flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Really?
Is that because Libertarians to tend to support the invasion of a small defenseless countries and thereafter creating a theocracy?
A couple minor corrections.. Small defenseless countries like the British Mandate for Palestine?
Yes.
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
And there is no theocracy involved in any way.. No Rebuilding of the Temple. No Rabbinical certification to be on a Court in Israel, no persecution of other religions. Nope.
Israel is ETHNICALLY jewish.. Not RELIGIOUSLY jewish..
WUT?
Israeli Supreme Court
There is no such thing as Israeli ethnicity, the Supreme Court ruled as it rejected an appeal by a number of people requesting that their state-issued ID cards register their ethnicity as “Israeli” rather then “Jewish.”
“The government consensus that has developed ignores the existence of an Israeli people that was created with the Declaration of Independence,” Ornan continued. “This consensus enables the Jewish majority to have full control over the country and to operate not for the benefit of Israeli citizens but for the benefit of the current political majority among the Jews.”
So in conclusion , STFU.
.
So because you found an obscure challenge to what appears on Identity Card -- the State of Israel is a Theocracy ?? STFU..
Israeli identity card - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prior to 2005 Israeli Identity Cards included a reference to the bearer's ethnic group. The official term for this category in Hebrew was le'om (לאום, and it was officially translated into Arabic as qawmīya (قومية
. These terms could be translated into English as "nation", but in the sense of ethnic affiliation rather than citizenship. The le'om attribution was assigned by the Ministry of Interior regardless of the card bearer's preference. There were several attributions, the main ones being: Jewish, Arab, Druze and Circassian. Identity Cards issued before 2005 included a disclaimer written in small print in Hebrew and Arabic indicating that the card may serve as a prima facie proof for the data it includes except le'om, marital status and the spouse's name.
There have been some fierce legal battles about identifying the ethnicity of the bearer in the Israeli Identity card. In the 2000s, the ethnicity indicator began to be officially phased out. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Israel instructed the Ministry of Interior to indicate the ethnicity of people who underwent a Reform conversion as Jews. The minister at the time, Eli Yishai, a member of Shas, an Haredi party, decided he would drop the ethnicity category altogether, rather than list as Jews people whom he considered non-Jews. In 2004, the Supreme Court denied a citizen's petition to reinstate this indicator, stating that the field in the document was meant for statistical collection only, and not as a declarative statement of Judaism. As of 2005, the ethnicity has not been printed; a line of eight asterisks appears instead. The bearer's ethnic identity can nevertheless be inferred by other data - the Hebrew calendar's date of birth is often used for Jews, and also, each community has its typical first and last names.
The state's registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.
Did you think that ruling meant that the ONLY DECLARATION at the time was "jewish"?? Then you didn't understand the ruling. And now today -- it's kinda mute because nobody cares if "ethnicity" appears on an Israel ID card. I will now STFU..
![eusa_angel :eusa_angel: :eusa_angel:](/styles/smilies/eusa_angel.gif)
Unless of course -- you want to list some conditions under which Israel operates as a Theocracy....
BTW: The British Articles for Palestine that you posted kinda squelched your argument that those early Jewish extremists were operating in a vacuum of power. So the Brits were complicit. What of it? Any Libertarian doctrine you want to espouse about British colonial rule?