Gay Adoption | Israel | News

BigGayDeal.com

Israel Grants Adoption to Gay Couple, Gives Child Citizenship

Israel has granted its first adoption to a same-sex couple:

Adoptiongay"The landmark case involves a Cambodia-born boy, now eight years old, who was adopted in 2000 in the United States by two men who hold American and Israeli citizenship. Following his adoption, the boy received American citizenship and was also converted to Judaism. The parents returned to Israel shortly after the adoption, but their applications to the Interior Ministry to recognize the adoption and grant their child citizenship were unsuccessful. Since 2001, the child has lived in Israel on a temporary residence visa that is extended annually."

In February, Israel's attorney general Menahem Mazuz said in a landmark legal opinion that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. This is the first instance that it has been granted.

The child was also granted Israeli citizenship.

Israel recognizes overseas adoption by gay couple, grants child citizenship [haaretz]
Israel 'recognises gay adoption' [afp]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. As angry as I get over Isreal's treatment of the Palestinians, and the white-washing of its history (like its big sister, the USA), I still have to admit that Isreal is an oasis of progressive thinking in a desert of backward & oppressive societies. It's just ashame that this progressive nation was built on other people's land

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 25, 2008 12:38:54 PM


  2. And the United States was not built on the land of other people?

    Posted by: john in philly | Apr 25, 2008 12:49:52 PM


  3. Derrick, this is an entirely inappropriate place for those comments, but since they've been made I can't let them stand uncontested. The majority of land in Israel was owned by absentee landlords from other countries, and Jews who migrated to Palestine legitimately bought the land. During WW2 the Palestinian people contributed to the genocide against the Jews and did their best to kill as many women and children as they could. Then in the 1948 War all the surrounding Arab countries invaded unprovoked, told the resident Palestinians "Leave for the fighting, come back after we kill all the Jews, and you can have the all the land," and most of the Arabs left. Except it didn't work out the way they thought it would. True, some Palestinians didn't flee and were actually *forced* out of their homes, and that was wrong, but I think this is the minority of cases. But I wouldn't say that the entire nation was "built on other people's land."

    [Andy, I would be more comfortable with you deleting both of these comments instead of letting it devolve into a debate on the Middle East, but I don't feel ok just letting the above ignorance sit there.]

    Posted by: Steve from Boston | Apr 25, 2008 12:58:00 PM


  4. Oh, no, John--just Fairmount Park. The settling of the rest of America was the destiny of the white man. Just ask the Mormons.

    But they did take Delaware Avenue away from the natives...gave it to Columbus.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 25, 2008 12:59:15 PM


  5. Good for them

    :-)

    BUT the orthedox don't accept conversions, unless they can find a Jewish female in the kids maternal line at most back 10 generations the orthedox in the Israeli government aren't going to let this stand for very long.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2008 1:04:27 PM


  6. STEVE

    not exactly

    Proof in point, Israel is currently in debate with arab countries on compensation to Jews in arab countries who were evicted from said places while Israel would compensate palestinians who were evicted from their land.

    Israel has admited to its part though in smaller numbers than palestinians claim while arab countries are saying "Hell no" on compensating Jews who were forced to flee from their lands during the tumultous (spell check) founding of modern Israel.

    Both sidea are imperfect. Both sides have comited foul deeds. Both sides are at fault.

    The funny thing is that genetic tests show All Jgroups....Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and even ethiopian jews are all very very very very very closely related geneticaly to Palestinians. The only difference isn't genetic but cultural. Brothers and sisters killing each other over borders when the entire planet needs to be moving towards ONE united earth, ONE united people, ONE united future without any borders anywhere.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2008 1:12:53 PM


  7. STEVE,

    you're right. Part of my comment was inappropriate for this topic. But my inappropriate "ignorance" is backed up many Palestinians and some Isrealis (so I've read).

    And STEVE, if Andy or his staff were to delete our comments, it would be ok with me, but curious. There have been issues on this blog about race, homophobia among certain ethnic groups, etc. where the debate was allowed to go on.

