Controversial Plans for First Feis in Israel

Madd Finn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

, the tenth resembles more closely a society like ours and people find them repulsive.

.

In what way does "Number 10" resemble a society like ours?

Size of population? OK We'll give you that. About 5million odd each.

Access to citizenship? Yes. We're both diaspora people who encourage those of similar shared ancestry born and raised overseas to avail of our citizenship.

Do we have similar requirements for earning citizenship based on ancestry?

Hell no!!! In our case, the limit is two generations. IE one grandparent has to be born in Ireland or have Irish citizenship before someone not born here can claim to be Irish. In Israel's case, your ancestry can go back to the first century AD!!

For anyone?

Hell no!!! Only if you're of one particular religion. If you're of the wrong religion and your parents/grandparents were violently evicted in 1967 then tough. You leave, you lose.

Separation between church and state?

You're kidding right? One is a republic which guarantees religious freedom and even though the vast majority of citiizens have traditionally been of one religion, is trying hard to remove any effective, as opposed to explicit, bias from its legislation. Witness the recent gay marriage referendum.

The other is a confessional state whose laws are inextricably linked to the practice of one faith. People of other faiths are deliberately kept apart so that separate development takes root.

Separate development? Sounds a bit like apartheid?

Doesn't it just?

Not a fair comparison, surely. After all Arabs can vote, and own businesses, and participate fully in society....


But they find it very hard to live in the same areas. They are, ahem, encouraged, not to. To the point of having their land strategically confiscated for "security reasons" even within Israel itself. Tends to lead to a very segregated society.

But surely a rainbow nation can evolve thanks to greater social integration, including, say, intermarriage.

Er no. Intermarriage is verboten.

Whaat? Jews can't marry Arabs?

Nope. Nor Christians. Not possible Unless one or other converts.

How do they manage that?

Simple. No registry offices. Civil marriage is not an option.


So you have to be married in a church?

Or syngagogue. Or mosque. But the thing is, those institutions take a dim view of their congregations marrying outside the faith. So "separate development" is inevitable.

Wow. What's the Afrikaans for separate development again?

Apartheid.

wes

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

You really think terrorist groups in Gaza launch attacks on Israel because they are aggrieved by the treatment of their kin off in the distance?

Depends on the group. Some are acting as spoilers to the ceasefire. Some are retaliating to Israel attacking Gaza, or attacks on Hamas's people in the West Bank, and yes even retaliating for violence in the West Bank.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Sharon was certainly willing to ride roughshod over the extremists if he though a deal was possible and Olmert was at least willing to consider the kind of peace deal that would be needed. It's fair enough to be disappointed by the present government but government in Israel are fragile things.

Sharon didn't seem all that interested, when it comes right down to it:

Top PM aide: Gaza plan aims to freeze the peace process

---

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine.

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

---

I will note once again, under every single Israeli government since 1967, settlements have expanded.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Simply take a look at the E1 Zone on a map of the West Bank, it has much more to do with Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem than it does cutting a potential Palestine in half. You might decry Israeli governments for conducting settlments during the past 50 years, but for half that period the Palestinian leadership refused to consider the right of Israel to even exist.

Firstly, states don't have rights, people do. Israeli rights do no trump Palestinians rights and vice versa. Secondly, if states have rights, then so does a Palestinian state have a right to exist, and it is more than fair to say that Israel has never recognized such a right, and are in fact actively engaged in making sure there will never be a Palestinian state, via settlements.

Even if one were to take that Israel wasn't trying to split the West Bank in half, which I certainly don't believe, the end result will be the same, and it is something even the US, one of Israel staunches allies oppose.

Also, to add the PA recognized Israel back in the 80s, and Netanyahu etc have now changed the goal posts, and they now have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (ignoring all the Palestinians who live there to boot). Recognizing Israel was meaningless, as now the goal posts have changed, and who knows what other nonsense an Israeli government may come up with next.

Irish Praetorian

wes wrote: »

Depends on the group. Some are acting as spoilers to the ceasefire. Some are retaliating to Israel attacking Gaza, or attacks on Hamas's people in the West Bank, and yes even retaliating for violence in the West Bank.

Which makes a great argument for the peace progress from Israel's POV - make peace and only SOME of the people currently trying to kill you will still want to kill you.

Sharon didn't seem all that interested, when it comes right down to it:

That's according to Dov Weisglass, a single commentator whose views on the subject have not been backed up.

I will note once again, under every single Israeli government since 1967, settlements have expanded.

And I will note again, most of that time has been spent in open conflict.

Firstly, states don't have rights, people do. Israeli rights do no trump Palestinians rights and vice versa. Secondly, if states have rights, then so does a Palestinian state have a right to exist, and it is more than fair to say that Israel has never recognized such a right, and are in fact actively engaged in making sure there will never be a Palestinian state, via settlements.

Even if one were to take that Israel wasn't trying to split the West Bank in half, which I certainly don't believe, the end result will be the same, and it is something even the US, one of Israel staunches allies oppose.

Also, to add the PA recognized Israel back in the 80s, and Netanyahu etc have now changed the goal posts, and they now have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (ignoring all the Palestinians who live there to boot). Recognizing Israel was meaningless, as now the goal posts have changed, and who knows what other nonsense an Israeli government may come up with next.

Well were hardly going to argue that there should and ought to be a Palestinian state now are we, the debate that remains at this point is what borders it should have. Those 'facts on the ground' are not set in stone and have been torn out root and stem before, there is no reason why they cannot be done again so long as both sides are aggressively pursuing a peace deal. The most recent deal proposed by Abbas was an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders within three years and a settlement construction freeze, with an option for land trades if both sides agree...it's almost as if the two sides were starting from scratch.

