Live data from Hacker News

Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

reuters.com

641–650 of 735 posts

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#641

First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's important to clarify. Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting: Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only st…

Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated.

These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle from the get go and that was just not true. It was only when US interests were at stake that they joined the war, the same way Ukranians today are finding out the hard way.

From this flawed understanding of history and a recent rise in romanticizing of equity (truth is humans are simply not equal, we are all born differently with innate and different nurturing) from a young, highly educated demographic with unsatisfying careers, naturally latch on to these distorted views.

I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny. A small dense country that starts giving citizenship to a culture that is open to radicalization, extremism and preaches hatred and violence to their children is a huge national security risk.

I just don't get why people are so emotional here. This is a simple exercise of logic, Israel isn't going away, so its on the Palestinians to make peace and co-exist and better themselves. Because launching rockets into civilian areas by using your own people as shields to play the world PR game like what Ukraine is doing might get people in the West who lean towards a certain political spectrum to come out of the wood works but all it does is make peaceful co-existence impossible.

There was also a moment in history when Israel showed leniency and sympathetic to poverty amongst Palestinians but this was answered with terror attacks on it's citizens that still happen today. This is not fighting for independence or political identity, this is destroying innocent people to justify their own hatred. If the Palestinians truly wanted peace and political independence then they must NOT allow violent groups like Hamas and PLO to lead them. They must not teach their children to commit terrorist acts instead teach them the tools they need to better themselves economically. In fact doing it this way would win them way more legitimacy but they keep going the wrong way. What else can be done when they themselves are incapable of decoupling from hatred?

Also in history classes, it makes it seem like Jews weren't living in Israel at all and they suddenly came and took the land. Jews & Palestinians have lived largely at peace during the British mandated Palestine. Due to the Holocaust, it just made sense to let them decide their own nationhood because I don't think the Mandatory Palestine was even recognized as a state. It was just another case of good ole boys from Brit'eun drawing random lines and just leaving.

The simple fact of the matter is Jews cannot live in peace in many parts of Arab/Muslim countries but Arab & Muslims & Palestinians can in Israel, make living and better themselves.

I really don't understand the anger and vitrol from HN users on this issue, for a crowd that touts rationalism and logic, it really is sad to see these hateful comments allowing to exist.

Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was.

I fully expect to be downvoted and flagged for sharing this thought.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#642
post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this is exactly why they are doing it. This is coming out of the belief that the Jewish people need a Jewish refuge state based on the constant past consequences of not having one. If they didn’t control for their population, they’d need to decide between not being a Jewish state and not being democratic.

> This is coming out of the belief that the Jewish people need a Jewish refuge state based on the constant past consequences of not having one. It's funny how the experience of being subjected to a racist, human -rights-disregarding ethnonationalist regime that engaged aggression based on a desire for historic ethnic territory and a desire for buffer space has provoked the creation of a racist, human-rights-disregard…

Not ironic is the least.

When Jews were being murdered by the millions, nothing was done. Countries turned ships full of Jewish refugees around some of who went back to Europe and perished.

It’s pretty clear that nobody will look after Jews but other Jews and Jews will have no refuge except in a Jewish state.

I recall that Palestinian leaders made a state visit to Singapore and the then Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew, famously pragmatic, said “You’ll never defeat Israel militarily. Why? They have nowhere else to go.”

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#643
post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think there are ample cases that are in conflict with the idea that "anyone can move" into any Jewish neighborhood in larger towns and cities, and then you have groups like Elad in Jerusalem on top of that. https://archive.ph/20180614062757/https://www.haaretz.com/is...

This case in Afula actually contradicts your point, as Israeli authorities upheld the sale. http://web.archive.org/web/20210214010143/https://www.haaret...

I was just thinking that I should expand the point to illustrate what I mean when I saw your reply -- I wasn't clear. The article I posted is about the actions of the mayor, but I was using it as an example of petty discrimination, without explaining why.

The point I was indirectly making, was that there was vocal support from other Jewish Israelis in the area. It's highly probable that among those protesters, there are many such people where if they were selling their property, they would not obligingly sell to the best offer if it came from an Arab Israeli. My personal opinion is that there would be many who would not make the sale (there are also many many Jewish Israelis who would, of course). This one concrete case becomes in all likelihood many examples of the exact thing we're talking about.

