Change the name of Israel

[Forty Two]

I don't think Israel itself is an apartheid state. Apartheid in South Africa was characterised by black people being discriminated against and being excluded from positions of importance, whereas Arabs are well represented in all sections of Israeli society, and enjoy the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world. It's a poor analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. China's treatment of Tibet is perhaps closer, but still imperfect, given Tibetans aren't making a violent play for the entirety of China.

Or the treatment of Jews in, say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., on Saudi soil. When American military personnel were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, in the 1990s, permission for small Christian worship services was eventually granted, but Jewish services were only permitted on US warships. Saudi census data reveals "0" Jews. Being "openly Jewish" means you can't even legally set foot in Saudi Arabia, lest one's Jewish feet foul holy Saudi ground. If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia were to change religions, it is capital crime - death penalty - in accordance with Muslim law.

[Hermit]

I don't think Israel itself is an apartheid state. Apartheid in South Africa was characterised by black people being discriminated against and being excluded from positions of importance, whereas Arabs are well represented in all sections of Israeli society, and enjoy the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world. It's a poor analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. China's treatment of Tibet is perhaps closer, but still imperfect, given Tibetans aren't making a violent play for the entirety of China.

Or the treatment of Jews in, say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., on Saudi soil. When American military personnel were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, in the 1990s, permission for small Christian worship services was eventually granted, but Jewish services were only permitted on US warships. Saudi census data reveals "0" Jews. Being "openly Jewish" means you can't even legally set foot in Saudi Arabia, lest one's Jewish feet foul holy Saudi ground. If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia were to change religions, it is capital crime - death penalty - in accordance with Muslim law.

And what about Hillary Clinton, eh?

Anyway, apartheid has begun to be formalised with the passing of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on July 19, 2018.

[Rum]

I seem to recall that when the ‘Jewish question’ was being discussed prior to and during WW2 the possibility of ‘giving’ Madagascar to them as a home land was discussed, however briefly. One can only imagine the mayhem that would have ensued.

[Jason]

No it's not wrong to develop a strategy, but you do tend to give away your objectives when you do. Do the Jewish people of Israel want the Right of Return to be implemented in any final settlement with the Palestinians? It means that they'll be a minority in what they see as their country.

From the moves they make and don't make the current government seems to think that they do not want that. Just how popular is the current regime at home these days?

I'm definitely not a fan of countries with official religions. However, in a region dominated by Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iran, etc., is there really something "wrong" in comparison to have a nation the size of New Jersey which is officially an X-religion country?

At bottom of these discussions seems to be the foundational belief by one side that it's legitimate for countries to be Y-religion-countries, but not legitimate for one country to be an X-religion country.

There also seems to be a foundational belief that the more-or-less arbitrarily delineated countries listed above (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc....) - simply drawn on a map of "British and French Mandates for Palestine" and the comatose carcass of the "Ottoman Empire" are fine as long as the countries are majority Arab and majority Muslim. However, make one majority non-Arab and majority Jewish, and that's for some reason a major issue.

Yes, well I tend to want to hold Israel to the higher standard of civilized nations like Canada, the USA, the UK, France, etc. - nations that do not discriminate on the basis of religion. I want Israel to be better than the likes of Iran and Syria.

I suppose I ought to be careful though, that could be construed as anti-Semitic these days.

[Forty Two]

I don't think Israel itself is an apartheid state. Apartheid in South Africa was characterised by black people being discriminated against and being excluded from positions of importance, whereas Arabs are well represented in all sections of Israeli society, and enjoy the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world. It's a poor analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. China's treatment of Tibet is perhaps closer, but still imperfect, given Tibetans aren't making a violent play for the entirety of China.

Or the treatment of Jews in, say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., on Saudi soil. When American military personnel were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, in the 1990s, permission for small Christian worship services was eventually granted, but Jewish services were only permitted on US warships. Saudi census data reveals "0" Jews. Being "openly Jewish" means you can't even legally set foot in Saudi Arabia, lest one's Jewish feet foul holy Saudi ground. If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia were to change religions, it is capital crime - death penalty - in accordance with Muslim law.

And what about Hillary Clinton, eh?

Anyway, apartheid has begun to be formalised with the passing of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on July 19, 2018.

What's wrong with it being officially Jewish? Muslim countries are officially Muslim. England is officially Anglican. Scotland is officially Presbyterian. Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden are officially Lutheran.

One country wants to be officially Jewish and that's beyond the pale?

[Hermit]

I don't think Israel itself is an apartheid state. Apartheid in South Africa was characterised by black people being discriminated against and being excluded from positions of importance, whereas Arabs are well represented in all sections of Israeli society, and enjoy the highest life expectancy in the Muslim world. It's a poor analogy for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. China's treatment of Tibet is perhaps closer, but still imperfect, given Tibetans aren't making a violent play for the entirety of China.

Or the treatment of Jews in, say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia prohibits the practice of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., on Saudi soil. When American military personnel were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, in the 1990s, permission for small Christian worship services was eventually granted, but Jewish services were only permitted on US warships. Saudi census data reveals "0" Jews. Being "openly Jewish" means you can't even legally set foot in Saudi Arabia, lest one's Jewish feet foul holy Saudi ground. If a Muslim in Saudi Arabia were to change religions, it is capital crime - death penalty - in accordance with Muslim law.

And what about Hillary Clinton, eh?

Anyway, apartheid has begun to be formalised with the passing of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on July 19, 2018.

What's wrong with it being officially Jewish? Muslim countries are officially Muslim. England is officially Anglican. Scotland is officially Presbyterian. Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden are officially Lutheran.

One country wants to be officially Jewish and that's beyond the pale?

As we used to say down here before political correctness was a thing: Two wogs don't make a white.

Are you seriously asking "What's wrong with it being officially Jewish?"

[Forty Two]

No it's not wrong to develop a strategy, but you do tend to give away your objectives when you do. Do the Jewish people of Israel want the Right of Return to be implemented in any final settlement with the Palestinians? It means that they'll be a minority in what they see as their country.

From the moves they make and don't make the current government seems to think that they do not want that. Just how popular is the current regime at home these days?

I'm definitely not a fan of countries with official religions. However, in a region dominated by Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iran, etc., is there really something "wrong" in comparison to have a nation the size of New Jersey which is officially an X-religion country?

At bottom of these discussions seems to be the foundational belief by one side that it's legitimate for countries to be Y-religion-countries, but not legitimate for one country to be an X-religion country.

There also seems to be a foundational belief that the more-or-less arbitrarily delineated countries listed above (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc....) - simply drawn on a map of "British and French Mandates for Palestine" and the comatose carcass of the "Ottoman Empire" are fine as long as the countries are majority Arab and majority Muslim. However, make one majority non-Arab and majority Jewish, and that's for some reason a major issue.

Yes, well I tend to want to hold Israel to the higher standard of civilized nations like Canada, the USA, the UK, France, etc. - nations that do not discriminate on the basis of religion. I want Israel to be better than the likes of Iran and Syria.

I suppose I ought to be careful though, that could be construed as anti-Semitic these days.

Why would Israel be held to a "higher" standard than Muslim countries? Is there something about Islamic majority countries that warrant application of lower standards? If so, what?

Also, lots of countries have official religions, as noted above - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, England, Scotland...... almost every south American country is officially Catholic. Vatican City is a nation -- no freedom of religion there, lol. Greece, Bulgaria, Finland, Georgia, are officially Christian Orthodox. Malta, Monaco, Liechenstein, some cantons of Switzerland are Roman Catholic.

Perhaps they should be held to the higher standard.

[Forty Two]

As we used to say down here before political correctness was a thing: Two wogs don't make a white.

Are you seriously asking "What's wrong with it being officially Jewish?"

Yes, because if you articulate what's wrong with it, the question becomes whether you apply that same standard to all of the surrounding countries, too.

You see, that's where I would go with it. I'm very much in opposition to State religions. However, I don't just say that about Israel and then ignore the rest because two wrongs don't make a right. I would be pleased to have zero Muslim countries too. Let's do that - let's all get on board the "no state religion" train.

Isn't that what would make the most sense? Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, and Saudi -- they all give up their state religions, and Israel gives up there's too, yes?

I strongly suspect that there are folks out there that do apply differing standards to Israel, perhaps under the thought process that the Muslims are in some way "oppressed" and therefore it's not kosher to apply the same standard to the oppressed group. The Jews are the oppressor group, supported by the the big-ole meanie king of all oppressors, the US of A. Therefore, it makes all the sense in the world to say that the oppressors must not have a State religion, while the oppressed, they must be forgiven for their state religion - after all, it's just their reaction to all the oppression....

[Forty Two]

I seem to recall that when the ‘Jewish question’ was being discussed prior to and during WW2 the possibility of ‘giving’ Madagascar to them as a home land was discussed, however briefly. One can only imagine the mayhem that would have ensued.

I think only Nazi Germany contemplated that plan.

[Jason]

No it's not wrong to develop a strategy, but you do tend to give away your objectives when you do. Do the Jewish people of Israel want the Right of Return to be implemented in any final settlement with the Palestinians? It means that they'll be a minority in what they see as their country.

From the moves they make and don't make the current government seems to think that they do not want that. Just how popular is the current regime at home these days?

I'm definitely not a fan of countries with official religions. However, in a region dominated by Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iran, etc., is there really something "wrong" in comparison to have a nation the size of New Jersey which is officially an X-religion country?

At bottom of these discussions seems to be the foundational belief by one side that it's legitimate for countries to be Y-religion-countries, but not legitimate for one country to be an X-religion country.

There also seems to be a foundational belief that the more-or-less arbitrarily delineated countries listed above (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc....) - simply drawn on a map of "British and French Mandates for Palestine" and the comatose carcass of the "Ottoman Empire" are fine as long as the countries are majority Arab and majority Muslim. However, make one majority non-Arab and majority Jewish, and that's for some reason a major issue.

Yes, well I tend to want to hold Israel to the higher standard of civilized nations like Canada, the USA, the UK, France, etc. - nations that do not discriminate on the basis of religion. I want Israel to be better than the likes of Iran and Syria.

I suppose I ought to be careful though, that could be construed as anti-Semitic these days.

Why would Israel be held to a "higher" standard than Muslim countries? Is there something about Islamic majority countries that warrant application of lower standards? If so, what?

Also, lots of countries have official religions, as noted above - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, England, Scotland...... almost every south American country is officially Catholic. Vatican City is a nation -- no freedom of religion there, lol. Greece, Bulgaria, Finland, Georgia, are officially Christian Orthodox. Malta, Monaco, Liechenstein, some cantons of Switzerland are Roman Catholic.

Perhaps they should be held to the higher standard.

First of all, why the scare quotes around higher? Do you disagree that nations that do not require persons to be of a particular religion to be considered citizens are morally superior to those that do not? Are you saying that you approve of apartheid predicated upon religious affiliation?

Secondly, you're falsely equivocating 'official religion' with discrimination. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, England, Scotland .... do they discriminate on the basis of religion? Do they disenfranchise persons living in their country because they do not worship at the official church? No. They don't.

Thirdly, you were the one making the claim that Israel should be held to the standard of the nations in its locality - Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. These nations are hardly bastions of civil rights, equality, and freedom.

Fourthly, I desire an Israel that IS a bastion of civil rights, equality, and freedom. This is not unreasonable, unfair, nor is it a question of holding Israel to a higher standard. It is a reasonable expectation of a civilized nation that isn't full of rabid intolerant practitioners of a particular faith that make no room for basic human rights.

Israel is home to people of various faiths and belief systems - to claim it is a country only for Jewish people is primitive and atavistic and needs must be opposed before apartheid is realized for many reasons of principle and ones of mere pragmatism as well.

[Forty Two]

First of all, why the scare quotes around higher? Do you disagree that nations that do not require persons to be of a particular religion to be considered citizens are morally superior to those that do not?

Morally? That depends on one's moral code or system. Are you referring to a utilitarian system? A religious system? Surely you aren't a proponent of some kind of "objective" morality, are you?

Are you saying that you approve of apartheid predicated upon religious affiliation?

I don't approve of apartheid at all, predicated on anything.

Secondly, you're falsely equivocating 'official religion' with discrimination. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, England, Scotland .... do they discriminate on the basis of religion?

If the US had a movement here to adopt evangelical Christianity as the official religion, wouldn't you suggest that the official status of a religion is, itself, discriminatory? When other religions are not the official, state sanctioned religion, isn't the State preferring one religion over others, and non-religion?

Do they disenfranchise persons living in their country because they do not worship at the official church? No. They don't.

Neither does Israel. Those other countries don't strip folks of the right to vote, but they often financially support religious institutions and prefer one in particular - the official one.

Thirdly, you were the one making the claim that Israel should be held to the standard of the nations in its locality - Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. These nations are hardly bastions of civil rights, equality, and freedom.

Right, and so my approach to those countries would be to ask all of them to do away with their mixing of Church/Temple/Mosque and state, not just one of them. You?

Fourthly, I desire an Israel that IS a bastion of civil rights, equality, and freedom. This is not unreasonable, unfair, nor is it a question of holding Israel to a higher standard.

I desire a Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and Iran and Egypt and Syria that are bastions of civil rights, equality and freedom too. However, when those countries are bearing down on Israel, working toward the oft-expressed goal of driving the Jews out per se -- eliminating the Jews -- then I get why there is a need - a pragmatic need - to protect those people from the attackers.

Israel doesn't disenfranchise Muslims -- but saudi Arabia does disenfranchise Jews - they go further, you can't even go on vacation there, lest your Jewishness sully the great and holy name of Arabia.

It is a reasonable expectation of a civilized nation that isn't full of rabid intolerant practitioners of a particular faith that make no room for basic human rights.

And, Israel has equal rights for Muslims. They can practice their faith, or not, as they see fit. They can build mosques. They can vote. They can run for office.

Israel is home to people of various faiths and belief systems - to claim it is a country only for Jewish people is primitive and atavistic and needs must be opposed before apartheid is realized for many reasons of principle and ones of mere pragmatism as well.

.... and the claim that a country is only for the people of any religion is primitive and atavistic and needs to be opposed, right? Not just Judaism, yes? You oppose that wherever you find it, don't you?

[Hermit]

As we used to say down here before political correctness was a thing: Two wogs don't make a white.

Are you seriously asking "What's wrong with it being officially Jewish?"

Yes, because if you articulate what's wrong with it, the question becomes whether you apply that same standard to all of the surrounding countries, too.

I do apply the same standard to all countries, which is why I said "Two wogs don't make a white". As recently as 16 months ago I expressed my preference for Israel on the grounds that unlike all its neighbours it is a country with a semblance of democracy and secularism and I'd rather live in Israel than in Islamic theocracies.

The passing of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on July 19, 2018 makes it difficult to justify my stance. The following bits are particularly problematic:

b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it actualizes its natural, religious, and historical right for self-determination.

c) The actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

The sticking point is the mention of 'Jewish people' instead of Israelis because 25% of Israel's population is not Jewish. Israel is on the road to becoming as objectionable as Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

As for England being officially Anglican, Scotland Presbyterian and Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden Lutheran, I'd rather they were not, but at least they have no basic laws saying their nation state is for the Anglican, Presbyterian or Lutheran people. In fact, I have yet to discover a law that mentions the Anglican, Presbyterian or Lutheran people at all.

[Forty Two]

We are, I think, in solid agreement on this point. All countries should have secular governments without official religions.

I think it's time we reinstated the Byzantine Empire, though. Those were the days. Heady days of yore, with a good, Christian emperor, and a solid, pagan Varangian Guard out there keeping the (other) barbarians at bay. None of this promised land - chosen land - Dome of the Rock nonsense. :-D

[Hermit]

We are, I think, in solid agreement on this point. All countries should have secular governments without official religions.

Yeah. Try and tell Bibi that, and all those Israelis who keep voting for him, though.

I think it's time we reinstated the Byzantine Empire, though. Those were the days. Heady days of yore, with a good, Christian emperor, and a solid, pagan Varangian Guard out there keeping the (other) barbarians at bay. None of this promised land - chosen land - Dome of the Rock nonsense. :-D

Onward, Christian soldiers.

[Jason]

Do they disenfranchise persons living in their country because they do not worship at the official church? No. They don't.

Neither does Israel. Those other countries don't strip folks of the right to vote, but they often financially support religious institutions and prefer one in particular - the official one.

Maybe I'm confused then, but it seems to me that the Nation-State law provides that "The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people."

What do you think that means, if not disenfrachisement, for the non-Jewish citizens of Israel?