Irish Praetorian

Madd Finn wrote: »

In what way does "Number 10" resemble a society like ours?

Size of population? OK We'll give you that. About 5million odd each.

We're 4.5 million, they are 8 million

Access to citizenship?

Yes. We're both diaspora people who encourage those of similar shared ancestry born and raised overseas to avail of our citizenship.

Kinda I guess.

Do we have similar requirements for earning citizenship based on ancestry?

Hell no!!! In our case, the limit is two generations. IE one grandparent has to be born in Ireland or have Irish citizenship before someone not born here can claim to be Irish. In Israel's case, your ancestry can go back to the first century AD!!

Nope, the requirements for Aliyah are set out here, 1st Century Ancestry not required.

For anyone?

Hell no!!! Only if you're of one particular religion. If you're of the wrong religion and your parents/grandparents were violently evicted in 1967 then tough. You leave, you lose.

Because famously allowing Jews in means you don't allow anyone else into the country right...

Separation between church and state?

You're kidding right? One is a republic which guarantees religious freedom and even though the vast majority of citiizens have traditionally been of one religion, is trying hard to remove any effective, as opposed to explicit, bias from its legislation. Witness the recent gay marriage referendum.

The other is a confessional state whose laws are inextricably linked to the practice of one faith. People of other faiths are deliberately kept apart so that separate development takes root.

Interestingly enough Israel recognised gay marriage conducted abroad before our own country. Israel for it's part despite being a Jewish state (as distinct from the Muslim states which surround it or the Protestant state which borders us) has a far better track record when it comes to the treatment of religious minorities than its neighbours. For example, Israeli did not expel every Muslim in the country simply because of a conflict with its neighbours.

Separate development? Sounds a bit like apartheid?

Doesn't it just?

Sounds like a lazy comparison

Not a fair comparison, surely. After all Arabs can vote, and own businesses, and participate fully in society....

But they find it very hard to live in the same areas. They are, ahem, encouraged, not to. To the point of having their land strategically confiscated for "security reasons" even within Israel itself. Tends to lead to a very segregated society.

Fair enough, there is some purist sentiment amongst religious communities in Israel, surprise surprise - it's not exclusively due to the Jewish population.

But surely a rainbow nation can evolve thanks to greater social integration, including, say, intermarriage.

Er no. Intermarriage is verboten.

Whaat? Jews can't marry Arabs?

Nope. Nor Christians. Not possible Unless one or other converts.

How do they manage that?

Simple. No registry offices. Civil marriage is not an option.

So you have to be married in a church?

Or syngagogue. Or mosque. But the thing is, those institutions take a dim view of their congregations marrying outside the faith. So "separate development" is inevitable.

And by verboten presumably you mean recognised when done abroad or when undertaking a civil 'couple-hood union'? And once again, I would emphasize, the separation of faiths is hardly a Jewish only endeavour. Still, the confessional system is hardly equitable and a result of the compromises involved in the creation of the state, one might hope it goes the way of Haredi military exemptions.

Wow. What's the Afrikaans for separate development again?

Apartheid.

With apologies to the multi-quote haters

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

It does seem like they have their hands full trying to protect their own citizens let alone anyone else's too. Still, criticism of Israeli failure to advance to cause of gay liberation in the occupied territories is a novel criticism I will give you that.

.........it's actually criticism of Israels use of blackmail to force already marginalised people into an even more precarious state.

Their hands are full in no small part due to their colonisation of the OT and the continued efforts to subjugate the Palestinian population therein. Perhaps deciding to abandon colonialism would be the better course for all concerned....

Nodin

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

.............



That's according to Dov Weisglass, a single commentator whose views on the subject have not been backed up.

.

Bit mad that theres been increased building in the West Bank/Arab East Jerusalem since that time with the peace process dead in the water then so.

Madd Finn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Nope, the requirements for Aliyah are set out here, 1st Century Ancestry not required.

Not required, but certainly sufficient. Paragraph 1, Line 1 from your link.

"With the inception of the State of Israel, two thousand years of wandering were officially over. Since then, Jews have been entitled to simply show up and request to be Israeli citizens"

(My emphasis)

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Because famously allowing Jews in means you don't allow anyone else into the country right...

I didn't say that. I said that those, or the descendants of those, who were evicted/evacuated/fled the fighting/ethnically cleansed in 1948 or 1967 are deemed to have forfeited the right to return to their property but somebody who says they are a member of an ethnic group whose ancestors were (possibly) scattered in AD 78 has an automatic right to do so. With certain very special limitations.

Not exactly democratic, is it?

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Israel... has a far better track record when it comes to the treatment of religious minorities than its neighbours. For example, Israeli did not expel every Muslim in the country simply because of a conflict with its neighbours.

No. But it cloisters its former residents in a blockaded slum and showers them with cluster bombs, air-to-ground missiles, white phosphorus and good old-fashioned lead and expects people to think that they are democratic moral exemplars. Doesn't wash with many of us, I'm afraid.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Fair enough, there is some purist sentiment amongst religious communities in Israel, surprise surprise - it's not exclusively due to the Jewish population.

I never said it was exclusive to the Jewish population but at least in other democratic states with an overwhelming majority from one religious domination, you always had the option of a legally binding but secular civil marriage.

Hell we even had that here in JC McQuaid's time!

But in Israel, never been an option.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

, the confessional system is hardly equitable and a result of the compromises involved in the creation of the state, one might hope it goes the way of Haredi military exemptions.

Well I hope you're right but I think the realpolitik of Israel will preclude it from happening.

And are they drafting the ultra-orthodox into the army now?? As Sir Humphrey might say: "Do you think that's wise?"




With apologies to the multi-quote haters [/QUOTE]