Evil is the word, Mark. Yikes. Thanks for the link.
John Farrell | 07.31.03 - 3:49 pm | #

My God, what is wrong with these people?!?
Dennis_Mahon | 07.31.03 - 4:25 pm | #

This is wrong as well as stupid.
On the pratical level would an Israeli even marry a Palestinian who was a terrorist?
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 07.31.03 - 4:59 pm | #

St. Valentine,

Please pray for the children of our Father Abraham that they might all be able to enjoy the natural right to marry.

We ask this in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Sancte Valentin Ora Pro Nobis.
ben | 07.31.03 - 5:09 pm | #

Ugh.
That is awful. Makes you feel sick, don't it?
Mark Wyman | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 5:16 pm | #

I didn't get to finish my though. How many Palestinian suicide bombers where married to Israelis?

......I can't think of one either. Thus why do the Israelis think this Law will do anything other then generate (in this case) just Criticism of the Israeli goverment & not save a single Jewish life (because those who are a threat are most likely NOT married to Israelis).

I'm saying this & as you might have guessed I'm pro-Israel.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 07.31.03 - 5:17 pm | #

The answer, Ben Yachov, according to the Jerusalem Post, is
"Likud MK Ehud Yatom said Shin Bet director Avi Dichter had informed the Interior Committee that there have been 19 cases of Palestinians, especially in east Jerusalem, who used blue identity cards obtained through family reunification to carry out terror attacks that claimed the lives of 87 people.

"According to Yatom, the requests are overwhelmingly for Palestinian men to join wives in Israel, which Dichter told the committee said is "abnormal in the Arab world in which women follow their husbands." "

Full article here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/ Sat...d=1059626409796

I'm not sure what I think yet. They aren't forbidding marriage, they are saying that marriage to an Israeli citizen does not confer an automatic right to residence/citizenship of Israel. Since that's just a hardline version of the prerogative of every sovereign state, I have a hard time thinking of it as unmitigated evil. I mean, when my brother married a Filipina it took over a year before she could get a visa. Also, the law has been passed for one year only, they will have to vote again next year.
Atlantic | 07.31.03 - 5:27 pm | #

Also, I've noticed a few people (including on other blogs) refer to this as 'racism', as in "because one of them belongs to the wrong racial group" - please remember that about 20% of Israelis are Arabs (and incidentally don't forget that several hundred thousands of Israeli Jews are Jews originally from Arab countries). From a *careful* reading of the articles on this topic, it is clear that what the Israelis are concerned about is a result chiefly of Palestinian Arabs marrying Israeli Arabs. It's a matter of citizenship and nationality, not *race*.
Atlantic | 07.31.03 - 6:27 pm | #

Mark;

Israel's system of apartheid will have to come to an end, and it's a shame that the right wing tends to forgive it leaving the far left to make the issue theirs. Just because there are tons of America and Jew-hating islamic lunatics next door dosn't justify ethnic cleansing...

On the other hand, anything a right-winger says about Israel is construed as anti-Semitism, so perhaps the shyness of conservatives, Republicans etc. is understandable. It still isn't right, but we can understand it a little better.

But in the future, the silence of the right on this issue will be likened to the silence of Europe about the Holocaust, South Africa, and slavery, and justly so.
Ian | 07.31.03 - 6:29 pm | #

And speaking of 'ripping apart families apart' just the h*ll what do you think was going on with families on either side of the Green Line before 1967, when *Jordan* held the West Bank and *still* didn't let the Palestinians out of their squalid refugee camps to the rest of Jordan, let alone to visit their relatives in Israel???
Atlantic | 07.31.03 - 6:29 pm | #

How dare you call *Israel's* position 'ethnic cleansing' when 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, yet Jews are not even allowed to enter, let alone reside in, let alone be citizens of several Arab countries?
Atlantic | 07.31.03 - 6:34 pm | #

Atlantic:

This law improves on that how?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 6:35 pm | #

As I said, I'm not sure what I think of this law yet. Residency/ citizenship of a state of which you are not a citizen is *not* an automatic right in any country I am aware of, even if you marry a citizen or are related to one - it's a privilege (I have strong beliefs about this, having myself been a legal immigrant to another country). So I am inclined to believe that this is valid, if not nice - especially since it's *not* forbidding marriage to anyone. And especially given the tough position Israel is in.

Funny how nobody cares that in Denmark, *actual citizens* can lose their right to residency in Denmark if they marry a foreigner, stay abroad too long and cannot demonstrate that they have a closer connection to Denmark than to the country of your spouse. Why is no one screaming about how evil the Danes are?
Atlantic | 07.31.03 - 6:54 pm | #

This only affects residency, it doesn't prohibit marriage. As sovereign nations have the right to control who may live in their nation, this is completely legal.

That said, I don't agree with it.
Paul | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 7:19 pm | #

Atlantic:

In my case, it's because I don't know anything about Denmark. I think *any* state policy that puts Caesar's interests before that of innocent families is evil. Period.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 7:24 pm | #

This is uncomfortably similar to South Africa's laws under apartheid. Those, too, were based (in part) on "nationality" (Blacks were arbitrarily assigned "citizenship" in distant bantustans, far from the cities where they worked). And yes, I'd normally be considered a pro-Israel "honorary Likudnik" myself.
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 7:37 pm | #

I just don't get it. Since when is Israeli citizenship a human right?

Sorry, Mark, but I fail to see how inconveniencing these families (is it something more than that?) for the express purpose of preserving the lives of other families can be interpreted as "evil". Given the problems this country is facing with a certain hostile neighbor that still continues to preach its destruction, this seems quite fair.

Oh, unpopular, yes, of course! Poor Mahmoud and Adar, newly married and they can't have their honeymoon, can't raise their family... oh, but except they can, just not in Israel, for reasons of national security. That's not just Caesar's interest, btw.

A thought: the Family is a great good, agreed; but humans being humans (original sin, etc) at point guarding many families will require the inconveniencing of some. Methinks this story just so happened to yank on the heartstring that's attached to your knee.
Marc Lewandowski | 07.31.03 - 9:36 pm | #

Actually, I should have said: at some point guarding human lives may require the inconveniencing of some families.

I can't help but see an analogy to a quarantine situation.
Marc Lewandowski | 07.31.03 - 9:38 pm | #

This is eerily - and perversely - reminiscent of the Nuremberg Laws that proscribed marriage and procreation between Jews and "Aryans" in Germany. What's next, intricate racial formulas for divining whether the children of these unions are Jews or Arabs? The Jewish State has a absolute right to exist in peace and security, but this is the wrong way to go about securing that right.
Mark | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 9:58 pm | #

Marc:

"Inconveniencing" *innocent* families for the "crime" of marrying a person from the "wrong" ethnic group has a name in our country. It's called racism and Jim Crow. If the Palestinian spouse has some sort of criminal record or the state has evidence, then fine. Treat them like criminals. But I see no particular difference between this policy and apartheid, Nuremburg laws, or our own internment of innocent Japanese.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 11:52 pm | #

I'm all for Israel protecting Herself. I'm not sure I want to ever see a Palestinian State because I believe it would most likely be a Muslim autocracy that would oppress Arab Christians. But this goes too far.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 08.01.03 - 12:25 am | #

I think this is a stupid policy. But like most posters, I am saying that in the safety of a huge country whose existence is not threatened by suicide bombers. A little humility would go a long way here.
Christopher Rake | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 8:40 am | #

Mark, do you want to offer a method that satisfies your sense of morality and prevents sham marriages for the purpose of admitting terrorists into Israel without a waiting period or criminal check?

How many Israelis are you prepared to see die at the hands of terrorists who obtained their entry into Israel with a sham marriage?

This is like the idea of stopping ambulances at roadblocks to undergo a thorough weapons search. It was the Palestinian side that defied civilization and common sense by transporting weapons and terrorists in ambulances.

This is not a "racist" attack by Israel out of a vacuum (as if the Israeli seek out more bad press) but a response to a tactic of terrorism.

167 terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israel since the "cease-fire" started. Is the Guardian reporting that? No? I didn't think so.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 9:41 am | #

Patrick:

Do you really think that this ham-fisted approach, which punishes 100,000 innocent people is the best Israel can do?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 10:29 am | #

Mark:

"Inconveniencing" *innocent* families for the "crime" of marrying a person from the "wrong" ethnic group has a name in our country. It's called racism and Jim Crow.

Yes, it would, but that is an exaggeration of the Israeli policy. This isn't about ethnicity, but citizenship (or the lack thereof) and the state has every right to discriminate on those terms, especially given a de facto state of war between two neighboring states.

The state is simply not obliged to grant rights of citizenship to a foreigner, even when they marry a citizen. These are priveleges, not rights, and given the tenacity of Palestinian terrorists in exploiting any and all priveleges given them by Israel (see Patrick's comment above), this is yet another necessary proscription.

Is it painful? Of course. Less painful than even the one terror attack that may have been thwarted by its enactment? Perhaps this is where we differ.

I still think that this article was spun against the policy, and because it affects marriage and by extension the Family, the policy happens to hit you in your soft spot, like an article on relativity to Bob Sungenis. And sorry to say, your reaction was a bit like what I would expect from CAI. "Evil"? Reminiscent of "the Nuremburg laws"? This is not only inaccurate, but dangerously close to, well, equating Zionists and Nazis.
Marc Lewandowski | 08.01.03 - 10:30 am | #

Sorry for the formatting gaffe.
Marc Lewandowski | 08.01.03 - 10:31 am | #

Patrick,

According to the Guardian story, out of 100,000 cross-border marriages since 1993, a total of 20 have had some connection to acts of terror. A fifth of one percent, and a miniscule fraction of ALL the terror attacks launched against Israeli citizens. And for that, the State of Israel is prepared to wound the other 99,980 marriages, many of them among Christian Arabs? This is an overreach.

I am not "prepared" to see any Israelis die at the hands of terrorists, for any reason, and to suggest that by opposing a particular law one is siding with terror is silly. There are many Israelis opposed to this law. Are they all "prepared" to see their countrymen - or themselves - die at the hands of terrorists? Are they anti-Semites?

Israel is a parliamentary democracy, and legislatures sometimes make mistakes, especially in times of crisis. It is the right of free people to oppose laws at odds with their "moral sense," even when they don't offer convincing alternatives.
Mark | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 10:46 am | #

The law may not carry out its intended objective (reduce terrorism), it may not be free of moral objection, heck, it may even be "wrong". But it is not "racist" - it is defensive. It is no more "racist" than say, screening Arab-looking people at airport checkpoints in New England. It just so happens that the profile fits the suspect - like say, an APB for a white male, 30-35, with short blond hair and a beard, approximately 6'0 weighing 190-200 pounds, etc.

I'm not saying its a good policy, I'm just saying its not based upon racial animosity per se, its just based upon the fact that ARAB TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN BLOWING US UP, NOT BLUE HAIRED OLD LADIES FROM MINNESOTA. It may still be draconian and over the top. Maybe if we had smaller 9-11's happening every week in the US for two years, we might see it differently.
c matt | 08.01.03 - 12:08 pm | #

Besides, no one would ever fraudulently use the sacred institution of marriage to gain access to another country. Never happens here.
c matt | 08.01.03 - 12:15 pm | #

c-matt,

To equate security profiling at airports with the forced separation or exile of married couples doesn't quite compute. Examine your analogy a little closer: even when Arab or Arab-looking men are scrutinized at airports, they are allowed to fly if nothing is uncovered. In the case of the Israeli law, there is no test of worthiness. All Palestinian-Israeli couples must comply.

Now imagine a law which said that NO Arab or Arab-looking may fly on American airlines. Period. Wouldn't that be an overreach, and wouldn't it be at heart "racist," since it would limit the freedom of an entire class of people on the basis of their shared ethnic characteristics?
Mark | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 2:19 pm | #

A Christian Israeli-Arab man marries a Palistinian woman. In order to live with his wife, he either has to leave Israel--his home--and live in the West Bank, or they have to move to another country. All to satisfy a law that purports to protect Israel from terrorists that use marriage to enter the country. Wasn't that twenty confirmed suicide bombers that entered Israel that way? Out of how many Palistinians again? (hint--see Mark's numbers above)

Oh, and the timing for the passage of this law couldn't be better! It passes shortly after Sharone tells the world--with Bush at his side--that construction of the wall seperating the West Bank from Israel will continue.

Obviously the best way to promote peace and security for Israel and a viable state for the Palestinians is to assume that all Palestinians that want to live in Israel are terrorists. Suicide bombers, the lot of them. Including the Christians.

This law is immoral and supremely unintelligent.
Frank Tassone | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 2:45 pm | #

According to the court challenge that's pending before the Israeli Supreme Court (details on my blog), the Israeli government only cited six instances in which Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs were involved in terror attacks, out of 16,007 people who obtained residency through family unification. Eliminating the entire family unification program because of six terror attacks is so disproportionate it's not even funny. Israel might have been justified in freezing the program for a few months, analyzing the attacks and figuring out how to beef up their security checks, but not in passing a law that breaks up families.

You're right, Mark. This is evil. And I say this as a committed Zionist.
Jonathan Edelstein | Homepage | 08.01.03 - 4:30 pm | #

If you read above, I did not say it was good policy, all I said is it was not racist in the sense that it was based upon animosity for a particular race (in fact, it would also punish non-Arab Jews who want to marry non-Jewish Arabs). It is basically profiling - an extreme version of it. And yes, not allowing Arab-looking men to fly in the US would not be right, but it would not necessarily be racist - it would also be an extreme version of "profiling."

I never said the policy is right. But "profiling" does not necessarily equate with racist (it can, but it is not necessarily so).
c matt | 08.04.03 - 10:29 am | #