US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Here's another interesting (and provocative) point of view and is provided with a link Smile

The Discreet Charm of the Terrorist Cause

By Anne Applebaum

Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A19

Since the bombing attacks in London last month, a welter of columnists, writers, talking heads and ordinary people have puzzled over the mystery of British Muslims, one in four of whom recently told pollsters that they sympathize with the July 7 suicide bombers.

The idea that British Muslims, whose parents received asylum, found jobs, and made lives in Britain, could be so deeply affected by the "oppression" of Muslims in countries they have never visited seems incomprehensible. The notion that events in distant deserts should lead the middle-class inhabitants of London or Leeds to admire terrorists seems inexplicable. But why should this phenomenon be so incomprehensible or inexplicable, at least to Americans? We did, after all, once tolerate a similar phenomenon ourselves.

I am talking about the sympathy for the Irish Republican Army that persisted for decades in some Irish American communities and is only now fading away. Like British Muslim support for Muslim extremist terrorism, Irish American support for Irish terrorism came in many forms. There were Irish Americans who waved the Irish flag once a year on St. Patrick's Day and admired the IRA's cause but felt queasy about the methods. There were Irish Americans who collected money for Catholic charities in Northern Ireland without condoning the IRA at all. There were also Irish Americans who, while claiming to be "aiding the families of political prisoners," were in fact helping to arm IRA terrorists. Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.

I concede there is one major difference: The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston, which somehow made the whole thing seem less real. But in Britain the explosions were real enough. In 1982 -- the year an IRA bomb killed eight people in Hyde Park -- four IRA men were arrested in New York after trying to buy surface-to-air missiles from an FBI agent. In 1984 -- the year the IRA tried to kill the whole British cabinet in Brighton -- an IRA plot to smuggle seven tons of explosives was foiled, an action that led to the arrests of several Americans. As recently as 1999, long after the IRA had declared its cease-fire, members of an IRA group connected to an American organization, the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), were arrested for gun-running in Florida.

The range of Americans who were unbothered by this sort of thing was surprisingly wide. Some were members of Congress, such as Republican Rep. Peter King of Long Island, who stayed with IRA supporters on visits to Northern Ireland and drank at a Belfast club called the Felons, whose members were all IRA ex-cons. Some were born in Ireland, such as Michael Flannery, Noraid's founder, who once said that "the more British soldiers sent home from Ulster in coffins, the better," and whose flattering obituary in 1995 described him as a man who "treated everyone he met with gentle respect." Some were Americans of Irish descent, such as Tom McBride, a businessman who is still the chairman of the Hartford chapter of Noraid, and who still refuses to condemn IRA terrorism. "I think they are protecting a segment of the population that needs to be protected," he told me over the phone.

Nor were these opinions irrelevant. The Irish journalist Conor O'Clery, who has followed Irish-American relations for more than a decade, says the IRA has "always looked to the diaspora for moral backing" as well as money. That meant that when, in the 1990s, prominent Irish Americans began to advocate "constitutional nationalism" (meaning the political process) instead of "armed struggle" (meaning terrorism), the views of many in Northern Ireland shifted, too. The IRA's announcement last week that it would finally abandon armed struggle was at least partly the result of a decade of Irish American pressure. Which means, of course, that if Irish American pressure had been applied much earlier, the whole thing might have been over long ago.

My point here isn't really about Northern Irish politics, however, but about the extraordinarily powerful appeal of foreign, "revolutionary," "idealistic" violence to the inhabitants of otherwise peaceful societies. You don't have to be Muslim, or poor, or an extremist, to feel the romantic pull of terrorism. You can be a middle-class American and a lapsed Catholic whose grandmother happened to come from Donegal.

But the appeal of foreign violence can also be destroyed, or at least reduced, if community leaders agree that they want that to happen. If British Muslims deploy every one of their religious, civic and business institutions, they may, over time, be able to eliminate the climate of tolerance that made the London bombings possible, just as Irish Americans -- as well as Rep. King, who has now called on the IRA to disband -- eventually helped eliminate the climate of tolerance around the IRA. And if they don't -- there will always be recruits willing to die for a glamorous foreign cause.
LINK

(Edited to correct the link)

0 Replies

Tico, great comic!

It's so easy to have this argument when your opponent provides all your supporting material, because they apparently don't understand the significance of what they are posting. My words in red

Foxfyre wrote:

The following is from materials used recently in a real life workshop, and I didn't take time to try to hunt up links for it. But it pretty well illustrates the mindset of those Ican defines as the malignancy I think.

