Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Gehen Macht Frei
July 31, 2003 5:17 PM   Subscribe

Israel passes marriage law that prevents Palestinians who marry Israelis to live together. The new law, effective for one year, was inacted today to prevent residency permits from being abused for terrorist intentions. Does any of this sound familiar?
posted by Civil_Disobedient (45 comments total)

 
That is SO true. The jews ARE the nazis. Thanks for clarifying.
posted by jonson at 5:20 PM on July 31, 2003


Absolutely right, jonson. After all, before WWII the Jews were blowing themselves up on German buses, in restaurants and malls, etc.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:24 PM on July 31, 2003


"prevents to living together". they must of skipped grammar on accident.
posted by quonsar at 5:29 PM on July 31, 2003


On the one hand, this FPP is so inflammatory that I really shouldn't comment on it. I mean, it's even pre-godwinized for our enjoyment.

On the other hand, I should still point out that the Palestinian is more of a political designation than a racial/religious one. After all, Israeli Arabs can legally marry Jewish Israelis.
posted by kickingtheground at 5:32 PM on July 31, 2003


that's sick

the law, I mean

and I'm a jew with family in Israel
posted by signal at 5:35 PM on July 31, 2003


Hey, now. I didn't say "prevents to living together," I said "prevents to live together." Let's get it straight, quonsar. Sorry 'bout that.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:43 PM on July 31, 2003


Absolutely right, jonson. After all, before WWII the Jews were blowing themselves up on German buses, in restaurants and malls, etc.

Yeah, if someone appropriates your land for their own purposes, you should just lay down and die, right? Fuck fighting back...
posted by SweetJesus at 5:56 PM on July 31, 2003


Absolutely right, jonson. After all, before WWII the Jews were blowing themselves up on German buses, in restaurants and malls, etc.

No, you've both got it wrong. They didn't blow themselves up it was the British, and they were in Israel, not Germany. :)

As an aside, are we never going to be able to mention Nazi's on the web again? Is there no discourse where comparisons to ethnic cleansing or fascism could possibly draw similarities to Nazi Germany? What kind of jackass do you have to be to think that hopping into a conversation and shouting Godwin is suddenly going to make everyone sit back and shut up because of your amazing debate skills?
posted by velacroix at 5:57 PM on July 31, 2003


"...if someone appropriates your land for their own purposes, you should just lay down and die, right?"

Is that how they do it? I'd guess they'd get more of a blast zone by standing up.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:01 PM on July 31, 2003


It's wrong to compare the Israel government to Nazi Germany. The Israel government is much more like Soviet Germany.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:10 PM on July 31, 2003


I wonder how long before this catches on in the good old USA. good way to keep those strange brown people out of our country, cause some of them, you know, did that stuff.
posted by outsider at 6:13 PM on July 31, 2003


Is that how they do it? I'd guess they'd get more of a blast zone by standing up.

I'd blow myself up too if I was facing off against the 5th largest army in the world, which is supported finically by the most powerful nation in the world, and nobody outside the Arab world gave a shit. Not to mention that fucking wall, Israelites dumping raw sewage onto my occupied lands, those checkpoints, and now this new marriage law.

Fuck it, its fight or flight...
posted by SweetJesus at 6:17 PM on July 31, 2003


What velacroix said, re: Godwin. It was funny way back when it meant something, it's not funny any more, you're not clever, you probably don't even know what it actually means, shut the fuck up, already.

ps. This is not directed directly at kickingtheground, but at every jackass who thinks it's fun to cry Godwin. This is more of a umbrella "shut the fuck up" statement, damning all equally.
posted by majcher at 6:25 PM on July 31, 2003


This is good
posted by pemulis at 6:47 PM on July 31, 2003


I'm deeply opposed to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but I normally decry attempts to use Nazi analogies—aside from anything else, it's just plain bad taste. But anyone who didn't immediately think of the Nuremberg laws upon hearing of this development has no sense of history. I'm afraid Israel has Godwinized itself.
posted by languagehat at 6:51 PM on July 31, 2003


Thank you, majcher and velacroix. I didn't put the reference up to be funny, I put it up because it is supremely ironic, in the most honest definition of the word. The Nuremburg Laws the Nazi's passed in '35 had a provision that prevented "aryans" from marrying Jews. While this law doesn't make it illegal, per se, it certainly could be construed as making it more difficult. That the nation of Israel would pass such a theocratic law with such obvious connotations betrays the suffering and indignation they sought to escape.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:54 PM on July 31, 2003


"That the nation of Israel would pass such a theocratic law . . ."

Therin lies the rub, eh? How do you create a state by, for, and of the jews and at the same time, retain a democracy. You can't, and this kind of thinking and legislation will only increase in Israel with time. I'm sure part of this is to address the fact that the average family in Israel runs a bit smaller than the average family in Palestine. If it wasn't for the fact that Israel is doing so well on the kill ratio (Israelis to palestinians), the Palestinians would probably breed them out.

I think this is the reason that a lot of jews are trying to band together to buy islands off Australia. Israel is hostile and will always be . . . well maybe as long as I live is more accurate.
posted by velacroix at 7:18 PM on July 31, 2003


>As an aside, are we never going to be able to mention Nazi's on the web again?

Skallas's law. There are two types of people, those who understand Godwin and those who don't.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin says nothing about the thread ending or the poster somehow losing credibility.

Personally, I think this is more like the US than Nazi Germany. Both are trying to attain political and social control by putting checks on marriage.
posted by skallas at 7:19 PM on July 31, 2003


does this mean these kids have to live in the garage?
posted by outsider at 7:21 PM on July 31, 2003


A historical aside, the Nuremburg Laws were passed back in 1935, but the Wannsee Conference didn't happen until 1942, I believe. That's four years before the start of war, and three more years of bringing *new* Jews into the German sphere of influence before beginning their destruction in earnest. There were lots of incidents, with Germany kicking out or trying to emigrate Jews that no one wanted.
My point being the gradualism that was part of the process. And if comparisons are to be reached with what Israel has now decided to do, we must watch closely to see if it is a unique event, or just the beginning of a process.
posted by kablam at 7:24 PM on July 31, 2003


To be honest, and I hope this doesn't stir up more ire just as the thread looks to be getting back on track, I think the whole idea of a "Jewish state" was a bad idea. And hey, a lot of my best friends are states. But it's too late now, just as (in my opinion) it's too late to pull out of Iraq now. I can sort of understand this law, given how xenophobic America has become and how ready to give up civil liberties, when we don't have suicide bombings every week (I mean yeah, September 11 was *huge*, but what kind of guts does it take to live day-to-day in Israel?). But just as I think that, if we're willing to send people overseas to die for "the American way", we should put up with some risks to preserve our civil liberties (which used to be a big part of the American way before we discovered easy living)--my feeling about this law is: marrying whom you want is a pretty new (and pretty good) idea, it's worth some sacrifice. Also--have there been suicide bombers who got into Israel through strategic marriage? (Honest question.) I don't pretend to be very well-informed or involved in this issue, so if you want to argue, please try for a respectful tone (have you noticed how much more persuasive that is?).
posted by uosuaq at 7:25 PM on July 31, 2003


this is about demographic control, which along with water, is the real issue over there.
posted by chaz at 7:26 PM on July 31, 2003


I'd blow myself up too if I was facing off against the 5th largest army in the world

You've got to be kidding me. Off hand, the US, India, China, Turkey, Poland, Italy, North Korea, Great Britain all have larger standing armies than Israel. Israel is, however, a nuclear power. Look around, and maybe a visit to the library is in order.
posted by the fire you left me at 7:45 PM on July 31, 2003


I had an interesting conversation with an educated (electronics engineer) Palestinian, who was convinced that US citizens should be outraged because half our defense budget was going to buy Israel weapons.
I laughed at him and said that the US *loans* Israel "pocket change" each year, something like $200M, maybe as much as $1B or 2, and they are very prompt in paying off those loans.
"It cannot be." The very idea was more than he could stand.
I tried to tell him how I had flown over military posts like Ft. Hood, Texas, and seen tanks, tracks and trucks from horizon to horizon, in endless motor pools--enough to invade another planet, I thought.
But his eyes had glazed over and he was in mental vapor lock long after I changed to subject to something innocuous.
posted by kablam at 8:11 PM on July 31, 2003


kablam: Try something like 5 billion a year and 30 billion in waived loans.

Good to see money from the land of the free going toward attempts at apartheid and heavy handed military tactics on residental neighborhoods.
posted by skallas at 8:28 PM on July 31, 2003


I'm not sure what your point is, kablam... that both of you are uneducated?

Israel recieved roughly $3 billion US annually in aid alone- about half of which is used for military purposes. Though not half of the U.S.'s defense budget, it is over a quarter of all annual international aid from the United States. By definition, it doesn't ever have to be "repaid," nor has it ever been. Israel has, if anything, requested only more from the United States. Israel was given what you call "pocket change" as one specific additional aid package this year... long story short, what the heck are you talking about?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 PM on July 31, 2003


From CNN:

"For the 2003 fiscal year the United States is giving Israel $2.04 billion in military aid. The proposed $2.16 billion for fiscal year 2004 is separate from U.S. economic support to Israel, which the countries have agreed will decrease and eventually disappear by 2008, with a commensurate raise in military assistance."

Heh. That last bit is kind of funny.
posted by jeffj at 8:45 PM on July 31, 2003


D'oh.
From CNN:
posted by jeffj at 8:51 PM on July 31, 2003


You people are sooo polite here. This was back in the mid 1980s, but the point is still valid. He couldn't comprehend how Israel could defeat most of the Arab world in war, yet only be a fraction of the size of the US military. What's so odd about that?
To a Palestinian whose people (even then) only had small arms, confronted by tanks, helicopters, fighter aircraft, a navy, airborne troops, infantry, what do you do? All your allies are beaten by who? those cursed by Allah you outnumber 10 to 1?

And XQUZYPHYR: A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. Compare it to the $379 billion the US spent on defense in 2002. Still a drop in the bucket.
posted by kablam at 9:09 PM on July 31, 2003


$2billion in military aid, plus 600 million in 'regular' aid as well.

For the 2003 fiscal year the United States is giving Israel $2.04 billion in military aid. The proposed $2.16 billion for fiscal year 2004 is separate from U.S. economic support to Israel, which the countries have agreed will decrease and eventually disappear by 2008, with a commensurate raise in military assistance..

So we're not even going to pretent that it's not for warmongering stuff anymore. Great.

And this is for a pretty small country too. Iirc

The US has given Isreal 90 billion total, or about $15,000 per jew.

Or, about $350 per american (this is without ajusting for inflation/population)
posted by delmoi at 9:20 PM on July 31, 2003


How heartbreaking and vile.
posted by blissbat at 9:30 PM on July 31, 2003


Shouldn't that be "$15,000 per Israeli"?
posted by wobh at 9:36 PM on July 31, 2003


uosuaq, your name is cool.
posted by BinGregory at 11:57 PM on July 31, 2003


[this is apartheid]
posted by plep at 2:04 AM on August 1, 2003


Nazi comparisons frowned upon?

Try South Africa, apartheid version.
posted by Blue Stone at 2:08 AM on August 1, 2003


This is not aimed at Arab / Israeli couples in general. It's intent is not miscegenation. This is a scheme from preventing palestinians from the occupied territories to marry Israeli citizens (in practice mostly Israeli Arabs) and obtain work permits and citizenship rights in Israel, under some sort of terror pretext. Note that Palestinians living in the occupied territories do not have citizenship rights - unlike American or Russian jewish settlers.
This is about demographics mainly and thus indirectly rather than directly racist.

Speaking of miscagenation though, I'm surprised nobody mentioned the American south:
With so many marriages happening in the United States, it is hard to believe that as recently as 1966, 17 states actually had laws against interracial marriage. And all of the states regulated marriage between whites and other races. The Supreme Court overturned every states antimiscegenation laws (laws against marriage between different races) in 1967 (Myra 18). In the legal case of Loving vs. State of Virginia, a white man and black woman won the right to return home after having fled their state to avoid a year's jail sentence for getting married (Myra 18). "But as late as the seventies at least twelve states still had laws forbidding marriage between whites and other races" (Perkins 30).
In Alabama such a law still stands (although it is not enforced). Interesting poll from the article:
A recent Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll of 405 Alabamians found that 64 percent support repealing the ban, while 19 percent oppose the repeal. Thirty-seven percent said they approve of interracial marriages; 34 percent did not.
posted by talos at 2:52 AM on August 1, 2003


Palestinians living in the occupied territories do not have citizenship rights - unlike American or Russian jewish settlers.

How is this not apartheid again?

In Alabama such a law still stands (although it is not enforced).

I believe the reason nobody mentioned it is because, as you say, this is an unenforced law that should have been stricken from the books long ago, as opposed to recent (yesterday) legislation where enforcement is very much intended.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:30 AM on August 1, 2003


C_D: I'm not arguing that the regime under which Palestinians live is not an apartheid regime. That's why I pointed out the fact you mention. It is. It's just that this particular law was not about racial miscegenation (as posters in this thread seemed to have thought) and more about the control of the numbers of Israel's Arab population. The law is still inhuman and unreasonable.
My point about the US south wasn't that such laws are enforced today, but rather that until recently (the 60's) they were in effect.
posted by talos at 3:43 AM on August 1, 2003


Talos: The Alabama law was thrown out of the state constitution almost three years ago in a referendum. It was already not in effect, so the vote was symbolic. Back to the drawing board in making apologies for Israel.
posted by raysmj at 5:31 AM on August 1, 2003


Here's a thought to get this thread out of the boring zone: Perhaps the countries of the middle east should be promoting "intermarriage" as a way to achieve lasting peace. Imagine if this happened on a large scale, over several generations. No more "arabs," no more "jews," just one big "United Hebrab Republic" (ref: "Americathon," starring John Ritter).
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:38 AM on August 1, 2003


Or something like Singapore, ZenMasterThis, where ghettos are outlawed and different 'peoples' have to live alongside one another.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:53 AM on August 1, 2003


First of all: I made a mistake in posting the Alabama issue. I shouldn't have, it's irrelevant to the discussion. It's also old. Apologies.
Back to the drawing board in making apologies for Israel.
raysmj: what in the world makes you believe that I'm interested in making apologies for the epitome of European arrogant, colonial mentality in the Middle East (well, until Iraq that is), a religious state to boot?
Israel can only be compared to South Africa in the viciousness of its racist policies. It was one of the most successful ethnic cleansers in history. It still keeps a whole area (the Gaza strip) as the worlds largest concentration camp.
Having said that: the problem is that the particular news item linked to was reporting a measure that was not intended to prevent "racial mixing" but, rather, to prevent increasing the number of Israeli Arabs. This in itself is far from honorable and is indeed racist, but in a different sense than the one implied by a series of commentators who compared this law with the Nuremberg laws. This is somewhat different. It isn't about intermarriage at all, as the couples targeted consist mainly of Israeli Palestinian Arabs (Arab israeli citizens of the state of israel) married to Palestinian Arabs of the occupied Territories and / or refugees (which have no citizenship rights at all - unless they marry an Israeli citizen). I would even venture to guess that the Israeli government (as opposed to the religious yahoos in and to the right of the Likud) would have no problem in mixed (Jewish/Moslem, Jewish/Christian) marriages as long as their children had an "Israeli national consciousness".
Now, have I made my self clear?

On preview: ZenMasterThis, what you suggest would be wonderful, although you do realize that given that there are vastly more Arabs (~400 million) than Jews (~5 million) in the Middle East, there is bound to be some, ummm, opposition to such a scheme, from Israel. A better idea would be a secular Israel, a bi-national state. But that too is bound to be opposed by extremists. A Middle Eastern Union (an EU-like community of nations) would also help but it's more like a dream, than a practical prospect.
posted by talos at 6:35 AM on August 1, 2003


the particular news item linked to was reporting a measure that was not intended to prevent "racial mixing" but, rather, to prevent increasing the number of Israeli Arabs

That's certainly the direct intent, though I think the side effects are noteworthy as well. And this: "keeps a whole area (the Gaza strip) as the worlds largest concentration camp" is very well put. ZenMasterThis's suggestion is probably the only long-lasting solution to the problem -- isn't that what the Hapsfields and the McCoy's did to stop their feudin'-and-a'fightin'?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:42 AM on August 1, 2003


I don't think that the link from Nazism to this new law is at all a streach. It was certianly the first thing I thought of... "My, that sounds familiar. The jews weren't allowed to intermarry Germans, and that was unfair back then. So what makes it okay now that they're in power." It's so supremely ironic. I think C_D's post is right-on.

I dont' care WHY Israel is doing it vs. WHY the Nazi's did it (mixing races or in the name of safety or citizenship or whatever..) The result is the same. A racist, wrong, intolerant law that blackens Israel's name even further. Imagine if a country passed this law now that applied to Jews. Jesus, the world would be up in arms yelling "NAZISM" all over again. It's wrong wrong wrong.

Talos, even if you have Israeli citizenship, you can still hate your country. I don't think the citizenship reason holds water. I think Israel is just blinded by their hatred and passed a stupid law, just as the Nazi's did. (And let's not go into the fact that Palestinians can't GET citizenship due to Israeli laws...)
posted by aacheson at 9:38 AM on August 1, 2003


aacheson, I think you are misinterpreting what Talos is saying-- he's not trying to provide moral justification, just explaining what the reasons are behind the law, which are very different from the Nazi's reasons for their laws. So he doesn't disagree with you (I assume) that morally speaking there is a similarity, however the racial component and the national component are different, so for a true understanding of the situation it's not enough to say they are both stupid and racist.
posted by cell divide at 10:01 AM on August 1, 2003


« Older Spam.la...  |  Canada: Hippie Nation?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments