There are 2 million muslim, mostly arab, citizens who are officially and legally equal to jews. They are distinct from the arabs in Gaza or the west bank, who are not citizens.
> The law imposes the death penalty on persons convicted of fatal terrorist attacks. In military courts, the death penalty is the "default"; only Palestinians are tried. In civilian courts, both Israelis and Palestinians are tried, but the law applies only to those who "'intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel'—a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists". It therefore "effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians alone".
And to preempt the "but that's Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs" bit, nope:
> In 2005, the Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education said that the Israeli government spent an average of $192 a year on Arab students compared to $1,100 for Jewish students.
> In the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 1% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget (1.6 m shekels {£200,000}) to develop healthcare facilities.
I don't think I implied they are not discriminated. But they do, generally, enjoy the same rights. I just thought to correct what I perceive as factually incorrect.
If they join a religion that isn't on the state approved list, they can't get married there and hard or extra expensive to get buried. There are some limits on religious freedom.
They can just get married abroad. There are even online ceremonies now.
A decent number of Israeli Jews have to do that as well, since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis. Some Israeli Jews are not even considered Jews under strict orthodox rules.
Of course everyone should be free to call their civil union whatever they like and the government shouldn’t differentiate at all if your civil union has a religious blessing as well. Just because some governments appropriated the religious terminology and/or the civil union developed from a union sanctioned by a priest doesn’t mean that a government needs to guarantee everyone a religious marriage. To the contrary. Everyone should be able (and required) to register the civil union if they want to be treated as married by the state. I’m not here to defend the status quo of all the laws in Israel - I’m here to emphasize that your reading of the laws about civil unions and marriages in incomplete and the standards you apply to Israel are a hundred times higher than those you seem to apply to any other country. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. The Churches - even though they are state churches - aren’t even allowed to provide a wedding ceremony if the civil union hasn’t been performed beforehand. Which different legal provisions do you think make the „religious marriage“ vs. „civil union“ morally equal to „separate but equal“?
> Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".
If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!
Israel’s setup is not perfect (and so is the one in Germany), but as long as you cannot show that there is any meaningful legal difference in the eye of the state between a couple that’s married (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze) or in a Civil Union, I cannot see the difference to the system in Germany. I think (not an expert) the system in the UK in the same: you can get married either by the Church of England or by a civil institution - both are valid, both are equal before the law.
Edit: just check it, it’s true. “You can choose to have EITHER a religious ceremony OR a civil ceremony if you’re getting married.” [0]
So since we’ve established that it’s a common practice in some countries that marriages can be either religious or civil, but still equal before the law, could you please elaborate how exactly civil unions in Israel are discriminated against compared to religious marriages?
But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two, other than the name? Please enlighten me, I cannot find any meaningful information on this.
Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way. So I don’t fully understand why you pointed this out as an Act of discrimination against Arabs.
"In 2017, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that although Israel recognizes 'reputed spouses' as a legal union, the union is not a marriage under Israeli law, and therefore, Florida law does not recognize the relationship as a marriage."
And some people (an atheist marrying a religious person, for example) can't get one at all within Israel.
"In 2010, Israel passed the Civil Union Law for Citizens with no Religious Affiliation, 2010, allowing a couple to form a civil union in Israel if they are both registered as officially not belonging to any religion."
> Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way.
"It's fine, we discriminate against other minorities!" is not the argument you imagine it to be.
> "Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.
OP stated that all Arabs hate Israel. This opens up the debate if living in an Arabic ethnofascist state such as Gaza or a Muslim fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia would be the better choice for those 2 million Arabs. So yes, I think being the lesser of two evils is already the answer to that binary choice.
Arabs dont have equal standing and treatment in israel. Also, Israel is increasingly far right and best estimate is less rights in the future.
There are 2 million muslim, mostly arab, citizens who are officially and legally equal to jews. They are distinct from the arabs in Gaza or the west bank, who are not citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_for_Terrorists_L...
> The law imposes the death penalty on persons convicted of fatal terrorist attacks. In military courts, the death penalty is the "default"; only Palestinians are tried. In civilian courts, both Israelis and Palestinians are tried, but the law applies only to those who "'intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel'—a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists". It therefore "effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians alone".
And to preempt the "but that's Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs" bit, nope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_for_Palestinian_citizens...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel lists all sorts of other smaller inequities:
> In 2005, the Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education said that the Israeli government spent an average of $192 a year on Arab students compared to $1,100 for Jewish students.
> In the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 1% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget (1.6 m shekels {£200,000}) to develop healthcare facilities.
I don't think I implied they are not discriminated. But they do, generally, enjoy the same rights. I just thought to correct what I perceive as factually incorrect.
These are explicit government actions, not random civilians doing discrimination.
I agree that we should hold Israel to highest standards (which are, unfortunately, eroded especially by the US, these days).
Nevertheless, you should always ask yourselves: would you prefer being an gay Arab in Tel Aviv or a gay Jew in Gaza?
If they join a religion that isn't on the state approved list, they can't get married there and hard or extra expensive to get buried. There are some limits on religious freedom.
They can just get married abroad. There are even online ceremonies now.
A decent number of Israeli Jews have to do that as well, since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis. Some Israeli Jews are not even considered Jews under strict orthodox rules.
> They can just get married abroad.
They don't have to if they are one of the approved religions. That's a restriction on religious freedom.
> since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis
I don't get how is this evidence of religious freedom.
And religion and marriage really shouldn't have anything to do with one another. Atheists can marry too.
They can. It’s called a civil union. Complaining about marriage laws in Israel in this uninformed way is just an antisemite dog whistle.
A civil union is not the same as a marriage. And I'm not just talking about Israel.
Ideally, this is true:
marriage = civil union + religion
Of course everyone should be free to call their civil union whatever they like and the government shouldn’t differentiate at all if your civil union has a religious blessing as well. Just because some governments appropriated the religious terminology and/or the civil union developed from a union sanctioned by a priest doesn’t mean that a government needs to guarantee everyone a religious marriage. To the contrary. Everyone should be able (and required) to register the civil union if they want to be treated as married by the state. I’m not here to defend the status quo of all the laws in Israel - I’m here to emphasize that your reading of the laws about civil unions and marriages in incomplete and the standards you apply to Israel are a hundred times higher than those you seem to apply to any other country. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
So, not a religiously free state, as OP said.
That’s a lie. You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage. On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage?
> You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage.
Yeah, we tried "separate but equal" here too.
> On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage?
Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".
You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. The Churches - even though they are state churches - aren’t even allowed to provide a wedding ceremony if the civil union hasn’t been performed beforehand. Which different legal provisions do you think make the „religious marriage“ vs. „civil union“ morally equal to „separate but equal“?
> Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst".
If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!
> You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany.
That's great.
That's not Israel's setup.
> If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask!
"Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.
Israel’s setup is not perfect (and so is the one in Germany), but as long as you cannot show that there is any meaningful legal difference in the eye of the state between a couple that’s married (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druze) or in a Civil Union, I cannot see the difference to the system in Germany. I think (not an expert) the system in the UK in the same: you can get married either by the Church of England or by a civil institution - both are valid, both are equal before the law.
Edit: just check it, it’s true. “You can choose to have EITHER a religious ceremony OR a civil ceremony if you’re getting married.” [0]
So since we’ve established that it’s a common practice in some countries that marriages can be either religious or civil, but still equal before the law, could you please elaborate how exactly civil unions in Israel are discriminated against compared to religious marriages?
[0] https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/plan-your-ce...
Everyone can get (civil) married: Fine!
No one gets (civil) married, everyone can get a civil union: Fine!
Certain people can get (civil) married, others get a civil union: Not fine.
This is very simple. "Separate, but equal" never works.
But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two, other than the name? Please enlighten me, I cannot find any meaningful information on this.
Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way. So I don’t fully understand why you pointed this out as an Act of discrimination against Arabs.
> But what is the DIFFERENCE between the two
You, in your own comments, acknowledged they are similar, not identical.
For starters, you have to go abroad for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_civil_marriage_...
They also aren't valid abroad sometimes.
"In 2017, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that although Israel recognizes 'reputed spouses' as a legal union, the union is not a marriage under Israeli law, and therefore, Florida law does not recognize the relationship as a marriage."
And some people (an atheist marrying a religious person, for example) can't get one at all within Israel.
"In 2010, Israel passed the Civil Union Law for Citizens with no Religious Affiliation, 2010, allowing a couple to form a civil union in Israel if they are both registered as officially not belonging to any religion."
> Also: this kind of discrimination - if there is any - is targeting Arabic and Non-Arabic Israelis in the exact same way.
"It's fine, we discriminate against other minorities!" is not the argument you imagine it to be.
Opting for a separate comment for this one:
> "Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either.
OP stated that all Arabs hate Israel. This opens up the debate if living in an Arabic ethnofascist state such as Gaza or a Muslim fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia would be the better choice for those 2 million Arabs. So yes, I think being the lesser of two evils is already the answer to that binary choice.