NOTE: And before some numbnut here decides to interpret this as license to exterminate an entire race or religion, I, and I believe it is safe to say Ican, are quite confident that a tiny minority of people embracing the Islamic religion would even come close to qualifying as the malignancy.

Quote:
To push the enemy - the greatest kufr - out of the country is a prime duty. No other duty after Belief is more important than [this] duty. Utmost effort should be made to preapre and instiage the umma [communitiy of Muslims] against the enemy, the American-Israeli alliance - occupying the country of the two Holy Places...
--Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War, published in al-Quds al-Arabi, and Iraqi newspaper published in London: August, 1996

Note that in this quote, it says nothing about Hating Americans or despising who we are. Nothing at all. It merely states that we are their enemies and the greates duty after Beliefs is to get the enemies off of their land. This quote also SPECIFICALLY talks about the American-Israeli alliance and occupation of their holy lands. This lends credence to my argument that they hate our ACTIONS (occupation of holy lands and support of Israel, who is occupying holy lands) and not our PERSONS. Thanks!

Quote:
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers
and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the
lives of their children, to find a nationalistic government that will look
after their interests and not the interests of the Jews. The continuation
of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as Ramzi Yousef and others did.
This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves. It is our duty to lead people to the light."

- Muslim leader Osama bin Laden from the May, 1998 interview of by ABC
reporter John Miller

Yet another quote that re-inforces my argument. OBL is saying here that we should choose a gov't that doesn't mess around in the Middle East. This speaks to ACTIONS being a motivation, not irrational HATE of freedom or of who we are. You couldn't find a better line than this one to support my contention:

And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves.

There can be no doubt that this piece of evidence points to ACTIONS as a motivation; otherwise OBL would have said 'we are coming to kill all of you.' Or 'Our message to the American people is that if they don't convert to Islaam they will be killed.' But he does not. He says to choose a gov't that stops blindly supporting the Jews. Thanks!

Quote:
Every Muslim, the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews, and Christians; this is part of our ideology. Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate toward them.
--Osama bin Laden in an interview broadcast on al-Jazira television. December, 1998.

Does he hate us because of what we have done, or because of what we are? It doesn't say here. Immaterial to the discussion.

And from David Zeidan:

Quote:
It [The Islamist political movement, Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism] is partly a reaction to the severe crises of modernity converging with the rise of charismatic prophetic leaders. It is both a religious reform movement and a political ideology that includes a social element of protest by have-nots against an oppressive order, as well as a counter-attack on secularism, which has reduced the power of religion in recent decades.
"The Islamist View of Life as a Perennial Battle," Middle East Review of International Affairs, 5, no. 4 (December 2001).

Another quote that supports my argument; that extremism amongst the Muslims is caused as much by economic reasons as religious reasons. We have, in our lust for oil, supported some very brutal regimes and pitted them against each other for quite some time. This surely can't sit well with the common man of the ME and doubtlessly has lead to reprecussions.

And this from an Islamic sermon preached May 13, 2005:

Quote:
Look at modern history. Where has Great Britain gone? Where has Czarist Russia gone? Where has France gone - France, which almost ruled the entire world? Where is Nazi Germany, which massacred millions and ruled the world? Where did all these superpowers go? He who made them disappear will make America disappear too, God willing. He who made Russia disappear overnight is capable of making America disappear and fall, Allah willing.

We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

You should probably note that this is a Palestinian sermon given in Palestine, where they have no love for the Jew. As for the 'America falling' portion, they are correct; our country will sooner or later go the way of the other super-powers in the past. It is difficult to 'ride the tiger.'

Given that we fund Israel tremendously, basically making it our outpost in the Middle East, and that Israel persecutes the Palestianians greatly, how can you blame them for hating what we do? We give their enemies money and helicopters and missles to kill them, and you expect them to thank us? Wake up, Fox!

Then, in a later post, this gem:

Quote:

Interesting that you picked that quote and ignored all the others Revel. Your words seem to support the mindset that bin Laden is justified in his campaign to 'punish' America et al. You seem to support the idea that we forced them into it. It is this kind of mindset that many of us think irrational and muddle headed. If they can get enough of you to think this way, they can greatly further their ultimate goal which is to subject the entire world to Islam.

When someone disagrees with your position, you tell them that they support terrorists. The point isn't that we 'forced them into it,' don't be dense. The point is that we are not without some blame. The point is that our actions eventually have reprecussions. Even if those reprecussions aren't justified, we still have to deal with the mess that it causes; which is exactly what is happening right now.

