the type of person they are, X (in this case, Arab), rather than the way they think, Y (in this case anti Gaza war, etc.). I can't seem to garner any reasoning for that other than "well it's obvious, come on".
Oh, I get it now.
"Uncle Tom" Arabs are OK, but those uppity Arabs who express their own opinions aren't.
That's fine then. Not racist at all.
I'll presume you're speaking of the people in question (the Israeli leaders who voted for these bans in the election) and not me, yes? Your wording confuses me somewhat.
In which case, I don't fully understand what you're suggesting. Your post seems to contradict itself. If their path of discrimination lies with people's thoughts and not with their ethnicities, then it absolutely isn't racist, unless I possess a gross misunderstanding of the word.
We have: a group of people voting to change the composition of Knesset. The change is composition removes a lot of X people who think Y way. You're presuming that they're trying to change it so hard because of the type of person they are, X (in this case, Arab), rather than the way they think, Y (in this case anti Gaza war, etc.). I can't seem to garner any reasoning for that other than "well it's obvious, come on".
Oh, I get it now.
"Uncle Tom" Arabs are OK, but those uppity Arabs who express their own opinions aren't.
That's fine then. Not racist at all.
I'll presume you're speaking of the people in question (the Israeli leaders who voted for these bans in the election) and not me, yes? Your wording confuses me somewhat.
In which case, I don't fully understand what you're suggesting. Your post seems to contradict itself. If their path of discrimination lies with people's thoughts and not with their ethnicities, then it absolutely isn't racist, unless I possess a gross misunderstanding of the word.
If the "thoughts" in question are basically "man I wish I wasn't being oppressed because of my race" then you can't exactly draw a clear line between discrimination based on "thoughts" and discrimination based on "race."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Does the Supreme Court have any way of enforcing their ruling if they do rule that the parties can't be banned from the elections?
I mean effectually they've been shit on by the IDF in the past but not so much by Knesset, so were a ruling issued it would likely be obeyed.
Is the IDF, like, it's own de facto branch of government or something? Because that's kind of the impression I get.
I'd say that's a fairly accurate way of putting it, yes. Israel's military has a very, very firm interconnection (firmly leaning in the military's direction, I mean) with legislative and judicial elements of society. I think it'd be inaccurate to say they just go buck wild and do as they wish, but given the intense berth of influence carried by a famed military commander, it's very, very easy for a soldier to "matter". What I mean is that reaching high rank in the IDF almost guarantees you a powerful political role- and if it doesn't, you'll still have a meaningful voice in society. Military leaders (and ex leaders) are regularly interviewed, make media appearances, become minor celebrities etc.- and many go into politics.
So yeah, the military carries some weight that isn't necessarily enshrined in a constitution anywhere.
I think that people kept responding to your older posts because your "clarifications" did not seem to reference or expand upon your past analogies in a substantial way.
The criticisms that people made of your analogies tended to be equally valid both before and after your more recent posts.
Can you please explain more clearly? I don't understand what would lead you to that conclusion. I'll rehash the two analogies in an effort to resolve the confusion:
The first drew an analogue between the following two things: athletes kicked off a team for being found with drugs, and the Arab parties being banned. The message was "just because the team has to forfeit and its fans must suffer doesn't mean the disqualifications were done solely to discriminate against those people", and I extrapolated "those people" to mean the Arabs, racially. This analogy bothered some people because it sounded as though I was suggesting that the Arab parties were 'tested' and were found to be 'carrying'. I clarified this by saying that I didn't say there were any real "drug tests". I didn't say the bans were deserved. I am not supporting the bans of the parties in any way and I don't think they were done for justifiable reasons. This is clearing up the misconception that people had where they thought I was suggesting that the Arab parties "deserved" the bans. I didn't think that, and so the only objection I saw to that analogy was explained.
The second drew an analogue between the following two things: Asian Americans being jailed for murder, and Arab parties (and their voting bloc) being screwed over by the Jewish MPs in Knesset. The message was "just because you cause harm to a group doesn't mean you caused harm on the basis of that group's race". This analogy bothered people because they took it to mean (at least one person said this... the others didn't specify, they just called me stupid) that I was implying that Israeli Arabs are criminals. I explained it with the same message as the former: I wasn't suggesting that the 'investigations' towards the bans (or the jailings of Asian Americans) were valid or impartial or thorough. I didn't mean to imply that the two parties share any traits at all. The absolute only purpose of the analogy was to say "here are two parties who get bad shit done to them (deserved or not). That doesn't mean, though, that the bad shit was done because of their race".
Those were the only two analogies I recall making in this thread (though I responded to a couple by others, namely Thanatos). This is my second time explaining them, so if you still find them stupid that's alright, I can live with that. They make perfect sense to me.