I do agree that there are some judicial checks in place against some such cases.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#644

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.

> favored demographic Right, because the purpose of Israel is to be a Jewish state with a majority Jewish population to protect its Jewish residents from genocides, pogroms, blood libels, and other things that have been done to them for 2 millennia.

The same thing they did to the Palestianians. Weird how white supremacy is suddenly cool with a lot of people when you replace white with "Jew"

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#645
post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. There are no end of examples of Muslim anti-semitism before the foundation of Israel. Just one example, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a strong supporter of Hitler who frequently repeated the blood libel in his writing.

Cherry-picking individual quotes or statements does not reflect the attitudes of global Muslims as a whole. I'll instead link to the following wiki article, which is long, but here's a particularly relevant excerpt. > Antisemitism has increased in the Muslim world during modern times. While Bernard Lewis and Uri Avnery date the increase in antisemitism to the establishment of Israel, M. Klein suggests that antisemiti…

That’s not what cherry-picking means. The previous comment made a claim. I gave a what I considered a valid counter example undermining that claim. That’s an entirely reasonable response.

Somewhat ironically, that Wikipedia article is cherry picking. It gives lots of examples that support its thesis and fails to mention or downplays counter examples, of which there are very many.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#646

First of all, this isn't a ban on Israeli-Palestinian marriage, this is a restriction on the ability to gain citizenship through those marriages. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's important to clarify. Regarding comments I'm seeing here saying Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is racist or that Israel the concept of a Jewish state is disgusting: Israel is the size of New Jersey. It is the only st…

Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated. These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle…

> I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny.

Why exactly? I'm genuinely curious.

>Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was.

We now have 3 major human rights organizations saying Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians.

We also have former South Africans openly saying Israel's apartheid is actually worse than that practiced in South Aftrica. I would venture that these people would know:

"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

"Observers in South Africa are preparing to mark "Israeli Apartheid Week" on Monday. Tutu, meanwhile, has declared his support for the use of boycotts and economic sanctions as a means to compel Israel to alter its policies."

https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/desmond-tutu-is...

As for Nelson Mandela, he clearly supported the Palestinian cause:

"We identify with the PLO because just like ourselves they are fighting for the right of self-determination," he said.

"Arafat is a comrade in arms, and we treat him as such." 'Our freedom is incomplete'

In a 1997 speech on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights.

"We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

(Very interesting 1 hour 13 minute video interview Town Hall with ABC's Ted Koppel from 1990) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcQIEIRLU1Y

I believe that people get angry about it because the human rights abuses have gone on for so long without any noticeable change in Israeli policy. Some of this is related to the myth of equating Zionism with Judaism and as the location of Mandatory Palestine as the mythical homeland for the "ancient" Children of Israel.

After1904, the fixation on Palestine as the only territory in which Zionism could be implemented was reinforced by the growing power of Christian Zionism in Britain and in Europe. They believe, and still believe, that "Jewish return” would herald the "end of time" and the return of the Messiah.

It represented a double gain: getting rid of the Jews in Europe, and at the same time fulfilling the divine scheme in which the Second Coming was to be precipitated by the return of the Jews to Palestine [1].

[1] Stephen Sizer, “The Road to Balfour: The History of Christian Zionism,” at balfourproject.org.

This is the prevailing narrative in the West (especially in the US). The counter narrative, and this has been promoted by the New Historians (Israeli's in the 1990s) and Arab historians (since the 1950s), has been that the formation of the state of Israel was primarily a settler colonial enterprise: immigration started ramping up from 1910-40 and completed with the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians (from early 1948 to 1949) and the looting and destruction of their villages (both to prevent return and to erase any memory of the indigenous people (Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims) that inhabited Mandatory Palestine.

Not sure if that helps but it should give you a summary of the prevailing narratives.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#647

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”.

[deleted]

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm shocked as well, I just think that's not enough, you have to at least be able to justify why the two probabilities that I mentioned before are small, which in my opinion, is a hard thing to do.

I think most of us are so used to the principles of pluralism and minority rights, accepting it as an axiom, that it doesn't occur to argue that an ethnostate is desirable, necessary, and worth the cost to the displaced ethnicities. Doesn't occur is maybe the wrong word, it occurs as an alien and dangerous idea, like gazing into the maw of a tiger. Does it not feel dangerous to you, to even start weighing the needs o…

>I think most of us are so used to the principles of pluralism and minority rights, accepting it as an axiom, that it doesn't occur to argue that an ethnostate is desirable, necessary, and worth the cost to the displaced ethnicities.