The correct course of action is not appeasement, but one of self-examination; a critical eye towards the long-range consequences of our actions, our policies, and our attitudes will be neccessary to restore balance to the region.

I know it sticks in the craw of you righties, but we will probably have to make some changes in our behaviour, economic and military, in the Middle East, in order to get out of this one without starting a much more major conflict.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Hey Ican, can you go easy on the bold stuff? Yelling doesn't necessarily make your message any more persuasive, you know.

Thats pretty much the lesson the politicians and clerics were talking about should learn as well.

I yell like this. Mad

I emphasize like this, or like this, or like this.

However, this one time, I'll try this:

Quote:

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement, 23 February 1998

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols, Jun 09, 2004

Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.

A booklet by the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), believed to be linked to the recent London bombings, declares
the U.S., Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam and lists eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris." Blaming the U.S. for the delusions of these admittedly small groups confers a degree of legitimacy on Islamist extremists and undermines moderate Muslim struggling for the soul of their faith.

Quote:

...
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
...
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant
...

0 Replies

Fox, "...biased sources..." ROFLMAO

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The following is from materials used recently in a real life workshop
...

Quote:
We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.

Foxfyre, I cannot resist emphasizing this particular goal of the malignancy (i.e., probably less than 1% of Muslims).

We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world

I interpret that to mean one of the malignancy's goals is to subjugate those of us who let them and exterminate those of us who won't let them.

I prefer to not let them subjugate or exterminate us. I prefer to exterminate malignancy before malignancy exterminates us.

0 Replies

Another "biased source" report - from the BBC:

Iraq bomb attack kills 14 marines
Fourteen marines and their civilian translator have been killed in a roadside bombing in north-western Iraq, the US military says.
It is one of the deadliest attacks on US forces since the 2003 invasion.

It happened near the city of Haditha, in the same area as an incident on Monday in which six US marines were killed by hostile fire, the army said.

The Pentagon said it had no reason to believe Iraqi insurgents' claims that a marine was captured in that incident.

Haditha in an area that has seen frequent insurgent assaults against US troops.

The bomb is reported to have hit an amphibious assault vehicle travelling south of Haditha. One other marine was wounded.

HEAVIEST US MILITARY LOSSES IN IRAQ
31 killed in helicopter crash near Jordan border, Jan 05
17 die when two Black Hawk helicopters collide near Mosul, Nov 03
16 killed when Chinook shot down near Fallluja, Nov 03
14 killed in attack on Mosul mess tent, Dec 04
14 killed in roadside bomb in Haditha, Aug 05

The US defence department said on its website: "Names of the dead are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. No other details about the attack were immediately available."

One of Iraq's most violent Islamic militant groups, Ansar al-Sunna, has claimed responsibility for the attack on marines on Monday, saying it had killed eight personnel.

The group said it had shot some of the marines and "slit the throats" of others.

It said a ninth marine was captured, and that it would show pictures of the "American prisoner" later.

But the Pentagon denied that. "I don't have anything to suggest that is accurate. I have no indication that there are any unaccounted for personnel," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Troubled region

At least 37 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq in the last 10 days, a period of intense violence, but the latest Haditha attack ranks among the biggest US losses.
Last December, 14 US troops and four civilian contractors died in a suicide bombing targeting a military base in Mosul.

Only air crashes, with or without hostile fire, have resulted in higher US death tolls, including 16 in the November 2003 loss of a Chinook helicopter near Falluja and 31 in a helicopter crash in January 2005 near the Jordanian border.

More than 1,800 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

Pacifying Iraq's western Anbar province, where Haditha is located, is a top priority for US forces.

Officials say stability and political progress cannot be secured unless anti-US fighters are rooted out of the region.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4741989.stm

Published: 2005/08/03 14:48:00 GMT

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox and ican will never understand the motivations for young Muslims to turn to violence, but an article in today's San Jose Mercury News is spot on. I will only post excerpts from it. The title is "Another view - Is their bombing worse than ours?"

I dare say we both undestand the motivations of those young Muslims turned to violence by their elders. In my case I've seen and heard, and did not merely read, all this crap before about alleged undestanding of the motivations of the young: circa 1940, Nazis Gemany, The Hitler Youth!

By Saree Makdisi, a professor of English literature at UCLA.

"... Suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives. What happened in London occurs every time a US or British warplane unloads its bombs on an Iraqi village. ..."

... This is a war between one form of zealotry and another, one form of ignorance and another, one form of barbarism and another. More of the same will not yield solutions. The time has come to be human, and - motivated by sympathy, actuated by reason - to think and act as human beings, not unthinking brutes. ..."

Bunkum Slop!

This is the time to face reality! This is the time to set aside platitudes and pleasant dreams of what has historically never worked! This is the time to recognize that the adherents of the doctrine DAMD cannot be dissuaded by displays of our sympathy, our willingness to talk, our willingness to commisserate, and our willingness to negotiate. This is the time to really think about how we can really rectify the danger malignancy presents to the human race. This is the time to defend ourselves by exterminating malignancy before it exterminates us.

0 Replies

More hot air. You really should get control of yourself before typing if you wish to be taken seriously...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

More hot air. You really should get control of yourself before typing if you wish to be taken seriously...

Cycloptichorn

More of the griddle calling the pot greasy, when the griddle cannot make a rational response.

0 Replies

What's the point of responding rationally to an irrational rant? There's no reward in it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yes, we who are pursuing the doctrine of LALL must find ways to far better adhere to that doctrine. However, to accomplish that we must first survive the efforts of the malignancy to pursue its doctine of DAMD and find far better ways to adhere to that doctrine.

LALL = Live And Let Live.

DAMD = Die and Make Die.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What's the point of responding rationally to an irrational rant? There's no reward in it.

Cycloptichorn

Ah, therein lies the the potential reward! You can with rational responses probably eventually perceive that that which you irrationally perceive to be irrational, is actually rational.

Rational questions are invited! Smile

0 Replies

The malignancy can itself, on its own, stop being malignant. It can renounce the doctrine of DAMD, stop murdering civilians, and start unambiguously declaring such alternate goals they may have.

For example, if their alternate goal is for all non-Muslims to leave the Middle East, say so!

Some of us will probably respond "OK!" and start advocating that we do exactly that. Others of us will probably object on the basis of our doctrine of LALL.

The latter, call 'em lallers, will claim that no adherents to any religion on the face of this earth have a god-given-right to any area on the surface of this earth. They'll claim that rights to any area on the face of this earth are derived from rights secured by mutually agreed human rules of law.

Then, call 'em ex-damders, can decide what they want to do next. For example, ex-damders can propose such changes to current property and sovereignty laws as they think necessary.

Then let the negotiations proceed.

0 Replies

Quote:

The latter, call 'em lallers, will claim that no adherents to any religion on the face of this earth have a god-given-right to any area on the surface of this earth. They'll claim that rights to any area on the face of this earth are derived from rights secured by mutually agreed human rules of law.

Just as an aside, do these people then support the Palestinian stuggle for the return of their homelands?

It seems to me that the Jews have become DAMDers according to your definitions, as they certianly don't allow non-Jews to become citizens of their country and don't even allow Palestinians free access to their holy sites.

Just an aside, mind you

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The latter, call 'em lallers, will claim that no adherents to any religion on the face of this earth have a god-given-right to any area on the surface of this earth. They'll claim that rights to any area on the face of this earth are derived from rights secured by mutually agreed human rules of law.

Just as an aside, do these people then support the Palestinian stuggle for the return of their homelands?

Those arabs residing in Palestine do not have any god-given-right to Palestine. Any rights they do have to reside in Palestine are theirs only by the rule of law. Whose law? ---standby!

Those jews residing in Palestine do not have any god-given-right to Palestine or to Israel within Palestine. Any rights they do have to reside in Palestine are theirs only by the rule of law. Whose rule of law? ---standby!

Whose rule of law? Human rules of law! In the case of the jews and arabs any and all pre-20th century claims to Palestine or part of Palestine were obtained by the imposed rules of law governing conquests. Each had prior to the 20th century conquered Palestine or part of it and been in turn conquered by others who conquered Palestine or part of it.

In the case of the Palestinian arabs their original homeland was Arabia. In the case of the jews (hebrews), I guess their original homeland was where Abraham resided when his first child was born.

It seems to me that the Jews have become DAMDers according to your definitions, as they certianly don't allow non-Jews to become citizens of their country and don't even allow Palestinians free access to their holy sites.

If you are correct about what the jews allow and disallow, and additionally the jews have declared their intention to murder and do murder civilians, and not merely kill terrorists in self-defense, you have a valid point. But even if the jews do not murder civilians, they are wrong to disallow non-jews to become citizens of Israel with the full privileges and obligations of such citizenship. Whatever needs to be done to rectify that should be done.

