Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[Texas]

you can be of Jewish religion and be an Atheist at the same time?
interesting.

could a muslim muslim marry a atheist woman?
i know a couple. he is a moslem, preaching 5 times a day, doing ramadan and the whole circus. she, she is an atheist and openly says she does not belive in any God. they are married and have 2 children.

No, if your mother is Jewish you are a Jew no religious requirement at all. You can convert to Judaism but that is a religious act .As to your friend, I assume they are in Germany? Were they married in by a Muslim cleric or a civil servant? If she is an avowed Atheist I can guarantee no Muslim Cleric performed the ceremony.

 

[FireGarden]

See that wasn't hard at all.

You have a natural gift.

 

[Texas]

You have a natural gift.

Yeah but I'm modest about it.

 

[DC]

No, if your mother is Jewish you are a Jew no religious requirement at all. You can convert to Judaism but that is a religious act .As to your friend, I assume they are in Germany? Were they married in by a Muslim cleric or a civil servant? If she is an avowed Atheist I can guarantee no Muslim Cleric performed the ceremony.

why Germany? why do you always come up with Germany?
no its not Germany.
and it was oc a civil marriage.

when we lived in Belgium i got a Katholic Baptism, because if i didnt have it, i would later not be allowed to marry in a katholic Church, and most belgian Girls want to marry in church.

so Islam not marry people of diffrent religion is nothing special.

 

[DC]

will a rabbi marry a Jewish woman to a moslem man? or a muslem woman to a jewish man?

 

[ddt]

There are mixed marriages in Israel. People mostly go to Cyprus. The topic was discussed in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124658

Thanks for that link. BTW, the "Jasmin and Osama" story I told also said they first were married by an Israeli muslim cleric. Her ID then mentioned that her marital status was "under investigation", and a year later they went to Cyprus, just to be sure.

Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have similar rules. It seems strange to me. And it must stop some people who are too poor to travel from having their marriages recognised.

I agree.

About Texas:

You have a natural gift.

I agree too, but stating for what would be a breach of the MA.

 

[Texas]

will a rabbi marry a Jewish woman to a moslem man? or a muslem woman to a jewish man?

First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

 

[DC]

First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

oh dear

http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/397376/index.do?from=simarchiv

that Imam is violating Islam law. Look at that blaspemic man. he, together with a Katholic priest is marrieng a Katholic Woman to a Mulsim man !!

 

[DC]

First of all the Muslim woman is strictly prohibited from marrying a non-Muslim man under Islamic law. I am not sure about a Rabbi performing a mixed marriage between an observant Jew and a non-Jew of any religion or lack there-of.

according to Rabbi Chajim Halevy Donin, is a marriage between a jew and a non jew not in agreement with jewish law.

http://www.inforel.ch/i20e101.html (Only in German, but not from Germany)

 

[Skeptic]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews. Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".

But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

 

[DC]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews. Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".

But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

mmh ok now i agree.

you are indeed paranoid. seek for help.

 

[FireGarden]

Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

A few things.

1) you are painting a lot of people as leftists.

2) there is outrage when Arabs treat the Palestinians badly. And condemnation of the fighting between Hamas/Fatah.

You just don't recognise the second, because you measure outrage by the number of posts that are made in response.

Egypt's complicity in blockading Gaza has been condemned. There are demonstrations outside Egyptian embassies. Egypt has been condemned for shooting at refugees from a warzone by myself and others on JREF. But these condemnations aren't followed by explanations and justifications. So they don't generate the posts by which you measure outrage. And the shortness of the conversation does not lead to countless analogies and counter-analogies. It barely has time to build up a strong vocabulary.

Try defending Egypt's treatment of the Palestinians and see if I am wrong. Defend an army shooting at people fleeing a warzone? I don't think you will. So the opportunities to discuss the matter dwindle.

 

[ddt]

Look, Texas, to answer your question: the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 annoyed the left since it deprived it of its designated "victim group" -- the Jews.

Nonsense. You're rewriting history. The Left looked very favourable on the creation of the Jewish state. Remember, Israel was founded by Labour Zionists. Kibbutzim were idealized as the perfect communes. Only much and much later did people in the West, left or right, realize there were Palestinian refugees - the 1973 oil crisis, the various plane hijackings, Arafat's speech in the UN - but then we're speaking about the 1970s. In general, a critical stance of Western governments towards Israel didn't develop before the First Intifada.

Since the average left-winger progressive must have a victim group to "support" (by talking), the search for a new victim group started, and, as a revenge on the Jews for daring to attept to not be victims, the Palestinians were chosen. If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel, well, they'll too lose the coveted victim status and some new group -- Muslims in general? Tall people? Urdu speakers? Who knows... -- will be the new-and-improved designated "victim group".

As if there aren't "victim groups" enough to find in the world.
And well, your "If tomorrow the Palestinians destroy Israel", I find that a highly hypothetical scenario. Israel still has the fourth or so army in the world, supported by some $2 bn military aid annually by the US, and still the unrelenting support of the US government.

But one thing's for sure: once they can no longer be portrayed as "victims of racism", the Palestinians will hold no further interest to the left and will be ignored. Note how, for instance, the left cares not at all about any outrages done to Palestinians by other Palestinians or by other Arabs. That doesn't fit the "victim of Imperialism" script, you see, so the leftist gets no feeling-outraged brownie points for concerning himself with that.

Firegarden said it more eloquently than I can put it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A few things.

1) you are painting a lot of people as leftists.

2) there is outrage when Arabs treat the Palestinians badly. And condemnation of the fighting between Hamas/Fatah.

You just don't recognise the second, because you measure outrage by the number of posts that are made in response.

Egypt's complicity in blockading Gaza has been condemned. There are demonstrations outside Egyptian embassies. Egypt has been condemned for shooting at refugees from a warzone by myself and others on JREF. But these condemnations aren't followed by explanations and justifications. So they don't generate the posts by which you measure outrage. And the shortness of the conversation does not lead to countless analogies and counter-analogies. It barely has time to build up a strong vocabulary.

Try defending Egypt's treatment of the Palestinians and see if I am wrong. Defend an army shooting at people fleeing a warzone? I don't think you will. So the opportunities to discuss the matter dwindle.

Hi

I will defend Egypt.

Egypt did the right thing. See the Rwanda/Congo border in the aftermath of the Rwanda war of 1994 to understand why. They do not wish the war and its shrapnel to spread into Egypt. See also Lebanon from 1970-1982. Egypt is well aware of the recent history of the region, and how the Palestinians pollute, politically, anyplace they "refugee flow" into. Egypt does not want its territory to be used for attack on Israel, which is what establishing Palestinian refugee camps leads to. See the regional history since 1970, please, to understand why that is inevitable. The term used sometimes is "fig leaf."

Egypt have a right to defend their borders from incursion. They did. They have a right to prevent the kind of crap Lebanon had to put up with for over a decade with a displaced population of thousands of Pals in refugee camps, be they UN sponsored or otherwise.

The people who are desperate and want to run need an incentive to not run to Egypt. Small arms fire was the disincentive that worked. Egypt must first look out after Egypt's interests. It has done so.

End of story.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

Hi

I will defend Egypt.

Egypt did the right thing. See the Rwanda/Congo border in the aftermath of the Rwanda war of 1994 to understand why. They do not wish the war and its shrapnel to spread into Egypt. See also Lebanon from 1970-1982. Egypt is well aware of the recent history of the region, and how the Palestinians pollute, politically, anyplace they "refugee flow" into. Egypt does not want its territory to be used for attack on Israel, which is what establishing Palestinian refugee camps leads to. See the regional history since 1970, please, to understand why that is inevitable. The term used sometimes is "fig leaf."

Of course, this is just a bigger symptom of the same problem. If you want the history of the region, Egypt specifically, take a look at Canada Camp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Camp

Palestinians were kept there from 1982, unable to get work in Gaza or Egypt. Unable to move to either location.

They began to return in 1989. The last families were moved into Gaza in 2000. Oh, Just in time! I bet they regret that move.

Egypt have a right to defend their borders from incursion. They did.

And a responsibility to look after refugees fleeing a warzone. They did not.

They have a right to prevent the kind of crap Lebanon had to put up with for over a decade with a displaced population of thousands of Pals in refugee camps, be they UN sponsored or otherwise.

But how they prevent this speaks volumes about them. They decided to fire on people fleeing a warzone.

 

[BirdStrike]

Egypt must first look out after Egypt's interests. It has done so.

End of story.

DR

Mubarak: We'll open Gaza crossing only if PA takes control

But Egypt resists dealing with the Islamic militant Hamas because it opposes the militant group's 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip and insists Abbas is the legitimate Palestinian leader.

...more...

Mubarak: We'll open Gaza crossing only if PA takes control

Yemeni protesters angered by Cairo's cooperation with Israel in imposing a blockade on Gaza stormed the Egyptian consulate in the southern city of Aden on Tuesday, witnesses said.

One witness said the protesters burned the Egyptian flag and hoisted a Palestinian banner on top of building.

"Some of the protesters were able to enter the consulate and destroyed some property and papers," another witness said, adding that some of the protestors were Egyptian.

See how readily "they" are to resort to violence, even against Egypt. A lesson for FireGarden.

 

[WildCat]

As you admit yourself, the state still discriminates against Arabs in this respect, as the state agency ILA administers the JNF lands.

But also for proper state lands, that battle is very recent. There's the case of an Israeli Arab Kaadan, who wanted to lease ILA land in a Jewish neighbourhood:

And when he got back to the local ILA board, they tried to weasel out of it with various other pretexts, and in 2006, they awarded him the lease just before a court proceeding (so that there is no jurisprudence about that part).

And this is worse than apartheid? There is another case currently before the Israeli Supreme Court regarding the JNF. Hardly a situation similar to apartheid.

Israeli Arab political parties have been banned for having as one of their goals that they wanted to abolish that Israel be "the state of the Jewish people".

Which it is. Just like Ireland is the state of the Irish people. I have a friend whose grandfather is from Ireland. He got Irish citizenship merely by spending 2 weeks in Ireland, the only time he ever set foot in the place. Will there be threads started about how Ireland is worse than apartheid because their immigration laws greatly favor only ethnic Irish people?

Only the other day you rallied against European countries that would ban political parties (without providing evidence).

In Germany the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands has been banned since 1956. There are no banned parties in the US.

Now you endorse it?

I don't endorse this, but this is hardly apartheid and certainly not "worse than apartheid".

I'm still amazed that a country that is on the one hand so forward thinking it allows adoption by gay couples, on the other hand still has no (secular) civil marriage. The existence of only religious marriages also hinders the integration of the Jewish and Arab communities.

(btw, how do Israeli atheists marry? Do they have to go abroad?)

Reformed Jewish couples cannot even marry in Israel! Only Orthodox marriages are recognized by the state.

I think this is stupid, but hardly apartheid. Non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews can marry, there is no prohibition of it. The marriage just won't be recognized by the state, thus it is common to have a contract between couples which basically gives all the legal rights of marriage without calling it marriage. I've seen many people here advocate that the US states get out of the marriage business with no one accusing them of calling for apartheid.

 

[ddt]

And this is worse than apartheid? There is another case currently before the Israeli Supreme Court regarding the JNF. Hardly a situation similar to apartheid.

To be clear: the OP is about the situation in the West Bank, not the situation in Israel itself w.r.t. to the Israeli Arabs. Nor the OP (Firegarden), nor me have ever compared the latter to Apartheid. It is discrimination, though, clearly.

Which it is. Just like Ireland is the state of the Irish people.

And Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Do you see the difference? You'd be completely right if we'd argue about Israel being the state of the Israeli people - well, I wouldn't argue about that because that's a tautology. The point of the Israeli Arabs is that they're not Jews, but they are Israelis. By saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, they're already second-class citizens.

I have a friend whose grandfather is from Ireland. He got Irish citizenship merely by spending 2 weeks in Ireland, the only time he ever set foot in the place. Will there be threads started about how Ireland is worse than apartheid because their immigration laws greatly favor only ethnic Irish people?

No, but people would rightly argue about Irish immigration laws if adherence to a Druidic religion would entitle to Irish citizenship.

In Germany the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands has been banned since 1956.

Bravo. That's the only example I could think of too. (and they were allowed to reconstitute as Deutsche Kommunistische Partei in 1968).

I don't endorse this, but this is hardly apartheid and certainly not "worse than apartheid".

We agree!

Reformed Jewish couples cannot even marry in Israel! Only Orthodox marriages are recognized by the state.

I think this is stupid, but hardly apartheid. Non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews can marry, there is no prohibition of it. The marriage just won't be recognized by the state, thus it is common to have a contract between couples which basically gives all the legal rights of marriage without calling it marriage. I've seen many people here advocate that the US states get out of the marriage business with no one accusing them of calling for apartheid.

We agree again!

 

[WildCat]

To be clear: the OP is about the situation in the West Bank, not the situation in Israel itself w.r.t. to the Israeli Arabs. Nor the OP (Firegarden), nor me have ever compared the latter to Apartheid. It is discrimination, though, clearly.

Which is why the comparison to apartheid makes no sense. Apartheid laws were made to marginalize actual citizens of S. Africa.

And Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Do you see the difference? You'd be completely right if we'd argue about Israel being the state of the Israeli people - well, I wouldn't argue about that because that's a tautology. The point of the Israeli Arabs is that they're not Jews, but they are Israelis. By saying that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, they're already second-class citizens.

Not by law.

No, but people would rightly argue about Irish immigration laws if adherence to a Druidic religion would entitle to Irish citizenship.

Practicing the Jewish religion (of any flavor) is not a requirement for Israeli immigration or citizenship.

Bravo. That's the only example I could think of too. (and they were allowed to reconstitute as Deutsche Kommunistische Partei in 1968).

Of course, there's also the Nazis.

We agree!


We agree again!

In that case I will have to re-think my position...

 

[FireGarden]

...more...


See how readily "they" are to resort to violence, even against Egypt. A lesson for FireGarden.

Surely a lesson for you and Skeptic, who maintain that Israel is the only one to be criticised; that Arab nations get no flak for mistreating Palestinians.

Egypt is getting plenty of flak.

And why do you put "they" in inverted commas? Do you want to leave yourself an out so that you can't be accused of talking about all Arabs?