Zionism's Downward Spiral Continues: Now a Loyalty Oath for "Non-Jews"

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,107
113
What, no response toguy?

OTB
LOL. You are quite right I misspoke. The oath referred to has been approved by cabinet but not the full Knesset. There were alternatives and compromises offered which generally included making the oath applicable to all new citizens but you are quite right as passed by cabinet it applies to non-Jews.

As I said before I don't think the oath is necessary and I believe the entire issue and timing are unfortunate and simply feed the haters like you.

In any event Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east without a an official religion and the rights of all religions are protected. The rights of all religions and ethnic minorities are much safer and better protected than anywhere else in the Middle East. The proposed oath does not change that as much as you and your friends would like everyone to believe. It simply asks new non-Jewish citizens to acknowledge what had been acknowledged by the UN as the underpinning of the creation of Israel.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
LOL. You are quite right I misspoke. The oath referred to has been approved by cabinet but not the full Knesset. There were alternatives and compromises offered which generally included making the oath applicable to all new citizens but you are quite right as passed by cabinet it applies to non-Jews.
Fair enough

As I said before I don't think the oath is necessary and I believe the entire issue and timing are unfortunate and simply feed the haters like you.
Oh I wouldn't lump me in with the Israel bashers on TERB, I try and have a balanced view of Israel, it's not always right or wrong.

In any event Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east without a an official religion and the rights of all religions are protected. The rights of all religions and ethnic minorities are much safer and better protected than anywhere else in the Middle East. The proposed oath does not change that as much as you and your friends would like everyone to believe. It simply asks new non-Jewish citizens to acknowledge what had been acknowledged by the UN as the underpinning of the creation of Israel.
I guess that's the thing, I don't hold Israel to ME standards because those would be so pathetically low.... I view Israel as a Democratic republic and hold it to the standards anyone would hold such a country to (say Germany). The comparisons to Iran, Saudi Arabia and other ME countries are silly, the countries are not comparable. If the US didn't share this view I don't think we'd send billions to Israel and billions more to it's neighbors to bribe them to be friendly. We're talking a lot of money here and only 7.5m people.... less than the population of Ohio.

OTB
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,107
113
Fair enough



Oh I wouldn't lump me in with the Israel bashers on TERB, I try and have a balanced view of Israel, it's not always right or wrong.



I guess that's the thing, I don't hold Israel to ME standards because those would be so pathetically low.... I view Israel as a Democratic republic and hold it to the standards anyone would hold such a country to (say Germany). The comparisons to Iran, Saudi Arabia and other ME countries are silly, the countries are not comparable. If the US didn't share this view I don't think we'd send billions to Israel and billions more to it's neighbors to bribe them to be friendly. We're talking a lot of money here and only 7.5m people.... less than the population of Ohio.

OTB
I agree with you but that is part of the problem. Israel is held to a standard that no other country in the world is. The haters all criticizes Israel for actions they would never dream of criticizing any country in the ME for and very few if any elsewhere in the world. it is this double standard that is used to de-legitimize Israel which creates the issues.

Israel shares common values with the US and Canada. it is by any objective measure a democratic state in which the rights of all citizens, Jewish and non, are protected.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I agree with you but that is part of the problem. Israel is held to a standard that no other country in the world is. The haters all criticizes Israel for actions they would never dream of criticizing any country in the ME for and very few if any elsewhere in the world. it is this double standard that is used to de-legitimize Israel which creates the issues.

Israel shares common values with the US and Canada. it is by any objective measure a democratic state in which the rights of all citizens, Jewish and non, are protected.
Imagine the uproar if the US changed it's citizenship oath for only non English speakers that they were becoming citizens of an English speaking nation (or Christian for that matter) and was considering a law where spouses in Mexico would not be granted citizenship!

I think Israel is held to a higher standard than it's neighbors (which is appropriate) but not a higher standard than other democratic republics.

