Same reason Russia is getting flak for invading and occupying territory (including, even, from Israel!) when Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank for decades with no consequences. Western countries apply their moral principles differently to their allies.
I'm not a fan of the occupation of the West Bank, but those are not 1:1 scenarios. West Bank was occupied after Jordan initiated the offensive, not Israel, as opposed to Russia who is the aggressor. A 1:1 scenario would be if Ukraine invaded Russia and then Russia took control over Ukraine territory, which in that case i'd argue the outcry would be minimal.
As I replied to a similar comment that was deleted: this is irrelevant ancient history.
What matters is that Israel is maintaining their illegal occupation even today, and even expanding it (building new settlements, etc.)
That language is an explicit part of Israel - the Declaration of Independence enshrines the idea that Israel is, first and foremost, a Jewish state. In more recent times, the nature of the state is often referred to as "Jewish and democratic". It is also enshrined in the basic laws of Israel (Israel doesn't have a constitution). This entire concept has a dedicated article on Wikipedia [0]. It's a pretty fun read for…
Yeah see, sh*t like that happens when you make a country only based on/for a religion.
Judaism is not just a religion; because of how they define membership of such religion, it's intrinsecally inseparable from a tribalistic element. Whether that ends up in outright racism, depends on who you ask.
South Africa took a lot of flak for their apartheid. Wonder why the same doesn't happen with this apartheid in the XXI century. That's a shame.
Same reason Russia is getting flak for invading and occupying territory (including, even, from Israel!) when Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank for decades with no consequences. Western countries apply their moral principles differently to their allies.
What’s “legal” or “illegal” has always been defined by whichever country has the biggest stick.
That language is an explicit part of Israel - the Declaration of Independence enshrines the idea that Israel is, first and foremost, a Jewish state. In more recent times, the nature of the state is often referred to as "Jewish and democratic". It is also enshrined in the basic laws of Israel (Israel doesn't have a constitution). This entire concept has a dedicated article on Wikipedia [0]. It's a pretty fun read for…
Yeah see, sh*t like that happens when you make a country only based on/for a religion.
Jews are an ethnic group, not a religion. (Even if traditionally most members of that ethnic group followed a particular religion, many don’t now).
This article fails to explain the reasons for which proponents believe that marriage with Palestinians would threaten security or Jewish character of the country, failing the supposed neutrality of the article or compromising the supposed quality of journalists in charge of investigating this.
If you start dating and marrying “the enemy” suddenly they’re not the enemy anymore. You start to understand them and treat them as an equal. As more mixing happens, opinion will start to shift and the state will start to see some resistance to the disturbing and inhuman way they treat Palestinians. The state doesn’t want to have to start treating Palestinian’s like equals. This law may not make marriage between the…
Interesting conspiracy theory, but the actual rationale has been shared in another comment: it's an overreaction to a number of events involving marrying terrorists to get them in the country.
About "the enemy", one side is constantly attacking the other, but you might be surprised to know which is which - or, you believe you have justifications. Anyway, my conspiracy theory is that this article purposely omits contextualisation so to drive the opinion to believe that's it's a free act of pure hate, which makes it fall into the "propaganda" category rather than the "journalism" category. And I'm not even supporting this stupid bill, but I've had more than enough of this kind of jorunlasmism which purpose is apparently to tell us how to think... IMHO this jurnolims is not a solution: it's a problem. Again, not discussing the silly law, discussing about the article in itself.
This is how the Middle East works by the way. Interreligious marriages are a very big deal and banned in every single Middle Eastern country. The good countries will refuse to issue a marriage license to you, the bad countries will send the police to watch as a mob lynches you. If you see Israel as some kind of psuedo-western state, then yea, you should be shocked. But as a Middle Eastern country, this is just anothe…
I would assume most of these aren’t interreligious, but beetween Israeli Arab Muslims, and Palestinian Muslims.
As far as being banned in every Middle Eastern country… not true. I know a few Bahraini females married to Brits. Interracial and interreligous. In Lebanon, and Jordan, this happens between Christians and Muslims as well. Which countries would lynch you?
Israel has always been the ethno-state white nationalists dream of, just centered on the wrong race.
Oh the irony...
I think it's actually perfection: it enshrines the conceptual absurdity of it. It's also incredibly sad, of course, from the perspective of judging the political maturity of the human race in the third millennium CE.
This is how the Middle East works by the way. Interreligious marriages are a very big deal and banned in every single Middle Eastern country. The good countries will refuse to issue a marriage license to you, the bad countries will send the police to watch as a mob lynches you. If you see Israel as some kind of psuedo-western state, then yea, you should be shocked. But as a Middle Eastern country, this is just anothe…
This isn't even remotely true. Anyone can marry inter-religiously in Turkey. Jewish, Christian or Muslim doesn't matter. Please get your facts right.