8 ms·
This article doesn’t really provide much in the way of explanation for why this law is being enacted. Here [0] is a better article that quotes supporters and ob
by docdeek 5y ago
This article doesn’t really provide much in the way of explanation for why this law is being enacted. Here [0] is a better article that quotes supporters and objectors to the law.
It includes the (IMHO not very convincing) figures that "Between 1993 and 2003, around 130,000 Palestinians were given Israeli citizenship or residency through family unification, including children, according to court filings. The Shin Bet security service told the Knesset on Monday that between 2001 and 2021, about 48 were involved in terror activities.”
48 of 130,000 amounts to 0.037% being involved in terrorist activities which seems very low to be used as justification for a law around security.
[0]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-coalition-battle-knesset-reauthorizes-ban-on-palestinian-family-unification/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-coalition-battle-knesset...
- fmakunbound 5y agoHow is it that you and user adielsa paste this same reply here multiple times?
- hombre_fatal 5y agoOther user is an almost empty account that doesn't seem like an alt-account, they probably copy and pasted it.
- docdeek 5y agoI suspect they copied and pasted my original comment for some reason.
- chmod600 5y agoFrom your source: "Israeli politicians say the law is both an essential security measure to prevent Palestinian terror attacks and a means of preserving a Jewish majority in Israel." Maybe it's more of an immigration policy than a security policy?
- vkou 5y agoIt's a policy of apartheid, which is motivated by both immigration and security. Fortunately, as we have learned over the past few weeks, sanctions are an effective means of pushback against archaic 20-th century statesmanship.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoUnfortunately, geopolitics all but guarantee this will never happen so long as Israel is a strong western ally
- vkou 5y agoDoes it have to be? Does it operate a gas pipeline that heats Germany, or something? Is it an irreplaceable source of titanium? A major wheat exporter? Is the West planning to use it as a launchpad for a war of aggression in the region?
- bradlys 5y ago> Is the West planning to use it as a launchpad for a war of aggression in the region? Pretty sure this was the reason. It’s a tactical piece that they want to keep control over. Everyone else in the region hates them (and rightfully so).
- throwaway2048 5y agoConsidering Israel does not, and never has allowed American forces to be stationed inside Israel, this seems pretty unlikely.
- bradlys 5y agoYou do know you don't have to have your own troops in a specific area for it to be a tactical asset, right?
- 5y ago
- thehappypm 5y ago.037% terrorism sounds high to me
- bigcat123 5y ago
- tyingq 5y agoThat a 0.37% (or more) slice of some population that feels it's been oppressed and impoverished might engage in /(freedom fighter|terrorist)/ activities doesn't seem surprising to me.
- thehappypm 5y agoThat would mean 100,000 terrorists in the scale of the USA
- tyingq 5y agoNot sure what you mean by this. There's not a current, similar situation in the US where the average US citizen feels like they were recently displaced/oppressed/etc by occupiers. That's been the situation in the past with Native Americans, slave populations, the American revolution, etc. I suspect the numbers met that threshold then.
- thehappypm 5y agoI don’t think this is a good faith answer. .037% of the USA pop is roughly 100,000 people.
- tyingq 5y agoIt's not a good faith premise since the whole of the USA population isn't in a similar situation currently. If it were, then I would expect at least 100k, yes.
- 5y ago
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago> 48 of 130,000 amounts to 0.037% being involved in terrorist activities which seems very low to be used as justification for a law around security. ... and yet, we have laws that cut basic human rights because of the similar percentage of people dying from it.