"That doesn't mean, though, that the bad shit was done because of their race".
I fully understood that your analogy was meant to say, "Is it really racist if everybody of a given race is punished for doing something wrong, provided they actually all did something wrong?" The faulty assumption underlying that notion is that it is ever reasonable to believe that all members of a given race are implicit in a wrong-doing. That very assumption is racist, regardless of what ethnicity it's being applied to.
You're trying - desperately, it appears - to separate race from this decision and you're failing, repeatedly, because the entire political situation is tangled up in race.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
"That doesn't mean, though, that the bad shit was done because of their race".
I fully understood that your analogy was meant to say, "Is it really racist if everybody of a given race is punished for doing something wrong, provided they actually all did something wrong?" The faulty assumption underlying that notion is that it is ever reasonable to believe that all members of a given race are implicit in a wrong-doing. That very assumption is racist, regardless of what ethnicity it's being applied to.
You're trying - desperately, it appears - to separate race from this decision and you're failing, repeatedly, because the entire political situation is tangled up in race.
And coming off as a bit of a racist as you do so.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
We have: a group of people voting to change the composition of Knesset. The change is composition removes a lot of X people who think Y way. You're presuming that they're trying to change it so hard because of the type of person they are, X (in this case, Arab), rather than the way they think, Y (in this case anti Gaza war, etc.). I can't seem to garner any reasoning for that other than "well it's obvious, come on".
Oh, I get it now.
"Uncle Tom" Arabs are OK, but those uppity Arabs who express their own opinions aren't.
That's fine then. Not racist at all.
I'll presume you're speaking of the people in question (the Israeli leaders who voted for these bans in the election) and not me, yes? Your wording confuses me somewhat.
In which case, I don't fully understand what you're suggesting. Your post seems to contradict itself. If their path of discrimination lies with people's thoughts and not with their ethnicities, then it absolutely isn't racist, unless I possess a gross misunderstanding of the word.
If the "thoughts" in question are basically "man I wish I wasn't being oppressed because of my race" then you can't exactly draw a clear line between discrimination based on "thoughts" and discrimination based on "race."
I don't think that's true, you're removing an entire 'layer' of intention. If you want to just make the argument that the 17th Knesset is by and large a racist entity that wishes to disenfranchise its Arab population, then alright. You're certainly permitted that view. That's not the discussion at hand, though, as far as I can tell. What we're discussing is whether these bans were upon racial grounds. Meaning this, essentially: for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
That's the basic question I've been trying to answer here, and if you go any further than that you're really heading outside the scope of the conversation in which I've been engaged.
I'd like to note that the article linked earlier made it sound like the members of the Knesset were damn near coming to blows over the issues being discussed, so calling the grounds for removal spurious seems a little delusional, even if you disagree with what they are.
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
Firstly, not that many people think it's OK that the monarch of the UK can't be a Catholic. Or Muslim. Or atheist.
Not that many people think it's OK that the UK has a monarch, to be honest.
Secondly, this is a mix of ethnicity and religion. It's not particularly analogous to the UK.
Thirdly you don't just get to discriminate based on what you want. The rhetoric of white British racists involves complaining that the UK is becoming a non-white country. Whether it is or not, the non-white people (and the Arab Muslims in Israel) still exist. Unless you're planning genocide, you have to live together.
And since when does racism get anyone on a terrorist list?
As soon as they act on it.
Such as by banning representation for or fireboming the race they're biased against.
Or demolishing their homes, or shooting artillery into where they live, or bombing them with planes, or telling them to get into a building, it would be safe, then blowing up the building...
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
"That doesn't mean, though, that the bad shit was done because of their race".
I fully understood that your analogy was meant to say, "Is it really racist if everybody of a given race is punished for doing something wrong, provided they actually all did something wrong?" The faulty assumption underlying that notion is that it is ever reasonable to believe that all members of a given race are implicit in a wrong-doing. That very assumption is racist, regardless of what ethnicity it's being applied to.
You're trying - desperately, it appears - to separate race from this decision and you're failing, repeatedly, because the entire political situation is tangled up in race.
The "provided they actually all did something wrong" is obviously in 'mad hypothetical' land. I'm not sure why you'd infer that I'm suggesting it in a qualitative. "real world" manner. It's like saying "now, one day if every single female in the world simultaneously found you attractive... who would you pick?"
I don't think that's a serious question, and neither was mine. It's rhetorical, in that no meaningful answer could ever be given- it's just for the sake of effect, to illustrate my point.
---
t kipling: we're all entitled to our wishes. I know where I've been and what I've been doing this new year, and it doesn't involve hating Arabs.
for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Wait, why are we so confused about the Israeli parliament being able to ignore it's supreme court?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Or are we not confused, but just generally angry.
