Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania · 1 August 2003
CP-2003-023
Israel blocks Palestinian spouses’ residency
By James Bennet / The New York Times

Shown from the top. The whole column — 7.5 times taller than it is wide — is in the enlargement.
Transcribed from the clipping
JERUSALEM — The Israeli parliament yesterday voted to block Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens or residents, erecting a new legal barrier as Israel finished the first section of a new physical barrier against West Bank Palestinians. Supporters of the legislation called it a necessary bulwark against infiltration by terrorists.
“We are in a state of war — not with the English, or the Americans, or the Dutch, or the Slovaks — we are at war with our neighbors, the Palestinians,” Gideon Sa’ar, of the dominant Likud Party, told the parliament in debate before the vote. “It’s a tragic reality.”
Proponents also called the law a way to preserve Israel’s Jewish majority. Foes called the law a racist measure that threatened to divide thousands of families or force them out of Israel. Roughly 1.2 million of Israel’s 6.7 million citizens are Arabs, and they are far more likely than Israeli Jews to marry Palestinians.
“It cannot be that, because of the actions of one or 10 or 20, that a population of 1 million will be punished,” said Ahmad Tibi, an Israeli-Arab member of parliament. He called the law “blacker than black.” The vote was 53-25, with one abstention.
How this transcription was made
Read from the scan by a machine looking at the image of the page, not by optical character recognition and not by a person. The clipping carries no masthead or date line, so its date and newspaper rest on the record it arrived with, not on anything visible in the scan.
Context added by this archive
Date check: No masthead, folio or printed date appears on this clipping — it is a single trimmed column beginning at the headline. The lead says the parliament voted “yesterday”; the Knesset vote was taken Thursday, July 31, 2003, which is consistent with a Friday, Aug. 1 paper. Nothing on the clipping names the newspaper.
Cite this clipping
"Israel blocks Palestinian spouses’ residency," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1 August 2003. Covering Palestine archive, CP-2003-023. https://coveringpalestine.org/archive/cp-2003-023
More from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Gaza and Beersheba, Ancient Places, Taken By Modern New ArmiesPittsburgh Post-Gazette · 18 November 1917
- Two Strongholds Fall to Israelis’ Jerusalem DrivePittsburgh Post-Gazette · 13 July 1948
- UN Ignores Tragic Plight Of Palestine’s ChristiansPittsburgh Post-Gazette · 25 January 1950
- Nasser Airs Gaza Strip ConstitutionPittsburgh Post-Gazette · 10 March 1962
- Are refugee camps still temporary?Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · 27 February 2000
- Who created the Palestinian refugees?Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · 22 February 2004
- 9 more from this paper in the full text →
More from the 2000s
- Unfortunately, It Was ParadiseSan Francisco Chronicle · 19 January 2003
- 62 Palestinian shops destroyedColumbia Missourian · 22 January 2003
- Israeli forces kill two PalestiniansThe Charlotte Observer · 30 January 2003
- A Palestinian boy holds a bomb used by Israeli soldiers as he stands in the rubble of his family home Monday in Jabalia in GazaThe Gazette · 1 February 2003
- Some Israelis contemplate low-grade ‘genocide’ for PalestiniansThe Free Lance-Star · 2 February 2003
- Two Palestinian farmers killed by Israeli fireIndex-Journal · 4 February 2003
- All 516 clippings from the 2000s →
The same copy, in 1 other paper
Their text and this one are nearly identical. Found by comparing transcriptions, not by reading them side by side, so this establishes that the text overlaps and not that these papers ran the same dispatch. How this was done.
Last updated 2 November 2026
This record is part of Covering Palestine, an archive of American newspaper clippings about Palestinians, 1724 to 2023. Researched and assembled by Maria Robles.
The clipping belongs to the newspaper that printed it, or to the news agency that supplied the copy. It is reproduced here for research, criticism and commentary. A city here is where the newspaper was published, not where the story came from, and on most records it was taken from the masthead.
Something wrong here, or something you know about this clipping? The archive is still being built and corrections are wanted: maria@rozumstudio.com, quoting CP-2003-023.
Everything printed in 2003 · Printed on this day · See it in the archive reel · Full text of every clipping · Dataset
