Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
80:
Try logging in to the CR with a non-Mod login and see if it takes an abnormally long time to fully load every thread page.
Mommy,
Wolf: I never knew your mother was posting here too… Kewl!
“Those who either left Israel under the age of 16 or were born abroad to Israeli parents, are generally exempt from conscription for as long as they remain resident abroad. Those who do return to Israel on a permanent basis are subject to conscription according to their age.
Those who left Israel at age 16 or over are subject to conscription
when they become 18 according to the Military Service law.
Duration of service is the same as for all other Israelis.”
From: http://atlanta.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/main/document.asp?documentid=134161
The military authorities have authorized the consulates abroad to perform certain services pertaining to military service. These include determining if one is obligated to serve in the army, verifying information on army service, and granting deferments. For all other matters such as reserves (Miluim), or physical examinations for draftees, you must contact the IDF authorities in Israel directly. The website of the IDF – Human Resources: http://www.aka.idf.il.
Every Israeli citizen, including those born abroad, must establish their army status at the age of 16 and a half.
You can verify you army status through the Consulate.
As a general rule, an Israeli citizen who has left Israel with both his or her parents before the age of 16 (this age may be subject to change by the Israeli authorities) or a child born abroad to an Israeli parent (whose family has not returned to live in Israel) is eligible for an army deferment.
Please Note it is important that you secure this exemption before you turn 17 (after you turn 16.5), regardless of your travel plans to Israel.
If you are eligible for the deferment, upon review and confirmation of your status, you will be provided with a written notice that your obligation to serve is deferred for as long as you reside abroad with your parents, and you are permitted to visit Israel every year under certain conditions.
To determine whether you are eligible for the deferment, the following is required:
1. Once you are 16 and a half years old, apply at the Consulate. Please Note that minors under the age of 18, must send to the Consulate a notarized agreement from both parents to give consular services.
2. Present all of your and your parents Israeli and foreign passports (Israeli, American and/or any nationality you might hold), including old and new passports. The passports must cover the time period between your 16th birthday and they day you come to the Consulate. The passports are required as evidence of the amount of days you and your parents resided in or visited Israel. You will need to prove that you or your parents have not resided in Israel since you were 16 years old.
3. Registration and Personal Request form (Number 7202).
4. Request for Deferment form (Number 7325).
5. A letter from his/her school stating the day of enrollment and an estimated date for graduation.
In that case he would pass on his citizenship to his children regardless of where they were born.
Where were your husband’s parents born? (Not that that would make a difference if your husband himself became a citizen via the law of return.)
Another option, since he will probably have trouble renouncing his own citizenship due to his military obligations, is to just renounce the citizenship of your children. You would only be able to do so after they are born iy”h. And you would have to do it after each child.
http://www.israelemb.org/consular_NatioanlSubj.html
http://www.israelemb.org/forms/renouncement_minors.pdf
BTW, another issue for dual U.S. & Israeli citizens is that whenever they travel between the U.S. and Israel, they (both parents and children if they are all dual citizens) need to each have and carry with them 2 passports – a U.S. passport and an Israeli passport. This is since the U.S. requires all U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. with an American passport and Israel requires all Israeli citizens to enter Israel with an Israeli passport.
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.
The residence provision basically only applies to people who were living in Palestine pre-1948.
Since your husband was born outside Israel, he must’ve inherited his citizenship from his parent(s), and therefore does not pass on the citizenship to his kids if they are also born outside Israel. (The only time this would not be the case is if your husband became an Israeli citizen AFTER he was born i.e. Naturalization or Law of Return – as opposed to him becoming a citizen by virtue of being born to an Israeli citizen.)
No problem.
If you are not Israeli and your husband is an Israeli who wasn’t born in Israel, then from the sound of it your children (born outside Israel) were never Israeli citizens to begin with.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/Acquisition+of+Israeli+Nationality.htm
Acquisition of nationality by birth is granted to:
1. Persons who were born in Israel to a mother or a father who are Israeli citizens.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
So it would seem if both you and your husband were born outside Israel then if your children are also born outside Israel they are not citizens. (I would still double check this understanding I am giving, prior to assuming its accuracy.)
