Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Racist Israeli Supreme Court Decisions

Racist Israeli Supreme Court Decisions
 
by Stephen Lendman
 
Global Research, January 20, 2012
 
Two recent Israeli High Court rulings follow a disturbing trend. On 
January 11, divided justices ruled 6 - 5 for Israel's Citizenship and 
Entry into Israel Law.
 
It denies citizenship rights to Palestinians with Israeli spouses. 
Enacted in 2003 as temporary legislation, it was extended twice after 
its initial expiration date.
 
The law empowers the interior minister to grant citizenship only if 
affected Palestinians identify strongly and cooperate with Israel. They 
must also contribute to national security. As a result, few qualify.
 
In addition, it limits potential eligibility to Palestinian husbands 36 
or older and Palestinian wives at least 26.
 
A Qara village attorney called the decision a "declaration of war on 
Israeli Arabs." A mixed couple said the decision "will lead to the 
expulsion of thousands of families from the country."
 
The Palestinian wife of another mixed couple got temporary permit 
permission to live with her husband in Acre without legal rights 
extended Israeli citizens. Her husband, a Haifa University doctoral 
candidate, wasn't surprised by the ruling, saying:
 
     "The decision is proof that one shouldn't have faith in the Israeli 
judicial system. It is clear that the Supreme Court is influenced by the 
wave of fascism and racism sweeping Israel, and the judges weren't 
expected to act any other way."
 
According to Physicians for Human Rights/Israel's Shahar Shoham:
 
     "Apart from the fundamental violation of Arab Israeli rights, the 
law will create a reality in which thousands of people who are married 
to Israeli citizens will continue to live without any civil status or 
social rights."
 
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) called Israel's judicial 
system "biased against Palestinians."
 
Courts often impose procedural and financial barriers. Israel's 
government "imposes physical barriers on effective access of Palestinian 
victims to the Israeli courts. As a result, they're deprived of redress 
under international law.
 
Nonetheless, PCHR pursues justice, including for 100 Cast Lead victims. 
Their most significant obstacle involves requiring civil case claimants 
"to pay a court insurance fee or bank guarantee of 20,000 NIS (new 
Israeli shekels) before the court will allow the case to proceed."
 
The sum equals about $5,200. In nearly all cases, it's unaffordable. 
Impoverished Palestinians struggle daily to get by.
 
Nonetheless, if funds aren't paid withing 60 - 120 days, claims are 
dismissed. PCHR petitioned the High Court to dismiss this onerous 
burden. However, it agreed with prosecutorial demands. It also sided 
with state crimes and anti-human rights policies.
 
In July 2005, the Knesset approved a 1952 Civil Torts Law (Liability of 
the State) amendment. It prevents Palestinians from claiming just 
compensation. Nine human rights organizations, including PCHR, 
challenged it. They won a judgment, letting Palestinians file individual 
claims henceforth. Judges could then either accept, adjust or reject them.
 
Outrage Over the High Court Decision
 
Association for Civil Rights in Israel attorneys Dan Yakir and Oded 
Feller said:
 
     "It is a dark day for the protection of human rights and for the 
Israeli High Court of Justice. The majority opinion has stamped its 
approval on a racist law, one (that) will harm the very texture of the 
lives of families whose only sin is the Palestinian blood that runs in 
their veins."
 
In a January 12 press release, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority 
rights in Israel said:
 
     "Thousands of Palestinian families are affected by this law, forced 
to move abroad, or live apart or together illegally in Israel."
 
     "The Supreme Court approved a law the likes of which does not exist 
in any democratic state in the world, depriving citizens from 
maintaining a family life in Israel only on the basis of the ethnicity 
or national belonging of their spouse."
 
     "The ruling proves how much the situation regarding the civil 
rights of the Arab minority in Israel (20% of the population) is 
declining into a highly dangerous and unprecedented situation."
 
Outrageously, the Court majority viewed non-Jewish rights null and void. 
They also said doing so is proportional according to Israel's Basic 
Laws. In fact, it constitutes a gross perversion and contemptible 
injustice. It also rendered the Court illegitimate to rule fairly for 
non-Jewish citizens.
 
On January 13, Haaretz condemned the Court ruling in an editorial 
headlined, "Supreme Court thrusts Israel down the slope of apartheid," 
saying:
 
Its ruling "on the legality of the Citizenship Law proves the erosion of 
this institution's role as Israel's guardian of civil rights."
 
Notably, in 2006, a Court majority called the law unconstitutional. Now 
they believe it's lawful under Israel's Basic Laws. Justice Asher Grunis 
said "(h)uman rights are not a prescription for national suicide."
 
According to Justice Elyakin Rubinstein, "a small group - those men and 
women in Israel's minority who want to marry residents of the region - 
must pay a heavy price for greater security for all Israelis, including 
their own."
 
The decision provides more proof of a lawless, racist state. It denies 
non-Jews equity and justice solely on the basis of their religion and 
ethnicity. Doing so violates fundamental international law.
 
Although Court President Dorit Beinisch sided with the minority, critics 
accuse her of helping the majority. Unnamed sources said she wanted 
Court resolution after Citizenship Law critic Ayala Procaccia retired.
 
She also could have replaced her with a like-minded justice, rather than 
Neal Hendel who sided with the majority.
 
One source said:
 
     "It appears that with the Supreme Court currently under attack, 
Beinisch feared raising a political and public uproar with a verdict 
revoking the Citizenship Law. So although she supported scrapping the 
law, she didn't really want it revoked."
 
In other words, she wanted it both ways. Moreover, the High Court's 
"afraid of ruling against" Israel's most extremist ever Knesset.
 
Israel's Nakba Law
 
In July 2011, the Knesset approved the Denial of the Nakba Budget 
Principles Bill amendment. It claimed it negates the existence of Israel 
as a Jewish and democratic state. It authorizes the Finance Minister to 
reduce or prohibit funding any institution under the following conditions:
 
refusal to support Israel as a Jewish state;
 
racist, violent or terrorist incitement;
 
support for any nation, group or entity Israel calls an enemy or 
terrorist organization;
 
mourning Israel's Independence Day; and/or
 
committing vandalism or physical desecration dishonoring Israel's flag 
or symbols.
 
Its language states:
 
     "Entities that receive financial support from the state budget must 
not be allowed to finance or sponsor activities within their framework 
that entail denial of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, by, 
inter alia, marking Independence Day or the day of the establishment of 
Israel as a day of mourning."
 
All activities are affected, including academic, intellectual, cultural, 
artistic, political, and religious.
 
As a result, the law violates Arab history, culture, and right to 
express, teach, or disseminate it freely. It also compromises their 
right to commemorate what they lost and appalling persecution that followed.
 
When first proposed, it banned and criminalize commemorations as a way 
to "erase a seminal event in Palestinian history from Israeli 
consciousness." Its softened version deals only with funding.
 
Nakba means "massive catastrophe." Arab intellectual Constantin Zureiq 
coined the term in his 1948 book titled, "The Meaning of El-Nakba," saying:
 
     "The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine should not be treated as a 
simple disaster or fleeting event. It was the worst catastrophe, in the 
deepest sense of the word, to have befallen the Arabs in their long and 
disaster-ridden history."
 
According to Palestinian historian Arif al-Arif in his book titled, "The 
Nakba of Palestine and Paradise Lost":
 
     "How can I not call it a nakba? It was during this period that a 
disaster of a kind we had not encountered for generations befell us, the 
Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular. Our homeland was stolen. We 
were driven from our land. We lost a large number of our sons, and, 
above all, our dignity was deeply wounded."
 
It was the first time Palestinians lost their homeland and became 
diaspora and internally displaced refugees. Palestine as a political 
entity ceased to exist. For those affected, it was an unparalleled 
historic tragedy and collective nightmare. It remains so.
 
As a result, Palestinians mark Israel's independence as Nakba Day and 
commemorate it annually. For them, it's a national trauma. It also 
symbolizes Israeli lawlessness, repression, discrimination, and racism.
 
On January 5, Israel's High Court rejected an anti-Nakba Law petition. 
Court President Dorit Beinisch said it lacked concrete facts required 
for support. She, Eliezer Rivlin and Miriam Naor wrote in their ruling:
 
     "The declarative level of the law does indeed raise difficult and 
complex questions. However, from the outset, the constitutionality of 
the law depends largely upon the interpretation given to the law's 
directives."
 
Opponents said, even before passage, its chilling effects limit free 
speech, public debate, academic teaching, and Israeli Arab rights to 
express and commemorate their historical narrative freely.
 
ACRI chief legal counsel Dan Yakir said:
 
     "It is regrettable that although the High Court ruled that the 
Nakba Law raises complex issues of public importance, which gets to the 
root of the problems that divide Israeli society, it chose to avoid 
ruling on these issues until a concrete case occurs."
 
     "The court completely ignored the claims regarding the chilling 
effect of this law and its limiting of free speech."
 
According to United Arab List MK Ahmed Tibi:
 
     "The ruling relied on procedural considerations and feared to get 
into the thick of this law that discriminates against an entire Arab 
collective."
 
In March, prior to passage, a Haaretz editorial headlined, "Silence over 
Nakba Law encourages racism," saying:
 
The measure assures "a shameful page to (Knesset) history. (It's 
another) in a growing list of disgraceful legislation whose entire 
purpose is to discriminate against Israel's Arab citizens, intimidate 
them and deny them their rights." It also mocks the notion of a 
democratic Israel.
 
At the time, half of the Knesset MKs didn't show up to vote, mostly ones 
who could have made a difference. As a result, hard-right extremists got 
their way. Their "apathy....encourages....racism, creating a convenient 
fertile ground for them to continue their disastrous activities." 
They've taken full advantage.
 
In fact, Adalah attorney Sawsan Zaher believes MKs henceforth will be 
encouraged to entirely subvert legitimate Arab Israeli rights.
 
In a combined statement, Adalah and ACRI said:
 
     "The High Court ignored the chilling effect of this law, and missed 
the opportunity to tell legislators that there are limits to their 
anti-human rights actions. This law encourages discrimination against 
Arabs in Israel."
 
In addition, the law's vagueness pressures institutions to self-censor 
to avoid penalties. At the same time, it marks Israeli Arabs as disloyal 
and dangerous.
 
It also compromises their legitimate rights and represents another 
example of collective punishment. The High Court approved targeting 
Israeli citizens for their faith and ethnicity.
 
Moreover, it dealt another body blow to equity and justice in a society 
far from free and open. It rendered them null and void.
 
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at 
lendman...@sbcglobal.net
.
 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20120120&articleId=28774
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 

 Two recent Israeli High Court rulings follow a disturbing trend.
 
non capisco cosa ci sia di razzista nel non dare la cittadinanza a
gente che, a sentire i propri rappresentanti, vogliono distruggere il
paese di cui chiedono la cittadinanza.