"There will be no peace with the Palestinians until they recognize the Jewish right to a homeland in Israel..."For quite a long time Bibi made this statement a cornerstone of his policy on the solution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
A necessary condition to getting a true solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian] conflict was and remains clear as the sun: ending the refusal to recognize the right of the Jews to a homeland of their own in the land of their fathers,” he said. “That is the most important key to solving the conflict.For the same long time Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen steadfastly refused to grant such recognition to the state of Israel.
The reasons for the former demanding this recognition as part of the future peace deal and for the latter refusing the recognition are many, some of them serious and some less, but let's not go into it for the moment. Suffice to say that I do understand Bibi's logic in this case and don't necessarily disagree with it.
The latest bout of lawmaking activity by a few usual suspects of our illustrious bunch of solons (Ze’ev Elkin, Yariv Levin, Ayelet Shaked) seems to be an attempt at a crushing answer to Abbas' negative stance on the recognition issue.
The cabinet is expected to approve on Sunday two controversial bills that seek to enshrine Israel’s definition as a Jewish state among the country’s Basic Laws.Bibi, unable to sit still while somebody tries to out-patriot him from the right, just had to counter-strike with his own proposal:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed his own version of such legislation in May. He said then that the state lacked “adequate expression” of Israel’s “existence as the nation-state of the Jewish people” in the country’s set of Basic Laws, which constitute its de facto constitution.Sounds fishy to me, since the Declaration of Independence states quite clearly:
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.It also states, by the way:
...it [the state] 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...Of course I am not a lawyer and indeed there is no basic law that defines Israel as a Jewish state - but isn't the Declaration quite enough? Isn't the whole brouhaha with that new basic law (that is being objected to by the Attorney General) just a too obvious attempt to stick a finger in Abbas' eye?
And how should one take the Bibi's proposal of the law that says, between other things:
The State of Israel is a democratic state, founded on the principles of freedom, justice and peace, in accordance with the vision of Israel’s prophets, and upholds the individual rights of all of its citizens according to the law.Does the reference to the "vision of Israel's prophets" mean a whole new era in the local law schools and courts? Strange, innit?
Anyway, back to the reasons for all this: what would a boy do when she doesn't love him back after all his efforts at courting? What if she continues to refuse him the... ah... pleasures of her company, so to say? And what if the boy doesn't want to switch his attention to someone else, possibly more responsive? Or if there simply isn't anyone else?
A man must do what a man must do, surely. Which mean glumly pleasure himself. For instance, issuing new laws like this misbegotten one.
Wanking, in short.
Update: Hear, hear! Moshe Arens speaks out.