    The issue of Isreal's founding, and American foreign policy in the Middle East has been a excruciatingly difficult subject for me, STEVE. It's not simply an "ignorant" anti-Isreal thing.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 25, 2008 1:13:10 PM


  8. typos galore

    :-)

    sorry

    I also should state that what I meant is that I do not think the orthedox will let the citizenship part stand for long. The adoption? Well, the orthedox do not accept homosexuality at all. Just like here, the radical religous right has too much control in the Israeli government

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2008 1:18:40 PM


  9. Jimmyboyo:
    The Orthodox do in fact accept Orthodox conversions, which anyone can do, it just takes a lot more work and time than a Reform or Conservative conversion. For purposes of Israeli citizenship, only Orthodox conversion are recognized, unless you can prove maternal Jewish lineage (in which case you are, according to Jewish law, a Jew. The Orthodox do not however accept conversions *out* of Judaism whatsoever, so they will forever consider anyone who is at one point Jewish, Jewish, even if they go off and convert to Hinduism or something).

    I agree with everything you said up to the genetics point, and find it consistent with what I wrote above.

    As far as the genetics goes, studies have suggested that all types of Jews are first most closely related to each other. Second, Jews as a group have more in common with other semitic peoples (Arabs, Samaritans) than they do with Europeans, Asians, Africans. That does not make us "brothers" in any sense, especially if one rejects the determinism of the blood (which is a pretty standard assumption of modern liberals, I think?).

    I also don't think ONE country/future/etc is the right way to go. It's a basic fact that different peoples pursue different values and ends of life, and I think they should be free to do so. If the Arabs would prefer to follow the teachings of Mohammed and the Christians would prefer to pursue humility and the Japanese would prefer to pursue honor, let them do so, freely and without interfering with each other. It's silly to pretend that all human values can be in accord and be pursued wholeheartedly at the same time. I think a more down-to-earth pluralism/multiculturalism is appropriate.

    Derrick:
    Surely both sides have done things that are wrong. But the situation is much more complex than Israel being built "on other people's land," and that's the point I wanted to make. I think the balance of the evidence is in favor of the Israelis (they have, after all, attempted to make peace many times over the last 70 years - most recently in Camp David they even offered the Palestinians East Jerusalem, and are rebuffed time and again; it seems clear to me that the Palestinians do not desire peace while the majority of Israelis do).

    Posted by: Steve from Boston | Apr 25, 2008 1:31:24 PM


  10. Derrick – when you said “I still have to admit that Isreal is an oasis of progressive thinking …” were you taking about the same zionist state apartheid system described by Desmond Tutu. That state to this day continues to routinely murder Palestinians to steal their land and forces them to work for ultra low wages just like the South African apartheid state did. When you mention “a desert of backward & oppressive societies” are you forgetting that the most oppressive society in the region, Iraq, is American oil colony built on genocide and greed?

    When Steve says “Derrick, this is an entirely inappropriate place for those comments…” he’s just admitting his fear of a public discussion of zionist apartheid and oppression. It is NEVER an inappropriate time or place to denounce murder and apartheid. When he says that “I wouldn't say that the entire nation was "built on other people's land" he’s simply misinformed. If he wants to get informed he can check out the following sites:

    www.electronicintifada.net a source of up to date news
    www.merip.org an excellent analytical and scholarly site on developments in the Middle East and the resource wars

    www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org Eyewitness accounts

    http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11452 Analysis of American politics and anti-Palestinian activities

    http://www.alternet.org/story/62618/ a report on the growing Jewish anti -zionist movement and the use of zionist smear tactics

    When Steve says “I think the balance of the evidence is in favor of the Israelis (they have, after all, attempted to make peace many times over the last 70 years” he’s lying. The zionist peace policy, centered on the concept of ‘Eretz Yisrael’ is very much like Hitler’s concept of ‘Grosse Deutschland’ and their ‘peace policy’ also mirrors his. Their approach to peace consists of biting off a piece of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and swallowing Palestine whole.

    The only thing we have to know about the zionist state was neatly summed up by Desmond Tutu, who just got a much deserved award for supporting GLBT equality. Quoted by the BBC and the Guardian, Tutu, the former Anglican South African Archbishop accused the zionist state of implementing a colonialist apartheid system to super-exploit Palestinians, concentrating them in regions with very poor living conditions and forcing them to work for starvation wages.

    The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to Palestine, saying that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa". He angrily spoke of the ‘humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".

    Because he knows that critics of the zionist apartheid state are routinely smeared as anti-Semites he went out of his way to prove he wasn’t. Then he added, "I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group," he said.
    Tutu went on to criticize the political power of zionist groups in the United States, saying: "People are scared in this country; to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm

    Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Apr 25, 2008 2:53:03 PM


  11. Like I said, BILL PERDUE, this has been a difficult issue for me since the 1970s when Andrew Young was fired by Jimmy Carter for speaking to the Palestinians. I had always been an admirer of Jewish people, various Jewish cultures' contribution to American culture, and Jewish figures in the world of entertainment & politics. To be critical of Isreal is NOT being critical of Jewish people. But it's what you're going to be accused of if you speak out. And hey, I get sensitive about criticism of African countries (although I can be more brutal on them (for anti-gay persecution) than anybody).

