Israel's Marriage Ban

[lost&outofcontrol]

Israel's Marriage Ban Closes The Gates To Palestinians

Land of the free, provided you have the correct skin colour and can pay for it.

[Black Dog]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

[GostHacked]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

Yeah this is nothing in the US's eye, they will support Israel in almost anything they do. Yet Iran is still the bad guy.

I really think the US is the one to blame here.

[BHS]

Land of the free, provided you have the correct skin colour and can pay for it.

Jews and Palestinian Arabs are both Semitic peoples. Jewish spies are regularly able to infiltrate Arab governments because of the similarity of their appearance.

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

Agreed. Though I posit that Israel's unique circumstances (surrounded, as it is, by enemy states that would like nothing better than to see it wiped off the map) make it ultimately reasonable for Israel to forego certain liberal niceties in it's approach to lawmaking. I know you think it's important that Palestinians be allowed to use legal loopholes to bring potential suicide bombers into the country, but after a few decades that sort of behaviour becomes tiresome and Israel's more recent laws are reflective of a country that refuses to put up with the constant threat of pedestrian detonation.

I really think the US is the one to blame here.

What a shock. The May two-four weekend was a little bit chilly this year too. Bastards.

[Riverwind]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

That is exactly the reason why I am so adamantly opposed to native treaty rights. Both Natives and Jews claim that their ethnic groups deserve special consideration because: a- there were the the first people to occupy the land in question and b- they have suffered numerous injustices in the past.

The native case is a little muddy because of various legal documents, however, my position is that making something legal does not make it right.

So Black Dog, how do reconcile your statement above with your previous statements regarding native rights. More importantly, please explain how creating native only enclaves in Canada where only 'citizens' of the native band in question are allowed to vote is compatible with the 'basic principles of western liberal democracy?

[Black Dog]

Agreed. Though I posit that Israel's unique circumstances (surrounded, as it is, by enemy states that would like nothing better than to see it wiped off the map) make it ultimately reasonable for Israel to forego certain liberal niceties in it's approach to lawmaking. I know you think it's important that Palestinians be allowed to use legal loopholes to bring potential suicide bombers into the country, but after a few decades that sort of behaviour becomes tiresome and Israel's more recent laws are reflective of a country that refuses to put up with the constant threat of pedestrian detonation.

Um..how many suicide bombers married their way into Israel? Can we get some numbers on this? Because the notion is so patently absurd that it reeks of scapegoating. Really: is every ridiculous, rascist and ignorant policy Israel pursues the Palestinians' fault because, well, Israel says so? Sharon's stroke? Suicide bombers. Can't get a hard-on? Suicide bombers. Spam e-mail? Suicide bombers.

Given Israel's hypocritical and rascist laws (for example: a Palestinian who's parents or grandparents were booted out in '48 can't come in, but a Russian jew who has never set foot in the Holy Land is automatically accorded full citizenship) and the inherently exclusionary nature of Zionism, it's pretty clear that this law has F.A. to do with security and more to do with-how can I put this?- protecting Jewish blood and Jewish honour.

[scribblet]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

That goes for Canada too, (not to hijack the thread or start anything) but surely you must feel that applies to Canada's apartheid system too.

Israel, concluded the judges, was justified in closing the doors to residency for all Palestinians in order to block the entry of those few who might use marriage as a way to launch terror attacks. Not sure that this is justification though for banning such marriages - surely they could do security checks etc.

[Black Dog]

That goes for Canada too, (not to hijack the thread or start anything) but surely you must feel that applies to Canada's apartheid system too

Care to elaborate? Not to say discrimination doesn't exist in Canada, but we've taken great pains to de-institutionalize it, while Israel seems to be heading in the other direction.

Israel, concluded the judges, was justified in closing the doors to residency for all Palestinians in order to block the entry of those few who might use marriage as a way to launch terror attacks. Not sure that this is justification though for banning such marriages - surely they could do security checks etc.

