22 thoughts on “Israeli Supreme Court Approves “Child Trafficking” of Muslim Children – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. RS you amaze me. You are like a magician that can twist anything for your agenda. These children are considered Jewish by Jewish law and state law so they should be given over to an Arab?
    And just take a look at your own US government who last night was undecided whether or not the stabbings in Jerusalem were actually terrorists attacks or not.
    America has become the ‘great parody’ where nothing can have definition as the great Obamination continues to destroy the America that you and I grew up in.

    1. @ shemtov: Are you conceding then that Israel is a theocracy ruled by halacha? I strongly doubt Israel civil law finds a child with a living father & dead mother to be of a different religion than his. Further, yes he is the father and the only remaining living parent, so yes the children should be his.

      And just take a look at your own US government who last night was undecided whether or not the stabbings in Jerusalem were actually terrorists attacks or not.

      Read the comment rules. DO not introduce off topic subjects. Comments must deal with the topic of the post.

      the great Obamination

      I find such language repugnant. YOu can smear and demean anyone you wish as Israelis do toward anyone they hate (Palestinians, leftists, etc). But you can’t do that here. I won’t have my comment threads turned into the sort of cesspool you ‘enjoy’ in Israel. You show basic respect to the president or you’re gone in a second.

    2. “so they should be given over to an Arab?”
      ‘An Arab’!? Unbelievable: He is their FATHER!
      It seems only Jews are human being to you. Scary.

  2. “They would first seek a Muslim family for foster parents for such children.”

    Richard. Up until recently, the Jewish biological mother was alive.
    Are you suggesting that once the Jewish mother died, Child Welfare should have taken the twins from their foster parents and given them to a Muslim foster family?
    I doubt any Child Welfare agency would have interrupted the twins care and done that.

    More important than that, “Lawyers Hadar and Shapiro, representing the biological father, said: “We are pleased with the balanced ruling.”

    It sounds like everyone is happy here. No?

  3. A. Based on religions rules, These children are both Jewish and Muslim, and belong to both nationalities. Hence, if they must go to foster family, not so clear as to it’s nationality / religion.

    You could argue those children should have stayed home, But we don’t have enough info to have such a decision, and Beit Halachmi is known to have an agenda against fostering and the social system.

    B. I have heard claims as to draconian nature of welfare system towards separated/divorced parents in US too. Syspect the nature of such systems makes their decisions to be “pro local norm”

    C. There was a recent court decision about adopting a child which still had family members whom wanted to grow her. Which was as controversial, In that case her family was Jewish (of Ethiopian decent) . Which goes back to item B – it seems welfare systems tend to think of “good for child future” in terms of “more similar to social worker”.

    1. @ Israeli: There are only Jewish according to halacha. And their mother is dead. The tie to their Jewishness is tenuous at best. Their father is very much alive & he is Muslim. Israeli civil law in fact determines that parents decide what the religion of their children are. Since there is only one parent alive, that decision is the father’s alone. Not the foster parents as this atrocious Supreme Court ruling would have it.

      Hannah Beit Halachmi’s so-called “agenda” is for justice, fairness, equity, transparency and accountability–qualities the Israeli welfare system lacks entirely. Her criticisms of it are entirely justified.

      The U.S. child welfare system is generally fair & equitable and recognizes parental rights except in very, very rare cases. This would not be one of the cases in which it would agree to deny such rights. Also, as you offer no proof for your claim, it can’t be assessed at all.

      1. @Richard

        1. Your first sentence: ” There are only Jewish according to halacha.” is misleading, because , it’s also true that they are only Muslim according to Sharia (Muslim law), Religious affiliation is decided by religious law.

        2. Please show me where “Israeli civil law in fact determines that parents decide what the religion of their children are”, Israel civillaw about ALL religions gives the sovereignty to the religions (not that I am happy for it, as an Atheist liming in Israel, But you are too respected for such statements).

        3. The fact this case has arrived to the supreme court shows the civil judicial authority in Israel does consider such issues to be of importance, And the father did get his day in court. Further, his own lawyer claimed the decision was balanced, which implies there are some facts we are un-aware of.

        4. I am glad you agree with the fact that Hannah Beit Halachmi’s has an agenda, related to how childcare should be. I often agree with her when reading her articles (though not in all cases). But, I have yet to find the article in which she supported the “organizational decision” in almost any issue related to childcare services. So, siting her as a reference against one decision, is misleading.

        5. I don’t want to share details of those I know, so I googled “U.S. child welfare system unfair” and got millions of results. It’s not surprising, since child welfare systems have a difficult job even when the cases are “just humanitarian”, and once you have added elements (religion, color/race, nationality) you get an even more complex mix.

