Comments:Israel's Knesset considers 'loyalty' law

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


This law is aimed at making political debate impossible. Israelis can not have political freedom and face being put in jail because a comment can be interpreted a certain way. I urge everyone to fight against this undemocratic proposal and not only keep it from seeing daylight but punish the overzealous politicians who proposed it. 72.146.170.209 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we concentrate on getting the article finished first please? It isn't even published yet. If you've any additional sources that tend to back up your opinion add them on the article's collaboration tab, thanks! --Brian McNeil / talk 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty Law?[edit]

Good idea. Pity we didn't ask Omar Bakri for this when we allowed him to stay in the UK.


Oxymore[edit]

'a Jewish and democratic state'. How can it be? if there is a 'Jewish state', then this is a racial one, so it cannot be 'democratic' too. I wonder why, after Obama's meeteing, Israel is pushing still with that Apartheid policy. Add to that the proibition of Nabka and you'll have a totalist state. After all, with mr. Lieberman there is not much surprise. It's a shame.--Erik455 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So all the "christian" states in Western Europe and North America are racist? And its not Apartheid when Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jewish Israeli. And what dos Hamas want? Oh Genocide.--66.229.26.39 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Hamas has agreed to the two state solution...so by that logic does it make Israel the genocidal ones? Soapy (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Soapy what dos Hamas charter say?--66.229.17.49 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hamas spokesmen have stated many times that they accept the two state solution...so yeah a document crafted 20 years ago is not as relevant as what hamas officials have been repeating for the last 10 years, namely that they accept the two state solution along with Iran and Hezbollah the Arab League and the rest of the world. Unlike the U.S and Israel however.Soapy (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
So why doesn't Hamas update their documents? And the US has long been for a two state solution. --SVTCobra 02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Past documents superseded by later documents, later statements, later actions. That is natural. Besides, the "documents" mentioned here are pale wiki approximations and not exactly the fresh pen work of some supreme leader. 68.222.134.38 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The U.S in favor of a two state solution? Is that why every year when the matter of a two state settlement is voted on in the UN the U.S has voted against the two state settlement. There has been a vote, every year for the past 30 or so years, the matter in questoin is termed "Peaceful Settlement on Resolving the Israel-Palestine Question". And every year it's the whole world on one side, and the U.S and Israel on the other. So in 2008 the vote was 164 in favor, and the U.S, Israel, Australia, Micronesia, Palu, Nauru and the Marshall Islands against. The U.S has no interest in the two-state settlement. Maybe they do think Palestine should have a state in a phone booth somewhere, but if they really cared all they'd do is simply threaten to withdraw aid from Israel and Israel would accept the settlement in a heartbeat.Soapy (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The two state solution is great, but for the Arabs who decide to stay on their familial land now inside Israel, they are being made into second class citizens due to no fault of their own. The comparison with supposed christian Europe is disingenuous at best since only the Vatican city-state comes close in severity to this extreme "jewish israel" ideal. Racist rhetoric does nothing but show the speakers are racists so no go there. 72.146.170.209 (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There is NO a Swedish state, nor a ortodox state nothing of that. If Israel is becaming a 'Jewish State' then there is no doubt of the shifting, execially if in the Israel government is now Avigor Lieberman, a ultra-extremist that even proposed to bomb (with nukes) Gaza and Assuan dam. But Vatican state had not 73 ONU resolution against, it has no 10.000 politic prisoneer inside his undergrounds. What Israel is becaming is what guys like Mandela or Desmod Tutu said, an Apartheid even worse than the Southafrican one. Now, IF arab-israel will be kicked off from Israel or will be subdues with sub-citizens rules, Israel will be deserved to be the next, new pariah state. Despite the madmen in N.Korea, is Israel that is a NUCLEAR POWER and can bomb to hashes half Europe if they like to. Our 'friends', of course. Let's stop support to Israel before it will too late (for israeli too, they are living in a madhouse now)--Erik455 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no Swedish state? What is Sweden then? --SVTCobra 02:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you do not see the actual detail involved here, then tell me how Sweden only allows ethnic Swedes full citizenship and restricts the housing of all "refugee" native inhabitants. That is the distinction here. Unless Sweden is THAT type of Swedish state then it does not matter. 68.222.134.38 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that Sweden at least has an actual state religion aka Church of Sweden.--SVTCobra 03:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In modern times that basically means there might be a box to check on your taxes to optionally donate to the church. More of a left over of old traditions than guiding principle for domestic policies. Again, a huge distinction with what this establishes. 68.222.134.38 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. To have a 'state religion' don't makes necessary a teocracy. If yes, then Japan (Shintoism) or GB (Anglicans) must be placed in the same league of Iran. That's matters. The problem, here, is that -as always- Zionists plays the usual game: mixing 'religion' (Hebraism), State (Israel), people (jews). So, if you criticize Israel you'll be 'antisemytic'. Well, with this way, if one criticized Hitler or Nazis, then he was 'anti-german'? I am not against Woody Allen, nor against Uri Avnery or David Grossman. But it's not my fault if Israel's mad leadership is doing all they can to establish a clear and net 'racial State', in which there are jews and sub-human (arabs). Israel's leadership has already said to Obama, that they will never stop the building of settlements in the 'Palestine'. Settlers in Hebron are a little minority and despite this, they have almost all the water available. They have swimming pool while 100,000 arabs languish all around. Just tell me how hell a Palestian state will be ever built, if the settlements (populated by ultra-hortodox extremists) will be there. It's a joke wishing to the 'Two State solution'. The only way is to quit the BS of 'Great (Jewish) Israel' and build a sort of Switzerland with ONE STATE, TWO NATIONS.--Erik455 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish[edit]

we can have a Loyalty law in the US. Then maybe we can kick out Westboro Baptist Church.--KDP3 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Great Loyalty Oath Crusade[edit]

Captain Black, anyone?--72.209.8.195 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, great bookSoapy (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascist?[edit]

A friend of mine comments: "You'd think the group most affected by fascism would be more cautious to moving towards it..." Ha! -Victor Sheckels

It truly is ironic that Israel is slowly but surely becoming basically a nazi state. This time it'll be the jews in power, with everyone else considered untermensch. "What goes around, comes around." However, if you can't pay back at the original perpetrators, at who will you exact that payback? The next weakest kids on the block.—88.112.229.237 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)