Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Jewish women can't volunteer at night - to avoid 'contact with Arabs'

The Israeli government succumbs to pressure by racist and anti-miscegenation organizations, banning Jewish women from volunteering in hospitals at night, when they might be more likely to encounter Arab workers and doctors.

Young Israeli women volunteering at hospitals in Israel as part of their national service (an alternative to serving in the Israel Defense Forces) will no longer be allowed to do night shifts in order to avoid any contact with Arabs, Channel 10 reported Wednesday (Hebrew).

The director of Israel’s National Service Administration, Sar-Shalom Jerbi, issued a directive two weeks ago banning any volunteer shifts past 9:00 p.m.: “We reached the decision based on concern for our volunteers, and Minister [Naftali] Bennett gave his blessing.”

According to the report, the decision was made following a pressure campaign waged by religious Zionist rabbis, among them notorious Kiryat Arba Rabbi Dov Lior (arrested in 2011 for incitement against Arabs and for legitimizing the killing of non-Jews in war time) and the radical Israeli anti-miscegenation organization Lehava. They began the campaign over the last year after hearing reports of “intimate relations” between some of the Palestinian-Arab doctors and the Israeli Jewish volunteers.

The decision was not sharp enough for Lehava, however, according to a statement issued by its director: “Unfortunately, this is too narrow and too late a step. National service should be terminated anywhere there are goyim [non-Jews].”

Just last month, I reported on another anti-miscegenation religious organization Yad La’achim, who is collecting IDs of Jewish Israeli girls who are found socializing with Arabs.

Related:
IDF soldier passes IDs of Jewish girls who socialize with Arabs to anti-assimilation NGO
Poster calls on Arab men to stay out of Jerusalem, away from Jewish girls 

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. The Trespasser

      Since only Arab men are allowed to mate with Jewish women and not vice versa, what author calls “miscegenation” is a kind of genocide.

      Until Arab society remains primitive and hostile, there is no reason to treat them as equal human beings.

      Reply to Comment
      • Carl Too

        As a combination of stupidity and bigotry, that comment is truly ground-breaking for this site.

        Keep plumbing the depths.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          The fact that your mind is too weak to comprehend anything more complicated than McDonald’s menu does not actually make your opinion valid or worthy.

          Reply to Comment
          • Carl Too

            Fair point.

            I’ll take my weak mind and ponder how an Arab man can ‘mate’ with a Jewish woman without ‘vice versa’ happening.

            No, no I’m just not getting it.

            Going to be a long night this one … .. .

            Reply to Comment
          • Bobby

            He’s just a shill who’s here to troll and distract. Just ignore him.

            Reply to Comment
          • SH

            If he’s Hasbara they really need to be a little more selective with their hiring process…

            Reply to Comment
      • Joe Smack

        This comment sums up Israel’s genocidal, colonial mentality in a few sentences.

        When Israel attacks, subjugates, and pathologizes Arab men, it claims “self-defense,” arguing that even harmless, consensual relationships are some kind of “genocidal” move. It then spits on its victims, arguing that the society that is being targeted — rather than the one that is doing the targeting — is constituted of barbarism.

        If Arab society is “hostile” (anyone who has lived in an Arab society knows that is absurd), it’s unsurprising why. They are the ones being subjugated, not vice versa. They, like any society being colonized, have every reason to keep their culture intact when it is being broken and ripped apart by foreign settlers. And one way to rip them apart is by pathologizing men, even when they take part in CONSENSUAL relationships!

        Reply to Comment
    2. Since only Arab men are allowed to mate with Jewish women and not vice versa, what author calls “miscegenation” is a kind of genocide.

      Genocide? Oh please… racism is at the root of the problem! Let’s start there.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has the following definition of genocide: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; … imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;…”
        http://www.un-documents.net/cppcg.htm

        Two real-life facts:
        1) Wide Palestinan society perceives Zionists only as temporary occupants of the Holy Land of Palestine

        2) Arab males freely allow themselves to Jewish girls, while Arab girls who would like date Jewish boys face imminent death by hand of their male relatives – fathers and brothers.

        Obviously, “measures intended to prevent births within a group” by the means of reducing number of fertile females are imposed.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joe Smack

          Trespasser must be thinking of ISRAEL’S GENOCIDAL ACTIONS against Ethiopian migrant women: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/did-israel-violate-genocide-convention-forcing-contraceptives-ethiopian-women

          ^^^That is what “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” looks like.

          On the other hand, Arab doctors dating Jewish nurses is consensual. Evenn granting this bizarre belief about Arab men preventing their daughters from dating Jews, a consensual relationship is not an “imposition” to control or reduce birth rate, as those who participate in them are free to make their own choices who to date. To compare consensual relationships with genocide is a way to spit on the victims of actual genocide.

          It’s also worth noting that this comparison between consensual, interracial relationships and “genocide” is a hallmark of Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups that make similar arguments that the white race is being subjected to genocide.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Evenn granting this bizarre belief about Arab men preventing their daughters from dating Jews

            This is not a “bizarre belief”, silly. This is grim reality. I understand that you just can’t believe in it, due to many reasons, but whether you believe it or not is of no consequence whatsoever.

            Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          “Obviously, “measures intended to prevent births within a group” by the means of reducing number of fertile females are imposed.”

          It seems kind of, I dunno, retarded to call this genocide if the woman wants to be in the relationship. What you’re implying here is that Jewish women have a duty to make Jewish children and by dating Arabs they are taking part in genocide against themselves. And committing treason against the Jewish people for good measure.

