Danielle,

Please do at least some preliminary research. You should not make the ridiculous claim that the Supreme Court "often" over-rules the decisions of the Ministry of the Interior definition of Mihu Yehudi as advised by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate. I can think of only a handful of cases; Oswald Rufeisen in 1950, Benjamin Shalit in 1970 and Shoshanna Miller in 1980. No sane individual would consider 3 individuals in approximately sixty years to constitute "often".

Further, the last time there was UN peackeeping mission between Israel and Egypt was the Second United Nations Emergency Force after the Yom Kippur War. The mission lasted from 1973-1979. This was completed with the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty of March 26, 1979 following agreements at the 1978 Camp David meeting and the establishment of the Multinational Force and Observers which is still in operations.

It would appear that your claim about the last UN peacekeeping mission between Egypt and Israel is demonstrably false.

You may, as always, be as factually incorrect as often as you want.

Bennie,

You succinct summary explains exactly what the problem is. Thank you.

Hmm... My bread looks a little flat tonight....

Lev,

I had moved well on from Mihu Yehudi when mentioning Israel’s Supreme Court over-ruling on religious matters. I had hoped Solthechef would have explained Mihu Yehudi, along with the Arab party (and their platform) in the Knesset .

Incidentally, those examples you provided greatly suprised me. In the matter of Mihu Yehudi and Orthodoxy, it would be rather akin to a ruling on “virginity”. However, converts from overseas, of whatever Jewish “persuasion”, are accepted in Israel. Indeed their non-converted, non-Jewish partners and non-Jewish children are also accepted, whatever their race, nationality, their religion or non-religion.

Israel’s Supreme Court. A simple, but significant example - the Sabbath and the conduct of business. Until 1990, Municipalities’ by-laws regulated opening/closing times of the Sabbath. The Israel’s Supreme Court reviewed this by-law declaring it void, as it limited the freedom of religion, which also includes the freedom NOT to believe.
[61 Cr. P (Jerusalem) 3471,3472/87 State of Israel v. Kaplan, 1988(2) P.M. 265.]

The Knesset overturned this decision. However, under the Municipalities Order Amendment Law (No. 40), of 1990, municipalities now not only rarely enforce such laws, but also allow the opening of cinemas, entertainment and restaurants on Saturday.
[S. Shetreet, Between The Three Branches of Government- The Balance of Rights in Matters of Religion in Israel, (The Floersheimer Institute For Policy Studies, Jerusalem, 1998) at pages 25-26 (Hebrew)]

Whilst this example is convoluted, other examples are more straight forward, and demonstrate the authority and/or influence of Israel’s Supreme Court.

About 50% of Israeli-Jews define themselves as secular. Nearly 40% of all Israeli-Jews identify themselves as agnostic even atheist. Only some 10% of Israeli Jews are Haredim. Considering the numbers of non-religious Jews in Israel, they would be rioting in the streets if they were forced to submit to religious policy/programs. Israeli-Jews are called Sabras for good reason ...

UN peace-keepers. I was referring to the Six-Day War. But, indeed your comments reinforce the observation by many that UN peace-keepers are only effective when both sides want peace.

cont ...

UN peace-keepers in confrontation with Hamas ...?! Be realistic, Lev. Would you volunteer to be a UN peace-keeper under such conditions?

Gazans thought with their feet when Hamas took over. If Israel’s Muslim population are living in such dire conditions, they would do the same. Christians, Druze, Baha’i, Bedouins, Gypsies and others regard Israel as their homeland. They identify Israel as a democracy, and willingly tender their allegiance to this state. We don’t hear Christians, Druze, Baha’i, Bedouins, Gypsies, etc. complaining; indeed comparatively few Israeli Muslims themselves do. However, when people do have something to say, they are assured of freedom of speech and very large woofers and tweeters.

Lev, you still haven’t addressed the issue of Hamas’ treatment of its own and of its policies. A case of any other diversionary discussion, but avoid this at all costs ...? This is a central issue in any discussion of the Palestinians.

So your bread is also flat, Lev? Guess it must be that time of the year.

bushbred,

When has Israel ever threatened to use atomic weapons - or even admitted to having them?

Indeed reports state: “believe”, “regard,” “estimate,” “or according to” .. all supposition, but never confirmation of an Israeli nuclear arsenal. I may be quite wrong, but I suspect Israel has atomic weapons.

However, Israel has never “sabre rattled” them as a deterrent nor threat. And Israel would never be the first to employ them. In fact, if nuclear war broke out in the ME many areas would be uninhabitable waste-lands - homeland to none; ... and let’s not forget the oil ... vested interests ... an’ all that ...

"I had moved well on from Mihu Yehudi when mentioning Israel’s Supreme Court over-ruling on religious matters."

Nevertheless you were incorrect in your assertion. It would do you well to acknowledge it.

"UN peace-keepers. I was referring to the Six-Day War."

Which was not, as you claimed, the last time that UN peacekeepers were used between Egypt and Palestine. Again, please acknowledge your errors.

"But, indeed your comments reinforce the observation by many that UN peace-keepers are only effective when both sides want peace."

That is clearly incorrect. As a most recent example, in Timor Leste the pro-integration militia did not want peace with the pro-independence militia. But the UN peacekeepers were effective nonetheless.

"UN peace-keepers in confrontation with Hamas ...?! Be realistic, Lev. Would you volunteer to be a UN peace-keeper under such conditions?"

Most certainly.

"Lev, you still haven’t addressed the issue of Hamas’ treatment of its own and of its policies."

This is also incorrect. On numerous occassions I have addressed the Hamas charter, practises and its polices.

"So your bread is also flat, Lev? Guess it must be that time of the year."

Whilst I abhor the patriarchial nonsense and violence implicit in the story of Makot Mitzrayim, I do participate in Maggid and especially prefer the Ma Nishtana.

Danielle, please remember that Israel has already got those nuclear weapons, and incidently is the reason Iran wants to go nuclear, and as far as can be the focus of balance of power strategy, as happened between India and Pakistan, a near nation has the right to build up its defence or power accordingly.

The point is, Danielle, Israel gained enough power when built up by America to challenge the fresh lot of arms coming from the Soviets early in the Yom Kippur War - without Israel being allowed to carry on with a nuclear programme.

As I explained previously, Danielle, lefty philosophers, as PaulL calls them, have no love for Islam, but are just looking for a fair deal in the Middle East, where ever since WW1, with the end of the Ottomans, first Britain and later the US after WW2 carried on enterprises too much for oil and Western hegemonic gain rather than the roles of true libertinian deliverers.

Bennie,

>> “Judaism is no more exceptional than the church of the flying spaghetti monster, though it's much better organised.”

I wonder if you take the same view with respect to Muslims. I know that Marilyn certainly does not.

It’s interesting that you should suggest that Judaism is irrelevant, because Hitler decided it was so relevant that he killed 6 million jews. The Arabs decided it was so relevant that after 1948 there were basically no Jews left in the middle east outside of Israel. An exodus similar in size to that which the Palestinians consider to be Al Naqba. During the 1970’s terrorists considered it so important that they murdered as many as Jews as they could lay hands upon.

>> “Israel's not the Promised Land, nor is it home of the Chosen Ones’

If you bothered to read any of my posts on this issue you would know that I agree with you in this respect. Israel is a formation of the United Nations. A homeland for the Jews was presaged as early as 1917.

In 1922, the League of Nations granted Great Britain a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME". Before that Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1947, the newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it. That is why there is a country called Israel but no Palestine.

Lev,

Why should Palestine be the sovereign state? What special characteristic that Israel lacks does Palestine have that it should be granted sovereignty over the land?

Do we Australians deserve sovereignty over our country? And if not who does?

BTW it seems as though the League of Nations felt that the Jews were a nation of people. See article 2 and others http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1922mandate.html