Israeli Terror Against Families, Even Their Own

From Amnesty International:

"Israel/Occupied Territories: High Court decision institutionalizes
racial discrimination


The decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice on 14 May to uphold a
law which explicitly denies family rights on the basis of ethnicity or
national origins is a step further in the institutionalization of
racial discrimination in Israel.


The "Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law" bars family
reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied
Territories. It specifically targets Israeli Arabs (Palestinian
citizens of Israel), who make up a fifth of Israel's population, and
Palestinian Jerusalemites,(1) for it is they who marry Palestinians
from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


Thousands of couples are affected by this discriminatory law, which
forces Israeli Arabs married to Palestinians to leave their country or
to be separated from their spouses and children. Israeli military law
forbids Israelis from entering the main population centres in the
Occupied Territories and Israeli citizens cannot join their Palestinian
spouses there, and at the same time Palestinian spouses staying in
Israel without a permit are constantly at risk of being deported and
separated from their families. Thus, Israeli-Palestinian couples would
ultimately be forced to move to another country in order to live
together - an option which is neither feasible nor desirable for
those concerned. In addition, Palestinian Jerusalemites would lose
their residency and their right "to ever live in Jerusalem again if
they move out of the city."

Kind of stretching to call this "terror", don'chathink?

Rank discrimination it may be...even inhumane. But terror? Somehow I don't think it rises to the "suicide bomber in the pizza shop" level, or even the "Hellfire from a Predator" level.

Cheapening the word terror has the effect of turning down the heat on those actually comitting terrorism.

You're right, of course, but too late. Quit counting at about 20 million.

MaggieL wrote:

Kind of stretching to call this "terror", don'chathink?

Rank discrimination it may be...even inhumane. But terror? Somehow I don't think it rises to the "suicide bomber in the pizza shop" level, or even the "Hellfire from a Predator" level.

Cheapening the word terror has the effect of turning down the heat on those actually comitting terrorism.

Tell that to the families being torn apart.
We can say terrorize if you like... does that make you feel better?

rkzenrage wrote:

Tell that to the families being torn apart.
We can say terrorize if you like... does that make you feel better?

Not really...because the next thing you know we'll be told we're comitting terrorism by refusing to admit the families of illegal aliens. You can't simply call everything you don't like or find reprehensible "terrorism". "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands"

We're back to playing the "moral equivalance" game...

And sometimes make about as much sense.:rolleyes:

Israel is intentionally destroying families and you want to toy with semantics?
Typical.

Words have meanings, and semantics is important. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to use semantics as a political tool yourself.

By calling Israeli immigration policy "terror", you attempt to create a moral equivalance between their attempts to defend themselves, and the genuine terrorism they are trying to protect themselves from. You can agree that this particular effort is justified, or not...but calling it "terror" cheapens the word. Being separated from your spouse is terrible. Wondering every second if the bus you're riding in is about to be shredded by thirty pounds of C4 and two thousand steel nails is terror.

Calling this policy "terror" is a propiganda technique, pure and simple. To dismiss criticism of it as "semantics" is disingenuous.

"The slovenliness of our language enables us to have foolish thoughts." --Orwell

So, rk, are you in favor of the Right of Return for Palestinians?

Undertoad wrote:

So, rk, are you in favor of the Right of Return for Palestinians?

How do you get that from this thread?
I do not think that people should have been forcibly removed from their homes back in the 40's, no.
But, at this point, I think that is moot... however, concessions must be made and reparations are deserved.
Do I think I would feel like they if I were in their position, yes... I do.
Do I hope I would not be using their tactics... yes, I hope that, but no one is killing my kids from a helicopter or tank and all I have are rocks to throw at them.
After that happening for a while, a LONG while, I can see thinking that they need to know how it feels.
Does that justify it, no... but it also makes it a hell of a lot more than just what the Taliban does.
Palestine needs to have far more consideration than it is being given.
As for this law, it has nothing to do with their being given all of their land back, it has to do with families being allowed to stay together & it is simply legislated racist terror. It is no different than the Jim Crow laws of the Reconstruction.

rkzenrage wrote:

it is simply legislated racist terror

We could argue about "racist". "Terror" is unwarranted, and robs your position of credibility.

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Did you know... that the ruling doesn't apply to women over 25 and men over 35?

Did you know... that the ruling was made in 2002 when Palestinians were in a declared state of war with Israel and many of the entering Palestinians were blowing themselves up in crowded busses and cafes?

Did you know... that an Israeli is not permitted entry at ALL into most Arab states, never mind to marry someone they love?

Did you know... that if you have merely VISITED Israel, you yourself would not be permitted entry at all into most Arab states, never mind to marry someone you love?

Did you know... that Amnesty International has become a relentlessly political organization that selectively ignores torture when it will get them higher donation totals from their donor base?

The More You Know.

Some insight into why the seemingly ubiquitous charges of "racism" are losing legitimacy. Is the word "terror" the next to be neutered though abuse?

Great, now I'm hooked on Sinfest. Been reading for about five straight hours, and I'm only to Feb. '02... I'll have to finish tomorrow, I need sleeeeeep.

Undertoad wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Did you know... that the ruling doesn't apply to women over 25 and men over 35?

Did you know... that the ruling was made in 2002 when Palestinians were in a declared state of war with Israel and many of the entering Palestinians were blowing themselves up in crowded busses and cafes?

Did you know... that an Israeli is not permitted entry at ALL into most Arab states, never mind to marry someone they love?

Did you know... that if you have merely VISITED Israel, you yourself would not be permitted entry at all into most Arab states, never mind to marry someone you love?

Did you know... that Amnesty International has become a relentlessly political organization that selectively ignores torture when it will get them higher donation totals from their donor base?

The More You Know.

Yup, I also know it was only supposed to last a year and has been extended over and over again and now made law to permanently separate those families. So, if you are a certain age your marriage is invalid? That is just stupid, there is no other word for it.
If Israel is going to continue to act like they are taking the high ground in this conflict they have to stop this kind of legislation and let Palestinians back to work and reunite the mixed families, and stop all retaliation actions... until then they are on equal footing with Palestine.

I know that Palestine does a great deal... much of which we would do in their situation. If a superpower came in and removed Americans from a Texas, Southern CA, or FL territory and dumped them into a desert with no rights in tents and them moved their people into their homes and infrastructures, then fired on them it would be total war. Something the US has done several times.
I don't agree with what Palestine is doing or what Israel is doing, they are both equally at fault; well Israel, Palestine and the UN with the US in the forefront.
I do know if someone comes to take my home they will die, if they try to relocate me they will die, if they try to put their kids in the school that my taxes and hard work built the school will burn...
I do not believe I would kill their kids on purpose, but I cannot conceive of their Apaches killing my kids and my neighbors kids as "retaliation" for something someone else did... if so, I may feel that they need to know what it feels like. I hope not, but I honestly don't know that I would not, I can't imagine losing my son... much less like that.

rkzenrage wrote:

I don't agree with what Palestine is doing or what Israel is doing, they are both equally at fault...

"Moral equivalance" again.

As long as we're flinging propiganda about, here's a slightly different view of Middle East history.

MaggieL wrote:

"Moral equivalance" again.

I always get the image of a fight between siblings, with the bigger one constantly poking and shoving, and the smaller one constantly kicking and biting.

Ibram wrote:

Great, now I'm hooked on Sinfest. Been reading for about five straight hours, and I'm only to Feb. '02... I'll have to finish tomorrow, I need sleeeeeep.

BTDT, sowwy. :evilgrin:

Happy Monkey wrote:

I always get the image of a fight between siblings, with the bigger one constantly poking and shoving, and the smaller one constantly kicking and biting.

You might refine your image by replacing the poking/shoving/biting/kicking with small caliber handguns.

MaggieL wrote:

You might refine your image by replacing the poking/shoving/biting/kicking with small caliber handguns.

And bombs and tanks and bulldozers, and the siblings with Isrealis and Palestinians. But then it's no longer an analogy...

Which one is the bigger one and which one is the smaller one?

Which one kicked ass in the last war? Which one has the support of the world's remaining superpower? Which one has not only that superpower's nukes, but its own as well?

Israel is bigger.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Which one has not only that superpower's nukes...

Erm..actually no. We have that superpower's nukes, which we developed in order to survive... And Israel kicked ass in the 1976 war in order to survive.

The amazing crap that gets handed out in schools these days labelled "history" is both--amazing and crap.

Your "Erm..actually no" is based on a misreading of my post, as If I were somehow blaming Israel or the US for having nukes, or blaming Israel for winning the war. I was merely stating facts.

Erm..actually no. We have that superpower's nukes, which we developed in order to survive...

And Israel developed theirs in order to survive. Israel has the full support of the US, and everything that entails, so in a major war between Israel and the Arab world, US nukes, if used, would be in support of Israel. In addition, if the US does not want to use nukes, Israel has some of its own.

And Israel kicked ass in the 1976 war in order to survive.

Of course. Thereby demonstrating that despite geography they are the big ones. That's my point.

The amazing crap that gets handed out in schools these days labelled "history" is both--amazing and crap.

Non sequitur.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Thereby demonstrating that despite geography they are the big ones

Until Iran has some too? Then will things be "even"?

I doubt it...Iran has already announced their policy towards Israel. Even a glazed-crater response from the US would be cold comfort to any Israeli survivors.

The strategic utility of nukes is a very complex issue. and the outcome of the '67 war may be more due to this than anything else. It certainly wasn't due to any help from the US; the only US military unit to see action in the 1967 war was USS Liberty.

MaggieL wrote:

It certainly wasn't due to any help from the US; the only US military unit to see action in the 1967 war was USS Liberty.

Right. They won in 1967 without nukes, and without much US support. Now they have nukes, they've been militarizing more and more, and their relationship with the US is stronger. Plus, as your link says, their military is much better trained and prepared. You are strengthening my point. Israel is bigger.

MaggieL wrote:

Until Iran has some too? Then will things be "even"?
...

Since when did Iran become an Arab state? :eyebrow:

CIA Wold Factbook wrote:

Ethnic groups:
Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

Happy Monkey wrote:

...as your link says, their military is much better trained and prepared. You are strengthening my point. Israel is bigger.

That doesn't make them bigger, it only makes them smarter.

Will Iran be bigger than it is now when it goes nuclear? Is it bigger because it's currently cozy with Russia and China?

BigV wrote:

Since when did Iran become an Arab state?

Who said they were? I didn't.

Maybe you'll like this map better.



Yellow bearing labels is Arab or other Muslim states hostile to Israel. Red and blue are the original Palestine.

Red being the Jewish Palestinian State and blue being Transjordan, the Arab Palestinian state.

Oh...the red is the Jewish Palestinian state before 1947 when the UN subtracted Gaza, the West Bank and a piece of Golan to make...erm...well

..another Arab Palestinian state. That must be that "two-state solution" people are always talking about...Palestine *and* Jordan.

MaggieL wrote:

Will Iran be bigger than it is now when it goes nuclear? Is it bigger because it's currently cozy with Russia and China?

Yes.