          People have the right to do what they damn well please and they don’t owe any allegiance to your hive mentality.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >People have the right to do what they damn well please and they don’t owe any allegiance to your hive mentality.

            A strange kind of doublethink you have.

            At one hand, Jewish women have a right to do as they please and can mate with Arab men, at other hand, Arab men have a right to do as they please and can prevent their female relatives from mating with non-Arab men. “Leftist” mentality in a nutshell.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joe Smack

            “Arab men” didn’t pass this racist law, stop changing the subject.

            You’re spitting on the victims of genocide just like you’re spitting on Israel’s Arab victims.

            Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          By the way, here’s some quotes from the Israeli Law of Return:

          “The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion. (…)

          “4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”

          According to Israeli law, the child of intermarriage with a Jewish father would be a “child of a Jew” as opposed to “Jewish”.

          So in fact, under your twisted definition, a Jewish man who has children with a gentile is still committing genocide. What you’re actually doing here is inciting genocide against the children of Jewish-Palestinian intermarriage, especially by calling one of their parents savages.

          Reply to Comment
    3. XYZ

      In Anat Berko’s book about suicide bombers, she interviewed a Palestinian girl who was forced to become a suicide bomber but who chickened out at the last moment and was arrested. She was coerced into it because she was hanging out with Shabab boys (young people involved in violence against Israel), which is forbidden in Arab/Muslim society. When they told her she was chosen to be a suicide bomber, she refused. They then told her that if she did refuse, they would tell her father that she was hanging out with boys and he would kill her, for shaming the family honor. (“B’Derech l’Gan Eden”, p.23-25).

      This piece is yet another example of attempts by “progressives” to blacken Israel’s reputation by claiming that Israel is a uniquely racist country, not fit for company of civilized countries. Add to this the distortion caused by claiming that this is an anti-Arab action, whereas National Service girls are strongly discouraged from consorting with ANY men, including Jews, before marriage, so it is FALSE to claim that this is specifically a “racist” decision.
      We see that Palestinians have the very same kind of rules, yet I see no complaints about that here. The “progressives” think the Palestinians can do no wrong, even if their mores and culture are even more restrictive that that of Israelis which Meirav is complaining about.

      Reply to Comment
      • The issue is that Israel tries to sell itself as a haven of equality and rights for all. It’s not, and when this is pointed out, people do not react by attempting to fix the problem – instead they defensively resort to, “But other people do it too.” The other issue is that the policies described in this article and being expressly sanctioned by a government official. This is not just a case of individual people being misogynistic and racist. Secondly, Lehava isn’t working to prevent to unmarried women from coming into contact with men generally, even though they might dislike the idea – it’s a specific kind of man that they pour their energy into objecting to, on racial grounds. There is a definite racist element in the misogyny here.

        I seriously doubt that anybody involved in feminist activism would claim that this is a problem unique to Israel. In England and Wales alone, two women are killed every week by male partners. Every week. I used to work in a domestic violence refuge in England, a secret address, and women were often brought to us by the police in a terrible state. Inevitably the cause of the beatings and abuse would be the partner/spouse’s controlling and jealous behaviour – the woman spoke to someone she ‘shouldn’t’ have spoken to, she had too many male friends, etc. Attempts to control women aren’t specific to any one place and feminist activists generally spend a lot of time trying to convince people of the global nature of this problem, only to get knocked back by men who want to treat misogyny as the preserve of other countries and cultures.

        If you want to see what women’s rights activism across the region looks like and exactly how it is related to anti-occupation work, I suggest you look at what Coalition of Women for Peace are doing rather than relying on the writing of Anat Berko, who has recently been arguing that there is some sort of Muslim immigrant conspiracy to control Europe (which as racist canards go sounds horribly familiar). It is concerning that men are prepared to accept an Israeli lieutenant-colonel as an authority on Palestinian women’s lives, but probably would not be able to name one single Palestinian women’s rights activist, and have almost certainly never read anything by a Palestinian woman on this topic. Can you? Have you? Doing so would let you find out more about the fight against male violence. It would also show that Palestinian society is every bit as complex as Israeli society in its gender relations – there are people who don’t even want to sit next to someone of the opposite sex on the bus, just like certain religious Jews; and at the same time the cafes near Bethlehem University are full of students of both genders and both faiths who socialise together. I’m also not planning to erect a mechitza or purdah curtain at my youth group any time soon, and parents are still happy to send their teenagers here without seeing it as some hotbed of immorality.

        P.S. ‘Shabab’ is just a word for youth/young men. It doesn’t mean young men involved in anything.

        Reply to Comment
      • “National Service girls are strongly discouraged from consorting with ANY men, including Jews, before marriage, so it is FALSE to claim that this is specifically a “racist” decision.” : If it’s not illegal, what women do in their off hours is no business of the State.

        “Consorting?” Consort: “to spend a lot of time in the company of a particular group of people, especially people whose character is not approved of” (Cambridge online dictionary). Women are not supposed to spend time with male Jews either because these too have “character(s) not approved of?” I don’t think so.

        Reply to Comment
    4. JewLover

      *Disgust followed by some Godwin victims becoming the criminals comment I can’t be bothered to be creative about*

      Reply to Comment
    5. Since 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and, I presume, Arab doctors working in hospitals are also mostly Israeli citizens, absent distinct evidence of violence against women volunteers at night, this ban constitutes State interference in intimate association through violation of the equal protection of the laws. If the hospitals can use the volunteer service at night, absent a threat of violence, this should be controlling.