Assuming that is correct, if you were born in Israel and your husband was born outside Israel (which you indicated above), AND you renounce YOUR citizenship (even if your husband remains a citizen), then any children born outside Israel AFTER your renunciation takes effect (not when you applied for the renunciation) would not be citizens — since you are no longer a citizen and your husband is not an Israeli-born citizen.
Sorry, I don’t know much of how they try to enforce Army service. I have heard of people successfully arguing with them to let off (perhaps in Israel itself, not sure about through the consulate) after they were giving them a hard time about past due Army service. But, again, I don’t know much of any details on this area. Perhaps you can find someone familiar with how to best resolve the situation to have them agree to relieve your husband of any purported military obligations. (A lawyer might be an option if affordable. Otherwise you should ask around people who dealt with similar problems.)
BTW, I doubt your husband will be able to renounce his citizenship while his Army obligations remain unresolved. Perhaps you can renounce it for yourself and hopefully your children. But people with outstanding military service is one of the reasons they usually will refuse to allow one to renounce it for. Come to think of it, it may complicate renouncing your children’s citizenship if your husband remains a citizen, since children of citizens are citizens. Even if you renounce it for yourself prior to the child being born may possibly not prevent your child from being a citizen if your husband remains one. It might be a better idea to renounce yours together with your new child’s simultaneously after he is iy”h born, (though you will still have the same issue for future children iy”h since your husband remains a citizen) although you need to verify if you can even do this. (Essentially the question is if both parents are citizens, can one parent renounce their citizenship AND their children’s citizenship if the other parent remains a citizen.)
Another facet is that if both parents (i.e. you and your husband) were born outside Israel and are only citizens of Israel due to your parents citizenship, it may be that your children born outside Israel never in fact acquired Israeli citizenship in the first place, and therefore you have no problem for them altogether.
Good luck.
“No, but part of the art of politics is the art of picking your fights carefully and not wasting political capital on fights you can’t win.”
Y’know, with that attitude a lot of good laws, that were thought impossible to pass, would never have been signed into law.
No accomplishment was ever generated through pessimism. 🙂
You’re missing the point.
1. Laws, including state constitutional provisions, can be changed.
2. Blaine is unfair and potentially (Federally) unconstitutional. It discriminates against secular studies offered by a religious organization, whereas Blaine does not prohibit the same economic educational assistance to a private, non-parochial, school.
3. The State does not belong in the educational business anymore than it belongs in the supermarket business. America is not a socialized (at least it shouldn’t be) country. And, frankly, government is a proven failure in the educational business, especially for high school and below.
Let State government’s provide voucher funding for private schools (charter, etc.) and stand up to the teacher’s union thugs and gradually privatize public schools in an orderly, organized, fashion. This way all Americans, rich and poor, can have the ability to choose the best school’s appropriate for their children, rather than only the rich having access to private schooling whilst the poor are stuck with failed inner city public schools.
If you think you can make judgment calls from a pic, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. A picture can easily lead to the opposite conclusion than reality. This is aside from the points about pictures being problematic for so many other reasons.
melechalmaklo, if anyone thinks they can ascertain that from a pic, they are not only sadly very mistaken but they are possibly setting themselves up for trouble in marriage.
dd: No more sad than an American citizen renouncing his citizenship. (In fact for hashkafic reasons, with renouncing Israeli citizenship it may even be a happy occasion.)
jewish girl: If you are an Israeli citizen, you’re children are also citizens automatically – even if they were born abroad. (Even if they always lived abroad and never even visited Israel.) Whether than entails Army obligations I’m not certain, but from what I recall hearing is that in fact it does. (Although it may or may not be possible to officially get an Army exemption for having always been living abroad.) This is probably the most practical reason why a citizen would renounce their Israeli citizenship. (Their may be others as well.)
I also doubt the State Department will accept an American’s request to renounce their citizenship without documenting foreign citizenship. The warning you quoted is likely intended for anyone who may try to evade this fact by falsely claiming other citizenship in order to facilitate their renunciation request.
Wolf: All 3 links I provided above clearly indicate proving another citizenship is required for Israel to even consider the request to renounce ones citizenship.
Israel apparently has a reputation of giving citizens a hard time (i.e. the Ministry of Interior refusing to accept the request) to renounce their citizenship. You may explore the possibility (i.e. if it is even possible) of renouncing your minor children’s citizenship without renouncing your own (if they refuse your request to renounce your own citizenship.)
Another possibility is to not register your child’s birth abroad with Israel. This will mean they are technically a citizen, but the State of Israel wouldn’t (hopefully) know of their existence or the fact they are the child of a citizen. The problem with this is that they may somehow figure it out in the future. Additionally, in order to renounce the citizenship of a child (who has already been born), you will first need to register their birth with Israel. So if the renunciation doesn’t go through, at that point they will have him registered already.
Just about any country, including Israel, will refuse to allow a citizen to renounce their citizenship unless they have (or are about to receive) citizenship with another country.
Here is some additional information regarding how it affects children:
http://www.israeliconsulate.org/Consular/en/registry/renounce.htm
And here is some additional info:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Consular_affairs/Renouncing_Israeli_citizenship.htm
SJSinNYC is 60 and postsemgirl is 61.
Any children born prior to the renunciation taking effect (and it can easily take months for it to become effective once applied for), will likely be citizens at birth. You may be able to renounce the citizenship of any existing children at the same time you renounce yours. You can ask the consular officer how it affects any currently unborn child.
Depending when the child is expected, you may consider beginning the renunciation for all family members after the child is iy”h born. (Assuming they advise you that you can’t renounce it for a yet unborn child at the same time you do so for yourself.) You can ask them how you can renounce the citizenship of your minor children.
You should be able to do so at any Israeli consulate or embassy.
Member
ywm80, You’re saying that it can be postulated, based upon current science, that the sun revolves (each solar year) around the earth while the earth is rotating (each solar day) around its axis towards the east. Am I understanding you correctly?
Some may find this graphic illustration interesting:
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.html
Here are a few quotes from Hans Reichenbach, who was Einstein’s student in Berlin, when he lectured on the theory of relativity. (In 1926, with the help of Albert Einstein, Reichenbach became assistant professor in the physics department of Berlin University. After Hitler came to power he left Germany, eventually moving to the United States and accepting a professorship at the University of California):
The cosmologies of Copernicus [Heliocentrism] & Ptolemy [Geocentrism] are kinematically equivalent; both of them are descriptions of the same facts, and Ptolemy’s epicycles of the planets are the kinematic equivalents of the circular orbits of Copernicus.
Reichenbach, Hans- Philosophy of Space and Time- p210-211
The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any “truer” since this simplicity is descriptive… One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions.
Reichenbach, Hans- Philosophy of Space and Time- p219
He [Copernicus] was able, in fact, to cite as a distinct advantage only the greater simplicity of his system. … Here lies one of the reasons which led scientists to accept the Copernican system, even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint, practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system.
Hans Reichenbach- From Copernicus to Einstein- p18
Motion is change in position; it is clear, however, that it cannot be observed unless it is a change in position relative to a certain body and not relative to an ideal space point. Is it meaningful, under these circumstances, to speak of absolute motion or of motion relative to space, if motion relative to other bodies only can be observed? According to this principle there exists only a motion of bodies relative to other bodies, and it is impossible to distinguish one of these bodies as being at rest, because rest means nothing but rest relative to another body, i.e. rest is itself a relative concept.
Hans Reichenbach- Philosophy of Space and Time- p210
And here are quotes from some others:
The commonly held view is that Copernicus’s heliocentric model vanquished the competition, especially the geocentric view of Ptolemy, because it yielded better predictions of the positions of the celestial bodies. In actual fact, the predictions of the Copernican model were a little worse than those obtained via the complicated series of epicycles… the real selling point of the Copernican model was that it was much simpler than the competition yet still gave a reasonably good account of the observational evidence.
Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.
Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973, p78
And hence this affirmation: “the earth turns round” has no meaning, since it cannot be verified by experiment; … such an experiment … cannot even be conceived of without contradiction …
Henri Poincare- Science and Hypothesis- p117
There is one more implication that modern science has perceived in the work of Copernicus. The same observational data that Ptolemy organized in his geocentric theory of deferent and epicycle can also be organized under the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Despite the belief of the latter that the new theory was true, the modern view is that either theory will do and that there is no need to adopt the heliocentric hypothesis except to gain mathematical simplicity. Reality seems far less knowable than Copernicus believed, and today scientific theories are regarded as human inventions.
