None of that is objectionable, I just feel this with what I’ve tried to show you concerning British and other involvement concerning creation of modern Israel should be something that catches your attention, ask why.
You’ve said what I expect you to say before
and yet you’re pushed/directed to center stage, as I said the DOJ “may” help, very arbitrary, and “may” only help if “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” and while we can all claim those things this is fundamentally not about any, it’s about common sense and self defense, a human right shared among all peoples, a Jew was not singled out for attack but Jews were singled for preservation of a right.
Why?
The DOJ could certify this as a “case is of general public importance” but even that is contrary to selecting/claiming “race, color, religion, sex or national origin”.
But, think, on its face it is a case is of general public importance, and law makers know these things, they don’t play scrabble to make laws right?
Pick some letters from a pile and earn points for the largest law they make without thinking trough what it is and why they’re doing (it).
My minimal schooling/history tells me Jews would want and do better to say
yet…not the case and not the case in a very big way concerning Israel in particualr.
True of course, but is this even a case of public perception? Is this not a case of law?
That angle can not be diminished, it exists, but in front of a judge vs a jury it 100% should not, the only thing that should matter is the constitution is the law of the land and it’s under attack by the very people who swear oaths to protect it.
To put any law in front of a jury risks jury nullification, on a case by case basis that can have a lot of leeway, as you say things like
add context, there’s no truly viable context to a Jewish Rabbi’s belief that pertains to anyone the same, an atheist can have a sincere religious belief to self defense.
It comes down to this, do you want fervor and public opinion of Jews or do you want
as historically how were German people able to be lead to turn an eye in the first place?
Lead to boycott Jewish merchants?
Are Jews the enemy or politicians who are writing the unconstitutional laws, and whichever you decide, who directs the show?
If you look solely at Nazi GE the relevant historical mechanism was a very small minority of Jews were repeatedly highlighted as a distinct political and social category until ordinary Germans learned to see Jewish identity rather than individual conduct as something requiring special public attention.
I can list the events but don’t need to surely they’re all known, so does history repeat or just ryme?
100% with you on that, pity it appears so familiar.