      As reported, this ban puts to rest any charge that Zonszeins’s earlier report on similar interference by a boarder guard at a checkpoint was a fluke.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Trespasser in offering a definition of genocide said: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; … imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;…”

      This definition will work if you are referring to Israel’s continuation of the aims of al-Nakba – namely the commission of ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people.

      Not just Palestinians either, it seems Jewish Israelis of the wrong color also get targeted by “measures intended to prevent births within the group” – as with the use of depo provera injections to slow the birth rate of Ethiopian immigrant women.

      Yes your genocide definition can be applied to all of the above, but if you are trying to use this definition to apply to Ms Zonszein’s coverage of contacts between Jewish women and Palestinian men then you are not only out on a limb but off it completely.

      The Jews (from many quarters) are a great people with an enormously rich heritage. When I see this narrow and racist exclusivity it makes me fear that Zionism is destroying the efficacy of what it means to be Jewish in the most intrinsic sense. In this age this includes a less insular approach, certainly when one considers the cultural life of Jews in N. America. Their greater openess hasn’t taken away from their Jewish identity but rather it has enhanced it. The intolerance when you find it rarely has to do with Jewishness per se but rather with those who have hardline Zionist allegiances.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        I am happy to focus on part of your post.

        There is a lot of confusion in my country about the difference between being Jewish and being Zionist. Most people I know are against Zionism, because we see its tenets being implemented by the government of Israel and we’re appalled. And we see Israel insisting on calling itself The Jewish State, implying to us its values are Jewish values inseparably and exclusively.

        But Jews existed before Zionism and some refute Zionism. Rather confusing. Which values are at work with this government decree about hospital workers?

        Reply to Comment
    7. The Trespasser

      1) This definition is not mine.
      2) I’m applying this definition not to Ms. Zonszein’s coverage but to the real-life situation.

      Obviously, you are not living in Israel, don’t know shit about the situation and thus you are not capable of having any remotely legit opinion on the situation.

      Comparison to USA Jews only proves that.

      I’ll explain once again, for the brightest:

      In USA, Jewish girls can date non-Jewish boys, and Jewish boys can date non-Jewish girls.

      In Palestine, Jewish girls can date Arab boys, while Arab girls are prohibited from dating Jewish boys.

      The intolerance is normally found in Arab societies. Ask Syrians.

      Reply to Comment
      • Joe Smack

        I get the argument. You’re saying that if Jewish women can date Arab men, then they would have nominally non-Jewish children, but Jewish men cannot (allegedly) date Arab women, who would have nominally Jewish children. Basically, according to you, the male of the family determines the ethnicity of the child (which is weird, considering most of the world would see these children as biracial).

        Either way, as I pointed out for you, an actual example of violating the genocide convention you mentioned would be Israel pumping refugee women with birth control/depo provera to prevent them from having children.

        The thing you’re talking about isn’t genocide because the definition does not suggest that ANYTHING that lowers birth rate is an act of genocide. It has to be a measure that is imposed (like giving people birth control without their consent, or sterilizing them, or shoving them in concentration camps).

        Jewish women dating Arab men — or, for that matter, not dating anyone at all — is a consensual choice, not an imposed measure. So even if, given the circumstances you described, it results in a lower birth rate, it would be a lower birth rate by consent (in this case), not by “genocide”.

        Reply to Comment
      • Joe Smack

        Also, ignoring the fact that there are many interethnic relationships between Jewish men and Arab women, the reason for this is not “Arab intolerance” — that is your own intolerance against Arabs and your desire to see even consensual relationships with Arabs as pathological. That is YOUR intolerance.

        If there is a reason for less relationships between Arab women and Jewish men, it is not due to being Arab, it is a matter of resisting colonialism. You’ve reversed reality, for it is ISRAEL that is imposing measures to restrict not only birth, but life in general for the communities it is targeting. Arab fathers and sons trying to prevent the restructuring of age-old familial relations centered around women is not “Arab intolerance,” it is the resistance any culture seeks when a foreign culture is being imposed on them without their consent (i.e. colonialism).

        But as I already pointed out, consensual relationships like the ones described in the article cannot reasonably be seen as an “imposed measure,” the fact that by your definition, they lower Jewish birthrates, is not an imposed measure and ergo not genocidal.

        It’s also worth noting that while Arab societies, like most societies that have been attacked, restructured, subjected to arbitrary borders, foreign occupation, and sectarian political systems crafted by the French and British, they remain astonishingly open, especially in Palestine. It is states like Israel that seek to impose these kinds of blatantly racist measures while their most zealous supporters — like you — pull the race card to defend racism.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          Blah blah blah …

          A long and convoluted ideological double talk to justify the unjustifiable. It boils down to this:

          What is ok for Arabs to do it isn’t ok for Jews to do.

          Reply to Comment
          • Joe Smack

            I didn’t say ANYTHING like that. The fact is, “Arabs” didn’t pass a law preventing consensual inter-ethnic relations, ISRAEL did that.

            But the point is simple, if that is happening in Arab society it is not because it is an Arab society, it is something that happens in every society that is colonized, whether you agree with it or not. Your racist friend was trying to suggest it was an example of Arab backwardness. It ain’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Jews didn’t pass such a law either.

            Now read the article and try to comprehend that no such LAW was passed. A particular group of people decided to implement this practice.

            Again, you are quick to condemn Jews and even quicker to excuse Arabs for the same action. Could it be because of your inherent hatred of Jews? You do know that would make YOU a racist?