Based on the wording, I'd say the notion that suicide bombers would marry their way into Israel is more a hypothetical scenario than one grounded in reality. IOW, it's a pretense.

[Riverwind]

Care to elaborate? Not to say discrimination doesn't exist in Canada, but we've taken great pains to de-institutionalize it, while Israel seems to be heading in the other direction.

Not at all. Many Canadians are working to institutionalize racism under the guise of native treaty rights. There are many paralells between the arguments used by zionists and the arguments used by native rights activists.

[Black Dog]

That is exactly the reason why I am so adamantly opposed to native treaty rights. Both Natives and Jews claim that their ethnic groups deserve special consideration because: a- there were the the first people to occupy the land in question and b- they have suffered numerous injustices in the past.

Except native treaty rights are, you know, based on treaties: that is agreements made and left unhonoured. The two situations are not analagous. In any case, if you want to have that conversation, start a thread on it.

[Liam]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

Yeah this is nothing in the US's eye, they will support Israel in almost anything they do. Yet Iran is still the bad guy.

I really think the US is the one to blame here.

How did the US get made part of this issue? Why is it our fault?

[Riverwind]

Except native treaty rights are, you know, based on treaties: that is agreements made and left unhonoured. The two situations are not analagous. In any case, if you want to have that conversation, start a thread on it.

In other words whatever Isreal does it must be considered ethically and morally correct if it complies with a strict legal intepretation of the Isreali constitution.

If you do not agree with that statement then explain how we should decide when discrimination made legal by govt is wrong and when it is right? I think that is the issue being discussed in this thread.

[geoffrey]

Apartheid was 'legal' as well, is that acceptable too?

I'm with Riverwind on this one, I can't see the difference between Native privledge in Canada or Israeli Jew privledge in Israel. Both have a legal document acknowledging their divine right to the land (treaties in Canada, UN resolutions in Israel), both situations extract more rights than the majority population in the area and defend these rights on the basis of anyone that questions it is a racist.

I don't happen to agree with Israel, former South African apartheid, or the Canadian Indian situation. No one deserves anything based on their ethnic status.

[Black Dog]

In other words whatever Isreal does it must be considered ethically and morally correct if it complies with a strict legal intepretation of the Isreali constitution.

Setting aside the fact that Israel does not have a constitution, its patently obvious that legally correct actions are not neccesarily moral. But I happen to belive that honouring Native Treaty rights is moral for a number of reasons that have f.a. to do with this discussion.

[Riverwind]

Setting aside the fact that Israel does not have a constitution, its patently obvious that legally correct actions are not neccesarily moral. But I happen to believe that honouring Native Treaty rights is moral for a number of reasons that have f.a. to do with this discussion.

This discussion is about whether policies of Israeli gov't are justified. You made the assertion that they are not justified because they go against the "basic principles of western liberal democracy". My response is the Israeli gov't is justified because other democratic countries, including Canada, have similar policies in place that permit institutionalized racism for selected ethnic groups.

If you disagree then you need to make the case why a Israeli gov't policies favouring Jews are bad but Canadian gov't policies favouring Natives are good. When discussing the merits of a single gov't policy it is reasonable to bring up similar examples and discuss whether the same standard should be applied in all cases or whether there are substantive differences that mean different standards should apply. Insisting that one has nothing to do with the other is simply a way to avoid confronting the contractions in your arguments.

[Black Dog]

This discussion is about whether policies of Israeli gov't are justified. You made the assertion that they are not justified because they go against the "basic principles of western liberal democracy". My response is the Israeli gov't is justified because other democratic countries, including Canada, have similar policies in place that permit institutionalized racism for selected ethnic groups.

Sez you. I don't accept your premises.

If you disagree then you need to make the case why a Israeli gov't policies favouring Jews are bad but Canadian gov't policies favouring Natives are good.