Not true at all. The Canadian Supreme Court can certainly tell the Parliament thing it's not allowed to do.
I don't understand. Isn't this a country that is entirely defined by being Jewish? Obviously they don't want their Jewish homeland to become a Muslim country simply because more Muslims live there than Jews. I understand that looking at it from a purely neutral point of view it is racist for them to ban a certain religion from government, but shit, you have to be protestant (or at least not catholic, not sure which) to be King or Queen of the UK and no one seems to complain about that because this is a country that has been pretty much defined by the fact it is Protestant.
You do know that being King or Queen isn't an elected position?
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either. The British royal family just happen to be protestant. I'm pretty sure if the Queen decided she wanted to be Muslim, she wouldn't lose her title of Queen. Royalty is decided by bloodline, so this is about the worst example you could have made....
for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Well aren't there some pretty liberal Jewish parties to?
Posts
Yeah, but that stuff was performed under the tenable position of 'defending Israel', not 'let's kill Arabs'. I'm sure many Israeli's are racist enough to hate Arabs, but enough to indiscriminately shell them? It's not a huge leap I guess, I dunno if it's one I'm willing to make though.
AP is carrying it.
still, i can't find any mention of it on CNN or nytimes
And yeah, neither FoxNews nor CNN are carrying it.
And it's not "just" the extremists, either. It's nigh-unanimous. It wouldn't surprise me if the Druze guy in Kadima voted for it, too.
Oh, I get it now.
"Uncle Tom" Arabs are OK, but those uppity Arabs who express their own opinions aren't.
That's fine then. Not racist at all.
That would explain why NRO hasn't chirped up with some half-assed defense of the idea coupled with hand-wringing about how if the situation was reversed the world would be cheering the Palestinians in between burning their jewfigies.
Fixed.
In all seriousness, the similarities are becoming amazing. Removing political opposition, demonizing a race of people, and hey, Gaza is basically an open air concentration camp inclusive of genocide.
Israel uber alles....
Are they only banning the parties that they claim to have contact with places like Syria? Wait, I guess I answered my own question there.
Pretty much. The neo-Spartan model that Israel has adopted ensures this to some extent.
Your Liberal Media(TM) in action.
I think that people kept responding to your older posts because your "clarifications" did not seem to reference or expand upon your past analogies in a substantial way.
The criticisms that people made of your analogies tended to be equally valid both before and after your more recent posts.
I think thats a little extreme. Its more like a jewish Iran, you know Theocratic state where the oppositon needs to get the aproval of the goverment before running. Torture and intimidation of people that object.
You forgot "let's strip local palestinian population from all of their legal possessions, and put them on fun 150 kilometer walk through desert without water or equipment*." And then they wonder why palestinians are so pissed.
* Does anyone remember actual name of this incident? It was from early history of Israel, around occupation of Gaza.
I wonder what circle of internet hell that corresponds to.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Nietzschean one.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Is this another version of your 'I wish they would all die' post from the other thread?
Because if it is, you should really stop.
Really.
I'll presume you're speaking of the people in question (the Israeli leaders who voted for these bans in the election) and not me, yes? Your wording confuses me somewhat.
In which case, I don't fully understand what you're suggesting. Your post seems to contradict itself. If their path of discrimination lies with people's thoughts and not with their ethnicities, then it absolutely isn't racist, unless I possess a gross misunderstanding of the word.
If the "thoughts" in question are basically "man I wish I wasn't being oppressed because of my race" then you can't exactly draw a clear line between discrimination based on "thoughts" and discrimination based on "race."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Freaking stupid Israeli jews. Jew you all to jewland.
I'd say that's a fairly accurate way of putting it, yes. Israel's military has a very, very firm interconnection (firmly leaning in the military's direction, I mean) with legislative and judicial elements of society. I think it'd be inaccurate to say they just go buck wild and do as they wish, but given the intense berth of influence carried by a famed military commander, it's very, very easy for a soldier to "matter". What I mean is that reaching high rank in the IDF almost guarantees you a powerful political role- and if it doesn't, you'll still have a meaningful voice in society. Military leaders (and ex leaders) are regularly interviewed, make media appearances, become minor celebrities etc.- and many go into politics.
So yeah, the military carries some weight that isn't necessarily enshrined in a constitution anywhere.