            Reply to Comment
    8. Shmuel

      @Trespasser

      I am not sure whether they are too thick or whether they just don’t want to get it. Either way, what you say, makes perfect sense and is crystal clear. They see a speck in Israel’s eyes but they don’t see a log in the eyes of Palestinian Arabs.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        It seems to me that these fellas simply can not accept the fact that their beloved Arabs actually are bloodthirsty savages, who would rather kill their daughter or sister than let her mate with a Jew.

        The cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear and might cause irreversible damage.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joe Smack

          “Arabs actually are bloodthirsty savages”

          Tell me more about “Arab intolerance”.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            911? OSS Cole? The murder of the Libyan embassy staff?
            Syria? Lebanon? Egypt? Yemen?

            You want more?

            Reply to Comment
          • Joe Smack

            Typical of every genocidal lunatic, Shmuel and Trespasser list of crimes committed by Arab and suggest that it’s because they’re Arab — not say, because of their political views, their religious extremism, the presence of instability, political conflict, etc.

            When Arabs do anything, it’s because they are Arab and therefore they need to all be restricted and squashed.

            Like Hitler reincarnated as a Jew.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Typical of every genocidal lunatic, Shmuel and Trespasser list of crimes committed by Arab and suggest that it’s because they’re Arab — not say, because of their political views, their religious extremism, the presence of instability, political conflict, etc.

            Yeah. More or less. A western man would not easily grasp the idea that there are some people who act not due to their own free will but because their primitive society demands so.

            >When Arabs do anything, it’s because they are Arab and therefore they need to all be restricted and squashed.

            When Arabs do anything, most of the time it is because the primitive, tribal and intolerant Arab culture demands or allows to do so. Unless, of course, you are going to claim that marriage of 9 years old girls in Yemen and Gaza are acts of separate paedophiles and are not endorsed by the wide society.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joe Smack

            More exaggerations and conspiracy theories from these colonial bootlickers. The 9-year-old brides in Gaza is a complete fraud:

            http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp

            In any case, child marriage is a sad reality all over the world. Trying to pin it on a culture is your own doing, it comes with the territory of every colonial imposition — cherry-picking whatever terrible things you find and blaming a culture for it.

            In any case, you’re the one defending racist laws, spitting on the victims of genocide by comparing their deaths to consensual interracial relationships, and whitewashing Israel’s ethnic cleansing. That makes YOU a vile savage, not your victims.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Hey, you asked us to give you examples. We obliged. Stop complaining.

            Oh and talking about racists, you ARE one because you complain about Jews but excuse Arabs for doing the same thing. That is discrimination based on ethnicity which is a racist act.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carl Too

            I’d like more question marks and nouns please.

            I’m free all weekend.

            Thanks in advance.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            Say pleeeeezee then. Didn’t your mummy teach you manners?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            Ban of Saudi women to drive cars? Oppression of Copts in Egypt? Marriage of 9 y.o. girsl in Yemen, Gaza and elsewhere? “Honour killing” of wome dating wrong men?

            Reply to Comment
          • Carl Too

            The gift that keeps on giving. Much obliged to you.

            I’ve put some more keys for your keyboard in the mail. Remember they’ll need pressing hard.

            Now where was I. Oh, something about life and gross racism wasn’t it. Seems I got distracted somehow.

            Reply to Comment
          • JohnW

            “Now where was I”

            Dunno, you tell us. While you are at it you might also check whether you know your left hand from your right hand.
            :)

            Reply to Comment
    9. The Trespasser

      >Also, ignoring the fact that there are many interethnic relationships between Jewish men and Arab women

      Dude, you just have not even slightest idea of what you are talking about.

      There are VERY FEW, probably could be counted by toes on your left food, cases where Arab women dated Jewish men and not ended up with their throat slit.

      >If there is a reason for less relationships between Arab women and Jewish men, it is not due to being Arab, it is a matter of resisting colonialism.

      I strongly suggest that you go and bang your head on the concrete or brick wall, hoping that your skull will break and some wit had a chance to get inside.

      “Sharif Kanaana, professor of anthropology at Birzeit University, says that honor killing is:

      A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What’s behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power.[18]”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

      “In 2005 Der Spiegel reported: “In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been killed by family members”.”

      Apparently, Muslims in Germany are resisting colonialism too.

      To tell the truth, I envy you – it is so convenient to be a good-willing ignorant idiot…

      Reply to Comment
      • Joe Smack

        I think I get it. If ANYONE who is Arab does anything, it’s because he is an Arab — not because of any of the other million factors that can shape a person’s actions.

        When Israel does blatantly racist measures, like restricting consensual relationships, it is some kind of bizarre defense against “genocide,” meaning no longer having some kind of fascistic racial purity.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >I think I get it. If ANYONE who is Arab does anything, it’s because he is an Arab — not because of any of the other million factors that can shape a person’s actions.

          You almost got it.
          You see, MOST of these millions of factors which shape a person’s actions, in primitive, tribal societies, are, basically, said tribe’s traditions.

          An Arab would kill his daughter/sister who is dating a Jew not because he is an evil men, but because the rest of the society would think that the male family members have no honour.

          It is not Arab men who is vile, it is Arab culture which is primitive and intolerant.

          Reply to Comment
          • Joe Smack

            As usual, when Arab men do something, it is because they are Arab, right? It’s not like non-Arab men ever beat or kill their wives and daughters? It’s not like there is violence against women in any other culture, is there?

            Again, your post seems pretty clear: that if Palestinians are rejecting Jewish men, it is because their society is under occupation. They are preventing the destruction of their society and the breakdown of its relations, which are centered around women. Read some Fanon.