The shock is not so much from a "shaken faith" in pluralism as it is from the hypocrisy and historical irony on display.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#649
post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that, once you're a citizen of Israel, you have the same rights as other Israeli citizens, regardless of race or religion. Under apartheid, rights were infringed based on race.

> Under apartheid, rights were infringed based on race. This is a good point. Israel totally doesn't deny entry, immigration, work visa status, citizenship, and even recognition as Jewish to black Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews_in_Israel#Absor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Hebrew_Israelites_in_I...

Immigration is not generally regarded as a right, nor is recognition of membership by a particular religious structure.

And racism by itself doesn't appear to constitute apartheid.

Re: Israel passes law denying naturalization to Palestinian spouses

#650
post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, the ideology that people claiming Israel is an aprtheid state is largely a North American and Western Europe trope which I remember definitely did not oppose Nazism, in fact, there were many Americans in the 30s who supported Nazi ideology and this is reflected in the way Native Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans were treated. These people believe that Americans fought Nazism in a heroic battle…

> I am not Jewish but the logic here is sound. Jews need their own country so they can take control of their destiny. Why exactly? I'm genuinely curious. >Israel is not an apartheid state. South Africa was. We now have 3 major human rights organizations saying Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians. We also have former South Africans openly saying Israel's apartheid is actually worse than that practi…

The crux of my understanding is this. The Holocaust created the need for a Jewish as a final solution. It wouldn't have been possible without European's support and it's also obvious to me the geopolitical interest is what drove them—to establish a Western friendly state in the Middle East.

Mandatory Palestine simply was not a country or recognized as such. PLO, Hamas, these guys aren't fighting for independence in my view, they are out to destroy, out of hatred and self-pity.

I'm not going to side with a culture that teaches their kids to kill their enemies at an institution where academic learning should take place. I always side with a culture that teaches tolerance, peace and education.

If the Palestinians truly wanted political independence, then they chose the worst way to do it, through violence. The IRA gave this up when they realized they could achieve independence politically and economically. My hope is that the Palestine side realizes this and overthrows Hamas and PLO with a rational minded leader.

It's also not out of the ordinary to assume under the security threats that Israel faces not only from Palestine but also its neighbors, that their security apparatus is aimed at prioritizing the safety of its citizens and sovereignty which means a pro-longed war.

It is similar in some ways to South Korea's situation but worse in many ways—you have a densely populated small mass land connected on all sides to hostile conventional forces as well as asymmetric threats from within. then I ask is the Korean peninsula an apartheid state? It's very clear to me as an outsider to see which one is the aggressor and poorer.

South Africa is under a completely different premise—it's goal was colonialism and its aftermath was an ugly systematic racism. Israel was created for very different reasons, it was the systematic persecution based on theology and class envy based on stereotypes that formed out of long existing persecutions.

So no, to me, the Palestine-Israel situation is completely different from South Africa's policy which was aimed at keeping the Dutch descendants colonial wealth.

Is America an apartheid state? No but there are certain elements that remind us of it in parts of it. Having said that is there also part of Israel that is uncomfortable to North Americans and Western Europeans because we believe we live in an open society yet its ridiculous to me how we ignore our own problems and our own hypocrisy towards "outsiders".

My message to people who support Palestine is this—you have change nothing you make it worse because you embolden these violent terrorist groups that run it which in turn creates overwhelming response from the people that get attacked.

I will never understand people who get upset when a terrorist group launches rocket attacks on civilians and it is met with equal or greater force.

Many conflate the pro-longed war as apartheid state, well in that logic, Korean peninsula is an apartheid state for making North Koreans poor. They did it to themselves after decades of asymmetric warfare and conventional attacks on the South.

Terrorism and violence as a way to push political independence is counter-productive, it only removes credibility for your cause. If you support Palestine that means you also being okay with terror attacks or "freedom fighters".

Let me remind you a group calling themselves The Base also sought to launch terrorist attacks to liberate their skin tone, ironically calling themselves after terrorists that attacked their country. Are neo-nazi white supremacist groups in America living in an apartheid state? In their head they are, at least according to the FBI

Post reply on HN