MK Tibi: State stabbed Arabs in the back http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3250621,00.html Arab parties harshly criticize High Court's decision to reject appeals against law blocking entry of Palestinians to marry Israeli citizens; Meretz MK: It is unbelievable Israeli, Jewish judges accept law based solely on racism. Tibi: State stabbed Arabs in the back Knesset Member Ran Cohen (Meretz) said in response to the High Court of Justice's rejection of an appeal against the Citizenship Law on Sunday that "it is unbelievable that Israeli and Jewish judges accept a law based solely on racism." "It turns out that the High Court is not the answer for human rights issues, and that the ball is back in the Knesset's court," Cohen said, adding he is hopeful the current parliament will be more accommodating to legislation that ensures basic human rights. Justice Minister Haim Ramon said he will work with the interior minister to anchor the rules of entry into Israel in a basic law. Ramon said that the basic law must apply identical laws on the entire population and not focus on sectoral groups. Arab parties harshly criticized the High Court ruling. MK Mohammad Barakeh (Hadash) said: "The High Court's ruling provides racism with a doubtful alibi. The fact that the decision was made with such a great opposition among the judges constitutes a ray of light, which cannot illuminate the darkness in the Knesset legislation and High Court decisions." "The Israeli book of laws, approved by the High Court, is becoming a guide for every racist legislation in the world after World War II," he added. United Arab List-Ta’al MK Ahmad Tibi said in response to the ruling “the State has stabbed its Arab citizens in the back with the High Court knife and has proven that we are citizens without citizenship.” MK Dov Khenin (Hadash), a legal expert, expressed his regret over the court ruling. "One cannot expect the High Court to stand alone and defend the Israeli society from the infiltration of racist norms. The Knesset must regain its composure and promote legislation which will remove the constitutional discrimination stain from our book of laws," Khenin said. MK Azmi Bishara (National Democratic Assembly Chairman) said that the High Court's ruling proves that the Israeli political and Judicial culture in Israel is nationalistic and not civic. "Disguised under the cloak of security considerations, this law is in effect demographically motivated and discriminative," he said. Knesset Member Ibrahim Sarsur (United Arab List-Ta'al) said that the ruling represents an injustice and prolongs the suffering of many families. Former Minister Shulamit Aloni said that the High Court's decision "proves that Lieberman is not the only racist among us." "The ruling that all the Palestinians are a security threat gives a free hand to the IDF and the settlers to kill, demolish, uproot and steal, because according to another law the Palestinians don’t have to be compensated," she said. 'Judges return security sanity' Immigration Absorption Minister Ze'ev Boim welcomed the court ruling, saying that "the Citizenship Law is an appropriate law." "We have to maintain the State's democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature. The extent of entry of in-laws into Israel's territories is intolerable," he added. MK Israel Hasson (Israel Our Home) said that "the High Court proved that it is still able to identify the State's of Israel's existential threats. But I have to say that I am annoyed by the fact that such a basic decision was not made unanimously." MK Yitzhak Levy (National Union-National Religious Party) also praised the judges, who he said returned the State's security sanity. "I call on any Israeli married to a Palestinian and prevented from reuniting with him or her to immigrate to the Palestinian's place of residence," he said. MK Yoel Hasson (Kadima) noted: "This morning the High Court understood the Israeli democracy's need to defend itself. This is a victory to those who believe in Israel as a Jewish state, and the decision will have dramatic ramifications for Israel's demographic composition."
Extensive inter-racial marriage is probably the best thing mankind can do to ease racial tension and put behind historical grievances, especially in Middle East hotspots such as the Israel-Palestine co-occupied region. By upholding the law restricting Jews intermarrying Arabs, Israel unilaterally creates more obstacles in the process of reconciliation (if any) and artificially deepens mistrust from its neighbours. This is a bad, short-sighted decision that will not be viewed favorably by the world community.
And Sharia is much more advanced because it at least allows Men to marry whomever they choose... http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41
that link is nothing but propoganda, and anti islam garbage. islam allows wife beating? woman has to sleep with another man before remarrying a divorced spouse? adoption is not allowed? dude, if your gunna use something in an argument atleast dont use something that is so blatantly anti islam. its like somone trying to write a paper on the holocaust based on speeches given by ahmedjinandad
Dude, did you read about their message...or even who they were? Or since they do not agree with your views of what occurs in some Islamic countries, they must be anti-Islam? Take at least a minute to do some research before wasting my time. http://www.freemuslims.org/about/board.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Muslim_Coalition_Against_Terrorism
i dont give a crap who they are, even the terrorists claimed to be muslims, but they to are a black mark on my religion just like these idiots. they have no basis for what they write on their site.
Yes, I noticed. But maybe you will calm down and start threads showing both sides' problems at some point.
Sadly cannot defend the racism in Israel, but can only distract by pointing out problems in other cultures. Pretty weak. Sort of reminds me of those who decry opposition to poverty in say Austin Texas, by claiming poverty is worse in Haiti.
I agree with you 100% that both sides have very large problems and would even state that the muslims/arab nations have many more problems. The difference however is that Israel is our surrogate child and it is suckling on the US in the form of billions of dollars, unparralelled military and political support, tax-breaks and virtually any bi-citizen ship or allowing medical students from their schools to not take US entrance exams. If we are giving and giving and in return recieving the spite of much of the world's second largest religion because of it, they damn well better carry themselves exactly how we want them to. Selling our technology to the Chinese, having bigoted laws and utilizing US Apache Helicopters to do assasinations is not my idea of being a good boy.
First of all, I don't know what the place of this article is in this forum. Was this a response to criticism of Israeli Citizenship law? If it was, I don't think it is a very coherent piece of criticism (I don't how the derivative of criticism of Israeli law is a criticism of Islam). Secondly, it is obvious that this is a slanted article. I skimmed through it and even doing that, I could find some clear biases. For example, the article states that a husband can divorce his wife instantaneously, but it conveniently fails to mention that the same privilege extends to a wife. The "instantaneous divorce" is not limited to the husband. Similarly, the article mentions that a women inherits half of a man, but it does not mention that in Islam, a woman inherits from her husband, her father, and her brother. A woman has claim on her husband's wealth, but a husband has no claim on his wife's. In Islam, a husband does not inherit from his wife and a brother does not inherit from a sister. However, a sister inherits from a brother and a wife inherits from a husband. Once again, a convenient omission. Just look at the countries that are used in the example. For one, Nigeria is not an "Islamic country." There are just as many non-Muslims in Nigeria as there are Muslims. Even though Bangladesh has a Muslim majority, it is a notoriously secular country that does not operate on Sharia law. I really do have to call BS on the Bangladesh example. I find that one in particular very hard to believe. If that article is recent, then we are just as much to blame for what happens in our 51st state (Afghanistan) as Sharia law. And anyone who thinks women are not on TV in the Middle East has never seen Al-Jazeera. You can find ambigious laws in all religions. Didn't Moses have a man killed for gathering firewood on the Sabbath? The important thing is to read behind religious examples, laws, and teachings to find out the context. Doing so rides us of ignorance and hate.
It was meant to illuminate that this thread starter continuosly starts threads with one point of view. I would have no idea. I am not well versed at all on Sharia or Islamic law. I did find it intruguing that Muslims would compile this list, which if they are true is a quite impressive attempt to better the practice of one's religion.
Still stinging from the other thread? Poor wnes. Feel free to expound upon you insinuation. If you can't support it, you can just...run away again.
They have no basis? So all of those references they provide....you've read them and have a different interpretation for us? I have no idea, so please correct them if they're wrong.
