Israeli parliament passes law against Israeli-Arab/Palestinian-Arab marriages

[sulawesigirl4]

Seems like laws dealing with marriage are the latest fashion. Any thoughts on this?

JERUSALEM - Israel's parliament passed a measure Thursday that would force Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives or move out of Israel. The government said the law was necessary to prevent terror attacks, but critics called it racist.

The law, to be in effect for one year, would prevent Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip who marry Israeli Arabs from obtaining residency permits in Israel.

In pushing the measure, Israel's government cited instances in which Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza have exploited their residency permits ? which grant them freedom of movement in Israel ? to carry out terror attacks.

"This law comes to address a security issue," Cabinet Minister Gideon Ezra told Israel Radio. "Since September 2000 we have seen a significant connection, in terror attacks, between Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs."

The vote was 53 in favor, 25 against and one abstention.

Israeli Arabs were outraged.

"We see this law as the implementation of the 'transfer' policy by the state of Israel," said Jafar Savah from Mossawa, an advocacy center for Israeli Arabs. He was referring to a plan by ultranationalist Jewish groups to persuade or force Israeli Arabs and Palestinians to leave for Arab countries.

Savah said the law was an attempt to legalize unofficial policy that has been in effect since September 2000, when Israeli-Palestinian violence broke out. He warned that the law would damage relations between Israel and its Arab minority.

Local and international human rights groups have condemned the law as racist.

"This is a racist law that decides who can live here according to racist criteria," said Yael Stein from the Israeli rights group B'tselem.

Two New York-based rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, sent letters to the parliament protesting the law and urging lawmakers not to pass it, a statement from Human Rights Watch said.

rest of article
here on Yahoo/AP

 

[BVS]

That has to be the weakest argument I've heard in a long while. What is it with these marriage laws. Government trying to deny happiness to their own citizens by blocking something as harmless as marriage. Who would of thought that in the year 2003 our world would be ran by a bunch of racist homophobes whos only goal is to make everyone else just like them.

 

[melon]

Bigots always need someone. If it isn't Jews, it's blacks. If it isn't blacks, it's immigrants. If it isn't immigrants, it's women. If it isn't women, it's terrorists. If it isn't terrorists, it's homosexuals. In all cases, it's the dominant hegemony fearful of change; fearful of losing it's autocratic grip over its culture. As the future is an inevitability, this will only get worse.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Terrorists? That's a pretty funny thing to say, that people who "discriminate" against terrorists are "bigots".

 

[anitram]

These marriage laws in Israel and this Vatican thing about homosexual marriages begs the question, what is so wrong about people loving each other?

It truly boggles the mind that in today's day and age we would begrudge people happiness and love.

 

[melon]

Terrorists? That's a pretty funny thing to say, that people who "discriminate" against terrorists are "bigots".

Did you read a damn thing I said? It has nothing to do with this. It's about finding a "specter" to be afraid of. If it isn't Jews, it's blacks...

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

I read a damn thing you said. I read all the damn things you said. But you also said "Bigots always need someone", and then listed the groups of people that bigots "need". What do bigots "need" people for? To discriminate.

And I get the "fear thing". But the fear of terrorists is a lot different than a fear of blacks or the others you mentioned. It's quite rational to have a fear of terrorists. A healthy fear of terrorists is what cause people to be more aware of suspicious activity, and it is a healthy fear that cause the government to set up measures by which to protect their people from terriorists.

 

[anitram]

A healthy fear of terrorists is what cause people to be more aware of suspicious activity, and it is a healthy fear that cause the government to set up measures by which to protect their people from terriorists.

Is it a reasonable measure to prevent marriage between two people who are in love? I don't think so. I would hedge a bet that the vast majority of these marriages have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism at all.

 

[deep]

I read a damn thing you said. I read all the damn things you said. But you also said "Bigots always need someone", and then listed the groups of people that bigots "need". What do bigots "need" people for? To discriminate.

And I get the "fear thing". But the fear of terrorists is a lot different than a fear of blacks or the others you mentioned. It's quite rational to have a fear of terrorists. A healthy fear of terrorists is what cause people to be more aware of suspicious activity, and it is a healthy fear that cause the government to set up measures by which to protect their people from terriorists.

80s,

We could add anarchist, and communist to the list for fear monger?s scapegoats. It would have probably made more sense to you if each group were prefaced be ?supposed?.


I am sure the Klan could justify the lynching of black people with the explanation they were protecting their women from being raped by Negroes. There probably were an attack or two by black men. That in no way justified their lawless actions. Well, actually it was not always lawless, even though it was always wrong and immoral to lynch.

The current scapegoating that is prevalent today is also wrong. There was not a communist under every bed in the 50s. And 9-11 terrorist fears are being exploited for political gain today.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Some Israelis see this as a security threat. Ezra told the radio that since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this manner. "It has grown out of control," he said.

However, Stein from B'tselem said there have been only 20 cases from these 100,000 people who have been involved in terror.
[/Q]

I really think this part from the article is interesting.

Do you really think that if 100,000 people immigrated to the US and 20 were involved in terrorist activities that cause deaths of innocent people we would not change the law in some way?

20 out of 100,000 may seem insignificant to some of you. It is pretty damn significant to me. 1 Event was enough for me.

 

[anitram]

20 out of 100,000 may seem insignificant to some of you. It is pretty damn significant to me. 1 Event was enough for me.

Those 11 innocent Iraqis including 2 children who died while the Americans were looking for Saddam are 11 events.

Are we crying to have that stopped immediately?

I'm just saying, where does this end? Everything is an event. How many women are raped every day? How many men out of a total are rapists? Are those significant events? Where does this all end?

 

[Dreadsox]

Those 11 innocent Iraqis including 2 children who died while the Americans were looking for Saddam are 11 events.

Are we crying to have that stopped immediately?

I'm just saying, where does this end? Everything is an event. How many women are raped every day? How many men out of a total are rapists? Are those significant events? Where does this all end?

I give. I responded to the article...using information from the article. It seems to me that a nation has a right to impose its own immigration laws when they have been subjected to terrorist attacks by another group of people.

It's my opinion.

I am not sure about your post or what about mine brought it to this but if you think because I am for stronger immigration rules, or feel that another nation has the right to have their own immigration rules that I am for or pleased by the EVENTS you listed above, you have somehow misread my post.

Peace

 

[80sU2isBest]

Is it a reasonable measure to prevent marriage between two people who are in love? I don't think so. I would hedge a bet that the vast majority of these marriages have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism at all.

anitram, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. I was talking strictly about terrorists. I wasn't even addressing the posted article at all.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s,

We could add anarchist, and communist to the list for fear monger?s scapegoats. It would have probably made more sense to you if each group were prefaced be ?supposed?.

Why yes, it would have. Thanks for explaining it to me; it makes sense to me now.

 

[Dreadsox]

Is it a reasonable measure to prevent marriage between two people who are in love? I don't think so. I would hedge a bet that the vast majority of these marriages have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism at all.

I would agree with you that this is true. The vast majority of the marriages probably have nothing to do with terrorism.

That said, the law does not prevent marriages. It prevents the spouses from entering the country. They can marry and move away. I do not like saying these words, and deep down I think it is a shitty law. But I still believe that countries have a right to make laws to protect its citizens and restrict immigration.

Peace

 

[Popmartijn]

That said, the law does not prevent marriages. It prevents the spouses from entering the country. They can marry and move away. I do not like saying these words, and deep down I think it is a shitty law. But I still believe that countries have a right to make laws to protect its citizens and restrict immigration.

But does that immediately have to mean that they force emigration/deportation? I'm not against a law that would impose extra investigation in the backgrounds of the marriage, but I don't think it's a good idea to force people out of the country just because they want to get married.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Klaus]

There is no souvereign country Palestine yet, because of that the Palestinensians belong to the Israeli country.
If you throw out people from the country, because they get married to people from the arabic part of your country it is racism.

You can say "statistics proof that x % of the palestinensians are terrorists - so what,does this allow a country to punish innocent people?

This law can also be seen as a law to keep your "race" clean from the influence of another "race" you don't like - and because of that it seems to me inaceptable.

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Klaus, reread the article. It is about preventing people from coming in, not throwing people out.

Peace

 

[Klaus]

Afik it's about palestinensians who live in the Gaza-strip.

Ok, it's not throwing out, it is refrusing to let them out of their huge Getho (Gaza Strip) which is separated from the 1st Class Israel by a huge Fence.

Here is a statement form a Israeli Human Rights organisation B'tselem (

):

31.7.03: Knesset Denies Family Reunification

Today the Knesset passed a law that rescinds the right of Israeli citizens and residents who are married to Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories to establish their home in Israel.

The purpose of the law is to prevent family unification. This will affect tens of thousand of persons, including many children.

Since 1967, Israelis who married residents of the Occupied Territories could apply to the Ministry of Interior for family unification to obtain a legal status in Israel for their spouse. After prolonged checks and a substantial wait, most couples received family unification, enabling them to live together lawfully in Israel. In May 2002, the government decided to freeze the handling of all family unification applications submitted on behalf of residents of the Occupied Territories. Today (31 July, 2003)The government enshrined this decision in law.

The Law will harm every Israeli who wants to marry a resident of the Occupied Territories. The bill also applies retroactively, harming thousands of already-married couples. Because of the Ministry of Interior's slow handling of family unification applications, couples who married years ago and have been living in Israel lawfully waiting for family unification will now also be required to separate or to leave Israel.

Israeli Declaration of Independence

The law will impact not only married couples, but also their children. According to the Interior Ministry?s policy, children born in the Occupied Territories to permanent residents of Israel, can only be recognized as Israeli residents after an application for family unification has been submitted and approved. Since all family unification applications have been frozen since May 2002, the Interior Ministry has refused to register such children.

The new law changes this situation. According to the law, the Interior Ministry and the Civil Administration can grant special permits to children of Israeli residents who were born in the Occupied Territories and are under age 12 enabling them to live in Israel. Such permits will given ?in order to prevent separating children under age 12 from their parents who legally live in Israel.?

The law does not specify what type of permits will be given to children who fall into this category. If the permits are granted by the Civil Administration the possibility remains that children will be separated from their parents as Civil Administration permits are valid only for short periods of time, and are cancelled whenever a general closure is imposed on the Occupied Territories. Furthermore, Civil Administration permits do not confer social benefits such as health insurance.

It also remains unclear what the status of these children will be once they reach age 12, and whether they can then be deported. If the permits are given by the Interior Ministry, the children will receive temporary resident status without the possibility of getting permanent status as long as this law is in effect. Such permits must be renewed annually..

The law is presented as a "temporary order," which will be in effect for one year only. However, the law empowers the government to extend its provisions indefinitely.

The bill's drafters made cynical use of security arguments to justify the bill. However, they presented no data on Palestinians granted family unification who were involved in attacks against Israelis. Enacting a sweeping law in response to rare cases of security offenses will punish an entire community and violate the fundamental rights of a vast number of people who are not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

The new law is racist and contravenes the principle that citizens are to be treated equally. It is thus patently unconstitutional.

From their constitution:
"The State of Israel?will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex..."

Palestinensians are inhabitants as long as they don't have a souvereign country.
And - the "real" israelis who are also punished are definetly israelis.

Klaus

 

[BVS]

[Q]Some Israelis see this as a security threat. Ezra told the radio that since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have obtained Israeli permits in this manner. "It has grown out of control," he said.

However, Stein from B'tselem said there have been only 20 cases from these 100,000 people who have been involved in terror.
[/Q]

I really think this part from the article is interesting.

Do you really think that if 100,000 people immigrated to the US and 20 were involved in terrorist activities that cause deaths of innocent people we would not change the law in some way?

20 out of 100,000 may seem insignificant to some of you. It is pretty damn significant to me. 1 Event was enough for me.

20 terrorists acts are a lot. But 20 out of 100,000 is a very small percentage. Basing judgements and laws on small percentages like this in any other realm would be called stereotyping.

I'm all for changing immigration laws, but not marriage laws. All I'm saying is find another way to deal with the problem.

 

[Dreadsox]

Israel?s New Citizenship Law:
A Separation Wall Through the Heart
By JOANNE MARINER
----
Monday, Aug. 11, 2003

Imagine having to decide between your country and your spouse. With the passage of Israel?s new law on marriage and citizenship, thousands of Israeli Arabs now face this painful and unjust choice.

The law, passed on July 31, bars Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming citizens or residents of Israel. It formalizes a policy that has been effect since September 2000, when the current violence in Israel began.

Israelis of Palestinian origin have long complained that they feel like second-class citizens. It is hard to see this new law as anything but a defining step toward making their second-class status official.

Differential Treatment of Jews and Palestinians

Israeli law already extends an absolute preference to Jews, over members of all other ethnic or religious groups, in obtaining Israeli citizenship. The Law of Return, together with the country?s Citizenship Law, grants automatic citizenship to Jewish immigrants to Israel. Not only do the country?s legal rules benefit Jews over other potential immigrants, they give Jews priority over Palestinians who fled or were driven from the country during the 1948 and 1967 wars.

The law that was just passed, however, goes an important step beyond the previously existing rules. Rather than granting a preference to Jews over all other groups, it specifically singles out Palestinians for adverse treatment.

The new law is thus facially discriminatory against persons of a single nationality. Aside from Palestinians, all other persons who marry Israelis are eligible for citizenship. But the law?s discriminatory character extends beyond its impact on the Palestinians who are barred from obtaining citizenship. It is also discriminatory in its impact on Israelis.

The overwhelming majority of Israeli-Palestinian marriages are between Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin (known as Israeli Arabs), and Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. By blocking the reunification of families split between Israel and the occupied territories, the law will have a devastating impact on the family life of Israeli Arabs.

Israeli Arabs who are married to Palestinians will now have to abandon Israel if they want to live with their families. Indeed, the prospect of their emigration may have helped spur the law?s passage. As Israelis prepare for the establishment of a Palestinian state, nationalist legislators are anxious to ensure the geographic separation of Jews and Palestinians.

Security or Demography?

Nearly 20 percent of Israelis are of Palestinian origin: an estimated 1.2 million people. Given the Zionist ideal of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and the demographic realities that this ideal presupposes, many Israeli Jews have watched the growth of Israel?s Palestinian population with an anxious eye.

Until recently, the immigration of Israeli Jews has more than outweighed the population increases of Israelis of Palestinian origin. Benefiting from the Law of Return, some 2.7 million Jews immigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1998. At present, however, with the Jewish exodus from Russia having ended, the prospect of continued large-scale Jewish immigration to Israel seems unlikely. The demographic issues that alarm Jewish nationalists are now increasingly apparent.

Because of such concerns, it has never been easy for Palestinians from the occupied territories to obtain permission to join their spouses in Israel. But it was with the outbreak of violence in Israel in September 2000 that the issuing of residence permits to Palestinian spouses was effectively frozen. This de facto suspension of permits was ratified by the Israeli cabinet in May 2002, and was just now formalized into law.

Supporters of the new law, known as the ?Nationality and Entry into Israel? law, justify it as a means to prevent terrorist attacks. According to Israeli government minister Gideon Ezra, a member of the right-wing Likud party, there have been some twenty lethal attacks in the last few years involving Palestinians who had gained entry to Israel through marriage.

Ezra also acknowledged, however, that over 100,000 Palestinians from the West Bank had obtained Israeli identity cards since the 1993 Oslo agreement. Clearly, if the prevention of terrorist attacks is the goal, the government should seek out a more compelling surrogate for terrorist intent: 20 out of 100,000 people is hardly a close match. Nor is punishing thousands of people for the crimes of a few a very fair approach to stemming terrorism.

Discrimination and Citizenship under International Law

Under international law, Israel is not free to discriminate against Palestinians. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent, and national or ethnic origin. Although the treaty does not generally apply to countries? legal rules on citizenship and naturalization, it does bar discrimination against particular nationalities.

In other words, while the treaty may not bar Israel from crafting citizenship rules that benefit a particular groups ? as with the Law of Return ? it does bar Israel from discriminating against Palestinians specifically.

Recognizing the Israeli law?s incompatibility with international norms, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International sent a joint letter to the Israeli parliament in July to urge legislators to reject it. As the letter stated, in blunt terms, ?The proposed law is discriminatory. It targets a category of individuals purely on the basis of nationality or ethnicity, and prevents them from living with their spouses and children.?

Even Israel?s most reliable supporters appear concerned about the law. Last week, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Reeker was called on to comment on it. Although Reeker seemed reluctant to use the word ?discrimination,? he acknowledged that ?the new law singles out one group for different treatment than others.?

Perhaps more surprisingly, Abraham H. Foxman, the director of the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, issued a statement implicitly criticizing the new law. Noting that the law will expire after one year, Foxman said that the ADL hopes that Israel?s parliament will review the law when it expires ?and explore other methods to ensure Israel's security needs.?

Lessons from History

Jews have good reason to oppose discriminatory citizenship laws, having historically been a target of them.

In European countries during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Jews and other minority populations were often excluded from citizenship. It was not until 1791, after the French Revolution, that France became the first European country to extend full citizenship rights to Jews.

Adrien Jean Fran?ois Duport, the Frenchman who proposed the motion on Jewish citizenship, spoke eloquently about the unfairness of singling out specific groups for adverse treatment. Discussing the right to citizenship, he concluded: ?Jews cannot alone be excluded from the enjoyment of these rights, when pagans, Turks, Muslims, even Chinese ? in short, men of all sects ? are granted them.?

Last week, a legal organization for Arab minority rights challenged the constitutionality of the new Israeli law in a petition filed with Israel?s High Court of Justice. In considering the law, perhaps the court will understand that Palestinians, too, should not be excluded from rights that others enjoy.

 

[verte76]

I am afraid this law is going to be the cause of more terrorism because it's not fair to the decent majority of Palestinians who have no sympathy with terrorism. It's cannon fodder for the terrorists. I respect the right of each country to do what they can to keep terrorists out of their country. I'm afraid this isn't going to do anyone any good. Stuff like this scares me. I have friends in Israel and I always hope that they are safe.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am afraid this law is going to be the cause of more terrorism because it's not fair to the decent majority of Palestinians who have no sympathy with terrorism. It's cannon fodder for the terrorists. I respect the right of each country to do what they can to keep terrorists out of their country. I'm afraid this isn't going to do anyone any good. Stuff like this scares me. I have friends in Israel and I always hope that they are safe.

Verte you have persuaded me to rethink my postion on this issue. Maybe one of the few times in here I have felt the need to do that. Thanks.

Peace

 

[DrTeeth]

A United Nations panel has urged Israel to repeal a new law forcing Palestinians who marry Israelis to live separate lives.
The Geneva-based Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution saying the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty.

However the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, accused the panel of bias.

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3152651.stm

 

[verte76]

This is a terrible law. I am scared for my friends in Israel.