Israeli Racism Codified by Law
A renewed Israeli law that has postponed, for the 13th time, the reunion of Israeli-Palestinian families reflects an undemocratic and even racist trend, writes Daoud Kuttab.
The state of Israel prides itself on being a democratic state in which all its citizens are treated equally under the law. Yet a closer examination shows the strange and convoluted ways in which laws are used to defend some clearly racist practices.
A case in point is the practice of denying family-reunification permission to Israelis married to Palestinians. International humanitarian law and the basic law in Israel make it difficult for the Interior Ministry to bar an Israeli from demanding the right to live with his or her spouse. Around the world, laws and regulations protect the sanctity of the family and guarantee its members basic rights, including the right to live together and the granting of necessary permits to be able to do that.
Since the breakout of the second intifada in Palestine, this basic human right has been denied to Israelis marrying Palestinians. While the Ministry of Interior has the sovereign right to deny anyone entry into the country, challenges to the Israeli High Court have made this practice difficult. Using the emotional background of acts of terror against Israel, the Knesset passed a temporary law giving the Interior Ministry the power to withhold for one year residency to a couple in which one member comes from a hostile country. And although Palestine has not been recognized by Israel as a sovereign state, the law was written in a way to ensure Israeli authorities would be able to refuse Palestinians the right to live with their Israeli spouses in Israel. Technically, they are free to live in occupied Palestinian areas — although this is difficult in practice — but Palestinians are not granted the right to live in Israel, or, in many cases, even permitted to visit their in-laws there.
Racist laws have been challenged and even struck down by Israel’s High Court. However, this law, passed at the height of a rash of suicide bombings, has survived because of two factors. First, it was created as a temporary law renewable after a one-year period, and second, it gave the appearance of dealing with the sacred security issue by restricting it to persons from "enemy countries."
