This would officially make non-Jews second class citizens -- even in the land their ancestors have been in for hundreds of years.
It could also be a pretext for revoking the citizenship of Israeli Palestinians. Israel is attempting to use its Palestinian minority as bargaining chips: the country wants them to leave should a Palestinian state be created in exchange for the settlers.
Israel is forced to keep up a facade of respecting the rights of the Palestinian Arabs (even though they're viciously discriminated against) in order to appeal to America and the West but without the West keeping somewhat of an eye on Israel Jewish Israelis would eagerly expel the Arab minority as they previously did.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laying aside the question of whether the government discriminates against Palestinians, the whole point of this legislation as I see it is to require those who are going to live in Israel to recognize the existence of a Jewish State.
Historically one of the major problems Israel has had to endure is that neighboring Muslim countries refuse to accept the notion of a Jewish nation state. Many of those living in their borders, especially those committing acts of terrorism against Jews still tow this line. Israel was absolutely created so as to give Jews a nation to live in, their decision to allow non-Jews to live there as equal citizens is a separate but no less equally important tenet of the nation.
Since Israel is in a unique circumstance where its some in its populace, neighbors and citizens of its neighbors won't recognize their existence. A nation does not have to give full citizenship to those who are in open rebellion against it, or want to fundamentally alter its nature so that it is diametrically opposed to the ideals upon which it was founded.
I'm very sympathetic to immigration here in the US. If the immigrant population was saying that the United States needed to say cede a huge portion of its land back to Mexico, and were militantly pushing that agenda, I would not have a problem with altering our immigration procedures (which are a joke incidentally) to reflect a need to required applicants to accept the integrity of our borders. Just as I expect those living in Israel to get accept that the Jews do have their own nation state, and it's not going anywhere.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's insane. Non-Jews in Israel should not have to accept that they are in effect second class citizens in a land their people have been in for hundreds of years. They're not Jewish. A loyalty oath to the nation itself is one thing and a loyalty oath to the nation as giving primacy to Jews is another.
Israel's Palestinian population very well recognize its existence -- they live there. But as citizens in a democracy they have a right to disagree with how that country should be and this legislation is aimed to punish them (and perhaps create the excuse for their expulsion) for disagreeing.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's insane. Non-Jews in Israel should not have to accept that they are in effect second class citizens in a land their people have been in for hundreds of years. They're not Jewish. A loyalty oath to the nation itself is one thing and a loyalty oath to the nation as giving primacy to Jews is another.
I eagerly await your outrage on the insanity of Islamic primacy in Islamic nation-states, Sa'eed. Not that I'm a fan at all of the idea of a Jewish nation-state, because I'm not, though I don't pretend to not understand it as you don't so transparently.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: A loyalty oath to the nation itself is one thing and a loyalty oath to the nation as giving primacy to Jews is another.
Unless there's further legislation pending, that's not what your article says. It just says that all citizens would recognize that Isreal is a Jewish state and a democracy.
Could there be problems down the line with having a national religion? Plenty of history says yes. Plenty of modern nations say no.
I think it depends on who's in charge and what they think they can get away with. But that's more my opinion of politicians in general.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
This would officially make non-Jews second class citizens -- even in the land their ancestors have been in for hundreds of years.
It could also be a pretext for revoking the citizenship of Israeli Palestinians. Israel is attempting to use its Palestinian minority as bargaining chips: the country wants them to leave should a Palestinian state be created in exchange for the settlers.
Israel is forced to keep up a facade of respecting the rights of the Palestinian Arabs (even though they're viciously discriminated against) in order to appeal to America and the West but without the West keeping somewhat of an eye on Israel Jewish Israelis would eagerly expel the Arab minority as they previously did.
How on earth would it be making them second class citizens. Abbas, if he ever gets a state, isn't going to allow Jews to live there at all. Right now, it a death-penalty offense in the PA to sell any property to a Jew. All this oath says is that new citizens (and it only applies to people getting citizenship; not to those who already have it) have to agree to accept that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state.
Jews aren't allowed into Saudi Arabia. You can't build a synagogue in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon.