    Isn't it ironic that Jimmy Carter is seen as anti-Isreal nowadays?

    The topic was the Isreali Government's decision to give Isreali citizenship to the adopted child of gay parents. I commended the Isreali government. But it's hard to compliment a government that's doing something good without mentioning that they're still doing something else that's very bad.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 25, 2008 3:15:44 PM


  12. Steve

    "unless you can prove maternal Jewish lineage (in which case you are, according to Jewish law, a Jew. The Orthodox do not however accept conversions *out* of Judaism whatsoever, so they will forever consider anyone who is at one point Jewish, Jewish, even if they go off and convert to Hinduism or something"

    Not in my case.

    :-(

    I would love to have a duel citizenship (American and Israeli so when the shit hits the fan I have a place to run to)
    My Mother's (my maternal line) paternal line is Jewish. If only my Bubby , my mother's mother had been a Jewess instead. My maternal line's paternal Jewishness = squat didly.

    Though it does explain my love of gefilte fish and matza.

    On the One world vs multi culturalism.

    I am all for multi-culturalism but multicutluralism's existence does not depend on borders.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2008 3:27:46 PM


  13. It's a very difficult situation, and Americans simply don't understand the scale of this conflict. They're fighting over a ridiculously small strip of land. So, neither side can "disengage" without losing quite a lot. And the front is literally everywhere and anywhere.

    Imagine, you will, if the San Francisco Bay Area had a civil war (roughly the same population and size as the whole of Israel)-- with the East Bay as the "West Bank" and Santa Cruz as "Gaza." Now, imagine the streets of Downtown San Francisco full of army units, mercenaries, terrorists, and assorted religious fanatics. And then mix into that mess a ton of American, Russian, Iranian, and Syrian intelligence operatives. Finally, arm everyone to the teeth and draw random checkpoints across the map.

    If this fantasy scenario sounds absurd to you, then you have begun to understand the true absurdity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There simply isn't enough space for all these conflicting interests.

    Posted by: John | Apr 25, 2008 3:49:04 PM


  14. Bill:

    I find your comments to be mostly silly. If I were afraid of engaging in debate would I have done so? I merely thought this was not the appropriate place for it (and still do not) but am unwilling to let my sense of propriety get in the way of my sense of right and truth.

    As for the rest (lying about what my opinion is? huh?), I'll respond when you post a cogent argument. I'm afraid that a series of poorly reasoned analogies don't suffice.

    The Israeli approach to peace has evidently been to decisively win *Defensive* wars that were forced upon them, and then to capture land as deterrence against future aggression, and then to offer to trade back such land for peace and good relations. This is a pattern in the historical record, just as it's a pattern in the historical record that the Palestinians seem not to want peace: every time Israel tries to make peace, the Palestinians reject it; when Israel *unilaterally* pulled out of Gaza and left it all to tha Palestinians in 2005, the rockets did not stop for a single day. Not one day. Then control was wrested by Hamas, a group in whose very constitution they refuse ever to recognize the existence of Israel. How is that indicative of desire for peace and coexistence?

    As far as checkpoints, humiliation, etc. they are deplorable and tragic. But the alternative is suicide bombers making Israel unlivable, specifically targeting women and children *as often as possible*. That's unacceptable. Stopping Palestinians at checkpoints is preferable to allowing some of them to blow up innocent women and kids.

    And for "everything we need to know" coming from one brief visit by Desmund Tutu - that statement betrays a deep misunderstanding of the complexity of the situation. You might as well say that everything we need to know about AIDS we can learn from a cancer specialist's visit to an AIDS clinic.


    Jimmy:
    The Orthodox don't consider you Jewish because your mother isn't Jewish (her mother wasn't). That's sad, and I'm not Orthodox. I think it's sad that they have so much control over these issues in Israel. I wish they didn't. Under the current rules, you could gain citizenship if you underwent Orthodox conversion.

    Posted by: Steve from Boston | Apr 25, 2008 5:26:46 PM


  15. Steve

    Being an atheist as well as gay nixes the conversion.

    Oh well

    back on topic

    I am happy for the couple and their child.

    :-)

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Apr 25, 2008 6:15:34 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Carrier: Jeff Dupre Talks About Life Aboard the USS Nimitz« «