The Smoking Socks award is presented to a letter writer in a South African paper whose funky smelling socks have induced him/her into a bout of prejudiced stupidity.
This week's award goes to a writer who synidcated his letter to at least 5 major local newspapers. But first some context.
Last week the Israeli Supreme court ruled in favour of a controversial law which prohibits Palestinians who marry Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel. The court ruled 6-5 in favour of the extension. (It should be noted that this law does not apply for women over 25 and for men over 35 because those demographics pose a lesser security threat.)
Of course there are many undesirable effects of this law and the judges needed to decide whether these effects are disproportionate in relation to the security threat being posed.
From the beginning of the intifada until the law was put into effect 26 Palestinians who had married Israelis were involved in terrorist attacks. Terrorist groups try hard to recruit from among Palestinians who move to Israel. Their access and mobility will be an even greater asset the more the security fence is completed.
I think that both the dissenting and the ruling opinion have valid arguments. Here the Head Heeb does an excellent job in supporting the dissenting opinion. Here and here are two explanations in favour of the ruling opinion.
Now trust some local Israeli haters to milk this issue for all it’s worth, ensuring maximum propaganda value. One South African letter writer has done just that (and has been rewarded with the Smoking Socks award for his efforts). The letter below appeared in the Business Day, the Sowetan, the Sunday Independent, the Mercury, and the Cape Times. And those are just the papers which I have spotted it in. This mass syndication is nothing other than the deliberate peddling of Palestinian propaganda
| SIR — In a move reminiscent of apartheid SA’s Mixed Marriages Act, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on who Palestinians can marry and who they cannot. Should Israeli Arabs marry Palestinians from the occupied territories, they cannot bring their spouses into the country. Jews who marry outside the country can obviously bring their spouses into Israel. This discrimination, alongside other forms of discrimination in education, welfare, access to land, where Arabs may live, and even their very citizenship rights, makes Israel one of the last bastions of apartheid in a democratising world. |
It's not just letter writers. The Daily Sun ran an article on this ruling under the headline "Racist law wins favour in court".
It’s a prime example of the point I made last week - the disturbing trend of the Palestinian’s supporters hating Israel more than they care about Israel.
Why is this an example? I’ll tell you why.
In 2004 Jordan announced that it would no longer naturalise the children of Jordanian women married to Palestinian men out of fear for the impact this would have on the demographic balance among Jordanians and Palestinians in the kingdom. As Abu Aardvark points out
| This potentially disenfranchises up to half a million people based on their ethnic origin. It represents a big victory for ethnic Jordanian nationalists, who had mobilized in fury against the plan to grant such citizenship when it was announced two years ago. It sends a powerful signal to Palestinian-origin citizens of their tenuous and second-class status in the kingdom. It also strikes a harsh blow against Jordanian women, who are declared third-class citizens by virtue of their inability to pass on their citizenship to their children. All in all a disgraceful decision, one with far-reaching anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and unjust implications. |
Did any of these alleged Palestinian supporters care about the Palestinians when they were being disenfranchised on ethnic grounds in Jordan? Why the double standards? Obviously what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.
Many other countries who face zero security risk from foreign immigrants also have restrictive citizenship laws.
In Denmark there is a severe limitation on the entry of foreign spouses who marry Danes. A foreign spouse married to a Dane can only gain citizenship or permanent residence if the attachment (in years) of both spouses to Denmark is greater than their attachment to another country. If the person residing in Denmark has had Danish citizenship for more than 28 (!) years he or she does not need to satisfy the attachment requirement. This effectively bars most Danes from bringing their foreign spouses into Denmark.
Here’s a report on the increasingly stringent immigration laws in Holland.
In South Africa there is also a form of discrimination. The Constitutional Court in 2000 was asked to rule on an equity issue related to immigration. The Department of Home Affairs charged a fee of R10,000.00 for an application for citizenship for a foreign spouse. One of the issues on which the lawyers who were putting that case forward argued was that it created a disparate impact between poor South Africans and rich South Africans, that essentially one only had a right to live with one's spouse if one was rich. It allows the veneer of a liberal law to cover a fabric of discrimination unrelated to security.
It's a shame that only Israel suffers from the consequent mass mudslinging campaign.
View previous Smoking Socks Award winners here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Comments