581–590 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it not a problem that they won't be able to live in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? This outrage looks like a double standard to me.
Because I'm not a citizen of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. As an Israeli citizen I share the responsibility and am obliged to react to any colonial era exercise the government is trying to pull off.
If you’re trying to pacify a group wouldn’t you encourage integration, instead of banning it?
Israelis are just being realists. If most of Israel was non-Jewish they'd be wiped off the map. The amount of hate against Jews in this post is proof enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a policy of apartheid, which is motivated by both immigration and security. Fortunately, as we have learned over the past few weeks, sanctions are an effective means of pushback against archaic 20-th century statesmanship.
Unfortunately, geopolitics all but guarantee this will never happen so long as Israel is a strong western ally
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?
And yes a double standard applies compared to other countries because Israel identifies as a western liberal democracy whereas the others don’t or no one implies that they seriously are.
So, 21% of Israel's population has restrictions on who they could marry all so that they can maintain a majority of the favored demographic. This is apartheid.
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
This phrase is rarely appropriate when discussing marriage in Israel, never mind marriage with Palestinians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
TFA is in practice an example, no? An Arab Israeli cannot marry and live with an Arab from occupied territory just "next door" (their affinity group), but a Jewish Israeli can marry from their affinity group and live anywhere (laws on marriage within Israel are restrictive and often prevent even Jews from marrying other Jews if they are not deemed officially Jewish, I think through matrilinear heredity, but if you ar…
So, 21% of Israel's population has restrictions on who they could marry all so that they can maintain a majority of the favored demographic. This is apartheid.
The restriction applies to everybody, not just Israeli Arabs. However it is true that Israeli Arabs are the ones most affected by it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“There’s no need to shirk from the essence of this law. It is one of the tools to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel, which is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Our goal is for there to be a Jewish majority,” Lapid tweeted shortly before the law lapsed in early July. [0] [0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/months-after-citizenship-law-f...
Yes — discussing the actual motivations for the law, as provided to us by Israeli politicians and previous Supreme Court decisions, is a good and valid starting point for discussion. Claiming that the law is bad simply because it disproportionally affects some subset of the Israeli population, is not. The argument I was addressing in this particular subthread is the latter, not the former.
These days I live in the Southeastern US. Since 2020 was a census year, states have been redrawing their electoral maps. Several states have made changes that reduce the voting power of non-white voters. If politicians say this had nothing to do with race does that make it true? Even if it is true that they didn't consider race at all in the decision making process, does that make it acceptable when the end result impacts people in a noticeable way based on their race?