[returningfory2]

I think it's a very different situation:

- Israel is composed of people from different parts of the world with different languages so as a matter of practical policy they had to standardize on some uniform language for the country. Scotland doesn't have this problem: English is already the uniform standardized language.

- Israel exists in a more "existential" position than Scotland - there is more of a sense that their country and culture could be lost. Thus there is a bigger motivation to preserve what makes them different. I think you see this play out in Ireland, actually: there seems to be more of an interest in the Irish language in Northern Ireland, where the Irish identify is seen as more under threat, than in the Republic, where it is safe.

[miroljub]

Well, give it a decade or two, and you'll have the equivalent situation, with no dominant language group and many Pashtu, Hindi, Arab, Polish, Bengali, Farsi, Urdu, and other speakers.

[closewith]

> I think you see this play out in Ireland, actually: there seems to be more of an interest in the Irish language in Northern Ireland, where the Irish identify is seen as more under threat, than in the Republic, where it is safe.

You have this backwards. Ireland, both Ireland and Northern Ireland, have pockets of interest in the language and culture, but it really is true that the country, culture, and language that was Ireland pre-famine no longer exists. It was successfully and deliberately eradicated.