OTB
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,107
113
Imagine the uproar if the US changed it's citizenship oath for only non English speakers that they were becoming citizens of an English speaking nation (or Christian for that matter) and was considering a law where spouses in Mexico would not be granted citizenship!

I think Israel is held to a higher standard than it's neighbors (which is appropriate) but not a higher standard than other democratic republics.

OTB
In this regard I agree. In virtually all others i do not. Lets see if the legislation requiring the oath passes the Knesset and becomes law. Again although I disagree with it I still believe that it is much ado about nothing. Although symbolically it looks bad it is in fact simply a recognition of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. This fact has been acknowledged since its inception and is now being used as a ploy by Abbas to abandon the settlement negotiations which he was late to to start. Of course in typical fashion or Israel recently the timing could not have been worse.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
... Although symbolically it looks bad it is in fact simply a recognition of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. This fact has been acknowledged since its inception and is now being used as a ploy by Abbas to abandon the settlement negotiations which he was late to to start. Of course in typical fashion or Israel recently the timing could not have been worse.
In the positive news,

PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders

Yasser Abed Rabbo says that in exchange for accepting Palestinian territorial claims, it will recognize Israel as 'whatever it wants.'
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ze-israel-in-return-for-1967-borders-1.318835

It's good to see a Palestinian representitive who realizes that if they want their own state they can't make too many demands on how other countries must be run.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
In this regard I agree. In virtually all others i do not. Lets see if the legislation requiring the oath passes the Knesset and becomes law. Again although I disagree with it I still believe that it is much ado about nothing. Although symbolically it looks bad it is in fact simply a recognition of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. This fact has been acknowledged since its inception and is now being used as a ploy by Abbas to abandon the settlement negotiations which he was late to to start. Of course in typical fashion or Israel recently the timing could not have been worse.
See, not such a hater after all.

The self inflicted wounds always hurt the most, the US is no stranger to this behavior, Israel is not unique here.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
In the positive news,


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ze-israel-in-return-for-1967-borders-1.318835

It's good to see a Palestinian representitive who realizes that if they want their own state they can't make too many demands on how other countries must be run.
Talk about flipping obvious - it should take all of 4 hours to hammer out this deal, everyone knows what it will look like - problem is those in charge know there is more political danger in making peace than war (see the last Israeli PM that was murdered).

OTB
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The oath was a sop to Netanyahu's far right base in order to shut down criticism of his offer to halt the construction of settlements.

It boggles the mind that the Palestinians would turn down that offer. They've already recognized Israel, is recognizing Israel as a Jewish state really such a big deal that they're willing to forgo progress on one of their most fundamental issues?

No-one asked them to recognize the current borders, or recognize the legitimacy of the settlements--they could have released a statement denouncing the settlements and denouncing the border while recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Would that REALLY have been so bad for them? What do they actually lose in recognizing blatant reality?

Officially recognizing the truth in order to achieve a major negotiating goal seems like an obvious move.
 

flubadub

Banned
Aug 18, 2009
2,651
0
0
You want them to give up a major bargaining chip for nothing?
Besides, they said they'd do that in exchange for the 1967 borders, as if Israel would ever settle for that.
Now it looks like they are going to either go to the UN and ask for uniltaeral stateship or only work towards the 1967 borders.

Meanwhile, a member of Knesset just called for the assination of Ahmadinjad while he's visiting in Lebanon.
And Israel has been holding practice runs for mass expulsion of Arabs.
The downward spiral continues.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/13/israeli-mp-ahmadinejad-must-not-leave-lebanon-alive/
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/israeli-forces-train-for-arab-transfer-riots?pageCount=0
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You want them to give up a major bargaining chip for nothing?
Seemed like a fairly insignificant thing to give up in exchange for a major objective of theirs.

Besides, they said they'd do that in exchange for the 1967 borders, as if Israel would ever settle for that.
At least that was positive.

Now it looks like they are going to either go to the UN and ask for uniltaeral stateship or only work towards the 1967 borders.
That's not going to go anywhere. Israel's a sovereign state, the UN can't force it to integrate anything. The result will be occupation in perpetuity.
 

Mervyn

New member
Dec 23, 2005
3,549
0
0
Well, at least conditions are going back and forth, which is a start at least.

Imo, A middle-ground here is Isreal suspends their settlements for now , and in Turn the West bank can agree that they will accept Isreal as a Jewish state once the border's between the two have been agreed upon.

This would mean they would most likely not get the 1967 borders, but still leaves open a chance to find an acceptable compromise between the two.
 

flubadub

Banned
Aug 18, 2009
2,651
0
0
That's not going to go anywhere. Israel's a sovereign state, the UN can't force it to integrate anything. The result will be occupation in perpetuity.
Seems to me that if the UN has the right to create Israel as a nation it has the right to declare it two.
 

schne327

New member
Jul 16, 2010
256
0
0
To be fair, Israel should be restricted to it's boundaries when it was ruled by King's David and Soloman. Thus, Israel would still just occupy a tiny portion, of the Middle East, and the Arab's could occupy the entire rest. This would leave more than enough land, for a country, for the "Palestinians" if the other Arabs really wanted to make one. I am sure even Flub and Gryf would agree to such a reasonable solution, based upon historical boundaries.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Seems to me that if the UN has the right to create Israel as a nation it has the right to declare it two.
Nope. The UN did not create Israel, it had nothing more than an advisory role in that process. Britain, which had jurisdiction over the territory at the time, created Israel. Britain got the authority to do that from the Supreme Allied Command, which captured the territory from the Ottomans. The UN had no place in the process other than it proposed a plan that it hoped those with authority would implement.

Now that Israel is sovereign and independent Britain no longer has authority there either--Israel is a sovereign state, master of its own destiny, exercising its own right to self-determination, and so on. More to the point Israel self-declared independence after the British withdrawal, and that declaration was recognized by almost every country in the world--the Arabs refused to recognize it, and invaded. Some of them have now recognized Israel, others still have not, but certainly the UN has no jurisdiction over any of this. In fact, Israel exists even as a member of the UN in any capacity at all only because Israel chooses to.

I think you should look up the word "sovereign" in your dictionary. Unless you want to side with Hamas and assert that Israel does not exist you have to accept that Israel has a sovereign right to decide whether or not it wants to annex any other territories (and those territories have a right to decide whether or not they want to be annexed). Israel will no doubt refuse to, other than on terms of its own choosing (i.e., occupation in perpetuity).

Even if Israel did nominally annex the West Bank / Palestine it could do it under a "one state, two systems" formula, the way that Hong Kong is part of China but not administered under the same laws or the same constitution, with separate currency, separate passports, separate criminal laws and no right of travel between the two. In other words, occupation in perpetuity once again.

None of those outcomes are good for Palestinians. Their best option is to step up and take control of their own destiny, become sovereign in their own right, and manage their own affairs in the way they see fit.
 
Last edited:

Mervyn

New member
Dec 23, 2005
3,549
0
0
To be fair, Israel should be restricted to it's boundaries when it was ruled by King's David and Soloman. Thus, Israel would still just occupy a tiny portion, of the Middle East, and the Arab's could occupy the entire rest. This would leave more than enough land, for a country, for the "Palestinians" if the other Arabs really wanted to make one. I am sure even Flub and Gryf would agree to such a reasonable solution, based upon historical boundaries.
I don't think they would.

 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
...
Besides, they said they'd do that in exchange for the 1967 borders, as if Israel would ever settle for that...
Israel has already stated that they will accept the '67 borders with agreed land swaps. The only real disagreement on this front is how much land will be swapped.
 

zz000ter

New member
Oct 20, 2010
336
0
0
I thought Israel is a secular nation - even though it is the Homeland of the Jews.
I do not agree with the oath.

Following their line of logic, Canada was created by Catholics/Protestants/Christians.
Should all new citizens swear an oath to Our Founding God?
 
Toronto Escorts