Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 735 posts

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#241

Post by airstrike »

captainmuon wrote: post #170
irrational wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so annoying. It’s not rocket science to understand that Arabic is a language and you are only an Arab if your cultural language is Arabic. Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. It’s like saying that all who speak English are Christians. And all who are Christians speak English.

(Too deep so I can't reply to sibling...) And there are Arabic speaking Muslims who don't consider themselves Arabs (e.g. in north Africa), as well as Arabic speaking christians who are Arabs (e.g. in Iraq).

Click on the permalink and then you can reply to infinity ;-)

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#242

Post by fit2rule »

jonathan-adly wrote: post #60

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…

[dead]

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#243

Post by [deleted] »

coeneedell wrote: post #232
zarzavat wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Are you trying to say that there's something inherent to the Jewish population that they're less likely to marry a non-Jewish person than a Muslim is to marry a non-Muslim?

[deleted]

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#244

Post by dotancohen »

detaro wrote: post #214
dotancohen wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Israel, polygamy is forbidden to Jews. The Muslims practice polygamy, I have many friends with multiple wives.

Legally recognized multiple wives? Because according to the sources I can find, that has been illegal for decades, regardless of religion.

Me again. I just googled for "beduin polygamy in israel", try it and you'll find all you need. It is ostensibly illegal but impossible to enforce. You should know that it's not restricted to only Beduin, I recently was at a West Bank gas station talking to a guy (in Arabic) who has recently married his second wife. There are Beduins in the West Bank, but this guy wasn't Beduin.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#245

Post by probably_wrong »

adielsa wrote: post #140
quelsolaar wrote: post #2

This is an apartheid regime. Plain and simple.

This article doesn’t really provide much in the way of explanation for why this law is being enacted. Here [0] is a better article that quotes supporters and objectors to the law. It includes the (IMHO not very convincing) figures that "Between 1993 and 2003, around 130,000 Palestinians were given Israeli citizenship or residency through family unification, including children, according to court filings. The Shin Bet…

Off-topic: Did you copy this other comment [1] from this same thread but forgot to copy the reference for "[0]"?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30639558

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#246

Post by DonaldFisk »

dotancohen wrote: post #134
nidhalbt wrote: post #28

We see more and more similar laws being passed in recent years, laws that are blatantly discriminatory. This may raise the indignation of many people, but in my opinion, Israel is shooting itself in the foot by passing these laws, because it reinforces the argument that it is an apartheid regime. Israel is slowly losing its support in the free democratic world where people believe in the inalienable universal rights…

Quoted post unavailable.

> We are not talking about loving couples being forbidden to marry.

According to the article, the law prevents first and only Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from becoming Israeli citizens, when love is the sole reason for wanting to marry. If Israel wanted to prevent citizens from having "third of fourth wives", an acceptable way would be to outlaw polygamy; if it wanted to prevent bogus marriages, an acceptable way would be by not granting marriage certificates when the couple don't know each other.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#247

Post by bawolff »

msrenee wrote: post #215
arielb1 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people of the West Bank have engaged in terrorism against Israeli civilians up to 2005 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada - and that's not particularly ancient history.

I don't have a lot of background in this, so tell me if I'm off-base. Israel is occupying land that it took from Palestine, is it not? I don't feel that terrorism is the correct term for attacks on an occupying force.

Umm, that's basically the definition of terrorism.

9/11 didn't happen out of the blue, it was a response to american foreign policy in the middle east.

The troubles didn't happen because the IRA thought British rule was legitimate

Etc.

The vast majority of terrorism is because one group is controlling a region that the other group thinks they should not.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#248

Post by tablespoon »

mmaunder wrote: post #161
quelsolaar wrote: post #2

This is an apartheid regime. Plain and simple.

That is correct. I grew up under apartheid. This phrase is key: “ Proponents say the law helps ensure Israel's security and maintains its "Jewish character".” Consider if the US passed a law banning Mexican spouses from uniting with their US spouse to keep America’s “Christian character”.

> Consider if the US passed a law banning Mexican spouses from uniting with their US spouse to keep America’s “Christian character”.

That's not a very good analogy, because Mexico is probably more Christian than the US.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#249

Post by helge9210 »

e-neko wrote: post #220
Ennis wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. There is no path to becoming "naturalized", a legal resident or much more-so a citizen in your own country - whether you see that as Palestine or Israel. This is just one more mechanism to humiliate a population of millions.

Of course nobody cares that an Israeli Jew marrying a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian, let alone a Saudi citizen, can't get Lebanese or Jordanian or Egyptian or Saudi citizenship. But Israel must give citizenship to everyone... right?

Main problem here that if Israeli citizen will decide to marry a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian or even Saudi citizen, they won't be able to live in Israel.

Outrage of non-Israelis about is law is merely academical. Outrage of (some of) Israelis is practical: the state is putting a choice in front of a citizen -- be able to marry a person you want or be able to live in Israel.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#250

Post by someotherperson »

buzzwords wrote: post #163

I think anytime there is post on this lots of down voting and canned responses are posted. That's from both sides. I'm not sure what the solution is but I can't imagine any real conversation happening without one side or the other "keyboard warriors" derailing the conversation.

A common tactic to suppress unfavourable situations is to create hostility so that moderation is forced to take place.

In real life this includes sending people to start fights or riot during protests to allow police to enter and disband it, and online this involves starting several arguments so that the moderators find it pointless to let the discussion go on.

That's why this happens. It's intentional and not accidental :-)

Post reply on HN