Can you please explain more clearly? I don't understand what would lead you to that conclusion. I'll rehash the two analogies in an effort to resolve the confusion:
The first drew an analogue between the following two things: athletes kicked off a team for being found with drugs, and the Arab parties being banned. The message was "just because the team has to forfeit and its fans must suffer doesn't mean the disqualifications were done solely to discriminate against those people", and I extrapolated "those people" to mean the Arabs, racially. This analogy bothered some people because it sounded as though I was suggesting that the Arab parties were 'tested' and were found to be 'carrying'. I clarified this by saying that I didn't say there were any real "drug tests". I didn't say the bans were deserved. I am not supporting the bans of the parties in any way and I don't think they were done for justifiable reasons. This is clearing up the misconception that people had where they thought I was suggesting that the Arab parties "deserved" the bans. I didn't think that, and so the only objection I saw to that analogy was explained.
The second drew an analogue between the following two things: Asian Americans being jailed for murder, and Arab parties (and their voting bloc) being screwed over by the Jewish MPs in Knesset. The message was "just because you cause harm to a group doesn't mean you caused harm on the basis of that group's race". This analogy bothered people because they took it to mean (at least one person said this... the others didn't specify, they just called me stupid) that I was implying that Israeli Arabs are criminals. I explained it with the same message as the former: I wasn't suggesting that the 'investigations' towards the bans (or the jailings of Asian Americans) were valid or impartial or thorough. I didn't mean to imply that the two parties share any traits at all. The absolute only purpose of the analogy was to say "here are two parties who get bad shit done to them (deserved or not). That doesn't mean, though, that the bad shit was done because of their race".
Those were the only two analogies I recall making in this thread (though I responded to a couple by others, namely Thanatos). This is my second time explaining them, so if you still find them stupid that's alright, I can live with that. They make perfect sense to me.
I fully understood that your analogy was meant to say, "Is it really racist if everybody of a given race is punished for doing something wrong, provided they actually all did something wrong?" The faulty assumption underlying that notion is that it is ever reasonable to believe that all members of a given race are implicit in a wrong-doing. That very assumption is racist, regardless of what ethnicity it's being applied to.
You're trying - desperately, it appears - to separate race from this decision and you're failing, repeatedly, because the entire political situation is tangled up in race.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And coming off as a bit of a racist as you do so.
I don't think that's true, you're removing an entire 'layer' of intention. If you want to just make the argument that the 17th Knesset is by and large a racist entity that wishes to disenfranchise its Arab population, then alright. You're certainly permitted that view. That's not the discussion at hand, though, as far as I can tell. What we're discussing is whether these bans were upon racial grounds. Meaning this, essentially: for all the goals the 'yea' voters had in mind with this ban, would they have banned a Jewish party that presented the same obstacles?
That's the basic question I've been trying to answer here, and if you go any further than that you're really heading outside the scope of the conversation in which I've been engaged.
By this, do you mean "would they have banned a Jewish party that opposed the war?"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Firstly, not that many people think it's OK that the monarch of the UK can't be a Catholic. Or Muslim. Or atheist.
Not that many people think it's OK that the UK has a monarch, to be honest.
Secondly, this is a mix of ethnicity and religion. It's not particularly analogous to the UK.
Thirdly you don't just get to discriminate based on what you want. The rhetoric of white British racists involves complaining that the UK is becoming a non-white country. Whether it is or not, the non-white people (and the Arab Muslims in Israel) still exist. Unless you're planning genocide, you have to live together.
Does using chemical weapons on residential areas count as terrorism?
If they're a parliamentary governmental system, you assume parliamentary supremacy, and nothing can restrain the parliament's law making ability. Not everyone has a codified constitution like the U.S. as the source of law.
Or are we not confused, but just generally angry.
The "provided they actually all did something wrong" is obviously in 'mad hypothetical' land. I'm not sure why you'd infer that I'm suggesting it in a qualitative. "real world" manner. It's like saying "now, one day if every single female in the world simultaneously found you attractive... who would you pick?"
I don't think that's a serious question, and neither was mine. It's rhetorical, in that no meaningful answer could ever be given- it's just for the sake of effect, to illustrate my point.
---
t kipling: we're all entitled to our wishes. I know where I've been and what I've been doing this new year, and it doesn't involve hating Arabs.
I don't want to get too specific with the reasoning, because some of ya'll think the main thing was the war- some of ya'll think this is more a "I've been waiting a long time to set back the Arabs..." kind of thing in general, etc. Whatever you think the main motive was- the main "why we have to get 'dem 'dere Arab parties out da' way", if an all Jewish party presented the exact same 'conflict' with the ruling party's interests, would they have been banned as well?
Not true at all. The Canadian Supreme Court can certainly tell the Parliament thing it's not allowed to do.
You do know that being King or Queen isn't an elected position?
You dont HAVE to be protestant to be King or Queen either. The British royal family just happen to be protestant. I'm pretty sure if the Queen decided she wanted to be Muslim, she wouldn't lose her title of Queen. Royalty is decided by bloodline, so this is about the worst example you could have made....
Well aren't there some pretty liberal Jewish parties to?