            Israel, by contrast, is passing LAWS to restrict consenting relationships based on race. It is a colonial power, and its women (and men) are granted enough freedom to steal from others, but apparently not to fraternize with the target population that they seek to wipe out.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “As usual, when Arab men do something, it is because they are Arab, right?”

            As usual when Jews do something it is because they are Jews, right?

            “Again, your post seems pretty clear: that if Palestinians are rejecting Jewish men, it is because their society is under occupation. They are preventing the destruction of their society and the breakdown of its relations, which are centered around women. Read some Fanon.”

            Ditto for Jews the other way around. Occupation has nothing to do with it.

            “Israel, by contrast, is passing LAWS to restrict consenting relationships based on race.”

            Israel has no laws restricting relationships based on race. At least no more than Arabs do.

            “It is a colonial power, and its women (and men) are granted enough freedom to steal from others, but apparently not to fraternize with the target population that they seek to wipe out.”

            Don’t lecture us about wiping people out. Nor are Arabs innocent babes in the wood when it comes to colonising and wiping people out. Just look at their history. They taught the rest of us how it is done and we still have a lot of catching up to do if we want to.

            Reply to Comment
      • Joe Smack

        That makes YOU vile & genocidal, trying to degrade, destroy, and incite against an entire culture.

        You already cherry-picked crimes Arabs have committed and blamed their culture for it, you are like every Neo-Nazi in the United States.

        Reply to Comment
        • JohnW

          LOL. Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
          :)

          Reply to Comment
    10. Joe Smack

      Listen buddy, you told me that consensual relationships between Jews and Arabs are “genocide,” because they might lower the Jewish birth-rate. That is the kind of person you are.

      So whatever the reason for Arabs trying to keep their traditions intact, you are the one defending racism by playing the victim. Well guess what, most of the world is tired of that bullshit.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Listen buddy, you told me that consensual relationships between Jews and Arabs are “genocide,” because they might lower the Jewish birth-rate. That is the kind of person you are.

        You had just made it up. I’m only saying that Arabs have no more rights than Jews. If Arabs can disallow their female relatives from dating with Jewish men, an act of racism, genocide and apartheid, than it is only natural that Jews would apply similar restrictions.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joe Smack

          LOLOLOL look at you backtracking you bootlicking troll. You just spent 4 or 5 pathetic posts trying to fit inter-racial relationships under the definition of “genocide”, your first post is about how miscegenation is genocide.

          You ACTUALLY believe that consensual relationships between races are a form of genocide. That is the kind of disrespect that you have for everyone who died at Auschwitz — you would compare their deaths to Jewish girls dating Arab boys.

          As far as Arab fathers go, virtually everything you’ve said is just an old colonial trope about how Arab men are this that and the next thing, from pedophiles to savages etc etc etc. I dare you to find one shred of evidence that Arab society rejects Jewish grooms just for being Jewish. There is another, much better reason they have: to try to keep their traditions intact when Israel tries to destroy them. They have traditional marriage and romance that is different from Europe, and it involves the entire family. This is fairly common in much of the world — and it centers around women.

          Reply to Comment
    11. David

      I thin Trespasser et al need to need the convention again, slowly. It says ” imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.

      The convention does not say that the births must result in children who identity with a particular cultural or ethnic group. It only says you can’t prevent a given ethnic group from having babies. Over here in the States, the most common reason to marry a person is to make babies with him/her. Do you do it differently over there?

      Furthermore, if you look at Article II section d of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid you will find prohibition of interracial marriage expressly mentioned. The same can be found in Article 5 Section iv of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

      In short, your assertion that preventing interracial relationships is part of the UN convention on Genocide is baseless. It also violates other significant sections of international law.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >I thin Trespasser et al need to need the convention again, slowly. It says ” imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.

        Yes. Measures intended to prevent births within the group. Reduction of available fertile females is an act of genocide.

        >The convention does not say that the births must result in children who identity with a particular cultural or ethnic group.

        As a matter of fact, it does. Children born to Muslim or Christian Arab fathers and Jewish mothers are considered Arabs, not Jews.

        >It only says you can’t prevent a given ethnic group from having babies.

        An act of diminishing the number of females who would produce Jewish babies actually is the prevention of said group from having babies.

        >Over here in the States, the most common reason to marry a person is to make babies with him/her. Do you do it differently over there?

        Over here, an average Arab girl can not date/marry an average Jewish man without fear of persecution and imminent death.

        >Furthermore, if you look at Article II section d of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid you will find prohibition of interracial marriage expressly mentioned. The same can be found in Article 5 Section iv of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

        Yeah. Meaning that Arab males who disallow their female relatives to marry Jewish men are in violation of said articles are are guilty of acts of Apartheid and Racial Discrimination.

        >In short, your assertion that preventing interracial relationships is part of the UN convention on Genocide is baseless. It also violates other significant sections of international law.

        In short, you had just proven that my assertion is in accord not only with the Genocide convention but also conventions you had mentioned.

        Reply to Comment
        • David

          ….

          Ok, apparently we are having a reading comprehension problem. When it says ‘births within a group’ it does NOT mean that the births must take place within the group. It means you are not allowed to try to decrease the number of babies people of any group have regardless of the ethnic identity of those children. Having bi-racial babies is not genocide in any remotely rational universe. Take it from an IR major in US school who has taken several classes in international law. If you actually said that in an IR 101 classroom your professor wouldn’t stop laughing for a week! Of course if you put it in a paper you’d just get a failing grade.