Actually I don't. But the short version is the government of Canada signed agreements in good faith with Canada's natives and is thus obligated to honour them. They are not manufacturing out of whole cloth justifications for further entrenching the privileges of an already privileged segment of osciety. As I said: the two are not analagous.

When discussing the merits of a single gov't policy it is reasonable to bring up similar examples and discuss whether the same standard should be applied in all cases or whether there are substantive differences that mean different standards should apply. Insisting that one has nothing to do with the other is simply a way to avoid confronting the contractions in your arguments.

I agree, except, well, the two are not comparable.

[geoffrey]

But the short version is the government of Canada signed agreements in good faith with Canada's natives and is thus obligated to honour them. They are not manufacturing out of whole cloth justifications for further entrenching the privileges of an already privileged segment of osciety. As I said: the two are not analagous.

Are the Indians obliged to their commitments to allow me (the white man) access to their land for certain times a year for unregulated game hunting as well?

Many treaties include such a clause, to allow trappers/hunters access during certain parts of the season. Obviously, conservation laws prevent this now in most cases, but I'd also argue that part of the Charter that says that all races are equal before the law over-rules the treaties as well.

Any law that gives anythign to Indians is racist. Every Canadian should have equal access to all government programs regardless of the colour of their skin. Anything else is unacceptable.

[mcqueen625]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

That is exactly the reason why I am so adamantly opposed to native treaty rights. Both Natives and Jews claim that their ethnic groups deserve special consideration because: a- there were the the first people to occupy the land in question and b- they have suffered numerous injustices in the past.

The native case is a little muddy because of various legal documents, however, my position is that making something legal does not make it right.

So Black Dog, how do reconcile your statement above with your previous statements regarding native rights. More importantly, please explain how creating native only enclaves in Canada where only 'citizens' of the native band in question are allowed to vote is compatible with the 'basic principles of western liberal democracy?

Now that's a nice post except you forgot to include English Canadians in your rant. Canada has elevated Francophones to elite status and relagated Anglophones to the staus of 2nd class citizens. The financial yap has been turned on for Quebec for far too long and it is time to cut off all funding for Francophones just because they speak French. Bilingyalism was and is a failed experiment in social engineering, and to date still less than 17% of Canaadians speak fluent French, virtually unchanged since it's introduction.

[mcqueen625]

Blackdog said; Actually I don't. But the short version is the government of Canada signed agreements in good faith with Canada's natives and is thus obligated to honour them. They are not manufacturing out of whole cloth justifications for further entrenching the privileges of an already privileged segment of osciety. As I said: the two are not analagous.

If I am not mistaken those treaties were signed by the British Crown long before Canada was even a country, and I would bet that under International law these treaties are still valid. I'm sure if they wern't neither the federal or provincial government would be treading so lightly on Aboriginal Rights, they would instead just ignore them.

[Riverwind]

If I am not mistaken those treaties were signed by the British Crown long before Canada was even a country, and I would bet that under International law these treaties are still valid. I'm sure if they wern't neither the federal or provincial government would be treading so lightly on Aboriginal Rights, they would instead just ignore them.

The gov't treads lightly because natives believe that they are entitled to something and there are too many non-native Canadians who naively refuse to consider the long term dangers associated with race based rights. For this reason, the gov't would risk creating a home grown terrorist problem if it took a heavy handed approach

[Rue]

Israel's Marriage Ban Closes The Gates To Palestinians

Land of the free, provided you have the correct skin colour and can pay for it.

One again you completely missed the point and try to use a simplistic North American concept of racism to try suggest why this law has been promulgated.

This has zero to do with skin colour. This is all about citizenship and who is defined as a citizen of Israel. Yes it is about an Israeli government struggling with the idea of trying to maintain a Jewish state when its population of non Jews continues to reproduce and may become the majority.

Is it racist? Well is it racist for Christian churches to forbid Christians from inter-marriage which they do? Is it racist that throughout the entire Muslim world, Muslims are not allowed to marry Christians of Jews?