And you're whining about a simple statement promising not to try and destroy the country.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The law seems to apply to new citizens, but doesn't apply to those who come back under the Law of Return.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: That's insane. Non-Jews in Israel should not have to accept that they are in effect second class citizens in a land their people have been in for hundreds of years. They're not Jewish. A loyalty oath to the nation itself is one thing and a loyalty oath to the nation as giving primacy to Jews is another.
For one thing, very, very, very few of them have lived there for hundreds of years. As opposed to the Jews who lived in Arab countries for hundreds of years -- in some cases before the Arabs themselves got there -- who were tossed out and their property confiscated when Israel became a state in 1948.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Israel's Palestinian population very well recognize its existence -- they live there. But as citizens in a democracy they have a right to disagree with how that country should be and this legislation is aimed to punish them (and perhaps create the excuse for their expulsion) for disagreeing.
Waah!!!! Waaaah!!!! Someone call the waaaaahmbulance!
This is what Arabs/Muslims do. They agitate until a country is partitioned. The side they get, they ethnically cleanse. The side they don't get, they remain in and continue agitating until the next partition.
posted
Abbas shouldn't let settlers who came to occupy land illegally be allowed to retain the illegally acquired possessions, but I'm sure he will allow Jews to live in the West Bank as Palestinian citizens.
And it is very smart for Palestinians/Arabs not to sell land to Jews, as Jews used the the semi-fact of having previously bought property as an excuse for why that land is now theirs forever. There is, simply, the risk that land sold to a Jew in that region will remain in Jewish hands forever and possibly be annexed by Israel. Why should Arabs/Palestinians allow this?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: That's insane. Non-Jews in Israel should not have to accept that they are in effect second class citizens in a land their people have been in for hundreds of years. They're not Jewish. A loyalty oath to the nation itself is one thing and a loyalty oath to the nation as giving primacy to Jews is another.
For one thing, very, very, very few of them have lived there for hundreds of years. As opposed to the Jews who lived in Arab countries for hundreds of years -- in some cases before the Arabs themselves got there -- who were tossed out and their property confiscated when Israel became a state in 1948.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Israel's Palestinian population very well recognize its existence -- they live there. But as citizens in a democracy they have a right to disagree with how that country should be and this legislation is aimed to punish them (and perhaps create the excuse for their expulsion) for disagreeing.
Waah!!!! Waaaah!!!! Someone call the waaaaahmbulance!
This is what Arabs/Muslims do. They agitate until a country is partitioned. The side they get, they ethnically cleanse. The side they don't get, they remain in and continue agitating until the next partition.
It's not ethnic cleansing. The settlers are illegal. They should be kicked out and then allowed to return legally (but not allowed to retain what they now possess.) It's just common sense.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sa'eed: OK so you don't like settlers illegally setting up kibbutzes in land that has been given to Palestine. That's understandable. I don't understand why requiring citizens of a nation to agree not to topple that nation makes Arabs in Israel second class citizens?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Citizens of a nation have the right to agitate for immigration policies they want. Just as Jews in Israel overwhelmingly prefer the maintenance of the law of return, so too should Palestinian Israelis have the right to agitate for the return of the descendants of those Palestinians whom Jews ethnically cleansed from the land.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:For one thing, very, very, very few of them have lived there for hundreds of years. As opposed to the Jews who lived in Arab countries for hundreds of years -- in some cases before the Arabs themselves got there -- who were tossed out and their property confiscated when Israel became a state in 1948."
This was a bad thing, and very childish on the part of the Arabs. Of course, it doesn't justify similar behavior on the part of Jews either, especially since Israel says that it's a democracy.
By the way, it isn't really clear that all the Jews that left were all expelled. Some certainly were, but there was also simple emigration to Israel and, according to wiki, others simply left due to growing hostility (which doesn't equal expulsion, exactly.)
The wiki article on the subject is very informative and presents a far more complex situation than Lisa paints:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Abbas shouldn't let settlers who came to occupy land illegally be allowed to retain the illegally acquired possessions, but I'm sure he will allow Jews to live in the West Bank as Palestinian citizens.
Oh, well, if YOU'RE sure!
Please. It is quite clear he will not allow this, and I don't believe for one moment that you think otherwise. Except for the purposes of debate.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is worth noting that agitating for a Christian nation is among the kind of thing we regularly mock politicians like Sarah Palin for promoting.