          Also, last time I checked, Jewishness passes through the mother, not the father. Of course, it is the other way around in Islam, so somebody with a Jewish mother and Arab father should be both fully Jewish and fully Muslim. Of course, in that case somebody with a Jewish father and Muslim mother is neither, which just goes to show how stupid the whole thing is to start off with.

          And even in the unlikely case your racist rambling about Arabs is accurate, it is legally impossible for a person to be in violation of either treaty. International treaties by definition only apply to states. If the State of Israel takes official action to prohibit or, arguably in light of Article 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, even discourage interracial relationships it can be said to be in violation. To hold ‘Arabs’ collectively responsible for a treaty violation is simply a non sequitur, it has no basis in law or common sense.

          Reply to Comment
          • Carl Too

            David, just read the posts as if they’re some form of weird, racist haikus. You can observe them from a safe distance, pass them over, and then type without feeling the need to wash your eyes first.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Yes, I have read the posts. The racist ones are the ones that say:

            Muslim Arabs are allowed to prevent their women from having relations with non Muslims but Jews are not.

            That is excusing the actions of one ethnic group while at the same time condemning another ethnic group for doing the same thing. A case of advocating discrimination based on ethnicity which is racism.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Muslim Arabs are allowed to prevent their women from having relations with non Muslims but Jews are not.”

            This is racist as all hell. And of course no one here said it. You’re imagining we said it because you and T don’t have an argument.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            You guys said it alright. Go back and read the excuses of Joe Smack for Palestinians. Your denial won’t make it go away. It is all there in black and white.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            It’s not even a coherent accusation. If you’re in favor of one group preventing intermarriage, you’re against intermarriage, period. Try thinking sometime… it might feel funny at first but you’ll get used to it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “If you’re in favor of one group preventing intermarriage, you’re against intermarriage, period”

            Where exactly did you see me say that? Moron? Or are you just obfuscating and muddying the waters?

            Now, read my lips: I am against one group being smeared while at the same time excusing the other group for doing the very same thing even more so. Which bit of that is inconvenient for you?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Oh my God. Replace “you” with “someone” then.

            Reply to Comment
    12. Joe Smack

      For the FOURTH TIME, consensual relationships aren’t “imposing measures,” it’s up to the woman involved to decide if she wants kids at all, and with whom. No genocide.

      On the other hand, Israel stopping Palestinian ambulances and forcing Palestinian mothers to give birth at checkpoints, Israel doping African refugees with birth control without their consent, THOSE violate the genocide convention.

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >For the FOURTH TIME, consensual relationships aren’t “imposing measures,” it’s up to the woman involved to decide if she wants kids at all, and with whom. No genocide.

        For the umpteenth time, consensual relationships aren’t “imposing measures”, prohibition for Arab girls to mate with Jewish boys is.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joe Smack

          Backtracking again! Your first post suggested that race-mixing was a form of genocide, you’re just changing the subject to something you allege Arabs do.

          In any case, brothers and dads mistreating their daughters is not the same as a literal LAW set in stone to restrict interethnic relations.

          Reply to Comment
        • David

          Actually, preventing Palestinian mothers from going to hospitals is not genocide anymore than marrying outside your ethnic/racial/yadayada group. It doesn’t kill anyone nor prevent them from giving birth.

          It is probably a war crime under Article 56 of the 4th Geneva Convention, particularly the last sentence of paragraph 1, in which the free movement of medical personnel is explicitly guaranteed including ambulence drivers regardless of whether they are formally associated with a hospital as per the additional protocols of 1958.

          War crimes are not genocide however, and if you want to use the language of international law accurately, you will have the distinguish the two.

          And as for the The Trespasser et al., in addition to sounding remarkably like the authors of the KKK and Nazi literature I’ve had the misfortune of reading, you are missing that in terms of international law, the state has obligations, not individuals. If particular Arabs are trying to kill people, it is the responsibility of Israeli law enforcement to prevent that. If the Israeli state is taking measures to prevent interracial relationships it is in violation of international law and no amount of absurdity vis a via the Genocide convention can change that. It is simply not possible for “Arabs” to be collectively guilty of anything in international law. Racial guilt is not a category recognized in any element of international law I am aware of.

          Reply to Comment
    13. Joe Smack

      Just like the Nazis did with Jews, these guys will exaggerate or fabricate things Arabs have done — in any corner of the world — and blame their “Arabness” for it.

      Like finding corrupt Jewish people or traditions here or there, and then alleging a Jewish conspiracy.

      Reply to Comment
      • Benji

        Takes one to know one Joe.

        You make excuses for Arabs but when people try to use the same logic with regards to Jews, you generalise.

        Reply to Comment
    14. Joe Smack

      “As usual when Jews do something it is because they are Jews, right?”

      NO, THAT WAS YOU who said this about Arabs. I would never blame Israel’s racist colonialism on Jewishness or Jewish culture.

      “Ditto for Jews the other way around”

      Jews/Israel are not under occupation or colonialism, and either way, we’re talking about a law passed to restrict race-mixing, you’re ranting on and on about some kind of social/cultural issue.

      ISRAEL PASSED A RACIST LAW, not “Arab fathers”.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “NO, THAT WAS YOU who said this about Arabs.”

        Where exactly did I say what about Arabs? You asked me for examples of Arab acts of inhumanity and I listed a few. If you ask me for more, I can list some more.

        I only gave you what you asked for.

        “I would never blame Israel’s racist colonialism on Jewishness or Jewish culture.”

