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

451–460 of 735 posts

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#451

Post by ambrozk »

walkhour wrote: post #334

Most comments here are attacking the decision, or just quoting the decision, and following it up by a "wtf". Just being shocked is not an argument. Jews are or have been persecuted in all middle eastern countries. What would happen if they were a minority in a democratic state in the Middle East? Why would it be different than in the other democracies in the Middle East? Laws like these lower the probability of Jews…

The situation is very much analogous to South African Apartheid. In both cases, an insecure population at the helm of an ethnostate sought to further deprive their state's already-disenfranchised co-residents of legal rights, in an effort to achieve security for themselves. White South Africans made the exact same arguments as Israelis, and in fact collaborated extensively with Israeli security services because they understood that the exact same groups opposed to South African Apartheid were the most potent opponents of Israeli apartheid. The Israelis remained staunch allies of the South Africans long after the rest of the world had decided to isolate them, because the Israelis understood implicitly that they were engaged in the same policies.

As to your question, I don't think a wise Israeli government would make every Palestinian a citizen tomorrow, but I think it is deeply unwise and immoral to further entrench the current policy of legal apartheid. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end in either ethnofascism and ethnic cleansing or some form of reconciliation, and this is a step towards ethnofascism.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#452

Post by AniseAbyss »

redditwhat wrote: post #322
jonathan-adly wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the ultra-Orthodox Jews think about those parades? Just by the demographics alone, those guys will be in charge very soon. (or Israel will cease to be democratic). So yes, Israel is not there yet, but well on its way. (and I have no problems with that, as long as they don't try to impose their religious values on me).

As an atheist-jew living in Israel, I will be the first to denounce ultra-orthodox Jews living in Israel and their chosen lifestyle, and I truly hope they won't ever become a majority here. But like you said, until then- It's a western country with western values through and through

No it isn't. In my country religion has no impact whatsoever in who you can marry or your citizenship.

Israel is not "just like us". It is a country founded on a religion. It treats that religion as superior and grants it more status. To be harsh Israel is more like KSA and Iran.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#453

Post by borski »

dundarious wrote: post #399
Danidada wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they can marry whoever they want, they just won't be naturalized ie if a Palestinian marries an Israeli, the Palestinian won't get Israeli citizenship

Israel has many laws dictating where you can live and between which areas you can travel, and they depend on its complicated notion of citizenship and nationality. You have far fewer restrictions as a "Jewish nationality, Israeli citizen" than as "any other kind of nationality, Israeli citizen". This is the meaningful difference people are referring to when they say that "Israel is an ethnostate" or talk about "apart…

Can you provide an example of what restrictions non-Jewish Israeli citizens have? Because I’m pretty sure all Israeli citizens have the same rights (Al Aqsa mosque and other religious sites notwithstanding).

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#454

Post by talhof8 »

ambrozk wrote: post #436
talhof8 wrote: post #256

Off-topic: Calling the Second Intifada an "uprising" is hell of a unique way of whitewashing suicide bombings. Nothing rebellious about that, just sheer terrorism.

What are you talking about? The fact that an uprising involves terroristic tactics does not make it less of an uprising. Trying to prevent people from calling the Intifada an uprising (which is the literal translation of the word) is playing word-games for rhetorical points, not discussing reality.

I’m talking about drawing a false romantic narrative of an uprising of the people, when the reality is it’s just terror.

Lets call it a Terroristic Uprising, more suiting.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#455

Post by throwaway2048 »

sparky_ wrote: post #450

What citizenship status do Palestianians have by default, if not Israeli? Given that Israel doesn't recognise Palestine as a state, doesn't that obligate them to confer Israeli citizenship to the residents, as they would otherwise be stateless?

There is no obligation for any state to issue citizenship to anyone, unfortunately.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#456

Post by eli_gottlieb »

belter wrote: post #422
jl6 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably not a problem as Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion.

So if a non observant Jew wants to operate a shop on the Shabbat...then?

Then their shop isn't certified as kosher and can't make food for religious customers, but otherwise, it works fine. I've gone to convenience stores, cafes, restaurants, movie theaters, etc dozens of times on Shabbat, in Israel.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#457

Post by biorach »

nindalf wrote: post #227
biorach wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The occupation of the West Bank does nothing to deter this. The annexation of the Golan Heights is somewhat justifiable on strategic grounds. The occupation of the West Bank is a land grab, pure and simple.