        You claim this case is special in the bad treatment of the father because he is Muslim vs Orthdox Jews. My claim is that this case is special, in it’s complication, but the father did get a similar standing to others in such cases.
        I can’t claim to agree or disagree with the ruling, since I don’t know the details, e.g. – why did social services get the children while they were new-born ? Was the father un-fit to raise them?
        I don’t even claim the child welfare system is “enerally fair & equitable and recognizes parental rights except in very, very rare cases”, I have seen too many cases in which it was not so, regardless of this particular case. A few months ago there was a news story about social services reducing the rights of mothers who left the orthodox community, And before that, there were other cases in which I disagreed with the decisions.

        However, unlike you, I don’t mistake my disagreement with court/social service ruling to be an indication of discrimination.

        4.

        1. @ Israeli:

          Religious affiliation is decided by religious law.

          Your claim is false as I’ve already written here. This is the civil law determining the religious affiliation of children, and it has NOTHING to do with religious law:

          בנושא החוק האזרחי ודתו של קטין הדבר מוסדר בסעיף 13א לחוק הכשרות המשפטית והאפוטרופסות תשכ”ב – 1962. להלן ציטוט:
          “המרת דתו של קטין
          13א. (א) לא תומר דתו של קטין אלא אם שני הוריו נתנו מראש הסכמתם בכתב או שבית המשפט, לפי בקשת אחד ההורים או לפי בקשת אפוטרופסו של הקטין, אישר מראש את המרת הדת.
          (ב) מלאו לקטין 10 שנים, לא תומר דתו אלא אם, נוסף על הסכמת הוריו או אישור בית המשפט לפי סעיף קטן (א), נתן גם הוא מראש הסכמתו בכתב.
          (ג) לא תומר דתו של קטין אלא בדת של הוריו או של אחד מהוריו או של אדם שהקטין היה סמוך על שולחנו, מתוך כוונה לאמצו, בששת החודשים שקדמו להגשת הבקשה להמרת הדת, ובתנאי שבית המשפט שוכנע כי ההמרה דרושה לשם אימוצו של הקטין בידי אותו אדם לפי חוק אימוץ ילדים תשמ”א-1981.
          (ד) המרת דתו של קטין בניגוד להוראות סעיף זה – אין לה תוקף משפטי.

          Which makes the following claim of yours irrelevant:

          Israel civil law about ALL religions gives the sovereignty to the religions

          For the purpose of civil law, Israel says that the religion of the parent’s (both parents) determine the religion of the child. Orthodox Judaism can determine whatever it wishes about the religion of the children. But under Israeli civil law they are Muslim, not Jewish.

          the father did get his day in court.

          A lie. A Muslim father was deprived of his right to parenthood by a racist Orthodox Jewish justice in a sham decision that is revolting.

          his own lawyer claimed the decision was balanced, which implies there are some facts we are un-aware of.

          Nothing of the sort. I don’t trust the statement of the man’s attorney as far as I can throw it. These lawyers know they will have to appear before the Supreme Court in future and they do not wish to antagonize the justices unecessarily. The lawyer’s statement was shameful & makes me question how diligently he represented his client altogether.

          I am glad you agree with the fact that Hannah Beit Halachmi’s has an agenda

          Again a lie. You clearly understand that I flatly rejected your claim that she has an “agenda” against “how childcare should be” (which isn’t an articulate phrase in English). Her only agenda is fairness, balance & equity. That is an agenda every court and child welfare system is supposed to uphold. Israel’s system tramples on these values. Don’t you dare twist my words in future like this.

          I googled “U.S. child welfare system unfair” and got millions of results.

          That’s about as definitive and probitive as saying “I googled ‘Jews drink baby blood’ and found millions of results.” What does it mean? That Jews really do drink blood and that the U.S. child welfare system is unfair? Sure in some circumstances it is. But in the overwhelming majority both child welfare services and the family court system base their decisions on following regulations and doing what’s in the best interests of the child. In the U.S. system, foster parents have no standing whatsoever before the courts and this case could never have been brought by these people. The children would automatically go to the father. BTW, this is the Israeli rule as well. But only by twisting the rules and elevating foster parents to adoptive parents (which they weren’t) could he craft such an ugly decision.

          the father did get a similar standing to others in such cases.

          What “standing” did the father get? He got no standing. His parental rights were trampled asunder. Are you claiming that other Muslim fathers are similarly deprived of their children? BTW, can you find a single other case in all of Israeli family law in which a child of a Jewish father was awarded to an Orthodox Muslim couple? GO ahead find one. I dare you.

  4. These Family Court cases are always complex, and therefore not easily explained by journalists.
    For instance, compare what Hana Gan claims, “The mother claims her parents want her children to be raised Orthodox and object to her not being observant.”, with what the children’s grandparents are claiming.
    http://www.cjnews.com/international/canadian-woman-claims-she-cant-leave-israel

    Add in impressionable little kids, adversarial lawyers and civil procedure, and you have a ‘big balagan’.

