Israeli Supreme Court upholds discriminatory citizenship law: ‘Human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide’

Israel/Palestine
on 109 Comments

Yesterday the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the Citizenship Law which prevents Palestinians from living in Israel with their Israeli spouses. The law began as a temporary order in 2002 and says Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, or citizens of Arab countries that are considered “enemy states”, are not eligible for Israeli residency or citizenship  if they marry Israeli citizens. Noam Sheizaf at +972 quotes incoming head of the High Court Asher Grunis from the court’s decision, “human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide.” (You can read more on Grunis here.)

Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel led the case against the law and issued a statement following the decision:

The Supreme Court approved a law the likes of which do not exist in any democratic state in the world, depriving citizens from maintaining a family life in Israel only on the basis of the ethnicity or national belonging of their spouse. The ruling proves how much the situation regarding the civil rights of the Arab minority in Israel is declining into a highly dangerous and unprecedented situation.

Jack Khoury has a piece in today’s Haaretz on what the decision will mean for Palestinian couples who had been hoping to be able to live together inside Israel.

Taysar Hatib and his wife Lana of Acre married six years ago. Up to this day Lana, originally from Nablus, has been denied an Israeli citizenship. She receives a temporary permit to live with her husband in Acre annually, but doesn’t hold the legal rights extended to permanent Israeli residents.

Taysar, who is writing his anthropology doctorate at Haifa University and is employed as a lecturer at the Western Galilee College, wasn’t surprised by the court ruling. “The decision is proof that one shouldn’t have any faith in the Israeli judicial system. It is clear that the Supreme Court is influenced by the wave of fascism and racism sweeping Israel and the judges weren’t expected to act in any other way.”

Hatib explained that though his wife holds a permit of temporary residence, the court ruling puts an end to any hope for advancement or a normal life. “She can’t develop a career – She can’t even drive a car, though she holds a Palestinian driver’s license.”

109 Responses

  1. Walid
    January 12, 2012, 10:34 am

    The only democracy in the Middle East.

    • Carllarc
      January 12, 2012, 4:41 pm

      I think you mean, ‘democracy?’

    • asherpat
      January 12, 2012, 7:08 pm

      @Walid,

      what exactly isnt democratic in an open and transparent judicial process?

      and even Adallah, the organisation openly calling the destruction of a country that is says is oppressive (from within the same country, mind you), even Adallah admits implicitly that Israel is (or at least was) a democracy – read its statement “a law the likes of which do not exist in any democratic state in the world”.

      • pnkfloid
        January 12, 2012, 9:11 pm

        …even Adallah admits implicitly that Israel is (or at least was) a democracy – read its statement “a law the likes of which do not exist in any democratic state in the world”.

        No, I think to make your (pathetic) point, it would have had to have read:
        “a law the likes of which do not exist in any other democratic state in the world”. As though Israel was just one of the bunch.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 2:00 am

        @pnkfloyd, No, I think to make your (pathetic) point, it would have had to have read:
        “a law the likes of which do not exist in A democratic state”.

        As though an organisation openly calling for the destruction of its country wud have lasted more than a day in “any other” country in the Middle East.

  2. Avi_G.
    January 12, 2012, 10:38 am

    Israel has been and will remain insular in the region. It is no wonder that it has rejected the Arab peace initiative, twice.

    Today’s decision is not limited to marriage, instead it is a reflection of Israel’s self-image, how it sees itself in the region. And the only reason it continues to exist is due to Uncle Sam’s greenback, pushed by the Israel Lobby and supported by the Jewish community in the US.

    There is very little normal about Israel. It can only function normally in the minds of many a Zionist who have been marinating in the Hasbara and mythology from early childhood.

    • seafoid
      January 12, 2012, 4:27 pm

      Israel only really works in Hebrew. You need a language that has been moulded by an army and the needs of an army , a language that nobody else speaks to, pull this sort of bigotry and hatred off nationwide amongst the population and in all the institutions. It’s very hard to make Israel work in English.

      • Djinn
        January 13, 2012, 3:10 am

        Don’t know about that seafoid, nation wide institutionalised bigotry and hatred has been pulled off many times in several English speaking countries.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2012, 5:07 am

        the UK has made a big effort since the second world war to deinstitutionalise bigotry . Northern Ireland is one example. Israel is run on 19th century lines.

  3. Woody Tanaka
    January 12, 2012, 10:44 am

    “human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide.”

    My guess is that you could find this exact quote somewhere in the annals of every dictatorship from the smallest bully-chiefdom to the Nazi state, to excuse their evil. Good to see the US’s “democratic [sic]” ally is showing its true colors.

    • asherpat
      January 12, 2012, 7:27 pm

      @Woody, you seem to be pretty sure of yourself. I gather that easily “you could find this quote somewhere in the annals of every dictatorship from the smallest bully-chiefdom to the Nazi state”. Any. The progressive world is waiting, Woody.

      • Chaos4700
        January 12, 2012, 10:32 pm

        You know what the progressive world is really waiting for? More buses in Israel where women can sit wherever they like.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 2:04 am

        @Chaos: “You know what the progressive world is really waiting for? More buses in Israel where women can sit wherever they like.”

        Will a change from 99% to 99.9% appease the “progressive world”?

      • Chaos4700
        January 13, 2012, 8:51 am

        So now you’re OK with gender segregated buses? Nobody pushed you onto that slippery slope, you walked there on your own. Just remember that.

  4. anonymouscomments
    January 12, 2012, 10:44 am

    well i guess they are consistent.

    jewish zionist nation had to be founded by a massive disregard for human rights (ethnic cleansing)

    jewish zionist nation had to continually deny human rights to thousands of refugees to maintain its “jewishness”

    so why would we think things would change? it is ridiculous enough to call a shift in demographics “national suicide”… but how are the few marriages we are talking about even that much of a “demographic threat”? this does not bode well for any real recognition of the right of return. meaning… no peace. meaning, the prevailing strain of zionism should not be a recipe for national suicide (but it is).

    the obsession with demographics, the expansion, and the disregard for human rights…. THAT is a recipe for national suicide. someone should tell the court that they are the ones *facilitating* actual national suicide.