I think continuing to occupy West Bank and Gaza is unconscionable. But you’re mischaracterising the strategic importance of the West Bank. If it was a sovereign nation, the logical thing for the West Bank government to do would be to place artillery on the high ground near Israeli cities. The artillery would be sufficiently protected and would be capable of causing widespread destruction. That’s powerful negotiating…

> it would be a death sentence for Israel

That's a massive exaggeration.

It would theoretically be a risk for Israeli citizens living close to the border, but would lead to an overwhelming punitive response from the Israeli army, strongly backed by America.

Israel has by far the most capable military in the region, routinely inflicts casualty ratios of 10-20:1 in its favour in any conflict with Palestinians, and is backed by the most powerful military in the world.

The threat posed by an independent Palestine would be negligible. However the spectre of that threat is used to justify the continued occupation and expropriation of the West Bank.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#458

Post by simiones »

thatsmyfribble wrote: post #391
zd123 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can try diverting from the core issue at hand, using semantic sleights of hand, but it’s becoming apparent that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. By the laws it enacts and the oppression they enable, it is the definition of a racist state. The world is beginning to see it too, though very slowly.

I think in a conversation that's this divisive it's critical to be semantically very clear. I don't know that I'm using any sleights of hand, but if you want to agree to very specific definitions on the terms being discussed I always think that's useful. Regarding the apartheid analogy: I don't want to get into a semantic sleight of hand here, but the term apartheid comes from Dutch Afrikaans to describe their rule o…

> I genuinely don't believe the analogy of Dutch settlers colonizing Africa is comparable to displaced Jews establishing Israel. But again, you could consider my use of colonizing versus establishing a semantic sleight of hand. Depending on your definition of colonization, you could say Israel is a colonial state.

What else is it but a sleight of hand? Like in your first comment, all of your words are chosen to sound like Israel was formed on un-ocuppied land, as if the Zionist movement found a piece of desert and established a Jewish state there, and now their envious neighbors are seeking to colonize and attack them. In fact, they came and settled an area of immense religious significance to half the world's population that had been inhabited by hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs for hundreds of years.

And they came with the explicit intention of not only living there, but being the majority population there: an act that explicitly required an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestine by its very definition.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#459

Post by amscanne »

dundarious wrote: post #399
Danidada wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they can marry whoever they want, they just won't be naturalized ie if a Palestinian marries an Israeli, the Palestinian won't get Israeli citizenship

Israel has many laws dictating where you can live and between which areas you can travel, and they depend on its complicated notion of citizenship and nationality. You have far fewer restrictions as a "Jewish nationality, Israeli citizen" than as "any other kind of nationality, Israeli citizen". This is the meaningful difference people are referring to when they say that "Israel is an ethnostate" or talk about "apart…

Can you be specific? I’m reasonably sure this isn’t true. The only difference in how non-Jewish Israeli citizens are treated that I’m aware of is that non-Jewish citizens are exempt from conscription. I’m always open to learning more, however.

Otherwise, you seem to be talking about special legal carve-outs related to contested territories for restrictions on movement. The claim that non-Jewish Israel citizens are not allowed to live their partner is utter nonsense, unless by “live with” you mean “confer residency rights” but that seems like a dishonest framing.

Edit (responding to your edit): While that’s a shitty message and you can take issue with that (and related cultural issues in Israel), Netanyahu also notes that “Arab citizens have equal rights”. You’re actually asserting that this isn’t the case and need to explain how.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#460

Post by orange_joe »

thatsmyfribble wrote: post #266
cs702 wrote: post #190

Here's an interesting exercise: 1. Substitute "Israel's Knesset" for ANY other legislative body anywhere. 2. Substitute "Palestinian" for ANY other nationality, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or other adjective describing a group to which YOU belong. 3. See if you like how it feels: "[Legislative body] passes law barring spouses who are [like you] from becoming citizens."

This law doesn't restrict marriages, it restricts citizenship through marriages for Palestinians. I'm not defending that but I am clarifying it.

Interfaith marriage is illegal (people with money have interfaith marriages overseas), and if you have a child with a married partner of another faith the child will not have the father on the birth certificate.
Post reply on HN