Indeed, there is not much importance to the arguments and reasons brought to bear by the justices when they ruled by a slim majority that stripping Arabs of their right to marry whomever they want does not contradict the basic values of an enlightened society. Those harmed by the decision will never be convinced by any formulation, and hundreds of pages of opinion do not have the strength to remove the damage done by the decision. But a reasonable person needs reasons, to ease their concerns over what seems to be the brutality of ripping a mother from her children, and spouses from one another, if she happens to be Palestinian.
It is doubtful that the arguments posed by Justice Mishael Cheshin, who was joined by the majority of justices, are capable of bearing the burden of granting legitimacy to discrimination that borders on racism. And these are not legal-constitutional matters, but rather political distinctions and an understanding of reality in which the justice is no more than an ordinary citizen, influenced by the general atmosphere, and therefore, required to be especially cautious.
Cheshin's arguments rest on two pillars: the "alien status" that prevents the petitioners from being with their spouses, and that they are "enemy citizens" at a time of war. There is no doubt that residents of the region - in other words, anyone who lives in the occupied territories and is prevented from living with their family - are not Israeli citizens. But calling them aliens and comparing them to foreigner aliens trying to infiltrate into European Union states is indicative of a false innocence in the best case, and in the worst, deliberate deception.
Are the Palestinians "alien" to the Arabs of Israel? Does the different legal status of the "Israeli" village of Barta and the Palestinian one make them foreign to one another? When it is convenient, the Arabs of Israel are made into Israeli citizens, whose human dignity must be protected just when they are prohibited from "bringing with them a foreign spouse," something that "changes the status quo between citizens and residents," as Justice Cheshin wrote.
The process of the shattering of the Palestinian people into fragmented communities - the Arabs of 1948, the Arabs of 1967, the Arabs of East Jerusalem, and the Arabs west of the separation fence - now wins Supreme Court approval. They are "foreign" to each other - for the convenience of the Jewish Israelis, who are not required to draw any conclusions from this "alien status." After all, the residents of the territories are foreigners in their homeland; they are forbidden from traveling on its roads, enjoy its resources, or run their civic and political affairs.
The fact that the Palestinians lack citizenship and have been subject to Israeli rule for the last 40 years does not change the precept by which they are seemingly citizens of a country overseas trying to break through the borders of the homeland. And where does the homeland begin? At the Qalandiyah checkpoint or the one at Tarkumiya?
But defining the Palestinian as a foreigner is not enough; their risks must be emphasized: "They are enemy subjects, and as such form a risky group for the citizens and residents of Israel." Israel is "at war (or in a kind of war) against the Palestinian Authority - an enemy regime, a regime that wants to destroy the state." And of course, the comparison is brought up out of the depths to America and England against Nazi Germany, and examples are brought to persuade people that everyone prevented immigration or even expelled foreign subjects during their wars with the enemy.
The verdict should explain when it is proper to use the term war or armed conflict, and if it is permissible to use those terms according to convenience. Does the state of war on which the court based its reasoning also cover the cases where Israel ignores the laws of war or consciously violates them?
If they were diligent about applying the laws of war, quite a few Israeli commanders would have been locked up in prison by now. But the monopoly the Israelis assume for themselves over the definition of war allows them to harm - while rolling their eyes, of course - the rights of people to form and maintain families, and not even be ashamed when they deny that right on a clearly ethnic basis. And nothing has been said about the wink and nudge: All the arguments are nonsense, it's all meant to prevent "creeping right of return." But don't ever admit to racism.
