The law is designed to help veterans. Do you think Canadian laws designed to help veterans, who are overwhelmingly white, are racist?I was wrong about Palestinians in the IDF, they are not banned, but just a minute minority. It does not change the fact though, that the law gives preferential treatment to a group that will be in the vast majority, Jewish. As such, its effects are those of a racist law, designed to give economic advantage to Jews over other races.
Here's a more eloquently put opinion:
This is the third and fourth laws discussed and found to give preferential treatment of one race over another, though this one gets there without overtly stating its a racist law, its effects are clear.
Would you care to also look at taxation, social services, security and a host of other ways in which one race is given preferential treatment?
We have already easily knocked out 2 laws off your "magic list". I wonder how many more go down with a bit of scrutiny.Read the findings and arguments of the Russell Tribunal, Fuji.
We've found the 25 racist laws within Israel proper, the apartheid roads and separate court system and social services within the West Bank and the collective punishment of the Bantustan Gaza. And yes, until there is a Palestinian state, its all under Israel's responsibility, so it counts.
Your straw man argument about trying to qualify racism to one subgroup of one part of the population is pointless, the case has been made and you have found no defense.
Israel is an apartheid state built on ethnic cleansing and Jewish terrorism.
Sorry the Russell "Tribunal" has no credibility whatsoever. Try again. You will actually have to explain why ANY of these 25 laws rises to the level of a crime against humanity against Arab Israeli citizens, per the definition of "apartheid" in the Statute of Rome.Read the findings and arguments of the Russell Tribunal, Fuji.
The Flag and Emblem law pushes Jewish religious images on the flags. It gives preferences to Judaism over all other religions and counts towards discrimination on the basis of religion.Let's try some more...here is the Flag and Emblem law from your list...completely innocuous:
http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/israellaws/fulltext/flagandemblemlaw.htm
The economic efficiency law allows Israel to define whatever areas they want to be called 'national priority areas', and thus give them preferential treatment. Its use to give extra funding towards settlements gives preferential treatment to illegal Jewish settlements. The vaccination element of the laws allows Israel to stop giving 'child allowances' to those who refuse vaccinations. This part of the law largely affects Bedouin children, as they routinely refuse Israeli vaccinations. Three clinics in Bedouin towns have recently been closed, again allowing Israel to award fewer social services to other races/social groups.The economic efficiency law is equally innocuous...unless you are against the vaccination of children and think that encouraging same is racist...
You really eat whatever you are fed don't you groggy?
You have to take a look at the land confiscated on the basis of this law to see its effect. Used routinely by the Finance Minister as a way of confiscating Palestinian land for 'public purposes' (with no definition on what this means). The government does, with this law, confiscate Palestinian land, declare it for public purpose, hold it and eventually release it for illegal settlements.Just had a look at the land acquisition laws on the list as well. Canada in many cases has almost identical laws, and the only differentiation is between citizen and non-citizen. Surely that is not racist?
How is that a crime against humanity?The Flag and Emblem law pushes Jewish religious images on the flags. It gives preferences to Judaism over all other religions and counts towards discrimination on the basis of religion.
So forcing a tribal group into the modern world is a crime against humanity? The Bedouin perhaps are committing crimes against humanity by refusing to vaccinate their children...This part of the law largely affects Bedouin children, as they routinely refuse Israeli vaccinations.
Who said it was a crime against humanity?How is that a crime against humanity?
Then it isn't apartheid.Who said it was a crime against humanity?
I said it was a law that worked towards giving preferential treatment to one race.
That is not what that law does. I posted the whole act for you. I defy you to show any provision of it that is racist.The Flag and Emblem law pushes Jewish religious images on the flags. It gives preferences to Judaism over all other religions and counts towards discrimination on the basis of religion.
Canada has lots of laws that allow expropriation. Just the same as these.You have to take a look at the land confiscated on the basis of this law to see its effect. Used routinely by the Finance Minister as a way of confiscating Palestinian land for 'public purposes' (with no definition on what this means). The government does, with this law, confiscate Palestinian land, declare it for public purpose, hold it and eventually release it for illegal settlements.
Canada does no such thing.
Rid, I do at least applaud your efforts.
You have gone so far as to read the laws, now you just have to look at their effects.
They are one part of the system, and soon we'll be able to talk about more systematic issues.
Would it please you to say that the laws are used specifically designed to help accomplish racist goals? What the law allows, that no Canadian law does, is to appropriate land, hold on to it for a set amount of time and then declare the land to be used for a different race's use. The equivalent would be a land that would take farm land, hold on to it for 20 years then give it away to conservatives/natives or some other group to use as a farm. The laws here don't allow you to appropriate land for a vague use like 'public good' and then give it away to another group to use it for the exact purpose it had before. You can appropriate land for an airport or highway, but you can't take farm land and then make it someone else's farmland. While that goal is not articulated in the law, its express use since its inception clearly marks it as a law designed to allow the government take land away from Palestinians. That makes it racist.Canada has lots of laws that allow expropriation. Just the same as these.
What you fail to understand is the difference between a law and its implementation or a law and the policy that governs its use.
The vast majority of these laws are not at all racist.
Your argument is like saying ropes are racist because they are occasionally used for lynchings. Plain old foolish.
You keep reading in things that are not there. And you can take away land for long periods and then if the government chooses give it away for a different purpose. Just look at the Pickering Airport Lands.Would it please you to say that the laws are used specifically designed to help accomplish racist goals? What the law allows, that no Canadian law does, is to appropriate land, hold on to it for a set amount of time and then declare the land to be used for a different race's use. The equivalent would be a land that would take farm land, hold on to it for 20 years then give it away to conservatives/natives or some other group to use as a farm. The laws here don't allow you to appropriate land for a vague use like 'public good' and then give it away to another group to use it for the exact purpose it had before. You can appropriate land for an airport or highway, but you can't take farm land and then make it someone else's farmland. While that goal is not articulated in the law, its express use since its inception clearly marks it as a law designed to allow the government take land away from Palestinians. That makes it racist.
You should read the arguments made in the Russell Tribunal before you say this sort of thing, Fuji. They clearly showed apartheid policies, according to the Rome Statute definition, with systematic policies such as:Apartheid is clearly defined to mean crimes against humanity committed in the context of systemic oppression, in the Statute of Rome.