Morris Kline- Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p85
… in fact simplicity of the mathematical theory was the only argument Copernicus & Kepler could advance in favor of their heliocentric theory as opposed to the older Ptolemaic theory.
Is the path of the earth around the sun an ellipse? No. Only if the earth & sun are regarded as points and only if all other bodies in the universe are ignored. Do the four seasons on earth repeat themselves year after year? Hardly. Only in their grossest aspects, which are about all men can perceive anyway, do they repeat.
Morris Kline- Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty- p 344, 350
Some have challenged the validity of the equivalence principle by considering the effects of rotation. A “sufficiently small” region of spacetime for transforming away the translatory motion of an object to some degree of approximation may not be sufficiently small for transforming away the rotational motion to the same degree of accuracy, but this does not conflict with the equivalence principle; it simply means that for an infinitesimal particle in a rotating body the “sufficiently small” region of spacetime is generally much smaller than for a particle in a non-rotating body, because it must be limited to a small arc of angular travel. In general, all such arguments against the validity of the (local) equivalence principle are misguided, based on a failure to correctly limit the extent of the subject region of space and time.
Yet I’ve quoted how this discussion relates to the Earth specifically.
A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton’s equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:
(Inertial mass) (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) (Gravitational mass).
[end quote]
The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth’s surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. Einstein stated it thus:
“we […] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.” (Einstein 1907).
That is, being at rest on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines. From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force. This force draws objects having mass towards the center of any massive body. At the Earth’s surface, the force of gravity is counteracted by the mechanical (physical) resistance of the Earth’s surface. So in Newtonian physics, a person at rest on the surface of a (non-rotating) massive object is in an inertial frame of reference.
The original equivalence principle, as described by Einstein, concluded that free-fall and inertial motion were physically equivalent. This form of the equivalence principle can be stated as follows. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g.
Quoted from “Principles of Equivalence: Their Role in Gravitation Physics and Experiments that Test Them”:
The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.
Relativity postulates that all frames of reference are equivalent if and only if they are not accelerated.
In the physics of general relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein’s assertion that the gravitational “force” as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
All non-inertial frames are accelerating with respect to all inertial frames.
[laws of gravitation]
1. The Sun rotates around the Earth.
2. The Earth rotates around the Sun.
This is derived on a non-inertial reference frame. From the perspective of an Earth-centered reference frame, the Sun does indeed orbit around the Earth. In GR, all reference frames are equally valid.
It is a bit harder to explain stellar parallax from the perspective of an Earth-fixed reference frame than from the perspective of a solar system barycentric reference frame. But it’s not all that hard to explain stellar parallax from the perspective of an Earth-centered frame. The motion of the stars can be explained in terms of the “third body effect”. People who model the behavior of satellites in Earth orbit vastly prefer to use an “Earth-centered inertial” reference frame (a non-rotating reference frame with origin at the center of the Earth) than a barycentric frame. From the perspective of such a reference frame, the Sun and Moon (and the planets) make the satellite’s orbit not quite Keplerian. The perturbation is explained by a pseudo-force called the third body effect.
and volvie correct me if im wrong- but hasnt it been proven that its actually the earth that revolvs around the sun as it spins on the axes of the universe. and its just realative as to how fast it moves. it could be im wrong but thats what i thought scientists proved.
someonesboard, Copernicus is the one who postulated and changed sciences viewpoint, that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Before Copernicus, for most of history science said the Sun circles the Earth. Newton changed sciences viewpoint again, and said that Earth and Sun rotate about a common center of gravity. Einstein changed it again. He described the General Theory of Relativity – in which all motion is relative. In General Relativity, you can use any frame of reference. Relative to humanity, the Sun revolves around the Earth. To put it more simply, all motion is relative. Relative to humanity, the Earth is not rotating.
thats the theory of general realativity. but then theres the deeper theory of speacial realativity.
General relativity is more advanced than special relativity and is only taught in detail in certain postgraduate physics programs. Special relativity is taught earlier in less advanced programs.
One aspect of Einstein’s theory (GR), postulates that the earth revolving around the sun is only relative. Nobody has proven nor even claims that it is absolute. In other words, if the Earth is the center of the universe, and the entire universe revolves around the earth, it will appear form the vantage point of anyone located within the universe that the sun is revolving around the earth, when in reality it is the opposite.
For example, lets say you throw a ball south at the speed of 60 MPH. To you and to those around you it would appear that the ball is moving and you are stationary.
But then, if you and all of those observers were actually riding on a bus traveling north at 60 MPH, then from the perspective of someone outside of the bus that ball, after you threw it, was perfectly still. It was you and your environment that were moving.
But then, what if the world was rotating at a speed of 60 MPH in the direction of south. Then, those observers outside of the bus would be the ones moving, the bus would be stationary, and the ball would indeed be traveling at 60 MPH.
Movement relative to another object depends on your perspective. And in order to know, ultimately, whether the earth revolves around the sun, because the earth is moving, or the sun revolves around the earth because the universe is moving and earth is stationary, you would have to measure form a vantage point outside of the universe, and nobody has been able to do that yet. At least not scientists.
So the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is like saying that the ball is moving inside the bus. Maybe. Or maybe everything is moving in your immediate area except the ball. You’d have to be outside the bus to know that.
Same thing here. To know whether it is the earth or the sun that is moving, you would have to take into consideration the entire universe’s movement, which no scientists has been able to do.
Wolf – because, despite what she says, she DOES believe in G-d.
I see many Talmidei Chachomim are being produced. What are the girls offering? What should be becoming of the girls?
Wolf: I don’t think anyone will slam you for that. If anyone in NYC can manage to not do that, the only conceivable reason could be is that they don’t drive.
Reading the above conversation, no one took the stance that “one cannot assume anything is unquestionably permitted , as it is always possible that some time in history it was questioned.” That is your straw-man.
And yet the Chacham Tzvi did NOT “cancel it.” The Chacham Tzvi knew it was NOT “up to them.”
I don’t think “Western Jerusalem” (outside the walled city) is part of Yerushlayim as referred to in Tanach.
Participating in a census conducted by non-Jews cannot be halachically questionable if nobody has questioned it in 3000 years.
Charlie,
On what basis do you assert that “nobody has questioned it in 3000 years.” Because you don’t know of it? Ignorance does not a fact make.
(And again I stress I am not asserting that there is anything wrong with participating in the census.)
Nowhere, no how, have I asserted that “there is a halachic problem with participating in the census.” So please get your facts straight. What I did do was point out, by raising questions, was that your logic (attempting to discredit the other poster who maintained that it is “halachically questionable”) is faulty.
Your point that non-Jews are doing the count and that the Romans, Crusaders, and Arab Caliphs counted Jews previously, does not on its own answer hello99’s questions. So if you have anything of material to address the question on hand — which I again note I did not raise nor even state agreement with — by all means answer it.
EDITED
The count is not being done by Jews. There is no isur for non-Jews to count.
What is the halachic basis, if any, that allows a Jew to allow himself to be counted (by non-Jews) by actively cooperating with such count?
The last four included Jews among the counted.
Who said that, it having been done, was halachicly correct? And who said the Jews were willing pariticpants in it, in any event?
anonforthis,
But the US census does not count only the Jews, nor is it conducted by a Jewish king.
And what makes you thing this point changes how halacha treats the count?
It is unlikely that the Yidden were not counted at any time during their time in mitzrayim or bavel
You are making two possibly fatal assumptions. One, that this in fact occurred; and two, even if it did, that it was the correct thing.
(I note these points without taking a position on the primary issue under discussion.)
charliehall,
I don’t think the actual enumeration directly affect local funding, since the government uses statistical analysis to determine the actual population, estimating how many people it missed. Nevertheless, it does indirectly affect funding as a State can potentially lose a representative in the House as Congressional seat allocation constitutionally must be allocated based upon the actual enumeration without benefit of further statistical analysis.
It still is slow, but a little bit better than it used to be when the problem first started (as discussed in a previous thread) a few weeks ago.
The camp is giving you food, room and board, as well as (possibly) access to its sporting facilities, etc. So you are getting paid a lot more than the check you see at the end of the summer. The other alternative is they can pay you more on your check, and charge you tuition and/or fees for the aforementioned services they are providing you.
Why do you think they have no trouble finding more than enough staffers?