I am also a bit amazed that Ken W’s fixation on supposed inequalities of citizenship has completely bypassed the usual rhetoric, which opposes the inequalities regarding *acquisition* of Israeli citizenship, in favor of a craptastic linguistic infelicity. Law of Return not being fair viz. Citizenship Law of 1950, for example, as one form of the usual objection. So I suspect that he actually knows f*ck-all about Israeli citizenship law, or the citizenship laws of other Diaspora-favoring nation-states.

Chaim Gans’ _A Just Zionism_ is a great (if rather dry survey) of the relevant issues and court cases for English readers.

“The head of state in the UK has to be an Anglican by law and so unlike Israel the UK is racist in the extreme by treating all non-Anglicans as de jure second class citizens who can never be head of state and you apparently are a bigotted arsehole who approves of this discrimination. See you in the funny papers.”

Are you guys pooling you ignorance for greater effect?
A few very basic facts:

The Anglican church is a ‘Religion’. It is a ‘Protestant’ or Reformed branch of Roman Catholic Christianity.

You do not even have to be born in England: i.e. of English Nationality, to join.

Anyone can join the Anglican church: you just walk in the door and ask the man in the cassock / dog collar.

On ‘ethnicity’ you can tell the man you are an ethnic Martian. He may smile but he will still allow you to join.

That’s because belonging to the Church of England has also got fuck all to do with ‘ethnicity’.

If you become King/Queen (which has its own rules to do with being born from a particular historical family or ‘lineage’: which rules out most of the English) you become ‘Defender of the Faith’:i.e. head of the reformed Church in England.

That’s why A Dutchman (Dutchman=a man of Dutch Nationality.i.e. non Englishman) without a word of English called William of Orange who was a reformed Protestant and not an Anglican could become king of England and Head of the Church of England.

That’s why A Scotsman i.e. born in Scotland (= non Englishman)’ Presbyterian’: a separate reformed Branch (Non Church of England) like James I likewise could.

You got that? The word you are looking for is ‘Catholic’. You can be a Scottish king of England, even a Dutch king of England (Hell, if you have the correct lineage you can be from any Nationality in the world), but what you cannot be is a ‘Catholic’ That is because ‘Catholic’ is another ‘Religion’: This other religion is ‘unreformed’ and it has another head called the ‘Pope’ and Catholics believe other different shit.

That’s why you cannot be a ‘Catholic’ and head of the Church of England. Nothing to do with ‘Ethnicity’ nor indeed even Nationality. Its called ‘Religion’.

Now, your man Fabian made a dumb-fuck analogy and he was wrong. At that point it would be better to shut up, but no, you have now compounded this with another dumb fuck assertion proving you ignorance knows no bounds.

On the final bit of whataboutery which you bring up concerning British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens not forgetting Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Here we apparently agree. It is indeed a good analogy. As I have already said:

“Certainly Israel’s racist divides concerning ethnicity and status do indeed bear a direct comparison with similar racist divides applied to the identities and status of the people of former colonies by the British government. This is hardly surprising given their similar nature as racist colonial enterprises.”

- Though I have a funny feeling you wish you hadn’t mentioned it now.

So yes, your final analogy is a good one. Your Israeli state is racist. It is indeed as racist as anything produced by the British Empire, if not more so. Your espousal of it is racist, and your defence of it is not only racist but purblind stupidity.

so there’s at least three or more classes (as lbnaz points out) of British nationality

Brits who can be head of state
Brits who can live in Britain “proper”, but not become head of state by virtue of not being Anglican
and British Overseas Territories citizens, not full Brits
then there is British Overseas citizens

not forgetting Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

pots, kettle?

The head of state in the UK has to be an Anglican by law and so unlike Israel the UK is racist in the extreme by treating all non-Anglicans as de jure second class citizens who can never be head of state and you apparently are a bigotted arsehole who approves of this discrimination. See you in the funny papers.

On the one hand we have accusations on this thread that an article about ME language is racist from two or three people who have never lived in the ME, can’t speak, read or write and never have tried to learn any ME language, and on the other, we have the writer of the article himself who moved to Syria and learned enough of the Arabic language to be functional in it.

It seems to me that someone who moves to a country, lives with her people and struggles until he/she can master a new language is pretty much the antithesis of someone who pens “transparently racist” articles.

you didn’t engage with the issues, a fairly typical approach from knuckle scrapers like you, just a nasty obsession with “Israelis” eh?

feel very proud of your self? got many tattoos? or just a bolt between your neck?

Still attempting to work you way through the rest of the contents of Harry’s handbook I see!

Let me indulge you in your fresh bout of strawman-whataboutery. Certainly Israel’s racist divides concerning ethnicity and status do indeed bear a direct comparison with similar racist divides applied to the identities and status of the people of former colonies by the British government. This is hardly surprising given their similar nature as racist colonial enterprises.
But of course Fabian did not raise this matter, nor did I answer any such a comparison.

My reply was not to this unmade proposal but to the analogy which he did in fact make:
“… there is no Scottish or English citizenship, only UK citizenship, which, in the context of Israel is equivalent to Israeli citizenship. But there is Scottish and English ethnicities which, in the Israeli context are the equivalent to Jewish and Arab nationalities.”

What I said on this matter was entirely correct: no such distinct Scottish or English ethnicity is recognised in UK law.
Certainly if an individual wishes to claim a particular ‘ethnicity’, they may do so, but it has no legal standing.
For example, I can claim my ethnicity is English, Scottish, Welsh, Romany or Jewish, (- or Israelite!) or indeed I can make one up, but it is of no relevance whatsoever in the eyes of the law.
As I noted, this situation cannot be compared to the situation in Israel where the state and not the individual decides on matters of ethnicity and where such a decision has implications concerning status and rights.

Indeed, as far as Scotland and England are concerned, the only political parties which propose state recognition of Scottish or English ethnicities in such a manner are the likes of the BNP in England, and the even more obscure Siol nan Gael (‘Seed of the Gael’) in Scotland: both quasi fascist organisations, so, as you can see, your Israel is in good company.

There is no way to please you.
I am 100% certain that it is a mistranslation and I don’t need a retraction to prove it.
Simply put, the last section of the statement is a complete fabrication. Now you have the original in Hebrew too. So, again, you are welcomed to ask another Hebrew speaker about that or go fuck yourself.