Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 16:22
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/israeli-expulsion-law-violates-rules-democracy-160724071131444.html

    Israel's parliament, the Knesset, awarded itself a draconian new power last week: A three-quarters majority of its members can now expel an elected politician if they do not like his or her views.

    According to Adalah, a law centre representing the fifth of Israel's population who are Palestinian citizens, the so-called expulsion law has no parallel in any democratic state in the world.

    The group noted that it was the latest in a series of laws designed to strictly circumscribe the rights of Israel's Palestinian minority and curb dissent.

    Others fear that the measure is designed to empty the Knesset of its Palestinian parties.

    "This law violates all rules of democracy and the principle that minorities should be represented," Mohammed Zeidan, director of the Human Rights Association in Nazareth, told Al Jazeera. "It sends a message to the public that it is possible, even desirable, to have a Jewish-only Knesset."...

    Zahalka said Palestinian MKs now faced an "extraordinary" situation. "In every country, parliamentary immunity confers on legislators greater rights than ordinary citizens to help them carry out their parliamentary duties," he said. "Only in Israel will elected representatives have more restricted freedom of speech and action than ordinary citizens."

    The expulsion law follows the outlawing last year of the northern Islamic Movement, the largest extra-parliamentary movement among the Palestinian minority in Israel. Its head, Sheikh Raed Salah, is considered a spiritual leader to a large section of the community.

    At the time, Netanyahu hinted that the Islamic Movement was linked to "terror" activity. Leaks from government ministers to the Haaretz newspaper, however, revealed that the Israeli security services had found no such ties.

    Zeidan observed that the Israeli right had been waging a battle to rid the Knesset of Palestinian parties for some time...

    Over the past 15 years, the Central Elections Committee, which is dominated by Jewish parties, has repeatedly tried to ban Palestinian MKs from standing for election. However, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the decisions on appeal.

    In 2014, the government tried a different route. It passed a Threshold Law, raising the proportion of votes needed to win a place in the Knesset. The threshold was set too high for the four small Palestinian parties to clear it.

    The move, however, backfired. The parties responded by forming the Joint List and became one of the largest blocs in the Knesset after last year's general election.

    It was in this context, noted Zeidan, that on the eve of the election, Netanyahu made his much-criticised comment warning that "Arabs are coming out in droves to the polls".

    Asad Ghanem, a politics professor at Haifa University, told Al Jazeera that the expulsion law might realise for Netanyahu his stated goal of discouraging participation by the Palestinian electorate. Turnout had fallen to barely more than half of the minority's voters before the Joint List's creation in time for the 2015 election.

    "If we see these attacks on Arab representation in the Knesset continue," Ghanem said, "then voters may conclude that enough is enough and that it is time to withdraw from the political game."
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '16 16:38
    Your thread title seems exceedingly misleading as there does not seem to be any indication at this point that any such expulsion is imminent or inevitable.

    ===According to Adalah, a law centre representing the fifth of Israel's population who are Palestinian citizens, the so-called expulsion law has no parallel in any democratic state in the world.===

    Incorrect. In the US, Congress can expel a member by a 2/3 majority, less than the 3/4 majority required by the Israeli rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress
  3. 24 Jul '16 16:55
    Originally posted by finnegan
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/israeli-expulsion-law-violates-rules-democracy-160724071131444.html

    Israel's parliament, the Knesset, awarded itself a draconian new power last week: A three-quarters majority of its members can now expel an elected politician if they do not like his or her views.

    According to Adalah, a law centre representing th ...[text shortened]... ers may conclude that enough is enough and that it is time to withdraw from the political game."
    As Sh76 indicated your post is just another lie used to slander Israel.
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 17:04
    Originally posted by sh76
    Your thread title seems exceedingly misleading as there does not seem to be any indication at this point that any such expulsion is imminent or inevitable.

    ===According to Adalah, a law centre representing the fifth of Israel's population who are Palestinian citizens, the so-called expulsion law has no parallel in any democratic state in the world.===

    Inc ...[text shortened]... by the Israeli rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress
    Well the title is only misleading if you utterly ignore the content of the article, including the following phrases taken from it:

    "Those advancing the law, including Netanyahu, have done little to conceal their intention to use the measure against only Palestinian MKs."

    "Celebrating the law's passage, Netanyahu posted on social media: "Those who support terrorism against Israel and its citizens will not serve in the Israeli Knesset." "

    "An expulsion will be carried out if 90 MKs find that the politician either incited racism or supported armed struggle against Israel. There is no definition in the legislation of what constitutes "support"."

    "The legislation's immediate target is Haneen Zoabi, a politician with the Balad party who is reviled by most Jewish MKs. The measure was originally termed the Zoabi Law."

    It is your standard procedure when you see an item that has a strong argument to look for details where you can pick at something very specific and hope in that way to distract from the overall point being made. I think my heading fairly reflects the source cited and it is not dishonest, while of course it is there for you to disagree with and to debate.
  5. 24 Jul '16 17:07
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well the title is only misleading if you utterly ignore the content of the article, including the following phrases taken from it:

    "Those advancing the law, including Netanyahu, have done little to conceal their intention to use the measure against only Palestinian MKs."

    "Celebrating the law's passage, Netanyahu posted on social media: "Those who sup ...[text shortened]... ed and it is not dishonest, while of course it is there for you to disagree with and to debate.
    You do not believe supporting terrorism against the country you represent is an impeachable offense?
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '16 17:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Well the title is only misleading if you utterly ignore the content of the article, including the following phrases taken from it:

    "Those advancing the law, including Netanyahu, have done little to conceal their intention to use the measure against only Palestinian MKs."

    "Celebrating the law's passage, Netanyahu posted on social media: "Those who sup ...[text shortened]... ed and it is not dishonest, while of course it is there for you to disagree with and to debate.
    Even your quotes indicate only that the law is intended to be used against people who support terrorism, not "Palestinians" in general. (Incidentally, the Arab MKs are Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians.)

    Israel banned the Jewish Kahane Chai party from running in the early 1990's. Supporting terrorism, if established, is an excellent reason to ban a particular MK.

    As for the assertion that it's overbroad, that may be true, but that argument would gain some currency when and if it is actually used.

    Edit: Is there any source for the assertion that the threshold rule was designed to target Arab parties? They affected the smaller Jewish parties just as much.
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 17:22
    "Zahalka, leader of the Balad party, said Palestinian MKs would face a "kangaroo court, where hostile MKs serve as judge and jury"."

    Palestinians base their legitimate concerns on the track record and stated intentions of the relevant politicians You have a touching confidence in their objectivity that flies in the face of the evidence.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 17:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    Even your quotes indicate only that the law is intended to be used against people who support terrorism, not "Palestinians" in general. (Incidentally, the Arab MKs are Israeli Arabs, not Palestinians.)this

    Israel banned the Jewish Kahane Chai party from running in the early 1990's. Supporting terrorism, if established, is an excellent reason to ban a partic ...[text shortened]... rule was designed to target Arab parties? They affected the smaller Jewish parties just as much.
    Edit: Is there any source for the assertion that the threshold rule was designed to target Arab parties? They affected the smaller Jewish parties just as much.
    For heavens sake how gullible are you? Netanyahu is not working to reflect the balanced interests of the whole population and of course he is cheerfully excluding dissenting voices from the debate where he can. There is still a Jewish opposition as well as a Palestinian one and keeping open the possibility of democratic debate and change is critical to the future of Israel. Are you really so hostile to the possibility of democratic political change?

    This article is from a journalist based in Nazareth and I defer to his judgement on this because I find his material credible.
  9. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 19:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    Your thread title seems exceedingly misleading as there does not seem to be any indication at this point that any such expulsion is imminent or inevitable.

    ===According to Adalah, a law centre representing the fifth of Israel's population who are Palestinian citizens, the so-called expulsion law has no parallel in any democratic state in the world.===

    Inc ...[text shortened]... by the Israeli rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress
    I referred your comparison of the US and Israeli arrangements for excluding an elected representative from the respective chambers to the journalist who wrote the article. His reply included the following:

    "On the comparison, I'd have to refer you to Adalah, who are the legal experts I'm quoting on this. But looking at the use of this law in the modern era (it's too difficult for me to divine how the law was used 150 years ago), the difference seems to be that expulsion has been used against Congress people who were convicted of offences. That was the case in Israel before this law - and nobody complained about that. If you were found guilty of incitement or support for an armed group, you could be expelled. Now the law allows you to be expelled if a majority of the Knesset think you might have such thoughts in your head. A rather different matter. "

    I suppose he might have added that Israel still has a functioning court system, in which to be convicted of offences. It is for courts, not a chamber of politicians, to adjudicate such questions.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '16 20:03
    Originally posted by finnegan
    "Zahalka, leader of the Balad party, said Palestinian MKs would face a "kangaroo court, where hostile MKs serve as judge and jury"."

    Palestinians base their legitimate concerns on the track record and stated intentions of the relevant politicians You have a touching confidence in their objectivity that flies in the face of the evidence.
    Whining about something before it happens is an exceedingly bizarre enterprise. Come back to me when it happens.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '16 20:06
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I referred your comparison of the US and Israeli arrangements for excluding an elected representative from the respective chambers to the journalist who wrote the article. His reply included the following:

    [i]"On the comparison, I'd have to refer you to Adalah, who are the legal experts I'm quoting on this. But looking at the use of this law in the mode ...[text shortened]... cted of offences. It is for courts, not a chamber of politicians, to adjudicate such questions.
    Maybe refer the journalist to the case of Adam Clayton Powell, whom the House of Representatives refused to seat in 1967 for actions for which there was never a conviction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clayton_Powell_Jr.#Political_controversy
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jul '16 20:11
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Edit: Is there any source for the assertion that the threshold rule was designed to target Arab parties? They affected the smaller Jewish parties just as much.
    For heavens sake how gullible are you? Netanyahu is not working to reflect the balanced interests of the whole population and of course he is cheerfully excluding dissenting voices fr ...[text shortened]... ist based in Nazareth and I defer to his judgement on this because I find his material credible.
    I remember much discussion about the new vote floor during the last election and I don't recall anyone stating that it was done to target the Arab parties. On the contrary, even the Arab parties under the old regime likely would have hit the 3 seat minimum. The article takes it for granted that the 3 seat floor was a step against the Arab parties. I see no evidence that this was the case.
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 20:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Maybe refer the journalist to the case of Adam Clayton Powell, whom the House of Representatives refused to seat in 1967 for actions for which there was never a conviction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clayton_Powell_Jr.#Political_controversy
    The final sentence was clearly mine and clearly not his. Remains valid IMHO
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 20:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    Whining about something before it happens is an exceedingly bizarre enterprise. Come back to me when it happens.
    "Whining" is a pretty disrespectful term in this context and not warranted.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    24 Jul '16 20:16
    Originally posted by sh76
    I remember much discussion about the new vote floor during the last election and I don't recall anyone stating that it was done to target the Arab parties. On the contrary, even the Arab parties under the old regime likely would have hit the 3 seat minimum. The article takes it for granted that the 3 seat floor was a step against the Arab parties. I see no evidence that this was the case.
    Well the journalist is based in Nazareth not in the USA and maybe is a good source for this.