Just an aside, mind you
Yeah, right!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Interesting that you picked that quote and ignored all the others Revel. Your words seem to support the mindset that bin Laden is justified in his campaign to 'punish' America et al. You seem to support the idea that we forced them into it. It is this kind of mindset that many of us think irrational and muddle headed. If they can get enough of you to think this way, they can greatly further their ultimate goal which is to subject the entire world to Islam.

The other quotes were from unknown (to me anyways) terrorist. Osma Bin Laden was the one behind 9/11 so I thought his quotes to be the more important to quote.

The argument started with someone saying all they want is to kill us for who we are and I pointed to some evidence both from Osma Bin Laden's fatwa of 98 and from your source that said differently. Other than that, you are free to form your own conclusions, you usually do anyway.

0 Replies

Cyclop writes

Quote:

Just as an aside, do these people then support the Palestinian stuggle for the return of their homelands?

It seems to me that the Jews have become DAMDers according to your definitions, as they certianly don't allow non-Jews to become citizens of their country and don't even allow Palestinians free access to their holy sites.

Just an aside, mind you

Just as an aside, a different professor or two teaching this stuff might be in order. Smile

It seems to me that Israeli rules governing citizenship are no more restrictive than any non-dictatorship or non-totalitarian government, and are perhaps more open than most. You will note they do not prohibit even the Palestinians from application for citizenship.

It is also instructive that they do have this restrictive policy that discourages citizenship for those who bomb or intend to bomb their school children and places of business. (The United States should take lessons here).

From the Israeli minister of foreign affairs:

Acquisition of Israeli Nationality
Israel's Nationality Law relates to persons born in Israel or resident therein, as well as to those wishing to settle in the country, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political belief. Citizenship may be acquired by:

Birth
The Law of Return
Residence
Naturalization

Acquisition of nationality by birth is granted to:

Persons who were born in Israel to a mother or a father who are Israeli citizens.

Persons born outside Israel, if their father or mother holds Israeli citizenship, acquired either by birth in Israel, according to the Law of Return, by residence, or by naturalization.

Persons born after the death of one of their parents, if the late parent was an Israeli citizen by virtue of the conditions enumerated in 1. and 2. above at the time of death.

Persons born in Israel, who have never had any nationality and subject to limitations specified in the law, if they:

apply for it in the period between their 18th and 25th birthday and
have been residents of Israel for five consecutive years, immediately preceding the day of the filing of their application.

Acquisition of Nationality according to the Law of Return
On the establishment of the State, its founders proclaimed "...the renewal of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel, which would open wide the gates of the homeland to every Jew..." In pursuance of this tenet, the State of Israel has absorbed survivors of the Holocaust, refugees from the countries in which they had resided, as well as many thousands of Jews who came to settle in Israel of their own volition.

The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jew, wherever he may be, the right to come to Israel as an oleh (a Jew immigrating to Israel) and become an Israeli citizen.

For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.

Israeli citizenship becomes effective on the day of arrival in the country or of receipt of an oleh's certificate, whichever is later. A person may declare, within three months, that he/she does not wish to become a citizen.

An oleh's certificate may be denied to persons who:

engage in activity directed against the Jewish people;
may endanger public health or the security of the state;
have a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare.

Since 1970, the right to immigrate under this law has been extended to include the child and the grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of the grandchild of a Jew. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the unity of families, where intermarriage had occurred; it does not apply to persons who had been Jews and had voluntarily changed their religion.

Acquisition of Nationality by Residence
Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952, became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

According to an amendment (1980), further possibilities to acquire citizenship by residence, were included in the law.

Acquisition of Nationality by Naturalization
Adults may acquire Israeli citizenship by naturalization at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior and subject to a number of requirements, such as:

they must have resided in Israel for three years out of the five years preceding the day of submission of the application.

they are entitled to reside in Israel permanently and have settled or intend to settle in Israel;

they have renounced their prior nationality, or have proved that they will cease to be foreign nationals upon becoming Israeli citizens.

The Minister of the Interior may exempt an applicant from some of these requirements.
LINK

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It seems to me that Israeli rules governing citizenship are no more restrictive than any non-dictatorship or non-totalitarian government, and are perhaps more open than most. You will note they do not prohibit even the Palestinians from application for citizenship.

The "Nationality and Entry into Israel Law" known as the Citizenship and Family Unification Law denies Israeli citizenship or residency status to the spouses of Israeli citizens who are residents of the West Bank or Gaza.

see: Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know