Waiting for the Hamas-Israel intermarriage

While the hours tick away on the last day of the latest ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, one can’t help getting the feeling that Israelis, or their media anyway, are starting to lose interest. Sure, the front pages run headlines about the machinations in Cairo — Israel Hayom most prominently — but Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth’s hearts seem far less into it.

The wedding, and attendant protest, of Jaffa residents Israeli Muslim Mahmoud Mansour to Israeli Jew-turned-Muslim Morel Malcha warrants a front page photograph in both Haaretz and Yedioth. Yedioth dedicates three articles in a two-page spread to the wedding. Merav Batito reports from within the wedding, relating that most of the elements of the wedding — music, food, the lack of alcohol — were Arab-style, “but there were light elements of Rishon Lezion.” Reporter Akiva Novik was with the protesters, and he quotes hard-right ex-MK Michael Ben-Ari, who asks, “We’re racists? Let’s see what would happen if an Arab woman married a Jew, what they would do to her.”

The third piece focuses on President Reuven Rivlin, who wrote a Facebook status defending the right of the two to marry. The new head of state suffered plenty of attacks from commenters. “It’s an embarrassment that he’s my president,” wrote one.

“I wish, Mr. President, that one of your granddaughters falls in love with some nice Muhammad and marries him, and then we’ll see what you say!” writes another.

Others defended him. “Well done, Mr. President, on the brave stance,” says one commenter.

Haaretz’s coverage, not surprisingly, is uniformly against the protesters from the Lehava anti-intermarriage organization. “Lehava neged ahava,” a headlines reads — “Lehava against love.”

Eyal Gross argues that the protests are indicative of deeper problems with racism within society. He attributes the impossibility of a mixed wedding being performed in Israel to bigotry.

Yair Ettinger writes that intermarriage between Jews and Arabs is such a rare phenomenon, it makes no sense for people worried about assimilation to make such a big deal about it. The bigger problem that no one talks about, he says, is the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to Israel under the Law of Return but are not halachically considered Jews. But conversion is prohibitively difficult for most of them, and if the protesters were serious about preventing assimilation and intermarriage, he argues, they would support bills to ease the conversion process.

Haaretz also has a piece on the conversion process within Israel. For Christians who want to become Muslims, or vice versa, the process is fairly straightforward. The convert would appear before the local sharia court, recite the shehada proclaiming that Allah is the one God and Muhammad is his messenger, then accept upon himself the pillars. He then heads to the Justice Ministry, and submits a change of religion request.

The approval is generally given promptly, unless it’s Jews trying to convert out. They often run into bureaucratic delays and pressure from outside groups. Since they are still considered Jews by Jewish law, Israel recognizes them as having two religions, a source explains to Haaretz. Kids of such converts are also put in the double religion category. But these conversions are extremely rare. Since January, only 63 Jews converted out, and only 19 Muslims changed their religion.

A number of other topics are on the front pages — a multi-billion dollar suit terror victims are bringing against the Arab Bank in a New York court; singer Yigal Bashan in moderate condition in Ichilov Hospital with a stab wound to the chest; musician Ilan Ben-Ami finally arrested for murdering his wife after days of searches; Kurds capturing back the Mosul dam from the Islamic State.

What’s that, you ask? The ceasefire? Fine…

Like the rest of us, Israeli newspapers are guessing as to what will happen when the clock strikes 12 early Tuesday morning. Israel Hayom gives the sense the truce talks will fail. “In Israel, they are preparing for the failure of the negotiations,” reads the overline, while the headline says, “If Hamas renews its fire — we will respond in strength.”

In the same paper, Dan Margalit writes about the potential advantages of an unofficial quiet without a formal deal. “For example, foiling the digging of tunnels before they approach Israel; operational surprise, in which Israel excelled in the past, but came to the fore in Protective Edge. In this situation, Israel will be able to escalate its espionage activities in the Strip — a subject which will become a battleground between Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet.” Still, he warns, the situation wouldn’t be ideal. As long as there is quiet, breaking it will be no simple task politically even without an agreement. Moreover, once the international community calms down, they will again start pushing for Netanyahu to make concessions to Abbas, for which he will find it much harder to find sympathy for resisting.

In Haaretz, Amir Oren writes that Udi Segal’s TV scoop on a presentation given to Israel’s leaders about the costs of reconquering Gaza was a priceless piece of intelligence for Muhammed Deif and the Hamas military leadership. “In the eyes of military people, Segal’s scoop is also Deif’s intelligence on possible courses of action for Israel, and on the balance of powers among its decision-makers, which will harden Hamas’s position in battle and in negotiations. If this information had come from the left, politicians would be describing this as a knife in the backs of the soldiers.”

In Yedioth, Eitan Gilboa calls for a “preemptive legal strike” by Israel against the UN inquiry into its fighting in Gaza. “Israel must initiate the creation of two commissions of inquiry, that will work simultaneously.” One will look into the conduct of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip, and its actions against Israel. The other would look into the conduct of both Israel and Hamas in Gaza, but would be made up of impartial experts, unlike the UN commission.

Also in Yedioth, former Mossad head Efraim Halevy writes that Hamas undoubtedly lost militarily in the latest conflict, as it lost most of its rockets and tunnels. But it might just pull out a diplomatic victory. “Any arrangement to come out the Cairo talks will eventually lead to Israeli recognition of Hamas as a legitimate player in its relations with the Palestinians.” Halevy disagrees with Dan Margalit about the advantages of an informal ceasefire. “A de facto ceasefire, without an arrangement, means that the IDF did not achieve enough on the battlefield. The Arab world will understand that Israel may have won in battle, but lost the war. In other words: exchanging the military achievement for the opposite outcome at the negotiating table.”

Hopefully this will all become more clear at midnight. But don’t be surprised if it doesn’t.