  5. eljay
    January 12, 2012, 10:55 am

    Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of Zio-supremacism. Come on, RW, stop holding your nose and take a deep breath! Doesn’t it just reek of purity? How wonderful!

  6. Kathleen
    January 12, 2012, 10:56 am

    BBC world service did a short piece on this

  7. pabelmont
    January 12, 2012, 11:00 am

    This decision, and the elevation of Judge Solberg, an enthusiastic settler, to the high court of Israel, leads one Israeli wit to say it is all to the good: “And all of that is good and right and worthy, because evil – just like justice – must be seen, not just done. ” I’ve written this stuff up at israels-dispensable-democracy

  8. VR
    January 12, 2012, 12:58 pm

    All countries supreme courts are the guardians of the prevailing national myths, or the moneyed status quo – it is no different with Israel, no matter how repugnant. This is why I always laugh when someone tells me “oh, the supreme court said this, it said that – the supreme court would never allow this or that,” it is all so much bullshit (including the “checks and balances” droll). Yet, like lemmings, everyone embraces the “State,” like it is the infallible expression in whatever part of its defunct institutions. Carry on…

  9. Winnica
    January 12, 2012, 1:12 pm

    A quick google search finds that Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands all have similar rules. The US does, too. Awful company Israel keeps.

    • Shmuel
      January 12, 2012, 1:24 pm

      Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands all have similar rules. The US does, too.

      Really? Which specific ethnicities do the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands and the US exclude from the family reunification laws they apply to all other ethnicities? Are any of these supposedly excluded ethnicities indigenous to those lands and/or do they constitute a fifth of the population in those countries?

      • Winnica
        January 12, 2012, 2:53 pm

        The British one is mainly against Pakistanis, according to the Economist. The article doesn’t say which precise groups the rules are against in the other countries, but makes clear they’re aimed at poor Asians, not rich Americans. In Amerca – well, you don’t need me to know the answer.

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 3:12 pm

        Are you referring to this?

        link to telegraph.co.uk

        And if so it is hardly comparable, being a protection for Pakistani (and others) women against forced marriages. Please do not compare that with Israel’s racist marriage laws.

      • Shmuel
        January 12, 2012, 3:16 pm

        In Amerca – well, you don’t need me to know the answer.

        Actually I do, and not just for America (I don’t live in the US, btw). Is there a British law that states explicitly or implicitly that members of a specific ethnicity are not entitled to the rights enjoyed by all other ethnicities? If so, please cite it.

        The Israeli law that does so can be found here: link to nevo.co.il

      • David Samel
        January 12, 2012, 3:30 pm

        Winnica, Shmuel’s question was skeptical, asking you to corroborate your claim with some evidence that could be checked. It’s customary on this cite to provide a link for that purpose. I looked briefly at The Economist website and did not find the article you refer to. I doubt that straightline came up with it either. Your assertion of similar laws in these other countries is very implausible and you will have a hard time convincing anyone without providing a source.

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 3:40 pm

        British visa rules for immigration of spouses of UK nationals:

        link to ukimmigration.com

        Spouses of UK citizens or permanent residents (mainly those with indefinite leave to remain) may come to the UK under marriage visa category, and are able to work as soon as a visa is granted. You will need to meet the following marriage visa requirements:

        * If you have been together for less than four years you are granted a marriage visa for a probationary period of two years. If you are still married and living together at the end of two years in the UK permanent residence (properly known as indefinite leave to remain) will usually be granted.
        * If you have been together for four years or more outside the UK you will be granted indefinite leave to remain (permanent residence) in the UK without having to live in the UK for two years.
        * The UK citizen or permanent resident must have actually met their non-UK spouse. This is to prevent a situation that occurs sometimes in arranged marriages where the husband and wife have never met.
        * You must intend to live together permanently with your spouse.
        * You must possess sufficient funds to pay you and your spouse’s living expenses and those of any dependants without claiming public funds. Public funds cover various benefits paid by the Government if you are currently looking for work, if you are on a low income and if you are in various other situations.
        * Accommodation for the couple, and any dependants, must be suitable and available.
        * Spouses seeking to come to the UK on the basis of marriage to a UK national should apply for entry clearance before entering the UK.
        * If you have a visa valid for six months or less in the UK you cannot change status to a spouse visa.
        * Children of the marriage who are under 18 years old are allowed entry to the UK as dependants, and can make their application at the same time as the main applicant.
        * After a total period of three years in the UK if you meet the residence requirements you may then apply for UK citizenship.

        No mention of ethnicity. Indeed the concept is foreign to UK law.

      • Shmuel
        January 12, 2012, 4:07 pm

        Denmark’s regs. can be found here: link to nyidanmark.dk

        Some discrimination between nationalities (“immigration test requirement”), native-born and naturalised Danes (“attachment requirement”), but no stipulation that members of a given ethnicity (or “registered residents” of a given area “excepting residents of [Danish] settlements”) may not obtain a residency permit even if they meet all of the requirements.

        There is no comparison whatsoever between the Danish and the Israeli law.

        On the subject of non-Jewish immigration to Israel, see my comments on previous threads: link to mondoweiss.net

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 4:11 pm

        I will reply to my own response (and to Shmuel’s) having had a few minutes to reflect, and hopefully before RW or more likely eee jumps in. There is one aspect of UK law that is “discriminatory”. It is to do with the “Established Church” which is the Anglican Church (Church of England). The sovereign (King or Queen) is head of that church. And the prime minister has to be able to advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters. Almost all prime ministers of the UK so far have been Anglican or the related Church of Scotland. There is a concise and pretty good description of the situation here:

        link to wiki.answers.com

        The current leader of the Labour Party in the UK is Jewish (though not in a religious sense) and if he became prime minister would presumably not take on the Anglican faith. I do not think anyone in the UK is concerned about this. These issues are anachronistic and because of the history of the UK.

      • seafoid
        January 12, 2012, 4:31 pm

        The British one is mainly against Pakistanis, according to the Economist

        I presume that’s the official hasbara . The less of a democracy Israel becomes, the harder it is to sell it to the West. Lieberman and co don’t care about democracy or the rule of law. They are demolishing the foundations of Israeli diplomatic support week in, week out. The results will come as a surprise to them.

