When Will Diaa Hadid Write About Polygamy In Palestinian Arab Society?

Aussie Dave wrote this morning about the New York Times’ coverage of the Hamas commander who was murdered because of the belief, whether true or not, that he was gay. When I read the same article, something entirely different jumped out at me:

Mr. Ishtiwi . . . is survived by two wives and three children. . . . In his next meeting with relatives, on March 1, Mr. Ishtiwi told his brother Hussam that he had been tortured since his fourth day in detention. Six weeks later, when his wives visited, they sneaked out a note, of which Human Rights Watch shared a photograph. “They nearly killed me,” it says. “I confessed to things I have never done in my life.”

His wives?!

Just how common is Big Love in Palestinian Arab society?
Just how common is Big Love in Palestinian Arab society?

It’s not the first time that I’ve noticed a casual reference to polygamy in Diaa Hadid‘s writing. In January Hadid caused a stir with some faulty reporting on evictions in Jerusalem. Her reporting was problematic enough that it warranted an editor’s note to discuss all of its mistakes. But there was another passage that seems to have gone largely unnoticed:

Nazira Maswadi’s new landlord is trying to kick her out based on a claim that her estranged husband, Tawfiq, the original lessee, is dead. “He’s not dead,” she insisted. “He has 10 children with me. If he died, they would have to bury him.”

Mr. Maswadi, reached by phone on Wednesday, confirmed he is alive, but acknowledged he now lives mostly with his third wife in the Shuafat refugee camp, which itself could threaten his family’s occupancy of the Old City apartment.

Ms. Maswadi’s husband, it is reported, is “estranged.” Not divorced. Yet the man has not one, but two other wives (at least!).

In both cases, Hadid seems oblivious of her own writing.

In November of 2014, the Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan recommended that the Times “strengthen the coverage of Palestinians. They are more than just victims, and their beliefs and governance deserve coverage and scrutiny. . . . What is Palestinian daily life like?”

Hadid appears to have been hired in response to this recommendation. Her reporting, however, raises, but does not answer, many question about polygamy in Palestinian Arab society. Is it common? Is it accepted? Is it legal? Hadid doesn’t tell us.

Al-Monitor, however, did report in March of 2015 that polygamy was “easy to find in all of Gaza’s social strata, be they rich, poor or even middle class,” and that “according to the Palestinian personal status law, a man may marry up to four women.” (The link they use as a citation for the law is no longer working.) Al-Monitor’s entire report is well-worth reading. The Times should provide at least a brief discussion of these issues, instead of mentioning polygamy in passing as if it were a totally normal occurrence.

12 thoughts on “When Will Diaa Hadid Write About Polygamy In Palestinian Arab Society?”

  1. Of course she’s oblivious to anything wrong with that picture, given that Islam is fine with polygamy – up to four wives and as many concubines as you can afford. I suspect that even Arab Christians don’t really see it as a problem, at least for Muslims.

  2. I don’t see anything morally wrong, per se, with polygamy. There are plenty of unambiguously immoral characteristics of “Palestinian” society – honor killings, corruption, tribal warfare, glorification of murder – on which we could focus instead, and polygamy was once a factor in Jewish life. Yaakov Avinu, anyone? Polygamy is, unlike other manifestations of personal liberty, not supported by the liberal elites because feminists don’t like it. If all parties are consenting, why should it be any less legal then homosexual marriage?

    1. Slavery is also okay in the Bible. Want to bring that one back, too?

      There are many ancient sources indicating that while polygamy was tolerated it was seen as less than ideal. For one thing, Abraham’s marriage to Hagar resulted in Ishmael. How’d that work out for the Jews? The rivalry between Jacob’s wives (who really only wanted one!) is well-documented in the Bible and ultimately resulted in the selling of Joseph and the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt. Yitzhak, who married only one wife, was described by the Sages as an “Olah Temimah”, a perfect offering, as opposed to the other patriarchs who had two. The mishna states “Whoever has many wives will have much witchcraft”. And so on.

      1. You are making the classic mistake of confusing narritive with imperitive. Just because Josephs brother sold him into slavery does not mean it was the right thing to do.

        In fact they were later deeply ashamed of what they did.

        As for polygamy it was permitted in Judaism until Tukkun Rabainu Gershon. It was a temporary decree at the time. Maybe due to a shortage of women or influence of Christian monogmay on Ashkenzi Jews. Many Mizrahi Jews still practiced polygamy untill they were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries.

        1. I think you misunderstood my comment. I never suggested that the selling of Joseph into slavery was a good thing. Just the opposite.

        2. Kathy Prendergast

          I think the point is that no matter what was done in the past, Jewish people neither practice nor approve of polygamy now.

      2. Kathy Prendergast

        From what I remember of the (Christian) Old Testament, Abraham never actually married Hagar; she was just used by him (at the behest of his wife, who thought she was barren) to bear a son which he and his wife would raise, but then his own wife got pregnant and gave birth to Isaac, so Hagar and Ishmael were cast aside. Hagar certainly never enjoyed the status of a wife.

    2. This is either a deliberate misstatement or one made out of ignorance. In Arab/Muslim culture the “consent” of the woman (as understood in Western culture) is irrelevant; as demonstrated by marriages of women much younger than the age of majority; even as understood in Arab/Muslim culture. The only “consent” that has any standing in this culture is that of the “family” which is expressed by, and controlled by; the woman’s immediate male relatives. This patriarchal structure being enforced by “honor killing”. This is on the increase in the PA and in the Hamas controlled enclave; where no one in a leadership position is willing or able to do anything about.
      [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=10767] [http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=550792]
      [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=17293]

      The resort to whataboutery (Yaakov Avinu, anyone?) is a non-sequitur argument. Such are only made where a substantive argument cannot be found. As long as we’re taking flyer into this speculative realm. What is your comfort level with polyandry?
      [http://www.kashgar.com.au/articles/Polyandry-or-the-practice-of-taking-multiple-husbands]

      1. As a Westerner, I was speaking from a Western perspective, under which there is a trend towards permitting private behaviors that involve only consenting parties. When polygamy involves someone below the age of majority, then there is no true consent, and such situations are addressed by laws other than banning polygamy, such as statutory rape laws, where it is impossible for an individual under the age of majority to consent. And as an American, I was thinking in terms of whether polygamy can be practiced morally in America, such as by LDS adherents.

        I don’t understand how you can argue that my reference to Yaakov Avinu is a non-sequitur – I was referring to the fact that polygamy was once a factor in Jewish life, and, indeed, was practiced by a founding member of our people. How, then, could we say that polygamy is morally wrong, per se, as Yaakov Avino was a completely righteous person.

        As for your question concerning polyandry, isn’t that just another private behavior in which government should have no say?

        1. What does your “Western perspective, under which there is a trend towards permitting private behaviors that involve only consenting parties.” have to do with the question “When will Diaa Hadid write an article about Polygamy In Palestinian Arab Society?”
          What does Yaacov Avinu have to do with the question? What does a practice noted in the Torah that has since been explicitly disavowed; have to do with the question? That’s what makes it a non-sequitur. “Es klept zich vee ahn Arbes tzum vant” as we say.
          Did you read the ante-penultimate paragraph of the polyandry link? The State has a legitimate interest in stability. Except in certain particular circumstances all forms of polygamy (polygyny and polyandary; consecutive or concurrent) promote instability.
          Trying to subsume something as complicated as human sexual and family dynamics under a single simplistic rubric “private behaviors in which the government should have no say” is an argument from false dichotomy.

    3. Kathy Prendergast

      Individual choice is one thing, but polygamous societies inevitably are dysfunctional. Legally and culturally entrenched polygamy, aside from any other purposes, exists to humiliate girls and women, to keep them in a state of constant insecurity and competitiveness, and also to marginalize and make redundant a huge percentage of the male population. There is no polygamous society on earth which does not also have multiple and deeply entrenched pathologies like extremely low status of women, forced marriage, child marriage, dangerously early motherhood, paranoid isolation due to superstitious mistrust of the “outside” world, demands for blind obedience to a human leader, lack of maternal and infant care, lack of sex education, child abuse, domestic abuse, incest, inbreeding, lack of education in general, and surplus populations of restless and unsocialized young males with no hope of getting married and who are often literally driven out because they are seen as useless and threats to the older and more powerful men who hoard all the available women for themselves. Such outcasts from the Fundamentalist Latter day Saints are called “lost boys”, and many of them are truly lost. Polygamous societies may enjoy a high birth rate but they have no hope of growing or developing. They are the most unequal and most elitist societies on Earth, geared toward the comfort and convenience of a small subgroup of the richest and most powerful males, and usually driven by a religious faith that elevates a human leader or leaders to almost godlike status. i.e. Warren Jeffs of the FLDS.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top