Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Alderman su Kaniuk

:-)
 
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/56546/writers-historic-jewish-words
 
 
Writer's historic Jewish words
By Geoffrey Alderman
Created 18 Oct 2011 - 2:06pm
 
Last month, in the district court of Tel Aviv, a blow was struck for
common sense. Although in itself a small matter, concerning the
personal circumstances of one Israeli citizen, the court's verdict is
likely to have profound repercussions, touching not merely the legal
status of Jewish citizens of the Jewish state but also the Jewish
character and characteristics of that state, matters which currently
lie - as we all know - at the very heart of Israel's relations with
the Arab world.
 
On September 27, the Tel Aviv district court upheld an application
made by Yoram Kaniuk to have his status on Israel's population
register defined as Jewish by nationality but not by religion.
 
The Interior Ministry, which maintains the register, will now have to
redefine him as being Jewish, but "without religion".
 
Mr Kaniuk, a much acclaimed writer of both fiction and non-fiction,
was born in Tel Aviv's Neve Tzedek district 81 years ago. He fought
for the Palmach in Israel's war of independence in 1948 and was
wounded in action.
 
He married a Christian lady. He and his family apparently practise no
religious observance. Yet he is a proud Jew.
 
While not for one moment wishing to interfere with the right of other
Jews to freedom of worship, his lawyer explained to the court that as
Kaniuk himself chooses to live a life devoid of religious belief, he
resents - and views as an infringement of his own rights - the
Interior Ministry's insistence that he be described as "of the Jewish
religion". Now that description will have to be amended.
 
I have never met Mr Kaniuk. If I did, I would feel obliged to tell him
that - as a fellow Jew and Zionist - I find some of his published
views (on, for example, the future status of Jerusalem) unpalatable
and unacceptable.
 
I would also feel obliged to tell him that I wish he had found a
Jewish lady to marry instead of a Christian one. But I would also feel
duty bound to add that, in insisting on defining himself as Jewish
simply and exclusively by nationality (the Hebrew word he uses - le'om
- can also be translated as ethnicity) he has earned my admiration and
has my unqualified support.
 
The quality of being Jewish has two interrelated but essentially
distinct dimensions, one religious and the other ethnic. While
following a Jewish religious lifestyle might indeed reflect or be
grounded in a Jewish ethnic identity, the second does not necessarily
follow from the first.
 
In this country - as in Israel - there are many Jews who are
irreligious, even anti-religious. But they are still Jews and
willingly identify themselves as such. In the eyes of UK law, Jews are
an ethnic group, and therefore enjoy the protection afforded by race-
relations legislation.
 
It was, after all, on that basis that the child "M" was famously able
to bring and eventually win his case against the JFS and the Office of
the Chief Rabbi in 2009.
 
In Israel, the Kaniuk case has focused public attention on, and re-
ignited the debate about, the relationship between "church" and state.
Israel's declaration of independence purported to guarantee freedom of
religion, but the paradoxical truth is that for Jews, in Israel, such
a freedom does not currently exist.
 
In Israel, the Orthodox rabbinate enjoys - or has until very recently
enjoyed - a state-sanctioned monopoly as far as the personal status of
Israeli Jews is concerned.
 
As an Orthodox Jew myself - Jewish both by observance and by ethnicity
- I find this deeply troubling. I also suspect that it is counter-
productive, alienating from any religious observance those Israeli
Jews who might otherwise consider adopting some form of religious
lifestyle. I know many rabbis, some of whom you would probably
consider not just Orthodox but ultra-Orthodox, who share this view.
 
Religious identity and belief are essentially private matters, in
which the state should play no part, other than to act as their
guarantor.
 
But it is not just on Israel's domestic front that the Kaniuk judgment
is likely to create waves. As Benjamin Netanyahu explained so
eloquently when addressing the UN last month, at the core of the
dispute between Israel and its Palestinian-Arab neighbours is the
refusal of the Palestinian Authority to recognise Israel as a Jewish
state.
 
This denial has religious origins, but is commonly articulated,
nowadays, in terms of a refusal to accord Jews the status of a nation
with a concomitant right of national self-determination.
 
In emphasising the ethnic dimension to what one might term Jewish
"peoplehood" Yoram Kaniuk's victory could not have come at a better
time.

 By Geoffrey Alderman
 
quello che ha gioito più per la morte di Arrigoni che per quella di
Osama, giusto?
http://www.vanityfair.it/news/mondo/2011/05/18/vittorio-arrigoni-geoffrey-alderman-storico-inglese-anti-sionista
 

 Osama, giusto?
 
Arrigoni e' quello che gioiva per i missili, giusto?
 

 Arrigoni e' quello che
 
non ha ammazzato 3000 persone a NY: Siete due infami


aha. Ed e' stato ucciso dal Mossad, giusto?


per la goduria delle merdacce come voi. Vi hanno fatto un favore,
ringraziateli, almeno

 per la
 
Bombacci, se tu avessi letto l'articolo cui stai cercando di
rispondere, avresti scoperto che Alderman e' sostanzialmente d'accordo
con te per quanto riguarda la discussa decisione di Kaniuk. Avresti
scoperto di avere, persino tra gli avvversari, qualcuno con cui vai
d'accordo. Ma, incredibilmente, sei riuscito a farti sfuggire anche
questa opportunita'
D'altronde ti si chiama Bombacci per le note ragioni.
 

 d'accordo
 
spiacente, ma chi sostiene di godere per la morte di qualcuno che non
ha fatto mai male a nessuno (se non alla propaganda sionista) più
della morte di un terrorista con almeno 3000 morti sulla coscienza,
non può essere d'accordo con me, qualsiasi altra cosa dica.

 spiacente, ma chi sostiene di godere
 
roba di cui non ti intendi.