      • Froggy
        January 12, 2012, 4:34 pm

        That simply isn’t true. There is no mention of enthic background or race in the process.

        I know this because I went through the process finally qualifying for naturalisation as a citizen of the UK last year. I saw the questions that were asked – I filled in the same forms as everyone else – and I saw the requirements and restrictions.

        You don’t make yourselves look better by spreading lies about other people and countries.

      • VR
        January 12, 2012, 5:25 pm

        Lets be a little more subtle about this, when we are talking about practices of the States judicial system(s). One need not put in writing specifics regarding any ethnicity or race, and still systemically disenfranchise internal populations. Now, anyone who disagrees with this I would be more than happy to elaborate and produce any needed proof, even in the “bastion of hope” called the USA. However, this does not excuse Israel’s actions by its chief judicial body, which goes to prove that the sickness is in the head and hence in the rest of the body (there is not one institution which is not skewed with this prejudice). At the same time I would be wary about excusing other States from similar practices minus the “official” pronouncement of the judicial body (or any official part). I hope that is clear, and if not, like I said earlier, I can factually elaborate – and this is by no means hasbara. There is what I would call equal culpability by the indiscriminate supporters of Israel (both official States and individuals).

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 5:25 pm

        Well Winnica, several of us have responded to your unjustified assertions with fairly strong evidence that they are wrong. A reasonable person would either come back with evidence to the contrary – such as a citation of the supposed Economist article – or withdraw the assertions. Which is it to be? Or is this just standard hasbara – sow a few seeds but don’t stay around to harvest the results.

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 5:50 pm

        Please elaborate – in what way do these other states mentioned by Winnica prevent spouses of “mixed” marriages immigrating. Where I live in Australia there are laws to ensure that marriages are genuine and not just mechanisms for immigration. Other than that there are no mechanisms, legal or otherwise, to inhibit marriage of people of different ethnicities. I also know the UK pretty well – so would be interested in how these mechanisms exist there.

      • RoHa
        January 12, 2012, 9:00 pm

        I’m a dual Australian/British citizen.

        I was living in Britain when I got married, so my wife went through the process for permanent residence in Britain. No restrictions on race.

        Same thing for permanent residence in Australia. No restrictions on race.

      • Djinn
        January 13, 2012, 3:18 am

        Like RoHa I’m a dual citizen, one of them is British. Your assertion is 100% bull. That you didn’t bother linking to said article makes the cynical and uncharitable part of me (admittedly it has a controlling share) think you know that too.

      • Winnica
        January 13, 2012, 5:54 am

        Sorry folks, I have a life and don’t spend most of it online. You might wish to start here
        link to economist.com
        which discusses the Brit, the Danes and the Dutch: “That sounds objective enough. Yet dig deeper into government consultation documents and speak to Whitehall insiders and something messier swims into view. The philosophical underpinnings of family migration policy are shifting, towards a belief that, even for British citizens, importing foreigners to create a family in Britain is a privilege that must be earned, not a right.”

        Take a train from Eastern Europe into Schengen and see the discrimination in action. Cruise the Medditeraenean south of Italy. Ride along the American-Mexican border and you’ll see the same. Likewise in Australia. The idea that rich countries have created elaborate and costly measures, legal, police and military, to keep out people from poor countries is so banal it requires no proof. True, the specifics in Israel are different, but the specifics in each country are different. The principle of wishing to keep out people of different groups is the common thread.

        It’s also worth mentioning that none of the rich countries which keep out foreigners is threatened by the foreigners. Britain is not at war with Pakistan, Australia isn’t at war with Indonesia, Germany hasn’t been at war with the Ukraine for close to 70 years, Austria hasn’t been at war with any Balkan entities for almost a century. Yet the fear that immigrants from those places or others will upset the demographic-ethnic order of things is a major theme of the politics in all the reciving countries. Not everyone agrees, and positions evolve over time in varying directions, but the idea of a fully open world in which individuals can choose to live in whatever country they’d like to is a chimera.

        I stand by my original statement: Israel is in fine company on this issue. The determination to single it out as uniquely evil is irrational.

      • straightline
        January 13, 2012, 6:50 am

        I have a life too – just back to this. Did you read the article? It is nothing to do with ethnicity. It is that Britain is contemplating the Danish rules and indeed regarding them as too strict for the UK. And even what is contemplated might be difficult to get through the UK political system especially as the somewhat supine LibDems who are part of the ruling coalition might object. The means of discrimination is the difference between being foreign (ie born outside of the country of whatever ethnicity) versus nationals (born inside the country of whatever ethnicity) and to some extent about forced marriages as we have indicated earlier. To illustrate, someone in Australia all of whose grandparents were from the UK (and there are many) would have no more rights to settle in the UK than someone from Pakistan. Indeed if the latter had parents who were UK citizens of Pakistani background they would have the right to settle in the UK. Let me quote from the article you have apparently read:

        “requiring a mixed Danish-foreign couple to show that their combined attachment to Denmark is “considerably greater” than to any other country. The Danish model is probably too radical for Britain, says a Whitehall source: but the government does believe that someone who wants to marry a foreigner must earn enough to support him or her—or move.”

        In other words what Shmuel quoted for Denmark, which is at least a defensible law, is too radical for the UK. It is fine for a country to discriminate on grounds of whether someone is born in that country of nationals/citizens of that country – lex soli. I do not regard it as acceptable for them to discriminate on grounds of religion or ethnicity. Israel is not saying that. It is saying that someone born in New York (and Jewish) whose parents and whose parents parents have never set foot in Israel can marry an Israeli and live there whereas a Palestinian whose grandparents were born in Palestine (subsequently Israel) and who marries an Israeli is not. I would like to know how that is not racism. Comparison of the Israeli law with those of either Denmark or the contemplated UK law is absurd.

        The other issue raised in the article is one of income tests. But the article is a little disingenuous there. Income tests are defensible in a country with significant social support system such as theUK. The state can argue that it should not have to support immigrants. Moreoever the income test is on the total income of the couple. There are complex socio-economic issues here, and the average socio-economic position of British Asians is below that of the population as a whole. On the other hand, the cut off of 20k pounds (around $US30k) suggested, though not specified, by the article as posing a burden for the taxpayer is hardly a high hurdle, being around or slightly below the median income level for an individual. There are very many British Asians whose income level would exceed that.