Is it racist in Canada or the US when Immigration laws deport people because they find the marriages to be shams designed to circumvent citizenship laws?

You make it seem like Israel is the only nation that does things like that and in reverse in the Muslim world, Jews can marry Muslims.

Is it unfair and discriminatory. Of course. What religious or immigration laws aren't inherently?

Sounds to me you just like to knee jerk react and take things out of context to suit your fixed notion that Israel bad Palestine good.

[Rue]

This discussion is about whether policies of Israeli gov't are justified. You made the assertion that they are not justified because they go against the "basic principles of western liberal democracy". My response is the Israeli gov't is justified because other democratic countries, including Canada, have similar policies in place that permit institutionalized racism for selected ethnic groups.

Sez you. I don't accept your premises.

If you disagree then you need to make the case why a Israeli gov't policies favouring Jews are bad but Canadian gov't policies favouring Natives are good.

Actually I don't. But the short version is the government of Canada signed agreements in good faith with Canada's natives and is thus obligated to honour them. They are not manufacturing out of whole cloth justifications for further entrenching the privileges of an already privileged segment of osciety. As I said: the two are not analagous.

When discussing the merits of a single gov't policy it is reasonable to bring up similar examples and discuss whether the same standard should be applied in all cases or whether there are substantive differences that mean different standards should apply. Insisting that one has nothing to do with the other is simply a way to avoid confronting the contractions in your arguments.

I agree, except, well, the two are not comparable.

Why aren't they? You have a tendency when you debate to simply make up the rules of what you will debate arbitrarily. You remind me of someone who threatens to walk away with the ball if someone won't play with it according to your rules.

Your last paragraph also is impossible to decipher? Have you any idea what you were trying to say?

The first sentence makes no sense. You say if someone discusses the merits of a single government policy, its reasonable to bring up similiar examples..do you mean other giovernment policies that you feel are similiar? The next part of your sentence which is a run on by the way, tsk tsk, you really should write in complete sentences, states something...but I am not sure what the remainder of the sentence means. Do you? Your last sentence seems to be subjective. If someone debates you and challenges your assertion that two policies are not similiar, how is that avoiding debate? It is in fact debating you head on.

Why don't you just state; " if you don't agree with how I postulate things, you are wrong.." because that I think is the pith and substance in your response.

I also agree with the other poster that you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Machinations]

Israel's Marriage Ban Closes The Gates To Palestinians

Land of the free, provided you have the correct skin colour and can pay for it.

One again you completely missed the point and try to use a simplistic North American concept of racism to try suggest why this law has been promulgated.

This has zero to do with skin colour. This is all about citizenship and who is defined as a citizen of Israel. Yes it is about an Israeli government struggling with the idea of trying to maintain a Jewish state when its population of non Jews continues to reproduce and may become the majority.

Is it racist? Well is it racist for Christian churches to forbid Christians from inter-marriage which they do? Is it racist that throughout the entire Muslim world, Muslims are not allowed to marry Christians of Jews?

Is it racist in Canada or the US when Immigration laws deport people because they find the marriages to be shams designed to circumvent citizenship laws?

You make it seem like Israel is the only nation that does things like that and in reverse in the Muslim world, Jews can marry Muslims.

Is it unfair and discriminatory. Of course. What religious or immigration laws aren't inherently?

Sounds to me you just like to knee jerk react and take things out of context to suit your fixed notion that Israel bad Palestine good.

Sorry, but this law does nothing for security. Yes, it is blatantly discriminatory, and yes - you cant have it both ways. You can't criticize those same Arab nations for being racist and discriminatory and yet do the same yourself. Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy - when this is far from the truth.

If Israel stopped calling itself a democracy then yes, I could get into this moral equivalency thing with you.

Fact of the matter is Israel's policies are an embarassment to Western government and sensibilites. A wall? Yeah, cuz it worked sooooo well in Berlin.

[Rue]

Israel's Marriage Ban Closes The Gates To Palestinians

Land of the free, provided you have the correct skin colour and can pay for it.

One again you completely missed the point and try to use a simplistic North American concept of racism to try suggest why this law has been promulgated.

This has zero to do with skin colour. This is all about citizenship and who is defined as a citizen of Israel. Yes it is about an Israeli government struggling with the idea of trying to maintain a Jewish state when its population of non Jews continues to reproduce and may become the majority.

Is it racist? Well is it racist for Christian churches to forbid Christians from inter-marriage which they do? Is it racist that throughout the entire Muslim world, Muslims are not allowed to marry Christians of Jews?

Is it racist in Canada or the US when Immigration laws deport people because they find the marriages to be shams designed to circumvent citizenship laws?

You make it seem like Israel is the only nation that does things like that and in reverse in the Muslim world, Jews can marry Muslims.

Is it unfair and discriminatory. Of course. What religious or immigration laws aren't inherently?

Sounds to me you just like to knee jerk react and take things out of context to suit your fixed notion that Israel bad Palestine good.

Sorry, but this law does nothing for security. Yes, it is blatantly discriminatory, and yes - you cant have it both ways. You can't criticize those same Arab nations for being racist and discriminatory and yet do the same yourself. Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy - when this is far from the truth.

If Israel stopped calling itself a democracy then yes, I could get into this moral equivalency thing with you.

Fact of the matter is Israel's policies are an embarassment to Western government and sensibilites. A wall? Yeah, cuz it worked sooooo well in Berlin.

Comparing Berlin Wall to the security walls in Israel now that makes perfect sense. It's the exact same political situation. The Israelis are big bad communists keeping innocent democractic peace loving peoples from returning home. Gosh and to think I thought it was something else.

Now as for your comment I can't criticize Muslim countries and Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy hey I got news for you pal, there is debate in your own friggin perfect country and Western democracies about inter-marriage, and inter-gender marriage-that was the point. You continually select Israel out as the only Western democracy to have laws that do such things-that was the pt. but thanks for trying to change the subject.

Your comment that this law has nothing to do with security again is misguided and instead of making comments like that get on the inter-net and write the Israeli government if you do not believe me and understand how this law is inter-connected to a problem with security concerns unless you want to stay in wonderland where this one bad, this one good. You very bad country. You very innocent victims. My how the world is so simple.

[mcqueen625]

No nation that gives preferential treatment to one segment of its population based on race or religion can be considered a model of democracy. IOW the Zionist experiment is incompatiable with the basic principles of western liberal democracy.

How is this not hate, when Israel is only attempting to protect itself. In the linked story Hamas and Fatah have reportedly reached an agreement not to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza, but the armed wing of both Hamas and other militant groups have immediately stated that they are not part of any cease fire, and that they will continue to wage war.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/24062006/3/...ael-report.html

If I were the Israeli government I would have considered the first attack after Hamas was sworn in as a declaration of war and wiped the floor with Hamas and their terrorist led government. Abbas is no different than is Hamas because he still refuses to stick up for the fact that Israelis have just as muh right to that area of the world as does the Palestinian peoples. Abbas wants it both ways he wants an independent state called Palestine, but he also wants Palestinian's to have the right to move back to the lands they held before 1967 inside what is now part of Israel. If thar were to happen Israe;is would bu outnumbered in their own country by Palestiniansm, and what security does that offer to Israeli if Israel is full of the very peopple who are out to eliminare the Jewish state period? To me it is akin to opening tyhe door of the hen house and allowing a family of foxes to come in and slaughter all the chickens. In other words there would be no secure Israel.

I think Israel is fighting for their right to exist just as Palestinians are and if both countries are ever to have safety and security the Hamas and other extremist groups idea of enihalating Israel must stop for good, otherwise there can be no hope for peace and whether you want to admit it or not, Israel has the weapons and the superiority to win any war with the Palistinians.