Saturday, 7 February 2009

The De-Judaization of Israel- 


THE EU

See at End 

free movemement of labour and citizens to anywhere within  the EU.

by
Av 22, 5767, 8/6/2007


Is it the need to be loved, the desire for acceptance, or the personal greed for power and big bank accounts that is steering this country into the depths of the abyss?
 
The leaders in our government are steadily steering Israel off course of being a Jewish State.


How can it be that our Prime Minister:

  • Frees convicted terrorists - not to free our soldier who is still kidnapped, but to boost the status and build up of  Mahmoud Abbas, a holocaust denier and the head of a terror organization? 
  • Transfers guns and bullets to the terrorists
  • Wants to uproot almost a quarter of a million Jews out of their homes in Judea and Samaria.
  • Wants to 'converge' and make Israel's borders smaller and less defensible.
  • Allow the immigration into Judea and Samaria of 41 Iraqi arabs claiming to be Palestinian refugees  
  • Destroys Jewish settlements and outposts (Amona, etc.)
 
How can it be that our Government Ministers seem to want to castrate the IDF and bring in foreign troops to patrol our borders and keep the peace?  Isn't one of the reasons we established the Modern State of Israel, so that we would have our own army, and never ever have to rely on the nations of the world to protect us again?
 
  • Avigdor Liberman wants to bring in international forces to secure and stabilize Gaza.
  • Chaim Ramon wants to bring in NATO to protect Israel
  • Tzippi Livni?s Foreign Ministry wants to install international forces in the south. 
               Call for Nato Troops (Lieberman with Rice)
    Whatever happened to using our own military and depending on our own army? Why have we given our security over to nations that have no love or allegiance to Israel?

    Shimon Peres wants to uproot the Jews of Judea and Samaria and turn it over to Arab terrorists.  How will he do it when the residents of YESHA are some of the most motivated and idealistic jews in Israel? He knows they will most likely not accept reparations from the Israeli government to do so, just as the families of Gush katif attempted to stay on their land.  Peres was quoted as saying in an interview in 1995 when he was the Foreign Minister, 'I have no problem with what will happen in Yesha. We will withdraw the army and then let's see what happens. They (the Jews) will either run away immediately, or the Arabs will massacre some, and then we'll see what happens.'  

Is this a representative of the People? A man who seems not to have a  problem that families in YESHA get massacred in their communities?    ...This is our president today.

And now we have the African Moslem refugees from the Sudan region of Darfur, being absorbed into Israel.  4,000 refugees have been taken in, and they are growing at a rate of 300 more every week, or 1,200 every month. According to someone I visit in the Ashkelon prison, the inmate says that darfur refugees are being brought to the prison, housed, fed, and then shipped out to kibbutzim  to be absorbed into Israeli society, eventually to be given Israeli citizenship.  (How many more votes does this mean for the Left?) I cannot verify his information, but I do know they were being brought to the prison there, and the guards let me bring in English teaching books for the refugees, as they had a problem communicating because of the language barrier. 
 
My heart goes out to these people who are running from a violent area that some say is a genocide against them, but is there no place on the whole African continent that can absorb them better?  A place where they share a similar African culture, or a place where they share the same religion and feel more at home?  Why aren't the EU and the rest of the richer Western Nations pumping money into the welfare of these refugees?  Why aren't they helping other African entities to absorb these people? Instead, they pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the corrupt Palestinian Authority. 

Our leaders can't find money to re-settle our own refugees from Gush Katif. They are still rotting in make shift trailer homes. Our own Holocaust survivors have to march in protest,  because they can't even afford their medicines that they need in their old age, and our leaders can't seem to find the funding for them.  But we have the means to absorb 300 Sudanese Moslems every week? None of these Sudanese refugees are Jewish, and none of these people want to become Jews.

Why is israel absorbing Moslems, when Egypt and much of the African continent is Moslem? The Moslems hate Israel.  They have no interest in Israel remaining a Jewish State.  In fact, it would be the opposite case, that they would vote for Israel losing it's status as a Jewish State, and instead see it become a state of its citizens.
 
Is Israel being watered down of its Jewishness?  Is the government doing this on purpose?
Is this just another brick in the wall to attempt to make way for Israel to join the EU and to de-Judaize Israel so she will fit in with the International Community's Global vision?


A very strange article was written about the Moslems from Darfur, with one of it's Sudanese officials claiming that the refugees are being encouraged already back in the Sudan to come to Israel.  It's hard to believe, and I myself find it difficult to absorb.  However, I shall  provide links to show that perhaps indeed, there is a sinister attempt to de-judaize the character and make up of  Israel. 
See article about:  Moslem African Sudanese absorbtion into Israel.  
See:  Non-Jewish Russians absorbtion into Israel.
See:  Russian tourists to enter Israel now without visas, 
See: Olmert's bringing in of  'Palestinian Arab refugees' from Iraq, to Israel.
 
The entry of these groups into Israel who are not Jewish and do not have an interest in seeing Israel as a Jewish State, being encouraged to come to Israel, while the Jewish Agency breaks ties with Nefesh B'nefesh because they are bringing too many 'religious' Jews to Israel on aliyah, should raise eyebrows.  Additional news headlines imply pressure on the JNF to forfeit Jewish land bought with Jewish money from 'pushkas', (Jewish charity boxes) to the Arab enemy. 
 
Ramon and Liberman want to bring in NATO troops, Olmert wants to bring in Jordanian and Egyptian troops. 
Are we are witnessing a concentrated erosion of Jewish presence and values in Israel.  Are we witnessing a pull to make Israel into a state just like any other state? If indeed this is the case, what would be the motives of our leadership to bring on such a situation?
 
Is this just another brick in the wall to attempt to  make way for Israel to join the EU and to de-Judaize Israel so she will fit in with the International Community's Global vision? 
Please click on these links, it will show you the news articles written on the interest to bring Israel under the EU, and Israel's leadership who are more than willing to do so. For some of our leaders, it would be a  dream come true.
 
It all comes down to 'following the money trail' and that leads us to international trade, treaties, deals, free trade areas, casinos, and lots of money to be made if the right people jump to get the monopoly on the right contracts.
 
Guess who was Israel's 'Minister of Trade' before he became Prime Minister?  Ehud Olmert.  
 
Trade leads us to common trade laws and trade blocks, which leads us to entering into treaties with (perhaps) the EU, which leads to Israel conforming to EU standards. 

So,  what IF Israel has to give up her Jewish identity in order to fit in and assimilate? Give up land, feed it to the oil rich Arab kingdoms,  kick out and destroy the religious Zionist settler movement, besmirch and demonize the Haredim and all the other Torah observant Jews, and make Israel a secular 'state of her citizens'. Do away with Israel's law of Return for Jews, do away with anything Jewish pertaining to Israel. Relegate it to small pockets that are weak and nostalgic.  After all, we all know there is NO room for Jewish values and Jewish identity in the EU, or in a world that despises G-d and His laws. 


====================

Citizenship of the European Union


 (January 2009)

Citizenship of the European Union was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992. It exists alongside national citizenship and provides additional rights to nationals of Member States of the European Union. Although, officially, all EU nationals enjoy a broad range of rights throughout the union, EU citizenship functions on a de-facto two tier basis. Western European nationals enjoy a full set of rights throughout the union such as the right to work in any member state and the right to travel, visa-free, to many other third countries, such as the US, whilst Eastern European nationals enjoy a far more limited set of rights. This observation has created a fair amount of controversy regarding the emergence of a 'second-class' citizenship and it has contributed to a great deal of tension between the old and new member states.

Contents

[hide]

 History

Prior to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the European Communities treaties provided guarantees for the free movement of economically active persons, but not, generally, for others. The 1951 Treaty of Paris[1] establishing the European Coal and Steel Community established a right to free movement for workers in these industries and the 1957 Treaty of Rome[2] provided for the free movement of workers and services.

However, the Treaty provisions were interpreted by the European Court of Justice not as having a narrow economic purpose, but rather a wider social and economic purpose.[3] In Levin[4], the Court found that the "freedom to take up employment was important, not just as a means towards the creation of a single market for the benefit of the Member State economies, but as a right for the worker to raise her or his standard of living"[3]. Under the ECJ caselaw, the rights of free movement of workers applies regardless of the worker's purpose in taking up employment abroad[4], to both part-time and full-time work[4], and whether or not the worker required additional financial assistance from the Member State into which he moves[5]. Since, the ECJ has held[6] that a recipient of service has free movement rights under the treaty and this criterion is easily fulfilled [7], effectively every national of an EU country within another Member State, whether economically active or not, had a right under Article 12 of the European Community Treaty to non-discrimination even prior to the Maastricht Treaty.[8].

The concept of EU citizenship as a distinct concept was first introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, and was extended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Treaty of Amsterdam stated that union citizenship will not replace national citizenship, but only supplement it.[9]

In Martinez Sala[10], the European Court of Justice held that the citizenship provisions provided substantive free movement rights in addition to those already granted by Community law.

 Who is an EU citizen?

Article 17 (1) of the amended Treaties of Rome[11] states that

Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

All nationals of Member States are citizens of the union. "It is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality." [12]

 Rights of EU citizens

Specific rights

EU member states use a common passport design, burgundy coloured with the name of the member state, Coat of Arms and the title "European Union" (or its translation).

The amended EC Treaty[11] provides the following rights to EU citizens:

  • a right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaty (Article 12);
  • the right of free movement and residence throughout the Union and the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services with the exception of a wide range, but varying with each member country, of sensitive positions) (Article 18);
  • the right to vote and the right to stand in local and European elections in any Member State, other than the citizen's own, under the same conditions as the nationals of that state (Article 19);
  • the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of other Member States when in a non-EU Member State, if there are no diplomatic or consular authorities from the citizen's own state (Article 20);
  • the right to petition the European Parliament and the right to apply to the European Ombudsman in order to bring to his attention any cases of poor administration by the Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the legal bodies (Article 21)[13];
  • the right to apply to the Community institutions in one of the official languages and to receive a reply in that same language (Article 21); and
  • a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (Article 255).

The right to residence for nationals of the two most recent EU members (Romania and Bulgaria) may be limited by member states. However, such limitations can only be imposed in the seven years following those countries' accession, i.e. until the end of 2013. At the year 2013 the restrictions by the particular EU Member States are lifted permanently

Article 18 Free Movement Rights

Article 18 (1) of the amended Treaties of Rome[11] states that

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.

The European Court of Justice has remarked that,

EU Citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, [14]

but this appears to be still far from the case (in most European countries court work is strictly reserved for nationals of the country in question).

The ECJ has held that this Article confers a directly effective right upon citizens to reside in another Member State.[14][15] Before the case of Baumbast[15], it was widely assumed that non-economically active citizens had no rights to residence deriving directly from the EC Treaty, only from directives created under the Treaty. In Baumbast, however, the ECJ held that Article 18 of the Treaty granted a generally applicable right to residency, which is limited by secondary legislation, but only where that secondary legislation is proportionate.[16] Member States can distinguish between nationals and Union citizens but only if the provisions satisfy the test of proportionality.[17] Migrant EU citizens have a "legitimate expectation of a limited degree of financial solidarity... having regard to their degree of integration into the host society"[18] Length of time is a particularly important factor when considering the degree of integration.

The ECJ's case law on citizenship has been criticised for subjecting an increasing number of national rules of the proportionality assessment[17]

[edit] Citizens Rights Directive

Much of the existing secondary legislation and case law was consolidated[19] in Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely within the EU.[20]

See also

European Union portal

 Further reading

References

  1. ^ Article 69.
  2. ^ Title 3.
  3. ^ a b Craig, P., de Búrca, G. (2003). EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd Edition ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 706–711. ISBN 0-19-925608-X. 
  4. ^ a b c Case 53/81 D.M. Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie.
  5. ^ Case 139/85 R. H. Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie.
  6. ^ Joined cases 286/82 and 26/83 Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro.
  7. ^ Case 186/87 Ian William Cowan v Trésor public.
  8. ^ Advocate General Jacobs' Opinion in Case C-274/96 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz at paragraph [19].
  9. ^ This rendered the provision to the same effect in Protocol no. 5 on the position of Denmark in the Treaty on the European Union superfluous. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark. "The Danish Opt-Outs". Retrieved on 2007-11-24.
  10. ^ Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern.
  11. ^ a b c Treaty of Rome (consolidated version)
  12. ^ Case C-396/90 Micheletti v. Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria, which established that dual-nationals of a Member State and a non-Member State were entitled to freedom of movement; case C-192/99 R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Manjit Kaur. It is not an abuse of process to acquire nationality in a Member State solely to take advantage of free movement rights in other Member States: case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  13. ^ This right also extends to "any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State": Treaty of Rome (consolidated version), Article 194.
  14. ^ a b Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve .
  15. ^ a b Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, para. [85]-[91].
  16. ^ Durham European Law Institute, European Law Lecture 2005, p. 5.
  17. ^ a b European Union Law (5th Edition ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. 2006. ISBN 978-0421925601. 
  18. ^ "The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship". European Law Review 31 (5): 613–641. 2006. . See also Case C-209/03 R (Dany Bidar) v. London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills, para. [56]-[59].
  19. ^ European Commission. "Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States". Retrieved on 2007-12-26.
  20. ^ Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union"

Posted by Britannia Radio at 19:44