        The other issue that is raised by the article and used as a justification for more rigorous spousal immigration laws is of forced marriages and I hope that we all at this site would condemn that practice and applaud genuine attempts to eradicate it.

        As to actual recent changes in the law rather than “contemplated” the only change I can find in the UK is one of raising the age of the overseas spouse to 21 years as a means to cut down on forced marriages:

        link to canadaupdates.com

        As far as I can see nothing else has changed from the rules I posted earlier. And even then the British Supreme Court has voiced concerns about this change.

      • NickJOCW
        January 13, 2012, 8:09 am

        The UK has highly accessible health, social security and education systems and this is obviously an attraction to economic immigrants. Some way needs to be found to distinguish between those who genuinely want to join in the life of the country and those who are only coming in for the ride. This is an enormous burden on the immigration authorities who must navigate through complex and opaque situations, often involving customs and languages with which they have little familiarity; you don’t need more than a dollop of commonsense to realise that more time will be spent considering applications of a less straightforward nature. Such a system will inevitably result in errors but the guiding principle is the pursuit of truth and the rejection of deceit. To compare this imperfect but honest endeavour to an unequivocal policy of denying citizenship to non-ethnic spouses is too silly for words.

      • straightline
        January 13, 2012, 8:22 am

        Now let’s talk about Australia on which you make some unsubstantiated statements. Australia has a very clear immigration policy.

        link to immi.gov.au

        You receive points for:

        1. Having relatives in Australia – no ethnic considerations.
        2. Level of education.
        3. Ability to speak/write English.
        4. Trade or profession – some are more in demand than others. Often it is trades like plumbers. Medical qualifications are usually not useful.

        And that’s about it. The more points you have the better your chances of immigration. And there is no discrimination against Indonesia – many Indonesians immigrate to Australia and we tend on the whole to have good relations with our near neighbor – sullied only slightly by the issue of illegal immigrants coming by boat from there. I don’t know about the other countries you mentioned – though I’d be interested to see some evidence – but I do know a little about Australian immigration. Oh – there is one other category of immigrant – if you have oodles of money you can also immigrate to Australia. And many of those in that category are Chinese. It is pretty easy to work out where recent immigrants are from – they tend to be the taxi drivers. In recent years, taxi drivers have tended to come from South Asia – India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and from East Africa – Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, etc.

        Often students come to Australia on a student visa and after two or three years here obtain permanent residence.

        As to being at war with anyone – who is currently at war with Israel? When has a country has invaded the internationally agreed territory of Israel?

      • straightline
        January 13, 2012, 8:53 am

        Again I’ll commit the sin of answering my own response. I thought it would be good for Winnica, who seems to have some strange views about my adopted country, Australia, to see the statement that those seeking residence in Australia are required to sign:

        I understand:
        * Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
        * Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
        * the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

        I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

        I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:
        * Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all Australians while respecting their diversity
        * Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities of Australian Citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 12, 2012, 5:48 pm

      A quick google search finds that Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands all have similar rules.

      really? please share with us the rule where Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands won’t let their indigenous people marry member of their own ethnicity who were once ethnically cleansed from the land. i never heard of that happening in any of those other countries.

      • asherpat
        January 12, 2012, 7:34 pm

        @Annie, Palestinian Arabs are decendants of Arabian tribes that conquered the land of Israel in 8th-9th centuries, moreover, most of them are descendants of Arabs that immigrated to the land of Israel in late 19th and early 20th century. As such, it is incorrect to say that they are “indigenous people” in the land of Israel.

      • MLE
        January 12, 2012, 8:14 pm

        Well the Native Americans are originally from Asia, so they’re not really native to the North and South America. and the Jewish people are from Mesopotamia, so they should just go back there too. We can play this all day.

        Also, if all the Arabs in the region are the descendants of the Arab conquests of the 8th and 9th centuries, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that the entire population would be.. Muslim?? Why were there Christians and Jews living there too, especially since everyone talks about how dangerous it is to convert from Islam to another religion. There’s a record of people living in that region even before Abraham showed up- they were called Canaanites.

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 8:56 pm

        You imagine that these tribes did not inter-marry with the locals? That they drove out the indigenous people? That’s not the way modern historians of Palestine – that is Palestine not Israel – see it. So yes there were several migrations into Palestine. But as with many other countries the indigenous people including Hebrews and proto-Christians absorbed or were absorbed by the invaders.

      • ToivoS
        January 12, 2012, 9:46 pm

        Asherpat wants us to know Palestinian Arabs are decendants of Arabian tribes that conquered the land of Israel in 8th-9th centuries

        Sorry boob, both historically and genetically incorrect. Though it is true that Arab tribes from Arabia conquered much of the Eastern Mediterranean regions, they did not displace the native people living there. What they did accomplish is to convert many of the locals to Islam (this includes the Jews and Christians dominated during that period).

        Consider this example. The Roman Christian missionaries converted all of Europe to their faith, but no one claims today that the Italians succeeded in replacing the Normans (today’s French), the Germans, the Polish, the Scandanavia, the Russians, (too many ethnic groups to mention not to mention the Finns). Do you not understand history? Ideas and faiths can move between different groups of people but that does not necessarily correspond with the movement of their genotypes.

        You should try to understand what is happening in modern human genetics. The drift of faiths and ideas and the drift of human “haplotypes” follow different patterns. (sorry for introducing a very technical term “haplotype” but it is currently part of a scientifically acceptable measure of genetic relationships between current human populations). One thing is clear from all of this is that the Arab conquest from 7th to 9th century AD may have left a very visible cultural, religious and linguistic signature, it left a very weak genetic signature.

        Asherpat I am sure I am wasting my time with you — if you could write such dumb comments in the first place it is very unlikely you could even begin to understand what I am trying to say. But others might.

      • lyn117
        January 13, 2012, 1:37 am

        “Palestinian Arabs are decendants (sic) tribes that conquered the land of Israel in 8th-9th centuries …”

        Oh, please, how often do we have to listen to this kind of nonsense. There wasn’t any such thing as a “land of Israel” in the 8th-9th centuries for starters. Unlike the Israelis, the Arabian tribes didn’t mass murder and expel the majority of the population, the Palestinians who were living there then (and it was called Palestine then) are basically the same people who had been living there for 1000s of years. To be sure they adopted new religions as they arose, most Jews as well as others in that land had become Christians by around 400 CE (according to my history book, Christianity was very popular) and after the Muslim invasion most eventually adopted Islam. To be sure there was some intermingling with other groups who came by trade or conquest, but the Palestinians are as indigenous as possible in a land that’s at the crossroads of continents and trade routes. It’s quite correct to call them “indigenous people” in the land that’s now called Israel.

        Amazing what nonsense zionist propagandists would have you believe.

      • pjdude
        January 13, 2012, 1:39 am

        true but the only incorrect part would be calling the land of Israel funny how an area 4 times the size of historical Israel gets to be called the of Israel.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 2:10 am

        @MLE, sincerely thanks for acknoweldging that the “Jewish people are from Mesopotamia”, many locals of this blog will disagree. Also thanks for acknowledging that peoples come and go and are replaced in given territories and that it is natural and happened many times even in the recent past (e.g., displacement (aka as population transfers or exchanges) of Germans from central Europe. Many locals of this blog will disagree (but it will be only in relation to a place that was once called Israel and Judea).

      • GalenSword
        January 13, 2012, 4:57 am

        A tiny Arab population conquered and ruled the lands of the Middle East and Arabized the peoples of the various territories. Palestinians for the most part descendants of the native populations of the Kingdom of Judea.

        Ethnic Ashkenazim and Jews of other lands throughout the world are almost totally descendants of local indigenous populations.

        Thus the Zionist settler population whether ethnic Ashkenazim or even Jewish Arabs consists almost entirely of invaders, interlopers, and thieves.

        For this reason when we discuss Stolen Palestine (pre-1967 Israel) and Occupied Palestine (territory conquered in the 1967 War of Zionist Aggression), we should refer to the native population and to the criminal Zionist conglomeration.

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 5:03 am

        Personally, I believe European Jews do not have the same ties to Mesopotamia as Jews from Arab lands. My mothers family is Jewish as far back as we can trace. Except I was doing some research about the region my mother’s family was from for an entirely different reason (I wanted to know why my family speaks Hungarian although they lived in Romania) and I found out that in the 14th century, a population in the Transylvanian region of Romania (where my family is from), a group of Christians converted to Judaism en masse in order to avoid paying some tax to whoever was in charge at the time. My entire mothers family, who appear to be very typical Jews as far back as the 16th century- can not claim to be the direct descendants of the Jews who lived in Judea. So the idea that European Jews are the descendants of converts really doesn’t seem that far off.

        Secondly, there are general population shifts and then there’s ethnic cleansing. The world does not look kindly upon this type of behavior anymore. I’m sorry but you are a century too late to start wiping out another people so you can take their land. If you still want to go through with it, then the native population has every right to fight back. And if it means they have to start scalping settlers like the Native Americans did to the pioneers who decided to take over their land, then don’t come crying to the united states or the rest of the world because it’s the bed you chose to make.

        I condem all violence that occurs on Israeli civilians with Israel, but in my opinion military and settlers are fair game.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 5:40 am

        @MLE – “I condem all violence that occurs on Israeli civilians with Israel, but in my opinion military and settlers are fair game.”

        Do you realise that you are on the far-right of the map for frequenters of this blog’s comments? You are a Zionist, implying that Israeli civilians (within the “green line”) are NOT settlers.

        I am surprised that no one here noticed this conversion of you.

      • homingpigeon
        January 13, 2012, 6:13 am

        fascinating story about your family! Two weeks ago, on a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Uganda I sat next to an African with a kippa. I thought maybe he was a Moslem with a small skullcap. But he opened his laptop and was listening to a sermon from a rabbi. (Wasn’t trying to peek, but couldn’t help it). He wasn’t Falasha, I could see that, and he spoke English the way Ugandans do. So I had to ask, and sure enough there is a community of Ugandan Jews. I googled later, being one who has reason to know the tribes of East Africa. Sure enough there is a community living out near Mbale, Uganda called the Abajudaya. Some chief of a small tribe a century ago was pissed off with the English at a time when Ugandans were converting to Islam and Christianity. He decided Judaism was the real thing and started working it out. Some western Jews participated in the process of kosherizing them and here they are, about 1500 of them! Definitely not from ancient Judea, but they are kosher enough to go home to Palestine.

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 7:52 am

        Neat. The real history of the appearance of Judaism in Europe is really interesting.

        The sad thing is my mom has gotten into mapping out the family tree, and when I showed her this, she dismissed it and complained I needed to stop with trying to delegitimize Israel. My very well educated liberal minded parents who pro evolution, believe in climate change, and scoff at prolifers who want to define personhood at conception, can’t deal with the idea that maybe the story of the chosen people might not exactly be true.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 10:09 am

        @MLE – how is “the story of the chosen people” relevant to our topic (which is, BTW: “Israel is the perpetrator of the largest injustice in the world ever. Always was, allways will be. Discuss.”).

      • Donald
        January 13, 2012, 10:55 am

        “You are a Zionist, implying that Israeli civilians (within the “green line”) are NOT settlers.”

        I’m not a Zionist, but most Israeli Jews were born in Israel. They might be living on land or in some cases even in homes stolen from Palestinians, but someone born in Israel is an Israeli, has no other country, and so obviously has the right to be in Israel. Where it gets complicated is in how to make up the injustice done to Palestinians who’ve lost land and property, or it would be complicated, if people were trying to resolve it. What isn’t complicated is that Palestinians should not have been driven out of their own homeland.

        As for the settlers on the West Bank, most weren’t born there, though as time passes and settlement continues and nothing ever gets resolved, it is going to become increasingly difficult to uproot them and establish a two state solution, assuming one favors that. But there is still an obvious difference between the settlers and people who were born inside the 67 lines and continue to live inside the 67 lines.

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 11:10 am

        Thanks Donald.

    • RoHa
      January 12, 2012, 6:42 pm

      Simply saying “they do it too” doesn’t make it right.

      (Not that they do.)

  10. chrisrushlau
    January 12, 2012, 2:38 pm

    Stop at the headline. “National suicide”?
    If “Citizens United” hangs up on the question of whether a corporation is a person, now we have a group of millions of people a single volitional energy?
    Part of a definition of the rule of law is the use of concrete language. Metaphors, not.
    Perhaps we can speculate, from my premise, on the reason for the use of metaphors in legal documents.

    • RoHa
      January 12, 2012, 6:12 pm

      Exactly! “Suicide” means “a person kills him/herself”. It involves death. “National suicide” means “everyone in the nation kills him/herself”.

      But this is a matter of people getting married.

      No-one dies.

      Only a really twisted mind* could use the metaphor of suicide for this.

      Can any of our local Hasbareers justify either the decision or the language?

      (*But we have seen this sort of foul thinking before, in those rabbis who compare mixed marriages with the Holocaust.)

  11. Shingo
    January 12, 2012, 4:13 pm

    In other words, Israel’s creation and continued existence is incumbent upon human rights violations and discrimination. They are not even pretending otherwise any longer.

    Can’t wait for Witty to offer his interpretation.

    • eljay
      January 13, 2012, 8:08 am

      >> In other words, Israel’s creation and continued existence is incumbent upon human rights violations and discrimination. … Can’t wait for Witty to offer his interpretation.

      RW accepts HR violations and discrimination relating to Israel’s creation:
      >> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
      >> If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
      >> I feel that the nakba [sic] was a necessary wrong …

      And he appears comfortable with HR violations and discrimination relating to Israel’s continued existence:
      >> I am a Zionist in the sense that I assertively support the right of Israelis to self-govern, and by Israelis I do mean a Jewish majority, comprising a site of self-governance for the Jewish people.
      >> I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.
      [A.k.a. "bureaucratic ethnic cleansing" of non-Jewish Israeli minorities whose demographics threaten the permanent-majority status of Jewish Israelis.]

      Plus, of course, the “preferential invitation” to non-Israeli Jews (but not to non-Israeli non-Jews) to “return” to Israel.

  12. Shingo
    January 12, 2012, 4:27 pm

    Leo Panetta admitted on Face the Nation that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, so thee attacks are nothing more than wanton acts of agression from Israel.

    Clawson is a garbed variety neocon nutjob, who is of the belief Iran is irrational and needs to be attacks dot curtail the threat they pose, but that attacking them poses little danger because they are too sensible of the folly of retaliating to an attack.

  13. seafoid
    January 12, 2012, 4:46 pm

    Diverting money from education to YESHA over 2 generations is national suicide

  14. Carllarc
    January 12, 2012, 4:48 pm

    Plessy v. Ferguson

    • Carllarc
      January 12, 2012, 4:51 pm

      actually, Plessy v. Ferguson is not accurate in that this ruling supposed there could be ‘separate but equal’; I don’t think there is even a pretense of the Palestinians being equal.

  15. radii
    January 12, 2012, 5:00 pm

    this is it – the moment in history when israel set its own self-destruct date

    this legal decision is of oourse morally and legally indefensible, and nakedly exposes that the zionist enterprise was from the beginning a racist, supremacist land-grab using ethnic-cleansing

    this decision is the herald, israel and zionists, you will evolve into a pluralistic secular state with equal rights for all, or you will evaporate into the ash heap of history and no one will miss you

    • asherpat
      January 12, 2012, 7:48 pm

      Dear Radii, pls share Israel’s “own self-destruct date” with everybody. I remember that one of the regulars at this blog once sarcastically quipped that even after 200 yrs, the Crusaders were beaten and driven away (as far as I remember, he mentioned 800 yrs, for some reason) – I thanked him about the analogy, as it gives us a few more decades, at the least! I am sure you enjoy this day, as it is such a shining “moment in history” and see you around at the “self-destruct date”, happy waiting!

  16. Midwesterner
    January 12, 2012, 7:35 pm

    Would a Palestinian who converts to Judaism have the right to return?

    • asherpat
      January 12, 2012, 8:32 pm

      @Midwesterner,

      yes, converts become Jewish and are subject to the Law of Return, which by the way shatters the slander of “racism” (Race of a person can not be changed, religion can).

      But I suspect that the true nature of ur question is ur yearning for fake converts to flood Israel and then reveal their true colour (so to speak)? Is that what you mean?

      • straightline
        January 12, 2012, 9:14 pm

        I’ll leave the debate about conversion to someone else but doesn’t this:

        “But I suspect that the true nature of ur question is ur yearning for fake converts to flood Israel and then reveal their true colour (so to speak)?”

        suggest that someone is paranoid?

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 4:13 am

        @straightline – “only the paranoid survive”. this is a saying by Andy Grove, Intel’s legendary chief, when talking about the corporate markets, do you suggest otherwise for the Middle East?

        Oh, and by the way, here is, for your convenience a post from this very discussion:

        “MLE says:

        January 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm

        Are the kids of an Israeli Palestinian marriage Israeli citizens?? Because I will move to Israel and flood the streets with Arab babies to speed up the demographic threat.”

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 5:17 am

        Hooray. I freaked you out by that comment.

        Point for me…

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 5:25 am

        By the way, where in Israel do you live? I want to move right next door to you so you can enjoy all my Arab babies with Israeli citizenship.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 5:33 am

        @MLE,

        so, you “want to move right next door” to me? You imply that you are an Arab, so if you want to move next to me, Israeli system will uphold your right to live anywhere in Israel, and it will be eventualy successful.

        I wonder what will happen if I will want to rent a house in Bak’a el-Rarbiye, not to mention, Bethleham or Ramallah.

      • straightline
        January 13, 2012, 5:59 am

        And not only is asherpat paranoid but does not understand irony – point to you indeed MLE. Well done!

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 7:02 am

        I’m not Arab. I’m an American Jew. did you not read my whole story about Romanian grandparents.

        As for your other comment. I’m for a one state solution so Arabs and Jews have equal rights with no official state religion, or parties based on religion or ethnicity. I don’t believe that the Jewish people have some magical mandate from god to move back to Jerusalem, nor do I believe that a homeland for the Jews will protect them from anything. If anything, you’re doing what antisemites want- segregating yourselves from society at large.

        Oh, and about moving to Arab neighborhoods, Ive lived in Arab countries, fully open that my family is Jewish. My Palestinian boyfriend and his family knew I was Jewish and they adored me, and I was in South Lebanon in 2006 and was treated perfectly fine even though my last name makes my religion pretty obvious. But I didn’t go there looking to overtake them and eventually drive them out. I remained respectful of my neighbors and tolerant of others and in return, I was treated very well. If you try moving into the neighborhoods with your attitude, then of course they won’t let you stay- because you’d be an awful neighbor.

        Just to keep you aware, Im planning to destroy Israeli demographics in a covert manner. I’m going to go all Spanish Jew style and raise my kids as secret Arabs while presenting them as Jews. I’ll have a fake Jewish husband on paper and go every year and get knocked up by an expat Palestinian. Hell, I’ll even let them join the IDF as long as they do things to purposely sabatoge the occupation. They can shoot tear gas at the settlements every week, by accident. Anyway, I will encourage my kids to continue the mission until some predetermined date when they all reveal their true identities.

        So now Israeli officials have to be wary of any American Jewish woman in their twenties who went religious and wants to make aaliyah and have lots of babies in case it’s me coming to start my mission. It’s demographic terrorism!!!!!

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 7:51 am

        MLE,
        I know you think that that is funny, rationalizable, but that you even suggest that it be done intentionally, will cause much much more harm than good.

      • Chaos4700
        January 13, 2012, 8:53 am

        Did the Holocaust “just happen,” Witty? Did so-called German self-determination “just happen?”

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 10:12 am

        @stratightline: “irony” is a privilege of those not in danger of “itbakh”.

      • Chaos4700
        January 12, 2012, 10:33 pm

        Is this like how you Israelis don’t consider Ethiopian Jews to be “really” Jewish? Why did you force conversions on them?

      • Cliff
        January 13, 2012, 7:47 am

        So Asherpat, all this time the indigenous Palestinian population just had to convert to Judaism so they wouldn’t lose their land and homes?

        How generous of you.

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 9:18 am

        The holocaust is past Chaos. In that sense it happened.

        It strongly motivated European, then Palestinian, and world Jewry to establish a state, in an effort that the holocaust never happen again.

        That formation of a state is a great good, and the shift from passive “just happen to us”, to self-governance is also a great good, a liberation.

        That it motivated some to conclude that for them to survive, others must leave, is not a great good. That it motivates some to continue that sentiment, is not good.

        That it motivated Palestinians to firm up their national identity, and then to assert their desire for self-determination is also a good.

        The choice to a single state, is a choice to renounce Palestinian self-governance. That may be a great good, or it might be a fundamental compromise.

        It can only be confirmed by the consent of the governed, not by us “chicken-hawks”.

      • RoHa
        January 13, 2012, 7:51 pm

        “The choice to a single state, is a choice to renounce Palestinian self-governance.”

        You keep suggesting this, but you don’t say how it works. In a single democratic state with equal rights for all, Palestinians will be able to vote, run for office, etc. How is that not self-governance for Palestinians?

        I keep asking you this, and you keep refusing to answer.

  17. ahadhaadam
    January 12, 2012, 7:59 pm

    And of course by “national” he means Jewish, for even Supreme Court judges in Israel view themselves representing the construct known as a “nation state” rather than all Israelis.

    Nation states are dangerous ideas to begin with, something belonging in 19th century Europe, but it becomes even more objectionable when the “nation” is comprised of immigrants claiming exclusive rights to the land based on a 2000 year old claim, and the natives are the targets of discriminatory laws.

  18. ritzl
    January 12, 2012, 8:02 pm

    Two fer Two in the 19. Century “democracy” sense. That is, Israel is clearly NOT a democracy as the rest of the modern, “western” world has come to know “democracy” to be, and as Israel claims to be.

    I wonder if Israel and Israeli society have to follow the arc of “western” history in coming to grips with the Manifest Destiny aspect of “Western” political development in order to come to a resolution to this conflict. If that arc is to be simply followed, without a couple of centuries of foresight, as opposed to learned from in terms of what works in the end, this conflict can go on for centuries.

    Oh yeah, this decision and the recent extraction decision places Israel firmly in the realm of racist, 19. century justification jurisprudence. Hardly “western.” And hopefully, hardly Euro (which is what they seek, ignoring the actual state of incompatible Israeli “democracy.”).

    Isn’t this the same objection that the EU has to Turkey, “not like us, politically.” Isn’t Israel in that same political context?

    Was this ruling made by the outgoing moderate justices, or by the incoming Likud-appointed justices?

  19. MLE
    January 12, 2012, 8:16 pm

    Are the kids of an Israeli Palestinian marriage Israeli citizens?? Because I will move to Israel and flood the streets with Arab babies to speed up the demographic threat.

    • Richard Witty
      January 13, 2012, 9:19 am

      MLE,
      That will enhance the resolve of the right to keep families divided.

      Why do you want to be a citizen of a state, of a community of people, that you apparently feel great hatred for?

  20. Elliot
    January 12, 2012, 8:44 pm

    The mainstream, J Street friendly Jewish community famously asserts that “Jewish” and “democratic” are compatible. I have heard this claimed by otherwise reasonable people not as a fact but as an article of faith.
    To not hold that faith is to fail as a liberal Jew.
    I wonder how long this belief can stand in the face of these mortal blows. J Street hasn’t put out a press release yet. I expect they’ll dodge this one.

  21. pjdude
    January 13, 2012, 1:41 am

    All I’m going to say is if basic human rights being given to all people is enough to destroy your state perhaps rather than saying f human rights you need to seriously question the legiatimacy and the morality of your states existence.

    • asherpat
      January 13, 2012, 4:18 am

      @pjdude:

      immigration to another country is not a “basic human right”

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2012, 5:18 am

        Without getting into the question of whether the terms “immigration” or “another country” are applicable here, family reunification is a basic human right. The High Court has admitted as much, although – as one of the justices put it – who says it has to be exercised in Israel? A rather “creative” interpretation of human rights, to say the least.

      • asherpat
        January 13, 2012, 5:27 am

        @Shmuel,

        that “reunification” is a basic “human right” is debatable. That right to life is a basic “human right” is undebatable. If you, Smulik, what to commit suicide it’s your choice, but sane Israelis don’t and the high court tilts to sanity, finally.

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2012, 5:39 am

        that “reunification” is a basic “human right” is debatable

        link to unhchr.ch

        1. Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Protection of the family and its members is also guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by other provisions of the Covenant. Thus, article 17 establishes a prohibition on arbitrary or unlawful interference with the family. In addition, article 24 of the Covenant specifically addresses the protection of the rights of the child, as such or as a member of a family.

        5. The right to found a family implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together. When States parties adopt family planning policies, they should be compatible with the provisions of the Covenant and should, in particular, not be discriminatory or compulsory. Similarly, the possibility to live together implies the adoption of appropriate measures, both at the internal level and as the case may be, in cooperation with other States, to ensure the unity or reunification of families, particularly when their members are separated for political, economic or similar reasons.

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2012, 5:56 am

        The High Court decision is a mass of twisted logic and self-serving reasoning, distinguishing, for example, between the “right to family life” (which it recognises as a basic human right) and the “derivatives of that right” (such as family reunification) – despite previous rulings to the contrary.

        The core of the decision however, appears to be the wholly unconvincing and widely abused principle of “security” – Israel’s constitutional “get of jail free” card.

        Do you know of any eminent non-Israeli jurists (the Court cites Orgad and Lapidot) who question the basic right of family reunification?

        The High Court decision (Hebrew): link to elyon2.court.gov.il

        ACRI’s response to the decision (Hebrew): link to acri.org.il

        Over to you, Hostage ;-)

      • Chaos4700
        January 13, 2012, 8:55 am

        Then there are millions of Jews who invaded Palestine illegally, asherpat. YOU YOURSELF just characterized Zionism as contrary to basic human rights!

        Keep chasing your tail.

  22. Midwesterner
    January 13, 2012, 4:27 am

    No, that wasn’t what I meant.

    I just wonder about stuff. Always have lots of questions. That’s ok, isn’t it?

  23. gingershot
    January 13, 2012, 6:35 am

    Israel’s security is incompatible with giving up Apartheid

    That’s going to be a problem for ya…

  24. ahadhaadam
    January 13, 2012, 8:56 am

    Nobody should expect much of anything from Israel’s Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp for every atrocity and violation of human rights Israel has been committing since its founding, such as house demolitions, land confiscations, extra-judicial executions, etc. The magic word as you can expect is “security” – just like in Apartheid S. Africa. When this magic word is invoked, the Supreme Court gives any action an appearance of legality, which the Israelis use in their self-deception on a “want-to-believe” public.

  25. Richard Witty
    January 13, 2012, 9:22 am

    Its inhuman for Israel to base immigration of married families to reside in Israel on ethnic basis.

    The only potentially valid basis for exclusion would be clear (not ambiguous) evidence of intention to harm the community or the state.

    MLE’s posts above are an indication of what Israel fears. (Maybe she is not who she says she is, or does not realize that what is written here is written and seen.)

    • James North
      January 13, 2012, 10:11 am

      Richard Witty said, ‘Notice how I insult MRE!

      Maybe she is not who she says she is

      ‘The truth is: I, Richard Witty, am not who I say I am. I pretend to be “liberal,” but I have a well-established double-standard that always defaults to Israel. I’m really no different than 3e.’

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 10:24 am

        Good try at a “noble goal”.

      • LeaNder
        January 13, 2012, 11:02 am

        Unable to recognize a joke? Well yes the ethnographic threat is a much too serious issue to joke about. Thus MLE must in fact be one of the billion antisemites out there. The real paradox is that the idea of an ethnographic threat may in fact be shared by some of the old antisemites, and they surely wouldn’t joke about it. For them it is a very serious subject too.

    • eljay
      January 13, 2012, 10:29 am

      >> MLE’s posts above are an indication of what Israel fears.

      The “Jewish state” of Israel fears babies brought forth from the wombs of Jewish women. That strikes me as rather anti-Semitic.

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 2:31 pm

        But isn’t that core to all racist beliefs? One of the great obsessions of southern whites was black men and white women getting together. Losing their women to “the enemy” is a major concern in the minds of racists. It’s why they have to ensure that the races remain seperate.

        By the way Witty, if I were a southerner said I was going to have half black children in the deep south as a method of protest against segregationist policies, would it be offensive then? Or start having Hispanic babies in Arizona to challenge their racist policies, is that offensive to you. Because really I can only imagine it is offensive if youve got some racist issues

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 4:40 pm

        An interesting projection on your part.

        I argued that the law was unjust, and you rampage against me, because I find your comments intentionally and unnecessarily provocative, and in a way that will only stimulate reactionary sentiments in Israel.

        Good fighting stance.

        What Israel fears is deception. I argue that Israel is well-served by individuals that desire to join and contribute to the Israeli community, regardless of ethnicity, and should be accepted and invited, by marriage.

        If an individual desires to destroy the Israeli community, then they are not arriving to contribute, but to attack. I would fear that.

      • eljay
        January 13, 2012, 4:54 pm

        >> What Israel fears is deception.

        Israel is deception:
        - It is a religion-supremacist state that claims not to be one.
        - It is an aggressor / occupier / colonizer nation that claims only to be a victim.
        - It is a nation which, while refusing to engage in sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace, claims that it is interested in nothing but peace.

        Given its familiarity with deception, one would expect Israel to be considerably more comfortable with it.

        >> I argue that Israel is well-served by individuals that desire to join and contribute to the Israeli community …

        RW argues that Israel is well-served by Jewish individuals who desire to join and contribute to the “Jewish state”.

        Non-Jewish Israeli minorities beware – if your demographic threatens the permanent-majority status of Israeli Jews, RW has this to say to you:
        >> RW: I am a Zionist in the sense that I assertively support the right of Israelis to self-govern, and by Israelis I do mean a Jewish majority, comprising a site of self-governance for the Jewish people.
        >> RW: I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.

    • Donald
      January 13, 2012, 11:03 am

      “MLE’s posts above are an indication of what Israel fears.”

      Interesting. Comment seems superfluous.

      • MLE
        January 13, 2012, 4:31 pm

        I am Israel’s worst nightmare. Bwa hah hah.

Leave a Reply