Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Racist Israeli Marriage Law

19:07 / 02.08.03

From the Independent

Israel's Parliament has passed a law preventing Palestinians who marry Israelis from living in Israel. The move was denounced by human rights organisations as racist, undemocratic and discriminatory.

Whats more, this is a very targetted piece of legislation.

Under the new law, rushed through yesterday, Palestinians alone will be excluded from obtaining citizenship or residency. Anyone else who marries an Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship.

The children of such marriages will also be affected.

Now Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband or wife. Their children will be affected too: from the age of 12 they will be denied citizenship or residency and forced to move out of Israel.

I suppose it makes sense since Israel probably fears demographics but the blatency is what I find so galling.

19:15 / 02.08.03

next up: Palestianians forced to wear little felt crescents on all items of clothing.

followed by: a program of social hygiene with a wide range of applications.

23:34 / 02.08.03

The law has to be approved annually. This makes sense if it is for security (a peace process may be successful) and makes no sense if it is for demographics.

23:55 / 02.08.03

This makes sense if it is for security

any state that finds that it "needs" this sort of law for its own "security" is essentially illegitimate, IMHO.

02:59 / 03.08.03

And why is that?

03:42 / 03.08.03

Just to clarify, Jeezus. Are you saying that the nation of Isreal is not a legitimate nation, as in, it has no right to exist and should not be recognized internationally? These seem to be the essential elements of legitimacy.

04:55 / 03.08.03

Just to clarify, Matthew. Are you saying that racist statutes and legally-endorsed apartheid are necessary to a democratic nation's security? Or is in any way fundamental to Israel's right to exist? Because I fail to understand how the two are connected.

But that's just me.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:45 / 03.08.03

The law has to be approved annually.

As it currently stands. It can be ammended. However, let me point out that the law creating the British Army also has to be approved every year, but that hasn't stopped that army for existing for some time now.

Black Jeezus is probably right in suggesting that any state which must enact this kind of legislation has problems of legimitacy. That doesn't mean that the concept of the State of Israel is inherently illegitimate, only that a formulation of it which requires the kind of oppression we're seeing carried out there is. So, Matthew, there's no need for other nations to fail to recognise the state of Israel - if that were even an issue with a nuclear and military power of Israel's stunning capacity - but every need for them to object strongly to Israel's continuing flouting of a number of UN resolutions and international laws. That's not to suggest that the Palestinians have clean hands - just that, for the moment, they're in the 'oppressed' corner and Israel, as the staunch ally and protectorate of the world's only Hyperpower, is not.

The obvious parallels with Israel's current policy direction are South Africa under Apartheid, and the Berlin Wall. The Nazi comparison BJ made is almost entirely unhelpful, because however valid or invalid it may be, it brings just about any discussion to a screaming halt.

So may I suggest we avoid that pitfall and press on with discussing this without anyone accusing anyone else of anti-Semitism or Zionism for as long as possible?

12:21 / 03.08.03

I consider the racist component of this law, and what makes it
incompatible with the legislation of a modern (non-Athenian)
democracy, to be the exclusion of the children of a citizen from
the option of citizenship. A large part of the agreement each of
us makes in joining a democracy is the agreement that our children
will inherit the same rights as ourselves and all other citizens.
Degrading the citizenship of an ethnic group in this way is
apartheid and undemocratic.

I would however accept that citizenship need not be extended
automatically to the spouse of a citizen, although I'd expect it to
be denied on a individual basis with explicit reasons grounded in
factual evidence concerning the applicant. S/he's a Palestinian, is
not good enough, and is again racist.

19:23 / 03.08.03

Discursive Mass: Are you saying that racist statutes and legally-endorsed apartheid are necessary to a democratic nation's security? Or is in any way fundamental to Israel's right to exist? Because I fail to understand how the two are connected.

I don't recall having expressed an opinion on this particular law in Israel and whether it is necessary for their security. I do believe the purpose of its passage was for security, but it very well might not work.

In asking for clarification, I wasn't responding to Jeezus' comparison of the Israelis with the Nazis, but his assertion that

any state that finds that it "needs" this sort of law for its own "security" is essentially illegitimate, IMHO.

Rereading it, maybe Jeezus meant that any state that does in fact need this sort of law must be illigitimate (in which case Israel may or may not be so), or maybe he meant that any state that passes such a law, thinking it needs it must be illigitimate (in which case Israel certainly would be so, along with many other nations, I suspect). I don't know, though.