        That’s nice of you. Do you feel good about yourself now? But you substitute the word Israel for Jews and blame ALL Israelis. That still makes you a racist.

        “Jews/Israel are not under occupation or colonialism”

        So what? Palestinians were not under occupation before 1967 and they still restricted their women from consorting with non Muslims. Ditto in 1948. Ditto 100 years ago. Like I said, occupation has nothing to do with their cultural practices.

        “and either way, we’re talking about a law passed to restrict race-mixing”

        No we are not. There is no such law in Israel. Something that hospital management decided to enact is NOT Israeli law.

        “you’re ranting on and on about some kind of social/cultural issue.”

        Yes, and you are ranting about what some Israeli Jews do. I bet you there is more intermarriage between Israelis and Jews in general than between Arab women and non Arab men.

        Reply to Comment
        • David

          Actually, if you read the article you will see it is a regulation enacted by the National Service for people performing their, well, national service. While not technically a ‘law’ in the strict meaning of the word here in the US, it is most certainly a government regulation and most certainly the responsibility of the Israeli government, not a private ‘hospital administration’ over which the government has no authority.

          I could look up the relevant language in the relevant treaties as to what a state’s obligations are related to such directives, but I get the feeling nobody is actually seeking knowledge so much as venting their prejudices, so I won’t waste my time.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “Actually, if you read the article you will see it is a regulation enacted”

            Thank you for helping prove what I said. A regulation is NOT A LAW.

            Now show me a law that prohibits intermarriage in Israel.

            You won’t be able to. According to Israeli law, any valid marriage certificate from other countries, between Jews and non Jews is recognised by Israeli law. Moreover, marriages between non Jews and Jews can take place in Israel too as long as the non Jewish party converts.

            Having said that, Israel does not encourage internarriage. One might dislike that but to use a similar argument that Joe Smack used to excuse Palestinian cultural habits, one can argue that as a small country which gathered in a significant proportion of the Jewish people who survived generations of persecution, Israel has a policy of trying to maintain Israel’s Jewish character.

            Personally, I don’t agree with that policy but if people are so willing to make excuses for similar Palestinian practices which are practiced even more agressively, they SHOULD at least understand Israel’s position too.

            Reply to Comment
          • David

            Well, your statement that a regulation is not a law is literally accurate in the strictest sense. Fortunately, the lawyers who write international law are also aware of this and have closed that particular loophole. Article 2 section b of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that

            “(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists”

            Note regulations are included. Also note Israel is a State Party to this Convention.

            Laws or regulations against interracial marriage are explicitly defined as racial discrimination for purposes of Article 2 in Article 5 Section d Paragraph iv of the same document.

            As for proof Israel bans “interracial” marriages, perhaps you didn’t read your own post. I admit I’ve posted things with some embarrassing typos before because I failed to do that.

            ” marriages between non Jews and Jews can take place in Israel too as long as the non Jewish party converts.”

            As long as both parties are Jews, Jews can marry non-Jews. That’s quite the paradox you have going there. :)

            Your only case in international law is that Judaism is a religion, not a race. There is no convention prohibiting bans on inter-religious marriage AFAIK.

            While it doesn’t have to positively encourage it, if Israel takes steps is discourage intermarriage it is in violation of international law. This article appears to show it is discouraging it.

            As you may notice from the language, only State Parties can be in violation of international law. Arabs living in Israel cannot possibly be in violation of the treaty anymore than Israeli Jews can, for that matter. The party legally responsible for violations is the State of Israel as a corporate body, not any ethnic group. You may have defined Israel in your mind as the representative of Judaism, but in international law that’s not how it works.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “As long as both parties are Jews, Jews can marry non-Jews. That’s quite the paradox”

            Funnily enough you are wrong on that score too because Israel also recognises marriages between non Jews and Jews if the Jewish partner converts to the religion of the other party.

            As for your attempts to be funny by using word plays about Jews marrying Jews, you are not as funny as you think because Jews are a people too (as in a nation) not just a religion. So yes, a non Jewish person can convert to Judaism and still be of non Jewish background. I don’t even know why I bother responding to such petty argument but there it is anyway.

            Reply to Comment
          • The State is interfering with the intimate association of its citizens beyond the workplace on the basis of race. Religion is not at issue, since the ban does not differentiate between practicing (of some kind) and secular women. The ban is a (somewhat weak) form of apartheid separation among Israeli citizens, and as well violates the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

            It makes no difference what Palestinian men do or do not do elsewhere. The State may not use this tool itself. Reciprocity among abstract racial entities has no place in jurisprudence. Perhaps the treaty you evoke could alter the outcome; Israel used to have a rather generalized standing of petition, although that is being retarded now too.

            Reply to Comment
    15. Shmuel

      “Arabs living in Israel cannot possibly be in violation of the treaty”

      No but they can be condemned for doing the same thing that you condemn Jews for. Especially since the Arabs are even more agressive about preventing their women from marrying non Muslims.

      As for your comment about Israeli law, I stand by what I said. There is NO ISRAELI LAW to prevent intermarriage. What is my evidence? There are lots of Jewish Israelis who are married to non Jewish Israelis. I know many of them. I even have a family member who is married to a non Jewish person. How many Arab Muslim women do you know who are married to non Arab non Muslim men?

      Reply to Comment
      • David

        I am well aware Israel does not prohibit all relationships between Jews and non-Jews but as you mentioned within Israel people must be Jewish in at least some sense to be allowed to marry a Jew. It is not enough to allow some relationships or those performed overseas to go through. Prohibition of any marriage based on race is illegal, as are measures expressly designed to reduce or discourage them. Allowing it only under certain circumstances is still not enough.

        Since you ask, I personally have known 3 Muslim women married to non-Muslim men, though only 2 were Arab.

        I never condemned Jews, I stated that the State of Israel is in violations of particular aspects of a treaty, naming them explicitly and explaining why to the best of my ability. I in fact went out of my way to say that Israel is not the same thing as Jews as per international law.

        However, I have to say here in a sheltered US college I’ve never heard people talk as much like the KKK leaders whose literature I’ve read as you and your associates here. Replace “Arab” with “black” and the two are in all essentials identical. Replace Arab with Jew and it fits nicely into Nazi tropes. Thank you, it is truly a valuable insight into the state of the Israeli right.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          Oh and here is the most important thing.

          Whatever their background is, the three Muslim women whom you mentioned, live in America (presumably?). Try and find out what would be their fate if they tried to do the same thing say in Gaza or Even in the West Bank.

          And another thing. Please find out what would happen to Muslim Arab wonen living in a Muslim Arab society who would change their religion from Islam to say Judaism or Christianity in order to marry Jewish or Christian partners. I tell you, they would have a very low life expectancy indeed.

          Now tell me: How do you feel about that?

          Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        ” but as you mentioned within Israel people must be Jewish in at least some sense to be allowed to marry a Jew.”

        Stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned any such thing. Read my last post again. I said that if an Israeli Jewish person decides to change his religion to the religion of his prospective partner (who is non Jewish) and then marries in a religious ceremony according to the new religion, the marriage is recognised under Israeli law.

        “Since you ask, I personally have known 3 Muslim women married to non-Muslim men, though only 2 were Arab.”

        Now tell the whole story, not just part of it.

        Either the non Muslim men converted to Islam before the marriage took place or the women were estranged from their families. Or, the families of the women were liberalised and non practicing Muslims. Right?

        Last but not least. Please tell me which bit of my language that I used about Arabs didn’t you like? The fact that I dared to be critical of Arab/Muslim anti-miscegenation as you lot are about the Israeli side? If so, that is more your problem than mine. In fact I will continue to be critical of you lot for singling out only Israel for criticism because I truly believe that it is a form of discrimination based on our ethnicity. In fact, you can’t expect a people, us in this case, to open ourselves up while at the same time a people with whom we are involved in a 100 year war (the Arabs in this case) practice anti-miscegenation against us.

        Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion. You lot seem to notice a speck in our eye while missing a log in the eyes of the Palestinian Arabs.

        Reply to Comment
    16. JohnW

      Maybe those terrible Jews are trying to protect their women from this?

      http://answering-islam.org/Marriage/warnings.html

      The account is from a non Jewish person:

      “I am a marriage counselor living in a Middle Eastern Muslim country. Telling you who I am, which country I live in, and the real names of the people I will mention is not safe. I asked several women to tell me what they would say to someone wanting to marry a Muslim.”

      “”At first, the man will be charming and considerate. He knows, about a woman he is pursuing, that ‘once she is in the cave, I can eat her.’ The man will change and become his true self after marrying.

      “If you want to marry a Muslim, first read “Not Without My Daughter”. The book is true. Islam has good rules if only men lived on this planet. The rights of women are only talk. Islam has a cruel, controlling spirit and is suffocating for a woman. A Muslim man doesn’t care about a woman’s feelings. He says, ‘If you don’t like’. . . (whatever he says) ‘Go knock your head on wood.’”

      Just sayin’. Please don’t shoot the messenger. I am sure there are many good Muslim men too who are great to their non Muslim wives but there are risks in ANY mixed marriages of whatever religion.

      Reply to Comment
      • Benji

        :)

        You just gotta love lefties. If for nothing else, then for their inconsistency.

        Normally, they are all for big government and the nanny state. They love government interference in everything involving our private lives. From what we eat to what we smoke and what we drink when …

        But when it comes to Israel and maybe Jews, suddenly they become very libertarian. They even tell Jews not to worry about what Arabs and Muslims do because “that’s different”. But if Israelis/Jews don’t comply 100% to lefy mores, then Israelis/Jews are 100% evil.

        Oh well. And they say lefties cannot be racists. But can they … ?

        Reply to Comment
    17. Shmuel

      @David

      I went back and read some of your posts.

      They sound self righteous, moralising and naive to the extreme (I am trying to be nice). Now that you mentioned that you are writing from an Isolated US college, I understand why.

      You talk a lot about “international law”. Let me whisper in your ear, David. Years from now, after you will grow up and will see the world as it is, you will come to the realisation that what you call “International Law” today, is an oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. It is a maze of outdated and non applicable set of laws to the modern world cobbled together by self interested big powers many decades ago. And worse, they are misused for propaganda purposes and unlike real laws like criminal and common laws, international laws are abused. They are applied inconsistently by the politically strong against the politically weak, to make them tow the line. So called “international laws” as they are abused today, are instruments of the political aims of the big powers and powerful political blocs like OPEC and the Muslim bloc in the UN.

      Right now you don’t see it or don’t want to see it. But years from now if you ever grow up, you may come to see it. So long buddy, don’t rupture your spleen and keep your blood pressure down
      :)

      Reply to Comment
    18. Ms. Freidman

      @Mairav Zonszein
      Why did you choose to describe the lobbying rabbis as Zionists of all things? Maybe they are. They probably also believe in god. Do you suggest these attributes to be the reason for their racist behavior?
      FYI They call themselves Nationalists which is not the same as Zionists.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel