Court Upholds Israeli Spouse Ban

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, May 14, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Court upholds Israeli spouse ban

    Israel's 1.3 million Arabs are being discriminated against, activists say
    Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a controversial law barring West Bank Palestinians from living with their spouses and children in Israel itself.

    By a six-to-five majority, the court rejected petitions brought by civil rights groups, members of the Israeli parliament and Arab Israeli families.

    The government says the law, passed at a time of rising violence in 2002, is based on security concerns.

    But critics say it is discriminatory and violates rights to a family life.

    The case has been described as one of the most important questions the Supreme Court has dealt with in recent years.

    One of the groups that challenged the law said thousands of families were affected, that they have been forced to move abroad or live apart.

    Orna Kohn, a lawyer for a group defending Israeli Arabs, said Sunday's ruling caused "grave damage to the basic rights of thousands of people".

    But the Israeli state says the recent election victory of the militant group Hamas strengthened its case that Palestinians were a security risk and should not be allowed into the country.

    There are some 1.3 million Arab citizens in Israel - just under 20% of the population.

    - LINK
     
  2. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that this is a bad thing. Shame on the Israeli Supreme Court for making such a blatantly bad ruling. There is some cause for hope in the coverage of this story in Haaretz, however. Apparently, one of the votes upholding the ban was a swing vote who has indicated that the court may take up the issue again in 9 months if the government cannot come up with an alternative to deal with their security issue by then. In other words, this is probably not going to be the last word on this issue.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a link to the quote I was telling you about earlier.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not taking up for Israel, but in reality they have such a difficult situation due to their location, size and surrounding enemies.

    Every decision they make has to be weighed against not only the social implications, but security implications have to be a primary consideration. It is a sad and extremely tough situation to be in--talk about a rock and hard-place.

    When you have batches of enemies living within your own borders and you are only a few miles in width, you have a problem that is not easily solvable.

    Sad.........
     
  5. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    There should be a "Vetting" process like our own High Security types, where spouses go through a background check, too. Before, the spouse is given High Security access...

    SMM
     

Share This Page

Loading...