Interesting conspiracy theory, but the actual rationale has been shared in another comment: it's an overreaction to a number of events involving marrying terrorists to get them in the country.
About "the enemy", one side is constantly attacking the other, but you might be surprised to know which is which - or, you believe you have justifications. Anyway, my conspiracy theory is that this article purposely omits contextualisation so to drive the opinion to believe that's it's a free act of pure hate, which makes it fall into the "propaganda" category rather than the "journalism" category. And I'm not even supporting this stupid bill, but I've had more than enough of this kind of jorunlasmism which purpose is apparently to tell us how to think... IMHO this jurnolims is not a solution: it's a problem. Again, not discussing the silly law, discussing about the article in itself.
> Proponents say the law helps ensure Israel's security and maintains its "Jewish character".
> "The State of Israel is Jewish and so it will remain," said Simcha Rothman of the far-right Religious Zionism party, a member of the opposition who brought the law forward with Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked.
That does not explain why they believe marriages threaten its "jewish character", it does not explain why they think that. If it's about demographics, then the article should show graphics or at least some number projections so that we can build an opinion.
Rationale 1: Terrorists are constantly looking for ways to get in a country, if the marriage background checks are proven not to be secure then it makes sense to pause it until a solution is found indeed.
Rationale 2: Jewish hate Arabs is the explanation for everything.
And I'm saying it would have been great if the article provided enough information so that we could make our own opinion based on more facts.
“There’s no need to shirk from the essence of this law. It is one of the tools to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel, which is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Our goal is for there to be a Jewish majority,” Lapid tweeted shortly before the law lapsed in early July. [1]
Thanks! considering this I'm now wondering: I fill Nigeria with Norvegians, is it still Nigeria or an extension of Norway? I believe Nigerians have the right to have their country that doesn't look like an extension of another.
The verb “Fill” is so dehumanizing. This law is about banning Arab Israelis from bringing their spouse to live with them in Israel and to have a family life together.
In fact Nigeria recognizes the right of Nigerians to bring their spouse to live with them in Nigeria and even offers Nigerian citizenship. Nigeria is actually more advanced than many western countries in this respect.