Saying that "the Moslems do it too!" is weak for a number of reasons. Among them, when have people started holding up places like Saudi Arabia as leading examples of human rights? Also, it should be obvious that not only Muslims would have a problem swearing loyalty to a theocracy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying that "the Moslems do it too!" is weak for a number of reasons. Among them, when have people started holding up places like Saudi Arabia as leading examples of human rights? Also, it should be obvious that not only Muslims would have a problem swearing loyalty to a theocracy.
It's not an argument for why Israel ought to be considered justified for doing it, it's an argument for why Sa'eed is a dishonest schmuck for only talking about Israel.
As, y'know, he does with regularity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's not ethnic cleansing. The settlers are illegal. They should be kicked out and then allowed to return legally (but not allowed to retain what they now possess.) It's just common sense.
The Jews living in Judea and Samaria are not there illegally. That area is not occupied territory of a sovereign nation, and the laws governing such territories therefore do not apply. These are disputed territories being administered by Israel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
This would officially make non-Jews second class citizens -- even in the land their ancestors have been in for hundreds of years.
It could also be a pretext for revoking the citizenship of Israeli Palestinians. Israel is attempting to use its Palestinian minority as bargaining chips: the country wants them to leave should a Palestinian state be created in exchange for the settlers.
Israel is forced to keep up a facade of respecting the rights of the Palestinian Arabs (even though they're viciously discriminated against) in order to appeal to America and the West but without the West keeping somewhat of an eye on Israel Jewish Israelis would eagerly expel the Arab minority as they previously did.
How on earth would it be making them second class citizens. Abbas, if he ever gets a state, isn't going to allow Jews to live there at all. Right now, it a death-penalty offense in the PA to sell any property to a Jew. All this oath says is that new citizens (and it only applies to people getting citizenship; not to those who already have it) have to agree to accept that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state.
Jews aren't allowed into Saudi Arabia. You can't build a synagogue in Jordan or Syria or Lebanon.
And you're whining about a simple statement promising not to try and destroy the country.
I'm with Lisa on this one, at least up to this point.
If you know anything about my views, you'd know that Lisa and I don't agree on a lot of points about Israel, although I am pro-Israeli to a point.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It is worth noting that agitating for a Christian nation is among the kind of thing we regularly mock politicians like Sarah Palin for promoting.
Saying that "the Moslems do it too!" is weak for a number of reasons. Among them, when have people started holding up places like Saudi Arabia as leading examples of human rights? Also, it should be obvious that not only Muslims would have a problem swearing loyalty to a theocracy.
Spain is officially a Catholic nation. But it's not a theocracy. Israel being a Jewish state doesn't make it a theocracy, either.
Note, btw, that Israel is a Jewish state. The issue isn't whether it is or not. The issue is whether we want to grant citizenship to people who object to that and who intend to change it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hold Israel to a higher standard because it insists that it is a secular democracy, that it shares America's values and that it is America's greatest friend. Moreover, it receives the most foreign aid out of all countries, so I am paying for the injustices it inflicts on the Palestinians. We aren't exactly doing the same for Arab countries (yes, we may give aid to Egypt but that's only to bribe it to maintain peace with Israel) so the idea that I must condemn Arab countries when I condemn Israeli practices is absurd.
Actually, Israeli-firsters do this all the time. They assert that there are injustices all over the world, so why focus on Israel? They imply that one is merely focusing on Israel out of prejudice against the Jews.
But the reality, as said earlier, is that Americans are asked to provide Israel with an inordinate amount of aid and diplomatic protection and, naturally, this therefore gives the citizens of this country the right and the moral authority to criticize Israel as freely as they want.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's not ethnic cleansing. The settlers are illegal. They should be kicked out and then allowed to return legally (but not allowed to retain what they now possess.) It's just common sense.
The Jews living in Judea and Samaria are not there illegally. That area is not occupied territory of a sovereign nation, and the laws governing such territories therefore do not apply. These are disputed territories being administered by Israel.
They are considered illegal by the United Nations, the same body that authorized Israel's creation and who's authority Israel uses to argue for its legitimacy.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Abbas shouldn't let settlers who came to occupy land illegally be allowed to retain the illegally acquired possessions, but I'm sure he will allow Jews to live in the West Bank as Palestinian citizens.
Oh, well, if YOU'RE sure!
Please. It is quite clear he will not allow this, and I don't believe for one moment that you think otherwise. Except for the purposes of debate.
I do believe he would allow it. The SETTLERS strike the Palestinian as evidence of their powerlessness, a symbol of their oppression, the reason why they have to use different roads and are subjected to check points and other daily humilations. Now it wouldn't exactly be smart on a politician like Abass's part to speak up for them would it?
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's not ethnic cleansing. The settlers are illegal. They should be kicked out and then allowed to return legally (but not allowed to retain what they now possess.) It's just common sense.
The Jews living in Judea and Samaria are not there illegally. That area is not occupied territory of a sovereign nation, and the laws governing such territories therefore do not apply. These are disputed territories being administered by Israel.
They are considered illegal by the United Nations, the same body that authorized Israel's creation and who's authority Israel uses to argue for its legitimacy.
If a person takes money out from a bank legally one day and robs it the next, it doesn't make the robbery okay or the withdrawal a crime.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's not ethnic cleansing. The settlers are illegal. They should be kicked out and then allowed to return legally (but not allowed to retain what they now possess.) It's just common sense.
The Jews living in Judea and Samaria are not there illegally. That area is not occupied territory of a sovereign nation, and the laws governing such territories therefore do not apply. These are disputed territories being administered by Israel.
They are considered illegal by the United Nations, the same body that authorized Israel's creation and who's authority Israel uses to argue for its legitimacy.
If a person takes money out from a bank legally one day and robs it the next, it doesn't make the robbery okay or the withdrawal a crime.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not an argument for why Israel ought to be considered justified for doing it, it's an argument for why Sa'eed is a dishonest schmuck for only talking about Israel.
That may be clear to you (which is good, let's be clear), but I'm not sure its clear to others, which leads to:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Spain is officially a Catholic nation.
Maybe, maybe not (I can't seem to verify this). But say we take it as true for the sake of argument, so what? Are you advancing the notion that Spain was a positive example of how religious minorities, such as well, Jews were treated?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
She could have been merely using it as an example of another government that has an official religion.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't matter either way. She's wrong. Spain hasn't had an official state religion since the 70's.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this is such a complicated situation. It is so very hard for me not to be prejudiced against Israel in almost everything. I disagree to my bones with its very creation, and I am disgusted that we keep funding them.
On the other hand, it does seem rather harsh to say that Israel is being overbearing by requiring this oath, when many Muslim countries are allowed to go on requiring compliance with Islamic law. Why is it ok for one, but not the other?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
it ain't. neither side should be allowed to use the other as an excuse for moral failings of the they-did-it-first or the they-do-it-worse variety, but I'm sure both sides in the middle east conflict will continue to use it to justify whatever they do that sucks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it ain't. neither side should be allowed to use the other as an excuse for moral failings of the they-did-it-first or the they-do-it-worse variety, but I'm sure both sides in the middle east conflict will continue to use it to justify whatever they do that sucks.
I totally agree with you here, Samp, except I think that I have a much higher tolerance for what I consider acceptable behavior when people are fighting to prevent their extermination. So to me, the moral failings are overwhelmingly on one side.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything that Israel does that doesn't really apply to 'preventing extermination,' or what won't actually help them at all and actively hurts them in the long run, they (and many people) will still excuse in a similar vein. "We're fighting to prevent our extermination!" falls flat when it's used to back up stuff which has no bearing on, or even enhances the threat on Israel through exterior reprisal.
And since it happens all the time, that makes the whole 'overwhelming' one side of moral failings little more than a PR coup.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah that would make sense except I've seen some of the incidents that you claimed actively hurt them in the long run, so... thanks anyway?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Doesn't matter either way. She's wrong. Spain hasn't had an official state religion since the 70's.
That's irrelevant. It wasn't a theocracy even before the '70s. Certainly not during the 20th century.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Israel wants to be only marginally better than some Muslim countries, that's their right as a sovereign nation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If Israel wants to be only marginally better than some Muslim countries, that's their right as a sovereign nation.
I don't see anyone trying to topple Arab countries by using demographics. Whereas the Arabs are open about their intent to do so to Israel.
Judge us when you're in our place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Church of England anyone? Shintoism in Japan?
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Roman Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion: Costa Rica[5] Liechtenstein[6] Malta[7] Monaco[8] Vatican City (Holy See)
A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina[2], Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy[9], Indonesia, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay[10], Peru[11], Poland[12], Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain[13], give a special recognition to Catholicism in their constitution despite not making it the state religion.
quote: Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their state religion: Greece (Church of Greece)[14] Finland: Finnish Orthodox Church has a special relationship with the Finnish state.[15] The internal structure of the church is described in the Orthodox Church Act. The church has a power to tax its members and corporations if a majority of shareholders are members. The church does not consider itself a state church, as the state does not have the authority to affect its internal workings or theology.
quote: Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their state religion: Denmark (Church of Denmark)[16] Iceland (Church of Iceland)[17] Norway (Church of Norway)[18] Finland: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland has a special relationship with the Finnish state, its internal structure being described in a special law, the Church Act.[15] The Church Act can be amended only by a decision of the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and subsequent ratification by the parliament. The Church Act is protected by the Finnish constitution, and the state can not change the Church Act without changing the constitution. The church has a power to tax its members and all corporations unless a majority of shareholders are members of the Finnish Orthodox Church. The state collects these taxes for the church, for a fee. On the other hand, the church is required to give a burial place for everyone in its graveyards.[19] The Finnish president also decides the themes for the intercession days. The church does not consider itself a state church, as the Finnish state does not have the power to influence its internal workings or its theology, although it has a veto in those changes of the internal structure which require changing the Church Act. Neither does the Finnish state accord any precedence to Lutherans or the Lutheran faith in its own acts.
quote: Jurisdictions that recognise an Anglican church as their state religion: England (Church of England)
quote: Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their state religion: Tuvalu (Church of Tuvalu)
quote: Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals. At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions, particularly Orthodox Jewish ones, and recognizes the "religious communities" as carried over from those recognized under the British Mandate. These are: Jewish and Christian (Eastern Orthodox, Latin [Catholic], Gregorian-Armenian, Armenian-Catholic, Syrian [Catholic], Chaldean [Uniate], Greek Catholic Melkite, Maronite, and Syrian Orthodox). The fact that the Muslim population was not defined as a religious community is a vestige of the Ottoman period[citation needed] during which Islam was the dominant religion and does not affect the rights of the Muslim community to practice their faith. At the end of the period covered by this report, several of these denominations were pending official government recognition; however, the Government has allowed adherents of not officially recognized groups freedom to practice. In 1961, legislation gave Muslim Shari'a courts exclusive jurisdiction in matters of personal status. Three additional religious communities have subsequently been recognized by Israeli law – the Druze (prior under Islamic jurisdiction), the Evangelical Episcopal Church, and the Bahá'í.[23] These groups have their own religious courts as official state courts for personal status matters (see millet system). The structure and goals of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are governed by Israeli law, but the law does not say explicitly that it is a state Rabbinate. Non-recognition of other streams of Judaism is the cause of some controversy. As of 2010, there is no civil marriage in Israel, although there is recognition of marriages performed abroad.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Judge us when you're in our place.
To someone who considers israel's practices to be immoral, this is essentially like saying 'you don't have any right to judge us until you've morally compromised yourself as much as us.'
roughly equivalent to a murderer saying 'judge me when you're in my place!' — no thanks. I don't have to participate in aggrieving of my own moral standards to judge a person or organization that has, thank you very much.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel is not a theocracy!! In this, Lisa is correct. If the Torah were the official law of the land and the council of Rabbis served as the high court of the land (or something similar), it could reasonably said that Israel was a theocracy. Neither of those are even remotely true. As far as I'm aware, only a few extremists are even suggesting that should be the case.
This is not true of many Islamic nations, such as Saudia Arabia and Iran. In those countries (as far as I understand), Sharia law is enforced by the government and religious leaders hold direct political power.
It should however be noted that the two countries with the largest Muslim population (Indonesia and India), are secular democracies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The province of Aceh in Indonesia has Islam as its official religion however.
IP: Logged |
According to the Justice Minister, Jews returning to Israel (and it's interesting that you accept that it's "returning", Ib) will have to make the same affirmation.
It isn't an oath, incidentally. It's a simple declaration that the person (a) will be loyal to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and that (b) they will obey the laws of the state.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you be loyal to Israel as a Jewish state while voting for politicians who would like to make Israel less officially Jewish?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