    1. @ Lost: No, the case of the twins isn’t complex at all. The Israeli welfare & judicial system have stripped the father of parental rights. Plain & simple.

      As for the Gan case, that’s also simple. She’s the mother. She gets to decide where to live. Grandparents should never trump the mother in making such decisions, whether you or the state like it or not.

  5. The twins, when they grow up, will rebel against their Jewish ultra-orthodox foster parents and become passionate freedom-fighters for the Palestinian cause. They will strongly resent that they were taken from their father. So, this atrocity will back-fire on the fascist Jewish government.

  6. This reminds me strongly of the “stolen children” issue here in Australia. For about three quarters of a century, until about 1970, various state and federal legislation authorised the police to forcibly remove half caste aboriginal children, or those who were deemed to be such because of the light colour of their skin, from their mothers and place them in special institutions (where as with almost all other institutions of this kind they were not infrequently subject to sexual assault). The original idea was that the boys would ultimately be agricultural labourers and the girls domestic servants.

    The motivation was thoroughly racist of course but there is some evidence, inter alias provided by the distinguished biologist/anthropologist Walter Baldwin Spencer, that half caste c children often were abandoned.

    Only in the 1980’s did this issue get the attention it deserved after a governmental commission came out with the Bringing Them Home Report which estimated that between thirty and one hundred thousand children had been subjected to this practice. The trustworthy social commentator, Professor Robert Manne, puts the figure at between 20 to 30,000.

    Apologies were issued at various levels but the waiting was for the federal government to come up with this. The conservative government under John Howard originally resisted this because it had all been done under valid legislation. Finally, in February 2008, the then labour government under Kevin Rudd, came up with a formal apology in which ultimately the conservative opposition joined. Part of the text of the apology follows :

    “I move:
    That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
    We reflect on their past mistreatment.
    We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.
    The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
    We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
    We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
    For the pain, suffering, and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
    To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
    And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
    We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.”

    There is however no legal redress for this wrong as it was all done under valid legislation. Yet, in individual cases, where there was a clear paper trail of deceit and the resulting harm could be made plausible,compensation has been awarded.

    It will be a long time, I fear, before Israel will come around to an acknowledgement of the suffering it has inflicted on the Palestinians, also in cases such as this.

    1. I should add that some of these children were placed with white foster parents which makes the racist character of the whole enterprise even clearer.

  7. [This is a comment rule violation. Comments must be substantive. A comment consisting of just a link, especially one promoting yr own blog, is not. Read the comment rules and respect them. ]

  8. I began this article expecting to read about child trafficking.

    Child trafficking is a horrible event that has little in common with the legal disputes described above. I am disappointed that someone would attempt to co-opt the term for the horror of child trafficking to promote their own personal disapproval of a family law and child welfare ruling. In such a tactic is no consistent with intellectual integrity and open and honest discourse.

    1. @randall: You began this article looking for an angle to use against the post that would conceal your real purpose which was hasbara.

      Further, you don’t know anything about Israel. If you did, you’d realize that it was Israeli child welfare advocates who accused child welfare services of trafficking. When government officials forcibly take a child from his father & give it to adoptive parents violating every rule, that is child trafficking.

  9. ” When government officials forcibly take a child from his father & give it to adoptive parents violating every rule”

    In the instant case, the twins were moved into foster care within days of their birth. Obviously neither parent was fit to raise infants. The government’s initial motives were, therefor, probably justified.

    I stress that there is a lot about this case that we don’t know about. A facile rendering of the case does no one any good.

    1. @ Lost: Nothing of what you claim is “obvious.” Nor does a government agency get validated because it’s “motives” were “justified.” If that were the case then any dictator can say anytime he likes that his motives were just. Nor is there “a lot” about this case we don’t know. All the evidence is in the two articles 2 which I linked. You are only making this claim because everything we DO know about this case is so deeply troubling. You would have us believe that this must mean there are deeper hidden reasons the Israeli system trammeled on this father’s rights. But there aren’t.

      But even if they were not fit parents (which the lower court judge & I completely dispute), there are rules that must be followed in such circumstances. You don’t just remove a child without turning to a court to get permission. In such a case, the parents are represented as well as the child’s interests. A hearing is held. Child welfare isn’t a dictatorship. It has regulations. And if you read the lower court ruling you find that they violated every rule in place.

  10. In the 17th Century the Portuguese Catholic government removed children from Jewish and, I believe, converso families and shipped them to a Portuguese island in the Atlantic Ocean without the consent of their parents to be raised as Christians. It is deeply shameful that the government of Israel seems to have forgotten what was once done to Jewish children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *