Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Citizenship Law, entry to Israel bill draw fire

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 01:10 AM
Original message
Citizenship Law, entry to Israel bill draw fire
Citizenship Law, entry to Israel bill draw fire

By Gideon Alon, Yuval Yoaz and Yair Ettinger



The opposition slammed yesterday's Knesset decision to extend the Citizenship Law by six months, as well as the legislature's passage of the preliminary reading of a private-member bill to tighten Israel's immigration policy and tie the hands of the Interior Ministry in issuing visas.



"The Knesset approved two racist and blatantly unconstitutional laws yesterday," opposition lawmakers charged.

Opponents of the Citizenship Law charge that it severely undermines family unification between Arab Israelis and Palestinians from the territories. They argue that in most instances, the law affects the spouses of citizens whose requests for legal status in Israel by virtue of family unification have already been reviewed and approved. However, the law prevents any upgrading of their status in Israel and these individuals are living under the constant threat of having their families split up.

"This law is one of the most shameful disgraces staining the law book and imposes draconian restrictions on the freedom of Israel's Arab citizens to marry," said Yahad lawmaker Zahava Gal-On......

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/454478.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. The High Court ruling will be interesting...
The law is grossly racist and discriminatory, so I'd be surprised to see which way the High Court goes on this one...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I've seen some drunks in bars that made the same arguments
Edited on Sat Jul-24-04 10:09 PM by Classical_Liberal
about criminal blacks and greedy Jews. Morris is a bigot with a degree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Pleading with a bomber
is rather useless. Several of the victims were Peace Now activists. It makes no difference what your walk in life is to a bomber.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. 99% of Palestinians aren't bombers
. Morris wants to transfer the entire population of them. That is bigotry pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Morris is a bigot...
He advocates transfer of Arabs. If anyone dares to try and justify bigotry such as his, they haven't got a leg to stand on if they then turn around and claim other similar views to his aimed at any other groups are bigotry. Despite his recent disgusting outbursts, he is a cut above the garden variety bigot in that he doesn't deny that any of his past work on the transfer of Palestinians in 1948, but claims that the Zionists should not have stopped until all the Arabs were expelled....

I read an interesting article from Avi Shlaim criticising Morris' new attitude....

A Betrayal of History

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. One sided
Expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank is not a violation of the letter of the Oslo accord, but it is most certainly a violation of its spirit.

The attacks on Israeli citizens, murder of women and children on the road to their homes, is a violation of every human legal code. Blaming Sharon for the deeds of terrorists is the propaganda.

This article blames Sharon for the second Intifada and releases Palestinians from any blame, not even mentioning the attacks on Israelis. It absolves Palestinians and blames Israel for creating the unrest. Throwing in Syrian negotiations (at least there is some admission that Syria defaulted) and Camp David as further proof of bigotry is a non-starter.

At this critical juncture, as so often in the past, the peace process was held hostage to internal Israeli politics. With Sharon's election, all the progress made at Taba towards a "final status" agreement was rendered null and void. A new and grisly chapter in the history of the conflict was about to begin.

I would say it had already begun with persistent attacks on Israeli citizens. This doesn't even get a mention in this article, but there is a quick inclusion of the death toll at the time:

which has so far claimed the lives of 941 Palestinians and 273 Israelis,

Fails to mention that women and children were being shot at in the streets as well as blown up in markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. He's way more impartial and factual than other folk I've read...
Yuck, I'm going to regret this, but some things can't be ignored...

He was absolutely right that in expanding the settlements, Israel violated the spirit of the Oslo accord. Nothing justifies the continual expansion, be it the killing of Israelis or Palestinians (the latter killings some folk who are so one-sided it's not funny would have us completely forget about...

I was able to read the article and don't need warped interpretations of what Avi Shlaim's saying, btw. The reason Benny Morris is a bigot, and why anyone who justifies bigotry against Palestinians is also a bigot, is because he advocates the transfer of the Arab population. He paints all Palestinians as terrorists, the tactic of all of those with anti-Arab bigotry in their nasty little hearts. Nothing justifies bigotry. Not fear, not 'security'. If it did, the bigots would be the first to admit that those they are bigoted against are justified in any bigotry they feel, considering they also feel fear and have every right to be concerned about their own security....

If you have some gripe with Shlaim's figures on the dead at the point he wrote the article, please provide something concrete. As you brought up Morris in this thread for who knows what reason (do you think Morris now defines what is and isn't bigotry?), I'd be more interested in knowing what *you* think of the bigoted law that's now been extended for another six months and whether *you* support it...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. Then why don't you explain how this law isn't bigoted?
It'd make more sense if someone's argument was that while the law is indeed bigoted and discriminatory, it is justified under the circumstances. I'd argue that it isn't justified at all, and for such an extreme law to even be considered, there'd have to be some factual evidence that Palestinians have been habitually gaining Israeli citizenship in order to enter Israel and turn themselves into human bombs. I haven't seen any evidence of that at all...

But to argue that the law itself isn't bigoted and discriminatory doesn't make sense at all. No matter what the justifications are for bigotry, it doesn't conveniently make it not bigotry. We could look at bigoted and discriminatory laws that have existed in quite a few states over the years, and in each case I bet you there was a bunch of folk all claiming that it wasn't bigoted or wrong because they could trot out excuses claiming it was needed under extreme circumstances, or that the security of the particular state was under threat....

Anyone who supports terrorism is a terrorist? So, if you incorrectly believe that attacks on occupying military forces are terrorism, that would mean that you believe that those who think those attacks are legitimate are supporting terrorism and therefore terrorists? The US has been found guilty of state-sponsored terrorism. Does that mean that anyone who *Supports The Troops* are actually supporting terrorism and are terrorists? The IDF has committed acts that would be described as terrorism if people were to apply the term fairly in something other than the silly 'anyone not with *us* is a terrorist' way. So that would mean all those folk who thrive on other people's children being sent off to serve and possibly die in the Occupied Territories are terrorists?

I have a lot of respect for Benny Morris and can't bring myself to detest him for what he's said more recently. I suspect part of the reason for his outburst may well be that in immersing himself so deeply in researching the massacres, rapes, and ethnic cleansing that happened back then, that he felt he had to find some way to justify the horror to himself, and he's done it in a way where he turns the victims into the aggessors and rather than demolish his own work (which he knows would be impossible to do), he tries to justify some of what he's found by saying it had to be done so Israel could exist. And a small note here: he still doesn't justify the massacres and rapes that happened, only the ethnic cleansing....

If yr not disputing Shlaim's figures, then yr not disputing what he said at all. Not sure why you think a figure outlining death-tolls would have to include anything but the figures he used. After all, I'm sure those figures also don't tell the story of innocent Palestinians who were not involved in violence in any way either...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. 'A violation of every human legal code'?
Here's a fun task. Show me the 'human legal code' that states that it's a violation of this code when it's done to Israeli citizens (some of whom are involved in violations of international law by setting up shop in territory that doesn't belong to Israel), but not a violation of this same code when it's done to Palestinian civilians. You mentioned propaganda? Trying to pretend that Palestinian civilians aren't the victims of the very same thing you complain about is a great example of 'pro-Israeli' propaganda...

and while we're talking about 'human legal code' which I assume is another way of saying international law, isn't there some 'human legal code' that states that it's a violation to move citizens of a state into occupied territory? Isn't there some 'human legal code' that states it's illegal to construct a barrier inside occupied territory? And doesn't that same 'human legal code' also have a problem with Palestinian civilians being murdered by Israeli troops?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. The murder of innocents
The code of laws from every civilized nation that I know of contains this prohibition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. And Palestinian civilians are innocents...
Or is there some little clause exluding them from being innocent in this law yr talking about that no-one else is aware of?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. You are right
But accidental death is treated differently under the law. It is not first degree murder. Intentional murder of large numbers of people who are completely innocent of any personal crime or threat against the individual is called mass murder in is especially designated as a war crime. As such, the leaders of a nation which practices such war crimes are subject to international tribunal. Arafat gets let off the hook because Palestine is not a country with recognized borders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. So Sharon's not off the hook? Good...
Intentional murder of large numbers of innocent people? Hey, that's what happened when the IDF opened fire on demonstrators in Gaza not too long ago. Hopefully those responsible for that atrocity will be prosecuted for war crimes, with Sharon leading the pack, wouldn't you agree?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. Beating children to death with rifle butts is considered accidental
death in Israel. In America you are also held responsible for neglegent homocide, and reckless endangerment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. No it wasn't
You can again look up the prison sentence that man received. Not what you would have liked, I'm sure.

Never has the victims of Palestinian violence been given the opportunity for redress in Arafat's court or that of the Hamas, because they recognize no such crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. 8 months in jail and 6 months community service.
and a fine of 70,000 sheckles. Gee wiz that was tough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,426101,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. The building of settlements on land not yours is also a violation of
every legal code. The bulldozing of homes is a violation of every legal code and the building of segregated roads is a violation of every legal and moral code. NOt taking steps to avoid civilian casualties is a violation of moral and legal code. Collective punishment and bulldozing of homes of noncombatants is a violation of Every legal code. Building a wall on land not yours is a violation of every moral and legal code. Furthermore it is also immoral to fire rockets at protesters, and beat little boys to death with rifle butts, butts, but the legal code in Israel doesn't object to either of these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Torn Apart: Families split by discriminatory policies
Not being able to obtain family unification for their Palestinian spouses leaves thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jerusalem residents with two options: having their spouse live with them illegally or moving to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they would be living under Israeli military occupation, in a situation of conflict and facing daily incursions by the Israeli army, bombardments, house demolition, curfews and hundreds of checkpoints, which make it extremely difficult to move, work or carry out ordinary daily activities. In addition, it is illegal for Israelis and Jerusalemites to enter the Occupied Territories and those married to residents of the Occupied Territories may only do so in special circumstances and subject to permits and stringent restrictions.

Salwa Abu Jaber, a 29-year-old kindergarten assistant from Umm al-Ghanam in Northern Israel, has been married since 1993 to Mahmoud al-Hadour, from the Jenin area in the West Bank. She told Amnesty International: "We have been married for 11 years, since 12 March 1993 and we have three daughters aged 10, seven and 18 months and a three-year-old boy. My children were all born in Israel and we have always lived here, but until now my husband has not been allowed family unification. My husband has never had any security problems, he was never arrested by the army in the past or anything; he is just a normal person. In 1995, for a year my husband was able to get permits to be in Israel during the day as a worker, which proves that he has no security problem. What is the logic to allow him to be in Israel during the day but not to sleep with his family? So, he has been living here illegally. After we got married I immediately applied for family unification in the Ministry of Interior office in Afula. We got no response until 1997, after the intervention of a human rights organization, but the application was refused; they gave us no explanation for the refusal. At the Interior Ministry they told me to either get divorced or to go live in the West Bank. But I love my husband and he loves me and we don't want to divorce and I don't want to take my children to live in the West Bank in the middle of a war and insecurity; it is just not possible. And anyway, when the police used to expel my husband to the West Bank and I tried to visit him the army did not even let me through the checkpoint because as an Israeli citizen it is illegal for me to go to the West Bank. So my husband is like a prisoner here; he cannot go anywhere for fear of being arrested and expelled again, and now if he were expelled he would never manage to get back into Israel again. And so he cannot work, cannot have anything like a normal life; his father died three years ago and he was not even able to go to his funeral. What kind of life is this? We cannot live like this forever. Recently I have decided to seek asylum for our family in any country; I have asked the Canadian and the Dutch embassies but I have not yet received any response. What else can we do? We just want to have a normal life, like any other family.

<snip>

Terry Bullata, a 38-year-old school principal from Jerusalem, is married to Salah Ayyad, a businessman from Abu Dis, a neighbourhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem part of which was annexed to Israel after the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and part of which remains in the occupied West Bank. The couple have been married since November 1990 but in spite of repeated attempts Salah has never even been admitted to the family unification procedure, according to which he would have been granted a temporary permit to reside with his wife and children in Jerusalem, pending final determination of the case.

Their two daughters, 12-year-old Zina and seven-year-old Yasmin, were both born in Jerusalem but it took years and a court battle for Terry to be able to register them on her Jerusalem ID. When Zina was born in 1992, Israel still did not allow Palestinian Jerusalemite women to register their children on their ID; only Jerusalemites men could register their children as Jerusalem residents. The practice changed in 1994, but for many Palestinian Jerusalemite women it took years to register their children on their IDs.

By 1997, when her second daughter was born, Terry had still not been able to register her first daughter, born five years earlier, on her ID and by 1998 she herself faced the risk of losing her Jerusalem residency. The Israeli authorities attempted to confiscate her Jerusalem ID and strip her of her residency right, claiming that she had not been living in Jerusalem, even though she was born and has lived in Jerusalem all her life, except for a five-year period. In the early 1990s Terry and her family had lived in a different part of Abu Dis (which falls within the West Bank) for about four years, then spent one year in the United States and since 1995 the family has been living in the part of Abu Dis which falls within the Jerusalem municipality. Thus, the total period during which Terry resided outside the Jerusalem municipality was no more than five years, that is two years less than the seven-year period of absence after which Palestinian Jerusalemites can lose their residency according to Israeli regulations. Nonetheless, it was necessary for Terry to fight a prolonged and costly court battle to keep her right to residence and to obtain the same right for her daughters.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150632004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. If it's too dangerous
Why would anyone want to move to Israel with the threat of suicide bombings? If it's too dangerous for French Jews, wouldn't it be too dangerous for these people as well?

The problem with ID registration is an entirely different matter. I don't know why you included it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Even more to the point,
why would anyone want to move from Israel to the Occuppied
Territories, where they are subjected to endless checks and
harrassment every time they move from one point to another?
Not to mention the fun of dodging Israeli tanks and bulldozers
at any time the Israelis see fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Temporary measures
As you can see, there is a war going on. Neither situation is ideal or peaceful. Jerusalem has been the hardest hit area in the country for suicide attacks. Take your pick. Die by suicide attack or be delayed at a check point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. If there's a war, where's the POWs?
If merely being delayed for a short period at a check point was all the Palestinians had to put up with, and if there were some sort of evidence that setting up checkpoints between villages deep inside the West Bank prevents suicide bombings, then there'd be a point to what you said. But apart from long delays at checkpoint after checkpoint, there's also the harrassment Matilda mentioned, the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, the demolition of their homes and livelihoods, destruction of the infrastructure, and stealing of land for 'security' purposes amongst other things. Hey, but what's a few dead Palestinians if someone can imagine up that there's even the slightest chance an Insraeli might get killed?

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Your justification
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 05:19 AM by Gimel
Of course killing Israelis intentionally is allowed. There is no legal way to prevent it, so why not just open the gates and let everyone into Israel whether they carry arms or not? Just two days ago I posted an article about a suicide attack that was prevented. The car carrying the terrorists was stopped at an impromptu checkpoint and the explosives were found. Don't believe it, of course because the evil IDF said so. Go and check it out for yourself, or send the Al Aqsa Brigade. They might be able to detonate a charge on the way killing more innocent people whose crime it is to be alive.


Here's the link to that thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. I never said that...
Of course killing Israelis intentionally is allowed.

Please go back and read what I posted. I never said anything of the sort, Gimel...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Let me clear up this misunderstanding right now...
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 06:09 AM by Violet_Crumble
You claim I said that killing Israeli civilians is allowed. Then use my line: 'but what's a few dead Palestinians if someone can imagine up that there's even the slightest chance an Insraeli might get killed?' to back up yr claim. What complete and utter nonsense. For a start, I have repeatedly said in posts in this forum that attacks on Israeli civilians is both morally and legally wrong. Apart from that, can you explain exactly how check points between villages inside the West Bank, or killing innocent Palestinian civilians saves Israeli lives?

I have never and would never make such a clumsy generalisation that 'Israelis are just out to kill'. So stop trying to put words in my mouth and instead try and focus on what I actually say...

As for Oslo, you should also stop trying to place the complete blame for the collapse of it on the Palestinians. That's an incredibly one-sided and incorrect claim to make...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Where did I say that you said that?
Nowhere. I postulated that rhetorically. You were offended. What you said did imply that no Israelis were actually killed. Therefore, if Israelis were killed, they either were non-existent to begin with, or the deserved it, can be the only conclusion.

Where have you mentioned the attacks on Israelis citizens, children on http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-%20obstacle%20to%20peace/palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20since%20September#kfardarom">school buses, the 21 deaths at the Dolphinarium Disco,

Since the Declaration of Principles at Oslo (Sept 1993) Numerous attacks have been perpetrated.

These, apparently should be ignored as though they didn't happen, because otherwise someone wishing to return to Jerusalem might have bureaucratic problems. We all have bureaucratic problems, and many families have been ripped apart. Children are without parents, and some are missing limbs. Bus say, we must allow all freedom of easy and speedy entrance to anyone with a lovely story. Her children aren't on her ID card. I'm really sad about that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Right here....
Of course killing Israelis intentionally is allowed. There is no legal way to prevent it, so why not just open the gates and let everyone into Israel whether they carry arms or not?

I neither said nor implied what you claim I did. As I've already corrected you on that, and sorry if it offends you, but I do believe I'm the best judge of what I'm saying, not you. I'd like to think it's a genuine communication breakdown, but when I've already explained what I meant and then am told I implied something else, and then to top it all off, it's implied that I've never said that I'm opposed to the killing of Israeli civilians, I'm not just offended, but a bit shocked. What's the point of trying to discuss the I/P conflict when what gets said is ignored in preference to what someone wishes I have or haven't said? Seems an exercise in futility to me...

Guess what? I don't support the bigoted and discriminatory law that's the topic of this thread, and I don't support any family being ripped apart. That gives me two out of two on that score. Tell you what. If yr ever in the situation where some bigoted law will separate you from yr family, I'll be in there batting for you, despite yr support of the law that separates other families...

btw, you never answered my question from the previous post. You don't really need to bother with it now, as I'm bowing out quietly again at this point...

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. My illustration
I didn't claim that you said it. Allowing uncontrolled entry by marriages (new contracts, not existing marriages) between the two areas, Israeli and Palestinian is opening the door to infiltration. Family reunification is allowed, but must be examined on a case by case basis. Many times there are errors, and there is no guarantee that people will not have to wait.

I won't need your help for family reunification, but thanks for your concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Are you sure you're not an Australian liberal MP Gimel?
cause this line sure sounds familiar:

"Allowing uncontrolled entry ...between the two areas, Israeli and Palestinian is opening the door to infiltration"

infiltration??? bloody hell it's not too hard to read between your lines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. No, I'm not an Australian politician
Edited on Mon Jul-26-04 06:59 AM by Gimel
I write a plainly as I can. What you read between the lines should be spelled out. It seems you feel that the Palestinians have a right to not only their land but that of Israel as well, to do what they bloody well please and no one should stop them.

There is a legal barrier as well as a physical one. Palestinains are battling both and that's just fine. Better that they learn non-violent approaches to controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Read the report...
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 01:59 AM by Violet_Crumble
The woman quoted in the report actually said she considered the risk to her children too great to take them and live in the Occupied Territories with her husband, though I'm sure there's some folk who would just love to see them go and have that omnipresent 'demographic problem' be just a tiny bit smaller of a problem. Most other folk would at least feel a shred of compassion for families being torn apart like this...

If you have a problem with ID registrations being mentioned, take it up with Amnesty International. I'm sure they'll take yr concerns very seriously indeed ;)

Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. You chose to post it
It is not the fault of AI that you selected a paragraph that is not relevant. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I sure did...
AI thought it was relevant, otherwise it wouldn't be there. If you disagree, take it up with them, not me. Me, I decided to focus on the personal stories of those whose families are being ripped apart in the hope that it would stir compassion in those who view these families as some terrible risk to Israel. Ah, well....


Violet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gimel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. The thread
The subject of the thread is not that of whether anyone has to make an effort to appeal their legal case. Justice doesn't fall from the sky for anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
32. Forbidden Families
On 31 July 2003, the Knesset enacted the Nationality and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order) Law, 5763-2003. The law forbids Israelis married to, or who will marry in the future, residents of the Occupied Territories to live in Israel with their spouses. Israelis married to foreign nationals who are not residents of the Occupied Territories are still allowed to submit requests for family unification on their behalf.

<snip>

Israel contends that the law is necessary for security reasons, because the entry of residents of the Occupied Territories – whoever they are – and their free movement within Israel after receiving a legal status in Israel, endanger the safety of Israeli citizens. The state offers only one statistic to back up this claim – twenty-three Palestinians who received legal status in Israel pursuant to the family unification process were involved in the carrying out attacks against Israelis.


The contention that cancellation of the procedure for family unification of Israelis and Palestinians was based on security considerations was not raised in a comprehensive and detailed manner until the state had to justify the cancellation to the High Court of Justice. Prior to that, the state offered other reasons to justify the policy, among them the "danger to the Jewish character of the state" resulting from family unification, and the claim that residents of the Occupied Territories exploit the family unification procedure to carry out a "creeping right of return." The official reliance on security considerations is an attempt to create an ostensibly legitimate legal basis for the law, on the assumption that the state will have difficulty defending the real reasons before the High Court and the international community.


A serious discussion was never held on the demographic claims, in part because of the state's attempt to conceal the demographic argument. The claims were never proven, and no state official presented any relevant statistics. According to the Interior Ministry, between 100,000 and 140,000 Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories received legal status in Israel through the family unification process. However, these figures, which were intended to be used to support the demographic justification for the law, are not relevant in a discussion on family unification of Israelis and residents of the Occupied Territories. The Ministry itself admitted that its number included spouses who were not residents of the Occupied Territories (for whom family unification was not cancelled) and the couple's children.


The state was so sure of the strength of its argument that it did not bother to provide a foundation for it. It contended that forty-five Israelis were killed and 145 wounded in attacks in which Palestinians who had received legal status in Israel pursuant to the family unification process had been involved. However, it did not indicate how may attacks were carried out, their location, the nature of the involvement of the Palestinians who had legal status in Israel, and the how having an Israeli identity card benefited them in carrying out the attack. The state also did not mention whether the individuals were tried, the offenses for which they were convicted, or the sentences they received – if, in fact, some of them were tried and convicted.


Even if the state's contention that these twenty-three Palestinians were involved in carrying out attacks is entirely accurate, this statistic is certainly not a sufficient basis for the state's contention that the general population of residents of the Occupied Territories who are married to Israelis constitutes a danger. Some 0.02 percent of them, according to the state, took advantage of their legal status in Israel to assist in attacks.


http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Forbidden_Families_2004.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Thank You For The Numbers, Ma'am
They clarify this discussion somewhat.

Twenty-three persons who obtained legal residence in Israel through marriage were in attacks against Israel. Over a hundred thousands are involved in the program of family reunification, and allowing for the fact that this is the number for all family members, a portion of whom must be legal residents of Israel or Israeli citizens already, it seems fair to suppose no fewer than twenty thousand persons from outside Israel, and not more than fifty thousands, are involved in this matter. Thus, the proportion of persons benefiting from family reunification who use their status to attack the state is likely no more than one tenth of one percent. That is a number that can be weed out by investigation, and insufficient to serve as a justification for wholesale measures such as this law. Security may be well on the way to replacing patriotism as the preferred refuge of scoundrels....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-04 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. I thought the numbers were interesting...
Edited on Tue Jul-27-04 07:19 AM by Violet_Crumble
As I pointed out to no avail somewhere else in this thread, for such an extreme law targetting one group of people to even take a shaky step towards being necessary, there has to be some concrete evidence that there's a repeated pattern of family reunification being used by people who go on to plan or carry out attacks on Israeli civilians. One tenth of one percent is such a microscopic percentage that it doesn't even start to fulfil any claim that the law is necessary. And that's assuming that the number claimed by Israel is correct...

Security's long been a staple excuse of those around the world who try to bring in discriminatory laws. Many in the population don't look any further than the word security before supporting such laws, but it's the others, who even after having figures like that shown to them, trot out the same old security excuses (we have those types here too. Any rational argument is met by: 'Waaah! You want to open the floodgates and let everyone in!!!), who I honestly believe thrive on state-sanctioned discrimination against other groups. Their motives have nothing to do with security, and everything to do with a much darker and stinkier motive, and for them I have nothing but contempt...

Violet...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC