> We are not talking about loving couples being forbidden to marry.
According to the article, the law prevents first and only Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from becoming Israeli citizens, when love is the sole reason for wanting to marry. If Israel wanted to prevent citizens from having "third of fourth wives", an acceptable way would be to outlaw polygamy; if it wanted to prevent bogus marriages, an acceptable way would be by not granting marriage certificates when the couple don't know each other.
You are trying to apply Western ideas to the issue in order to understand it. That won't work.
> According to the article, the law prevents first and only Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from becoming Israeli citizens,
That is incorrect. The law makes no mention of Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Muslim, etc.
> when love is the sole reason for wanting to marry.
Your idea of what marriage is does not apply here. We are talking about people who have never met. In any case, marriage among the Bedouins is not about affection. Most marriages are between people who have never met. There is a good reason for that - the Saudis don't do this and they have inbreeding problems. The Beduins generally try to arrange spouses (yes, plural) from further away.
> If Israel wanted to prevent citizens from having "third of fourth wives", an acceptable way would be to outlaw polygamy;
Polygamy is already illegal, but again you are trying to apply Western ideas. These people do not recognize the state, and the state leaves marital affairs up to the religious leaders. So they continue to marry multiple wives. Many many laws do not apply and are not enforce with regards to the Beduins and Arabs in general. Mostly this is a non-issue.
> if it wanted to prevent bogus marriages, an acceptable way would be by not granting marriage certificates when the couple don't know each other.
There is no "marriage certificate", again you are applying Western ideas where they do no apply.
>”How would Europeans react to the import of Arabs with the explicit intention of making Europe an Arab continent?”
Is this meant to be some theoretical gotcha? Firstly, anyone who believes in what you’ve quoted is soundly dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist - a racist one at that.
Secondly, this strikes me as “you guys would pass the same law if you could get away with it”. But the main reason why this kind of law would never get passed in Europe is because it’s wrong and goes against human rights and the virtue of not discriminating based on race.
This fine article also says “It comes off as more xenophobic or racist (than other laws) because it’s not only giving extra rights and privileges to Jewish people, but also preventing certain basic rights only from the Arab population”.
People are opposed to it because it 1) codifies that an Israeli citizen’s race is an acceptable criterion for determining which rights they are entitled to, and 2) the law is a reactionary measure expressly designed to discriminate and maintain racial/ethnic composition. The people who voted for it aren’t even trying to hide it or dog-whistle it away: “"The State of Israel is Jewish and so it will remain," said Simcha Rothman of the far-right Religious Zionism party””
Any such law, anywhere, would be soundly denounced and repealed. Especially in Europe, which you had mentioned in your hypothetical question.
This is nothing new. Israeli law distinguishes between different religion groups and has done so since the formation of the country. Israeli Arabs, for example, are not forced to serve in the military. So are the Haredim (i.e. the strict Jewish sect). I'm part of the majority in Israel, but in many ways, I am getting screwed over more than other groups. In other ways, they get screwed over more than me.
You have no idea how wrong you are. Firstly, there is no "brown", everybody here has a range of skin colours. Your American ideas about race do not apply to this situation.
Secondly, in fact this is an Arabic speaking country. I personally speak Arabic, I learn from my Arab friends and neighbours. So everything that I'm mentioning is from the actual experience of living here and understanding both Western culture and the Arab culture (for the most part).
Thirdly, these people are going to have a dozen babies per wife no matter where the wives come from. And with the modern healthcare that everybody receives, all those babies will grow to be adults - something that was not the case when their culture developed the need to have a dozen babies per wife.
I don't blame you for not understanding, the media reports on the situation with no lies but eliminating perspective. If we had the same race issues as the US, and if "marriage" meant the same here as US audiences expect, then your rage would be justified. The task of mentioning these differences would fall on the body "reporting" the situation if the reporting goal were to spread information. But the spread of information is not the goal of the reporting - as evidenced by what information they include and what information they eliminate.
I don't personally have a problem with Arabs so take what I say with a grain of salt.
However, isn't what you're describing colonization? If the US or the UK announced a program of attempting to colonize 3rd-world countries, those countries would reflexively ban US immigration. Why the double standard?
Yes I would be okay in the hypothetical situation you've constructed, with loaded language and fear tactics.
I would also be fine with publicly shaming view points like yours and getting you fired from your job for being completely xenophobic. I can't imagine how you view your middle eastern coworkers who you've decided hate women and shit?
So you'd get me fired for my views, which by the way I extend to all nations regardless of race, but be totally welcoming to child abusers in your midst, because it's their culture? There's something very wrong with this fashionable double standard. And there's nothing hypothetical about my scenario, this has been playing out for decades in Europe and East Asia while legitimate concern from those who speak out is shallowly dismissed as xenophobia.
>fired from your job for being completely xenophobic.
Disapproving of very real cultural differences is not "xenophobia". Forcing women to cover themselves, limiting their independence, practicing arranged marriages and condoning physical abuse, my opposition to these practices stems from my western liberal ideals, not any sort of "phobia".
>I can't imagine how you view your middle eastern coworkers who you've decided hate women and shit?
That's because you are apparently unable to discern individuals from groups. A sane person can acknowledge that cultures have sets of typical practices/beliefs, but individuals may or may not share them.
The middle eastern coworkers decided it by following Islam. Islam is not an abstract theory, it is a very detailed book. It would be good to read it. Among other things, it explicitly demands to accept the whole of it to be a true Muslim. No cherry picking what fits our spiritual needs.
I don't see the profit in trying to catch them on a small and clearly not meaningful technicality in their phrasing.
Genuine question, do you truly feel the commenter is a racist, and you just stepped in and called them out successfully?
What seems much more likely is that they, in their sarcasm, were doing an imitation of an ignorant conservative stereotype by focusing on skin color and grouping all middle easterners into a group. This seems fairly obvious to me - is that not how you're interpreting this?
This "brown people" phrase is commonly used to disparage concerns about incompatible values and cultural norms. And this is probably only context where I see middle easterners grouped like this.
Not GP, but I do consider this to be low-key racist and aaomidi to be somewhat racist, but maybe for different reason than GP.
I tried to explain why I decided to call out the use of that phrase, however my words failed me. So I’m editing my original (and inadequate) explanation to just say that the “brown people” thing is, to me, indicative of a deeper societal issue with racism and otherizing people that exists on both sides of the political spectrum.
