When equality is the biggest existential threat of all | +972 Magazine When equality is the biggest existential threat of all

+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

When equality is the biggest existential threat of all

In these days of entrapping human rights activists and blacklisting ‘traitors,’ the concept of equality has become as radical as it gets — and a threat to everything the governing regime stands for.

A Palestinian citizen of Israel waves a Palestinian flag during a protest against the police killing of Khir Hamdan in Umm al-Fahm. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

A Palestinian citizen of Israel waves a Palestinian flag during a protest against the police killing of Khir Hamdan in Umm al-Fahm. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Last week Israeli lawmakers had the opportunity to take a first step towards enshrining equality in the law. They rejected this opportunity, voting down Joint List MK Jamal Zahalka’s proposed amendment to include a clause on equality in Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

The vote was taken on a preliminary reading of Zahalka’s bill, meaning that it was shot down before it even left the starting blocks. The majority of Likud, along with the centrist Yesh Atid and Kulanu, along with the ultra-Orthodox parties, voted against the bill. The Joint List, Meretz and Zionist Union voted in favor.

It may at first seem hard to fathom why Zahalka’s bill was rejected. It simply proposed adding a section to one of Israel’s Basic Laws (which collectively make up the closest thing Israel has to a constitution) that would legally declare the country a state of all its citizens, by stipulating that there can be no discrimination against Israeli citizens on grounds of race, nationality, gender, religion, religious denomination, opinions, personal or social status, political affiliation, or for any other reason. This should be a natural state of affairs for any democracy.

Yet the proposed clause strikes at the heart of a contradiction Israel has been grappling with for nearly 70 years. Israel’s Declaration of Independence contained the competing visions of a Jewish state and a state that treats all its citizens equally regardless of race, gender or religion. With the best will in the world, a country that places one ethnic or religious group above all else cannot offer full equality. It will always have second-class citizens, even if they have the appearance of holding full civic rights (which is currently not the case for non-Jews in Israel).

Even the opening paragraph of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty sets out its purpose of “establish[ing] in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” The addition of an equality clause would thus contradict the law’s stated aim.

By rejecting this amendment, the Israeli government has in effect ratified by omission the idea that certain groups can take priority over others. And indeed, any Israeli citizen who is Palestinian, queer, non-halakhically Jewish or simply not Jewish at all, is denied rights and freedoms that are automatically granted to others.

Balad chairman Jamal Zahalka. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Balad chairman and Joint List MK Jamal Zahalka. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

The absence of an equality clause also leaves the door open for the passing of discriminatory legislation, as has been proved in Israel: since 1948, over 50 laws have been passed that “directly or indirectly discriminate against Palestinian citizens,” according to Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

This reality denies the ethical values set down in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first clause of that document states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” This foundational principle — equality by birth — is the basis for all other human and civic rights, as Zahalka argued in his proposal when submitting the Basic Law amendment.

This understanding of liberty and dignity also provides recourse when there is no legal precedent in a situation relating to such rights, allowing for humane decisions to be made in the absence of specific guidance.

Don’t question policies, don’t challenge laws

The current version of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty was used to precisely this effect in 2011, when a Tel Aviv District Court judge wrote a stirring legal opinion ruling that Israeli author Yoram Kaniuk had the right to be registered by the state as “without religion.” As a rule, everyone who meets the rabbinate’s criteria is automatically classified as Jewish, whether they identify as such or not.

“We face a demand for freedom from religion in the civil registry,” the judge wrote. “Freedom from religion is derived from human dignity, which is protected in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. When the given law is laconic, the fundamental right shall decide, which tilts the scales in favor of the claimant and his self-definition in the registry.”

The judge’s legal opinion was true to the letter and spirit of that opening clause of the UDHR. He understood that Kaniuk’s right to personal dignity and liberty trumped the state’s self-appointed task of categorizing people how it sees fit, and handed down a legal opinion based on consciousness and compassion — both of which are essential to maintaining equality.

Yoram Kaniuk (photo: Osnat Skoblinski)

Israeli author Yoram Kaniuk. (photo: Osnat Skoblinski)

When George Orwell wrote that orthodoxy is unconsciousness, he was referring to the kind of dogmatism that rules out thinking for oneself. It’s the kind of unconsciousness that repressive governments require of their subjects in order for them to be good citizens: don’t question policies, don’t challenge laws — accept the top-down social order.

Equality requires the very opposite of unconsciousness. It demands that we pay attention to our environment and to one another. It asks of us to recognize specific groups to ensure their rights are not violated, while not losing sight of our common humanity. It also requires us to be alert to conflicting sensibilities, for example when one group’s right to observe its traditions impacts another group’s right to freedom of choice.

In a state that categorizes as relentlessly as Israel does — a by-product of its cobbled-together society, the interference of religion in state and legal affairs and the effects of colonization and occupation all rolled into one — it can be difficult to find the common humanity underneath it all. This is especially true in a country that has become so accustomed to ethnic and religious separation.

A status quo of inequality

Compassion, that other pillar of equality, grows out of consciousness. As Israeli academic Eva Illouz has noted, “[c]ompassion reserved only for members of my group is not compassion, but self-preservation.” Compassion is critical in order to be able to relate to others as fellow human beings rather than members of this group or that, and to transcend the divisions that others place between us.

Lastly, and most importantly, are the occupation and the siege on Gaza, by far the biggest obstacles to equality in this land. The discrimination engendered by Israel’s policies in the West Bank and vis-à-vis Gaza is an essay on its own, but it must be remembered that the same government which rejected the equality clause for its own citizens also maintains an entire parallel legal system inside which the inequality of Palestinians under occupation is tightly sealed.

A Palestinian child stands in front of his destroyed home in the Tuffah neighboorhood of Gaza city, Gaza Strip, February 9, 2015. Six months after the Israeli military offensive, tens of thousands of Palestinians are still displaced. (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

A Palestinian child stands in front of his destroyed home in the Tuffah neighboorhood of Gaza city, Gaza Strip, February 9, 2015. Six months after the Israeli military offensive, tens of thousands of Palestinians are still displaced. (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

None of this is to say that introducing an equality clause into Israeli law would be an automatic harbinger of better times ahead. It wouldn’t erase the institutionalized racism caused by decades of occupation and separation, nor would it overturn the post-colonial “between the lines” discrimination against Mizrahim, which though not set down in law is no less deeply rooted.

But formalizing equality in the law would at the very least present an obstacle to the Right’s seeming ability to operate unhindered in Israeli government and society, no matter how ruinous to others (and, in the long run, themselves) their policies may be. In these days of entrapping human rights activists and blacklisting “traitors,” and amid the increasing demands for adherence to a narrow ideal of state and ethnic loyalty, the concept of equality has become as radical as it gets — and a threat to everything the governing regime stands for.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      Breathtaking ignorance and ineptitude on display at +972mag

      EQUALITY as a Legal and formal Moral Principle has its origins in Judaism and forms one of the basic pillars of the Jewish society since time immemorial.

      1. As to Jewish Values

      (a) Numbers 15:16: “One law and one manner shall be for you and the stranger that sojourneth with you”.

      (b) Leviticus 24:22: “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for stranger, as for one of your own country”.

      2. As to the Laws of the Jewish State

      (a) The Declaration Of Independence: “The State of Israel guarantees complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants without discrimination on the basis of religion, race and gender, and calls upon the Arab citizens of Israel to take part in the building of the state and be represented in its institutions”.

      (b) In a series of landmark cases, e.g. Yafora Ltd. v. Israel Broadcasting Authority, Peretz v. Kfar Shmaryahu, HCH 7052/03 Adalla v. Minister of Interior, etc., the Supreme Court has consistently Ruled that the Principle of Equality is a constitutive and inseparable part of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

      3. Challenge to Ms. Roth:

      There is NO law in Israel that gives Israeli Jews more rights than non-Israeli Jews. If Natasha Roth does not agree with this, she is here CHALLENGED to point to such laws.

      ACCORDINGLY This article fails. The claims of Ms. Roth are at best based on ignorance and at worst malicious. Zahalka and this fellow Arab nationalists Islamist in the Knesset do not even believe in the equality of men and women and the Basic law. They all want to replace the State of Israel with another Muslim Arab state and are using their “Bill” as a publicity stunt to smear, demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Correction

        “ 3. Challenge to Ms. Roth:
        There is NO law in Israel that gives Israeli Jews more rights than non-JEWISH ISRAELIS. If Natasha Roth does not agree with this, she is here CHALLENGED to point to such laws. ”

        —– was meant.

        Reply to Comment
        • Lewis from Afula

          Does that PLO fascist waving a PLO terrorist organization flag have any rights?
          In my opinion, NO. He should be fined and jailed. That’s the way it was during Shamir’s time and this policy will be re-instated when Feiglin comes to power.

          It’s like a German waving the swastika in Modern-day Germany. What happens to him? He gets jail time. In both cases, we are both talking about legitimizing fascism. It does not matter which flavor of fascism he supports.

          Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            It is quite ironic that this article is about a state which refuses to enshrine equality into it’s basic laws and you write that it doesn’t matter which flavor of fascism one supports.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            But equality is already “enshrined” in the Basic law from the get go. The post of Ginger Eis above is very easy to understand I presume. Is repeating the same lie and yelling “fascist” the best you can do?

            Don’t let the hate in your heart get the better of you.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Then where’s the clause which says that all persons shall be equal before the law? Or that no person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of ethnicity or faith?

            The Basic law even mentions that it can be violated, if the violation befits the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish [!] state.

            Just have a look at the hilarious ruling in one of the cases that Ginger Eis mentioned:
            HCH 7052/03 Adalla v. Minister of Interior

            All the judges claim that a constitutional right to equality exists. But the relevant question was not, if it was violated, but if the violation itself was “constitutional”. In other words, the violation of a right to equality or any other constitutional right can be violated, if it befits Jews.

            Enshrined equality … lmao.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            • The Declaration Of Independence: “The State of Israel guarantees complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants without discrimination on the basis of religion, race and gender, and calls upon the Arab citizens of Israel to take part in the building of the state and be represented in its institutions”.

            • Peretz versus Kfar Shmaryahy: “Equality before the law is basic principle of Israel’s legal system. This principle has grown to become well-rooted, binding legal rule”.

            • Yafora Ltd versus IBA: “It is the law that any discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, belief, political, or other opinion is forbidden for everybody acting under the law”.

            • United Kingdom and the United States: In the United Kingdom equality is derived from “the rule of law”. The United Kingdom has neither a constitution nor a basic law. In the United States, the United States Constitution only states that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The Israeli Basic law goes further than that and describes all possible rights that a person can have and that are granted equally to all Israeli citizens. In that sense, the Basis law is more advanced than the US constitution.

            You did not even read the extremely well detailed case of Addala/Minister of Interior, but you fill entitled to rant like a jerk against it? Hate is a very destructive emotion. Do not let hate and ignorance get the better of you!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “when Feiglin comes to power”

            Let us quote Feiglin:

            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/yossi-sarid-feiglin-his-cronies-are-fascists-by-any-definition-1.259197?v=0D084F261C2E33DAF92DC6A1B36AA3D8

            …In describing Adolf Hitler, Feiglin is quoted to have told her, “Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals.”

            The time has come to break free from the shackles of politically correct speech and call these people – Feiglin and his cronies – by their explicit name. They are not “radicals” but fascists by any acceptable definition. And had they not been born – through no fault of their own – to Jewish mothers, they would have been damn anti-Semites to boot.

            “There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense,” Feiglin went on to say in that interview. “And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races – and this is a very primitive distinction – must argue that Zionism is racist.” …

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Obfuscating? “Feiglin” is NOT “in power”, ok? Perhaps you should deal with the actual genocidal declarations of your Muslim Arab brothers first before delving into what Feiglin “is quoted to have said”:

            “PA cleric calls for genocide of Jews and killing of Americans

            Dr. Ahmad Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Shari’ah (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University: “The Jews are the Jews, whether Labor or Likud, the Jews are the Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars… They must be butchered and they must be killed, as Allah said [in the Quran]: ‘Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands. He will humiliate them, and grant you victory over them.’ The Jews are like a spring: As long as you step on it with your foot, it doesn’t move. But if you lift your foot off the spring, it hurts you and punishes you. This is the case of the Jews. Have no mercy on the Jews anywhere in any country. [Quran]: ‘Fight them wherever you are, wherever you meet them – kill them.’ Wherever you are – kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand with them. They are all together against the Arabs and the Muslims.” http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=472&fld_id=474&doc_id=3884

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            I was not writing to you. I was writing to ‘Lewis from Afula’ who fondly looks forward to the day “when Feiglin comes to power.” It’s astonishing isn’t it? Lewis admires Feiglin — a guy who publicly admires Hitler and the spiffy things he thinks Hitler did to shape up Germany from “a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status” –and in the same breath Lewis castigates those who Lewis thinks “legitimize fascism.” Absolutely surreal. You can not make this stuff up. Now what part of this about you, Lewis, Feiglin, Hitler, and legitimizing fascism do you not understand?

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Time is money. Find something better to do with your time. Get a life, YOU, Hitler, TB and Lewis from Afula!

            Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Preposterous. Everything gets reduced by you, Eis, to a narrow point of “law” shrouded in pettifoggery. First of all, Natasha Roth is talking about many things, not just formal legal codes, but about the law in practice, about equal protection of the laws, about civi equality, about civil rights; and lest we forget, also about two grossly unequal legal regimes inside a de facto one state.

          “With the best will in the world, a country that places one ethnic or religious group above all else cannot offer full equality. It will always have second-class citizens, even if they have the appearance of holding full civic rights (which is currently not the case for non-Jews in Israel).”

          Yet even on the basis of your narrow legalism you are plainly wrong. This is not even sophistry, it’s just blatant denial. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

          https://electronicintifada.net/content/lawsuit-challenges-israels-discriminatory-citizenship-definition/8767

          In my humble opinion, Eis, your attack on Roth fails.

          Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            It seems this ‘electronic intifada guy’ is a talkative parrot that wastes thousands of empty words saying nothing relevant. Equality is **enshrined** in the Basic law and in Israel’s legal system from the get go. That is a fact that says Natasha is **wrong**. Israeli citizens have the same civil, political, human, etc. rights that are writing down in black and white in Israel’s Basic law! Those are facts that say Natasha is **wrong**. Those fact written down in black and white in Israel’s Basic law cannot be denied by “knife intifada” or “electronic intifada” or any other kind of intifada or the hallucinations about “de facto one state” and “law in practice”.

            “Immigration” and “naturalization” rights are for non-Israelis, moron. No Israeli Jew has “immigration” and “naturalization” right. You can’t even point out one single legal right that Israeli Jews have, but other Israelis who are not Jews don’t have, which law contains that right and where! It seems the best you can do is parrot the propaganda of “electronic intifada”, “knife intifada” and other forms of intifada propaganda.

            Do not let the hate in your heart get the better of you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            As pointed out to you already, “Equality” of all kinds is **enshrined** in the Basic law and in Israel’s legal system from the get go and is writing down in black and white! That fact contradicts Natasha and cannot be denied by “knife intifada” or “electronic intifada” or any other kind of intifada or the hallucinations about “de facto one state” and “law in practice”.

            More facts: 93 – 95% of the land of Israel are owned by the state of Israel. The rest are leased. In the landmark case of Kaadan, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that prohibition on Arab Israelis to buy or lease land in certain areas that were designated as Jewish neighborhoods violates Israel’s Basic law that prohibits discrimination of all Israeli citizens based on nationality, religion, gender, political beliefs, etc. Israeli Arabs, Israeli Jews, the Druze and others lease land that are available for lease alike with the same “discrimination” that is not unique to Israel. If you don’t get what you want, you cry “fascism”, “apartheid” (if you are a Muslim Arab), or “anti-Semitism”, “fascism”, (if you are an Israeli Jews). No state can satisfy 100% of the needs of its citizens. It is the same everywhere. That is “law in practice”.

            As pointed out to you already, “Immigration and naturalization” rights are for non-Israelis. “Equality/discrimination” is not an issue here.

            Leave the law to those who actually understand the law. Got that, moron?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            It is bizarre to have somebody as plainly obnoxious and hate-filled as you and who writes as hatefully as you do to lecture others about “hating.” An award winning strategy of scintillating intelligence you employ there. It would be like a guy stumbling around drunk swilling a half gallon of vodka clutched in his hands lecturing other people on alcoholism. Quite a spectacle. Grimly amusing.

            All your bluster does not hide the facts. Your attack on Roth fails, as did Eis’s attack before you. I invite anyone to read, just for example, Yousef Munayyer’s account of reality:

            http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html?referer=

            Not All Israeli Citizens Are Equal
            By YOUSEF MUNAYYER
            MAY 23, 2012

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            “Yousef Munayyer”? Who is that? You mean the dude who, having no form of legal background, wrote the OP-Ed entitled “Not All Israeli Citizens Are Equal” and was thereafter proven to be a liar and a fraud? You can read all about it here:

            http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=2253

            Hate is a very destructive emotion. Do not let the hate in your heart get the better of you. Stop pedaling lies against Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Every point in Camera’s attack on Munayyer and the New York Times is contentious interpretation laced with duplicity, not some kind of objective legal analysis. For the farce that is Camera, readers should turn to Gershom Gorenburg, who has several times shined amusing light on Camera’s unprofessional shenanigans:

            The Mideast Editing Wars

            http://prospect.org/article/mideast-editing-wars

            Roth’s analysis stands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Riiiiight!

            Youssef Muneyyer was not only shown to be a liar and a fraud, but also not very bright. The CAMERA exposé is all about pure facts very clear.

            Meanwhile, keep weeping and consoling yourself.

            Reply to Comment
      • Blokeabout

        You’re kidding, right?
        Israel has ignored the tenets of its declaration of independence since day one. The argument first was that Palestinians didn’t exist anyway.
        When it became difficult to hide them then the reason for not recognizing them was that they refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
        But then Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist in the very same borders that the international community recognizes Israel.
        So the argument became: they refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This of course contradicts the Declaration of Independence whose points are violated daily.
        Those who refuse to recognize Palestinian land also indulge in ignoring the system of laws which only apply to those under occupation.
        While they support a system of apartheid, they can’t bring themselves to notice that it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck that you insist in calling a figment of the world’s imagination.

        Reply to Comment
      • TB7

        ” The Declaration Of Independence:”

        Is not a constitutional document.

        “You did not even read the extremely well detailed case of Addala/Minister of Interior, …”

        Stop lying, I surely did. Only 3 judges ruled that the newly introduced law didn’t violate aby constitutional right of the Basic law. Allthough 8 of 11 judges ruled that the newly introduced law did violate “constitutional rights” and 7 of them that it violated the “constitutional right to equality”, it was still passed!

        The main question was not, if the law violated the “constitutional rights” of the Basic law, but if the violation of these “constitutional rights” didn’t violate the Basic Law according to paragraph 8 which allows the violation of the Basic Law, if it befits the values of the state being “Jewish” and democratic. In other words, the alleged right to equality can be violated, if it befits Jewish interests!

        But the law was actually passed, because the judge with the deciding vote who was amongst the majority [!] who ruled that the newly instroduced law either violated the right to equality or violated the right to violate the Basic law decided that “since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand but if changes are not made, the law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial scrutiny in the future.”.

        Enshrined equality … lmao.

        Since “Lewis from Afula” refered to German’s law, here’s its basic law about equality:

        “Article 3 [Equality before the law]

        (1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
        (2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.
        (3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavoured because of disability.
        http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0022

        That’s how an enshrined right to equality looks like. And this right can’t be restricted or violated by any law!!!

        Compare this to: https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

        Enshrined equality … lmao.

        “… but you fill entitled to rant like a jerk against it? Hate is a very destructive emotion. Do not let hate and ignorance get the better of you!”

        Trust me, if I ever would hate and be ignorant, it would look just like your “rant like a jerk” against me. But I’m neiter a character assassin nor an opionion fascist.

        Reply to Comment
        • Whonoze

          You obvious are quite confused and have ZERO knowledge of the law. Leave the law to those who actually understand it and stop making a complete jackass of yourself.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Nothing exposes the empty pseudo-legal bluster of Ginger Eis and Whonoze better than this comment of February 2 by TB7. Unless it is the whimpering retreat, disguised as an attack, by Whonoze on February 3.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            That’s quite a consolation you are giving to yourself there.

            “The main question was not, if the law violated the “constitutional rights” of the Basic law, but if the violation of these “constitutional rights” didn’t violate the Basic Law according to paragraph 8 which allows the violation of the Basic Law, if it befits the values of the state being “Jewish” and democratic. In other words, the alleged right to equality can be violated, if it befits Jewish interests! But the law was actually passed, because the judge with the deciding vote who was amongst the majority [!] who ruled that the newly instroduced law either violated the right to equality or violated the right to violate the Basic law…”

            Those are the words of a complete and utter buffoon. I am sure those imbecilic, utterly incomprehensible mumbo jumbo are music in your psychotic mind. The imbecile does not even understand a single word of what he claims he read.

            As said, do not let the hate and jealousy in your heart get the better of you. Leave the law to those who actually understand the law (from whom you could actually learn something if you weren’t plain stupid) and stop making a complete jackass of yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You didn’t count on someone actually reading the case law. Oops. LoL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            You “read” the case without understanding a single word of what it says, because you are inane and inept, and ended up posting an utterly confused and incomprehensible mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the case you claim you “read”.

            Here is the case. It revolves around the “constitutional right of equality” of Israel’s citizen “enshrined” in Israel’s Basic Law! Ya got that, moron? “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EQUALITY” **enshrined** in Israel’s Basic law! That defeats your entire rants.

            file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/Israel%20-%20Adalah%20Legal%20Centre%20for%20Arab%20Minority%20Rights%20et.%20al.%20v.%20Minister%20of%20Interior%20et.%20al.,%20Supreme%20Court,%202006%20[Eng].pdf

            When you finish reading it, there will be follow-up questions designed to further show ….. (never mind; I will let you find out the hard way).

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Here’s article 1 of the Basic law:
            “1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

            Here’s article 8 of the same Basic Law:
            “8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except [!] by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”
            https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

            That basically means that ANY constitional right in this Basic Law can be violated. Cause if it is violated the main question is, if the violation of a constitutional right violated article 8 or not. So if a law violating any constitutional right is a law “befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.” then this law doesn’t violate the Basic law and its declared purpose and is called “constitutional” (which means in accordance with the Basic law according to article 8)

            Just read the second page of the case after “Held:”
            http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/03/520/070/a47/03070520.a47.pdf

            For example:
            “These violations of constitutional rights lead to the law being unconstitutional, since the law does not satisfy the last condition of the limitations clause [article 8] in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, namely that the violation of the constitutional rights should not be excessive.”

            So even to the judges who ruled that constitutional rights were violated the main question was, if this violations were constitutional (according to article 8) or not. Again, 8 of 11 judges ruled that the law violated constitutional rights, 7 that the right to equality was violated, 6 that this violation was also unconstitutional which is the primary concern, but one of this 6 (Justice Levy) also ruled that “since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand” and so the majority against it became a minority and the law was passed, even if only 3 judges actually ruled that it didn’t violate the Basic law at all.

            A majority at Israel’s Supreme Court judges can be basically even 0 judges upholding the Basic law, if (like Justicy Levy) none of them rules that a law is in accordance with the Basic law, but all of them rule that it is better than no law at all.

            It basically doesn’t matter, if Israel has a Basic law enshrining constitutional rights that it could violate or not. Just make a law, if you need to disenfranchise people.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Oh boy… it is really a pity that you chose to make a jackass of yourself. You are still very confused and demonstrating ignorance.

            • First you denied that “equality” is not “enshrined” in Israel’s Basic law. But then, albeit inadvertently, you admitted that the “Constitutional Right of Equality” is **enshrined** in Israel’s Basic law. That’s a big fat concession that should have ended the discussion if you had any brain in your head. But you are still ranting and displaying ignorance.

            • The court did NOT find that the “constitutional right of equality” was violated in the Adalla case, moron, because the ban on bringing foreign spouses from Gaza and the WB to Israel applied to ALL Israelis WITHOUT distinction. The goal of the ban was security/prevention of terrorism. However, the court did find that the ban was disproportionate (Basic Law, Article 8) in that it was *blanket* and *indefinite* and therefore goes beyond achieving the goal it was meant for: security (IF and WHEN the security threat does not exist anymore, the ban will become unnecessary and unconstitutional) and as such violates the **right to family life**, NOT “equality*, moron. The court decided nonetheless to let the law stand on the condition that the State amends it and removes the *disproportionate part*. Consequently the ban was made temporary and dependent on the severity of the security situation on the ground. There was thus neither legal necessity nor need to vacate the law in the Adalla case. That is what happened in the case you “read” without understanding at all what it says and still would not understand even if you “read” it a million times. As said, leave the law to those who actually understand the law and stop making a complete jackass of yourself pretending to know what you don’t know and insulting those from whom you could actually learn something out of jealousy and/or foolishness.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Your phrase “constitutional right OF equality” can neither be found in the Basic law nor in the Adalah case.

            In the Basic law there isn’t anything which explicitely enshrines that everybody is equal before the law or that even any constitutional right is unconditional and inalienable.

            In the Adalah case the phrase “constitutional right TO equality” is used (and which I only use to explain the Basic law and the court’s decition) which puts into question, if you actually have read this “extremely well detailed case” as you put it.

            I highly doubt it. Contrary to your claim the majority of judges (6)did rule that the law violated the “right to equality” (President Barak, Justices Beinisch, Joubran, Hayut, Procaccia, Levy). It’s all on page 2 and 3.
            http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/03/520/070/a47/03070520.a47.pdf

            You have not read the case, you don’t understand what actually happened and you are dead wrong about basic facts which explains why you have to resort to verbal violence all the time.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things, moron.

            As said, leave the law to those who actually understand the law and stop making a complete jackass of yourself (you are even emulating and mimicking a lady you use words such as “sophistry”, blah, blah, blah. to insult. Pathetic moron).

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            1. “In the Basic law there isn’t anything which explicitely enshrines that everybody is equal before the law or that even any constitutional right is unconditional and inalienable.”

            • The Basic law “explicitly enshrines” HUMAN DIGNITY AND LIBERTY. “Equality” is only a FRACTION of that right. In that sense the Basic Law MORE THAN “explicitly enshrines that everybody is equal before the law”. That is written in black and white in the case you claim you “read”. See also the quotes I provided to you up-thread. That goes way beyond what is available in the United States and the United Kingdom.

            • No “constitutional right is unconditional and inalienable”, moron, NOT even the “right to life” which can be completely denied if certain legal conditions are met!

            2. “Contrary to your claim the majority of judges (6)did rule that the law violated the “right to equality” (President Barak, Justices Beinisch, Joubran, Hayut, Procaccia, Levy). It’s all on page 2 and 3″.

            • Majority of the judges ruled that the law either (a) does not violate “equality” or (b) does violate “equality” but that the violation was “proportionate”. You would have to understand the science of the law to know that there is NO difference between (a) and (b). But you have ZERO knowledge of the law, but instead pretend to know what you don’t know by emulating and mimicking the arguments and mannerisms of a lady (Ginger Eis) you use words such as “pseudo legalism” to insult, while going back and reading her posts every single day and try too hard to sound like her (pathetic moron). Do you even know the difference between (c) “majority opinion” (d) “minority opinion” and (d) the court? “Petition denied, by majority opinion (Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Rivlin, Levy, Grunis, Naor and Adiel), President Barak and Justices Beinisch, Procaccia, Joubran and Hayut dissenting”. You can’t even count and do simple arithmetic, it seems!

            Leave the law to those who actually STUDIED it and quit make a jackass of yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Whonoze: “The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things, moron.”

            I never claimed anything else. But you wrote “of equality” instead of “to equality” before, because you haven’t read the case, you pot who calls the cattle black.

            Whonoze: “As said, leave the law to those who actually understand the law and stop making a complete jackass of yourself (you are even emulating and mimicking a lady you use words such as “sophistry”, blah, blah, blah. to insult. Pathetic moron).”

            I never usee the word “sophistry”. But I absolutely insist that you continue behaving like “a complete jackass”. Your boring, repetitive and pathetic insults and lies perfectly illustrate the degree of your intellectual potency and honesty.

            If the Basic Law would “explicitly” enshrine “that everybody is equal before the law” it would be easy for you to quote a relevant phrase. But you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word “explicite” and a RIGHT TO equality doesn’t even mean that everybody IS equal before the law. Either one is equal before the law or one isn’t. In Israel it depends, if it is befitting the “values of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”. Rofl.

            Whonoze: “Majority of the judges ruled that the law either (a) does not violate “equality” or (b) does violate “equality” but that the violation was “proportionate””

            You are still wrong, which is absolutely remarkable.

            Group (a): Vice-President Cheshin, Justices Grunis, Naor, Adiel and Rivlin (5 Judges)
            Group (b): (0)

            5 is not the majority of 11, Whonoze, but maybe the Supreme Court rules in favour of violating the laws of mathematics and also that this violation is constitutional, because befitting the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

            The majority ruled that the law violated the “right to equality” AND that it violated the Basic law:
            President Barak, Justices Beinisch, Joubran, Hayut, Procaccia and Levy.
            http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/03/520/070/a47/03070520.a47.pdf

            But Justice Levy also ruled that it is better to have this unconstitutional law violating constitutional rights than none. And so the number of judges who ruled against the law became a minority. Which basically means that every judge could have just ruled like Justice Levy and it is basically irrelevant, if a constitutional right or the Basic law itself is violated or not.

            If any law can be justified (or rejected) with the Basic law, wonderful. If not, who cares.

            Constitutional rights … lmao.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            The Petitioner:

            “The petitioners claim that the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law is unconstitutional, since it unlawfully violates rights that are enshrined in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, on the basis of ethnic and national groupings. The petitioners claim that the law violates the right of citizens of the State who wish to be united with their spouses or their children in order to have a family life in their country. They claim that this violation breaches the right of the Arab citizens of Israel to equality, and the discrimination in this violates human dignity”.

            That’s a quote from the case you claim you read. “Human Dignity and Liberty” encompassed many constitutional rights, including the “constitutional right to equality” as even Adala of all people says, moron.

            The Court:

            “Petition denied, by majority opinion (Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Rivlin, Levy, Grunis, Naor and Adiel), President Barak and Justices Beinisch, Procaccia, Joubran and Hayut dissenting”.

            That’s a quote from p. 3, para. 5 of the case you claim you “read”. Now, count the majority- and the dissenting opinions and divide the numbers between “group a” and “group b” and tell us the result. Seems you can neither read nor do simple math or even understand what you “read”. ROFLMAO ….. Keep making a jackass of yourself, imbecile.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            >That’s a quote from the case you claim you read. “Human Dignity and Liberty” encompassed many constitutional rights, including the “constitutional right to equality” as even Adala of all people says, moron.”The Court:

            “Petition denied, by majority opinion (Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Rivlin, Levy, Grunis, Naor and Adiel), President Barak and Justices Beinisch, Procaccia, Joubran and Hayut dissenting”.

            That’s a quote from p. 3, para. 5 of the case you claim you “read”. Now, count the majority- and the dissenting opinions and divide the numbers between “group a” and “group b” and tell us the result.

            Seems you can neither read nor do simple math or even understand what you “read”.<

            It's pretty obvious that four times was not enough to try to make you understand that the majority of the judges (6, the dessenting five PLUS Justice Levy) ruled, that the law violated a "right to equality" AND that this violation was unconstitutional, but that Justice Levy ALSO ruled that "since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand”.

            And so the minority of judges (3) who ruled that this law was not violating any constitutional rights PLUS the judges (2) that ruled, that it did violate constitutional rights, but wasn't unconstutional PLUS Justice Levy became a majority of six who denied the petition. Which basically means that a law can stand, if 8 of 11 judges rule that it violates at least one constitutional right, if not two.

            The Adalah case has clearly shown that it is even possible that any constitutional matter can become irrelevant in this Supreme Court, and that not only one, but all of the judges could rule, that a law should simply be allowed to stand, despite being unconstitutional. Justice Levy said that this "law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial scrutiny in the future." But that was obviously irrelevant in the present. So who actually even cares what is factually enshrined in Israel's Basic law?

            "ROFLMAO ….. Keep making a jackass of yourself, imbecile."

            He who laughs last, laughs best … Keep shooting yourself in the foot, foul mouth.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            More rambling mumbo jumbo from a confused imbecile. Every single idiotic claim you made here has been shown not just to be false but outright silliness, and with each post you send in a desperate attempt to find a face saving way out, your towering ignorance gets even more accentuated. Here, lemme try to ram it again thru your thick skull:

            The Court: “Held: (Minority opinion — President Barak, Justices Beinisch, Joubran, Hayut, Procaccia)…..” That’s on p. 2, last paragraph of the case you claim you “read”. Moron can’t read and count.

            The Court: “Petition denied, by majority opinion (Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Rivlin, Levy, Grunis, Naor and Adiel), President Barak and Justices Beinisch, Procaccia, Joubran and Hayut dissenting”. That’s on p. 3, para. 5 of the case you claim you “read”. Count the numbers and tell us the result.

            QUESTIONS:

            1. Now, we know that you have ZERO knowledge of the law, but, seriously, are you really that retarded to understand that Justices Levy, Rivlin and Adiel – as a matter of legal science – are saying the SAME thing (group b)?
            2. Are you too retarded to understand that “violation/infringement of a right” is NOT the same as a “violation of the law” – that the former denotes a specific factual occurrence (e.g. arresting someone), while the later is a question of law (i.e. was the arrest lawful)?
            3. Are you too retarded to understand that a “violation of a right” that meets the requirements of the “limitation clause” are – as a matter of law – NOT a “violation of the law”?
            4. Do you even know what “limitation clause” mean? Tell us, we are listening.

            Answer ONLY and ALL the questions, because they are intertwined!

            As said, keep making a complete jackass of yourself. I am more than happy in helping you in that regard! ROFLMAO …

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Btw,

            QUESTION 5

            What is the difference between (a) “constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “constitutional right TO equality”?

            Answer ONLY the question. Let’s just continue exposing what a buffoon you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Rofl. The sixth time!

            You still don’t get that the majority of judges (Justice Levy PLUS the judges from the “minority opinion”) ruled that a right of equality and a right to family life were violated and these violations were unconstitutional, because they violated the limitation clause (article 8 of the Basic law).

            You don’t get that this is the difference between Justice Levy on the one hand and Justices Rivlin and Adiel on the other who ruled that only a right to family life was violated, but that this violation wasn’t even unconstitutional.

            You don’t get that Justice Levy only belongs to the “majority opinion” who ruled that the law should stand, because he also ruled:
            “NOTWITHSTANDING [!] since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand, but if changes are not made, the law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial
            scrutiny in the future.

            You don’t get that this means that a law can stand in Israel, even if a constitutional right in the Basic law is violated AND this violation is a violation of the Basic law itself (by violating its limitation clause, article 8).

            Again, there’s nothing in the Basic law which explicitly declares that everybody IS equal before the law.

            And regarding your questions. You don’t even seem to get what I did or didn’t write or why. Lol.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            More mumbo jumbo from a confused moron desperately looking for a face saving way out. You can’t even answer a SINGLE question put to you, but instead hide behind repeating the same gibberish over and over again. You have gone from denying that “constitutional right OF equality” is **enshrined** in the Basic Law to accepting that it in fact IS **enshrined** in the Basic Law and that you were WRONG. You have also made other false statements which I will be pointing out later on. For now, let me help you out by putting the questions in such an order that, if you know the answers, would maybe clear up your most serious confusion:

            1. What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”?
            2. What does “limitation clause” mean and how do the opinions of Justices Levy, Rivlin and Adiel – as a matter of legal science – (group b) fit into that?
            3. Outside the mechanism of “limitation clause”, through which OTHER legal mechanism could Justice Levy POSSIBLY have made the decision you foolishly attribute to him? Give the name of that ‘legal mechanism’. Perhaps the name of that mechanism is “Arbitrariness”? ROFLMAO… Pls. answer ONLY the questions, or, maybe you want to run again and seek refuge in repeating the SAME long rambling mumbo jumbo over and over again?

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Your questions are just based on dishonesty.

            Orginal question (OQ) 1: Contrary to you dishonest accusation I have allready explained that Levy ruled that the law a.) UNconstitutionally violated the b.) right to equality and the right to familiy life while Rivlin and Adiel ruled that the law a.) constitutionally violated only the b.)right to family life. There is still no one in your hallucinated “group b” who ruled that the law “(b) does violate “equality” BUT that the violation was “proportionate”” as you claim. The majority of Judges (Levy and the judges of the “minority opinion”) ruled that the violation WAS unconstitutional.

            OQ 2: Contrary to your implied dishonest accusation, I never claimed that a “violation/infringement of a right” is NOT the same as a “violation of the law”.
            OQ 3&4: Contrary to you implied dishonest accusation, I always claimed the same and that a violation of constititutional rights doesn’t violate the Basic law, if it’s article 8 (which is called “limitation clause”) is not violated.
            OQ 5: I allready explained to you that your phrase “constitutional right OF equality” can neither be found in the Basic law nor in the Adalah case. That was a response to your dishonest accusation that I haven’t had read the case.

            New Question 3: If you don’t even get that Levy is amongst the majority of judges (not the “majority opionion”) that ruled that a “right to equality” was unconstitutionally violated, I wonder why you ask me to explain what the legal mechanism could be that allows this.

            Justice Levy: “The law violates both the right to family life and the right to equality. With regard to the conditions of the limitations clause, the main problem lies in the requirement that the law should adopt the least harmful measure. The blanket prohibition will have to be replaced by an individual check of each applicant for family reunification. […] Notwithstanding, since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand, but if changes are not made, the law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial scrutiny in the future.”

            I can’t help you, if you are not able to understand or to dishonest to admit that Levy ruled that the law not only violated the right to equality AND that this violation was unconstititutional, but NOTWITHSTANDING should be allowed to stand. Six judges ruled that the law was basically racist, because even it was prima facie not making a difference between Israeli Jews and Arabs it de facto targets only Israeli Arabs.

            Regarding you dishonest accusation that I have accepted that a right to equality is in fact enshrined in the Basic Law and that I was wrong: My argument still stands, that it is not, especially not explicit. If you had read the case you would have had noticed what is perfectly summarized in the book “Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making”:

            “The main opinion among the minority justices was written by Court President Aharon Barak […] In the first part, Barak argued that the right to dignity anchored in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty SHOULD BE INTERPRETED as also including the right to establish a family, […] The right to equality is not included among the rights protected by the Basic Laws, as it was explicitly [!] removed from the formulation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Barak DETERMINED that this aspect of equality is included within the framework of the constitutional right to dignity, […]”
            https://books.google.de/books?id=fJDbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA496

            Enshrined equality … lmao. It’s just a matter of interpretation, if such a law is even included in the Basic law.

            Keep shooting yourself in the foot, foul mouth. I can assure you that it will become even worse for yuo, if you continue.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Moron is now getting extremely confused and rambling even more looong incomprehensible mumbo jumbo even he himself does not understand. Oy! Lemme put the questions again in a more simplified manner:

            QUESTIONS

            1. What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”? (Begin answering the question this way: “Constitutional right OF equality” is…., while “constitutional right TO equality” is…… The diff. b/w the two is……’. That’s not difficult at all, is it, moron?).

            2. What does “limitation clause” mean? (Later on, we will get to how the opinions of Justices Levy, Rivlin and Adiel (group b) – as a matter of legal science – fit into that mechanism). Start answering the question this way: “limitation clause” means …

            3. Outside of the mechanism of “limitation clause”, through which OTHER legal mechanism could Justices Levy, Adiel and Rivlin POSSIBLY have made the decision they made in the case? Give the name of that ‘legal mechanism’?

            pUleez answer ONLY the questions. No more stories. Just answer ONLY the questions WITHOUT your stories, moron, and we will get to the rest one by one, step by step.

            Reply to Comment
          • tb7

            You were proven wrong that a right to equality is enshrined in Israel’s Basic law. It was explicitly removed from it and is only interpreted into the Basic law by the judges of the Supreme Court.

            You also made a mistake when you denied the fact that Levy was amongst the majority of judges who ruled that the law violated the law of equality AND the right to family life AND that the violation was NOT constitutional. But contrary to them Levy wanted to give the state nine months to prepare for the invalidation of this law.

            You also made a mistake when you put Levy together in a group with Adiel und Rivlin who ruled that only the right to family life was violated, but that the violation was constitutional.

            All that is left are your questions which don’t change anything. You just want to suggest that “we will get to the rest one by one, step by step.” after I respond. But it is you who doesn’t respond to the responses I have allready given, because you either have nothing relevant to say. If you really had, you wouldn’t need me answering any questions. You would just make your point. But maybe you ask me the questions, because you haven’t got a clue.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Moron is on the RUN and does not know the answer to a SINGLE question!

            The questions, moron, the questions. You can’t answer the questions, because you have no idea what you are rambling about. If you think that is not correct, then here are the questions again:

            QUESTIONS

            1. What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”? (Begin answering the question this way: “Constitutional right OF equality” is…., while “constitutional right TO equality” is…… The diff. b/w the two is……’. That’s not difficult at all, is it, moron?).

            2. What does “limitation clause” mean? (Later on, we will get to how the opinions of Justices Levy, Rivlin and Adiel (group b) – as a matter of legal science – fit into that mechanism). Start answering the question this way: “limitation clause” means …

            3. Outside of the mechanism of “limitation clause”, through which OTHER legal mechanism could Justices Levy, Adiel and Rivlin POSSIBLY have made the decision they made in the case? Give the name of that ‘legal mechanism’?

            Answer ONLY the questions, moron! We will get to ALL the foolish claims you are making – one by one, step by step. STOP obfuscating and distracting with the SAME foolish stories you tell over and over again to provide yourself a face saving way out.

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            You seem to mistake me for someone who needs to answer any of YOUR questions to make MY case. Rofl. But I have allready made it.

            I argued that there’s no right to equality in Israel’s Basic law and provided a quote from the book “Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making” that states that this right was explicitly removed from the Basic law and that the Judges of the Supreme Court only interpret the Basic law to have this right, like they did in this case.

            No answer coming from me or from you to any of your questions will change this fact.

            I also argued that Justice Levy and the minority justices ruled the same regarding the unconstitutional violation of constitutional rights, but that Levy wanted that the state should get time to prepare for the nullification of this law. Here’s another quote from the book:

            “In principle, Levy concurred with the minority justices. [… But] Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the Law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any event expire within a short time, Levy refrained from concurring in his opinion with those [minority justices] who proposed declaring the Law null and void.” (p. 497).

            No answer coming from me or from you to any of your questions will change this fact.

            It even gets worse. From the same book: “[…] neither Basic Law [of the following two] is entrenched. The BLO [Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation] requires only an absolute majority of Knesset Members (ie 61 Members) for its amendment, while the BLH [Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty] does not even require that, being subject to amendment or repeal by an ordinary vote in the legislature (ie a majority of the deputies present at the time of voting, which may be fewer than 61).” (p. 77)

            Enshrined equality in an entrenched Basic law: Human Dignity and Liberty … lmao.

            No answer coming from me or from you to any of your questions will change this fact.

            And no, we will not get to all my claims – one by one and step by step, because you have run out of arguments. That’s why you keep asking your pseudo-relevant questions over and over again, number 2 of them even TWICE, AFTER I explained that the term “limitation clause” refers to article 8 of the Basic law.

            So I simply rest MY case and let other readers judge about all arguments so far. If you are not longer able to even make an argument, there’s no need for me to respond to your nth version of the same argumental void inflated with the usual verbal abuse, Whozefullofhotair.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            You can run, moron, but you can’t hide. We are just getting started.

            1. QUESTION:

            What does “limitation clause” mean?

            ANSWER TB:

            “the term “limitation clause” refers to article 8 of the Basic law.”

            QUESTION

            Are you saying that “article 8 of the Basic law means limitation clause and limitation clause means article 9 of the basic law and if there is not Basic Law there will be no limitation clause”?! If not, then I ask you again: What does “limitation clause” mean?

            Answer ONLY the question, more. We will address ALL your points, one by one, step by step to show what a complete fool you are.

            BTW
            1. The book/journalistic commentary you are seeking refuge in (a) is missing hundreds of pages (b) does not deal with the subject of discussion as such, (c) misstates what is written in the case it you claim you read, for example, Justice Levy did not make any reference to the expiration of the law, Justice Rivlin did), etc. We get back to that if and when necessary.

            2. Justice Levy, Justice Adiel and Justice Rivlin did NOT rule that the law was “unconstitutional” as you foolishly claimed. You can only make that foolish claim, because you, having no idea what “limitation clause” is and what it got to do with the Opinions of the three Justices mentioned, have no idea what you are rambling about after days of google-search, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            1. Repeated QUESTIONS to TB7

            What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”?

            • TB7 does NOT know the answer! Yet, TB7 says:

            “I argued that there’s no right to equality in Israel’s Basic law”

            2. Israel’s Supreme Court re Basic Law:

            • Peretz versus Kfar Shmaryahy: “Equality before the law is basic principle of Israel’s legal system. This principle has grown to become well-rooted, binding legal rule”.

            • Yafora Ltd versus IBA: “It is the law that any discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, belief, political, or other opinion is forbidden for everybody acting under the law”.

            Ya need the source for that, BT (as in Tuberculosis?)?

            Btw, TB,

            We know that “limitation clause” refers to “article 8 Basis law” (as you put it), but the question is “what does limitation clause mean”, NOT to which Article it refers! You “read” in the judgment that ‘limitation clause refers to article 8 Basic Law’, but don’t understand a thing about what that means or even a word of what you “read”!

            3. So, again,

            QUESTION:

            “What does “Limitation clause” mean?

            (Justice Levy e.g. mentioned it explicitly)

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            TB7 says:

            1. “OQ 2: Contrary to your implied dishonest accusation, I never claimed that a “violation/infringement of a right” is NOT the same as a “violation of the law”.

            2. OQ 3&4: Contrary to you implied dishonest accusation, I always claimed the same and that a violation of constititutional rights doesn’t violate the Basic law, if it’s article 8 (which is called “limitation clause”) is not violated”.

            Question

            a. Which one is it, moron, 1 or 2, because both CANNOT be true at the same time!

            What the heck does that mumbo jumbo in number 2 mean?

            You are obviously very confused. We are just getting started. Answer ONLY the questions, TB7 (Tuberculosis7?). The only reason why you make all these idiotic claims is because you have no idea what “limitation clause” is and what you are rambling about.

            Reply to Comment
          • carmen

            Whonoze spinning around in circles like a cockroach on K300, demanding all naysayers answer his/her/it’s nonsensical gibberish to help he/she/it make his/her/it’s point! It’s relatively easy to start your own blog where you control the conversation and can make all the demands you want and if you don’t like someone you can call them all sorts of things, your personal favorite appearing to be moron (only 5 letters, no wonder) and when you don’t understand the obvious you call out ‘mumbo jumbo’ (because it rhymes, perhaps?). You aren’t making your case obviously because you don’t have one to make. You’re just lots of noise and nonsense and I’ll give you, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the lowest, 10 the best, duh) a #2.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Oh, so you are changing tactics now – yet again, and on the run and hurling insults like the little Carmel Tuberculosis you are? We are just getting started, moron. Here is another one:

            TB7

            “Stop lying, I surely did. Only 3 judges ruled that the newly introduced law didn’t violate aby constitutional right of the Basic law. Allthough 8 of 11 judges ruled that the newly introduced law did violate “constitutional rights” and 7 of them that it violated the “constitutional right to equality”, it was still passed!”

            The only reason why you would make that stupid claim is because you have not idea what “limitation clause” means and what you are rambling about.

            ROFLMAO.. pUleez explain that mumbo jumbo, moron.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Bwwwaaaahhhhhhaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaa!

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Whonoze: “ANSWER TB: “the term “limitation clause” refers to article 8 of the Basic law.”
            QUESTION Are you saying that “article 8 of the Basic law means limitation clause and limitation clause means article 9 of the basic law and if there is not Basic Law there will be no limitation clause”?! If not, then I ask you again: What does “limitation clause” mean?”

            Make an argument based on your question or understanding of what you think what “limitation clause” means and I will respond.

            Whonoze: “1. The book/journalistic commentary you are seeking refuge in (a) is missing hundreds of pages (b) does not deal with the subject of discussion as such, (c) misstates what is written in the case it you claim you read, for example, Justice Levy did not make any reference to the expiration of the law, Justice Rivlin did), etc.”

            a.) They are not missing, but some pages are not displayed. This is just a Google books preview. But you can ask me anything you want about any page you like.
            b.) Wrong. The title of the chapter is even called “A Jewish Nation-State: A Discussion in Light of the Family Reunification Case” and it deals with the case, too.
            c.) No the book doesn’t misstate anything. Levy argued that the law should be allowed to stand after it’s expiration date to allow the respondents to provide an improved arrangement within nine months.

            Whonoze: “2. Justice Levy, Justice Adiel and Justice Rivlin did NOT rule that the law was “unconstitutional” …”

            I never claimed that Adiel and Rivlin ruled that it was. They ruled that only the right to family life was violated, but that this violation was proportionate.

            Whonoze: “What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”?”

            Make an argument based on your question and I will respond.

            Whonoze: “Yet, TB7 says: “I argued that there’s no right to equality in Israel’s Basic law””

            Here’s the full quote: “I argued that there’s no right to equality in Israel’s Basic law and provided a quote from the book “Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making” that states that this right was explicitly removed from the Basic law and that the Judges of the Supreme Court only interpret the Basic law to have this right, like they did in this case.”

            And you quoted two interpretations.

            Whonoze: “What does “Limitation clause” mean? (Justice Levy e.g. mentioned it explicitly)”

            If he mentioned it explicitly than quote him, make an argument and I will respond.

            “a. Which one is it, moron, 1 or 2, because both CANNOT be true at the same time! What the heck does that mumbo jumbo in number 2 mean? You are obviously very confused.”

            So YOU don’t understand what 2 means, but claim that it contradicts 1 and calls ME “obviously very confused”? Rofl.

            Whonoze: “The only reason why you would make that stupid claim is because you have not idea what “limitation clause” means and what you are rambling about.”

            If that was the case, it would be easy for you to make an argument that I’m wrong, based on your understanding of “limitation clause”.

            But you’re just trolling and wasting everybody’s time.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Ah, so, someone asks you, for example: “what is water” and you answer him: “make an argument involving “water” and I will respond”? Ooooh boy! See, if you have any idea what you have been rambling about all these days, you will just say: “water is H2O”. Period! But because you (in this analogy) never studied chemistry, have no idea what you are rambling about, you say stuff like: make an argument involving water and I will respond. Right there you yet again betrayed your towering ignorance and paranoia of being caught and exposed as the imbecile you are.

            “Limitations clause” is a legal principle that forms part of the CORE of the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond! If you know what “limitations clause” means, you would not be confused, would have answered the question long ago and would not be engaging in you long incomprehensible rambling mumbo jumbos, while still wallowing in ignorance.

            So, I ask you again:

            QUESTION

            What does “limitation clause” mean?

            The correct answer to this question is KEY to understanding what Justices Adiel, Levy and Rivlin are saying: the SAME thing with different words and sentences! That is why I keep asking you that question. If don’t know the answer by now after several day of feverish search with Google search machine (you must be one of the dumbest person I ever encounter online), then just say: “I don’t know the answer. If you know it, tell us. Thanks”. A wise person knows his limits (no one is expected to know everything), does not pretend to know what he does not know, asks questions and learns from others to improve his knowledge. A fool neither knows nor admits his limits, never seeks to learn, but meanders from one corner to the other pretending to know something while knowing nothing and making a complete public fool of himself. So, pUleez, answer ONLY the question. If you don’t know the answer, just say “I don’t know the answer” and maybe you could actually learn something from us. There is NO shame in not knowing something/everything, idiot, especially the answer to the kind of questions I ask you (which I only asked because you are too foolish to pretend to know the law!).

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Whonoze:
            “First you denied that “equality” is not “enshrined” in Israel’s Basic law. But then, albeit inadvertently, you admitted that the “Constitutional Right of Equality” is **enshrined** in Israel’s Basic law. That’s a big fat concession that should have ended the discussion if you had any brain in your head. But you are still ranting and displaying ignorance”.

            TB:
            “Your phrase “constitutional right OF equality” can neither be found in the Basic law nor in the Adalah case. In the Basic law there isn’t anything which explicitely enshrines that everybody is equal before the law or that even any constitutional right is unconditional and inalienable.

            Whonoze:
            “The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things, moron.”

            TB:
            I never claimed anything else. But you wrote “of equality” instead of “to equality” before, because you haven’t read the case, you pot who calls the cattle black.

            See what a fool you are: ‘You are a-greeing and dis-agreeing AT THE SAME TIME that “The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things”! So, which one is it? If “The “right TO equality” ‘can be found in the Basic law and in the Adalah case’’ as YOU said (ROFLMAO…you are full of contradictions, because you denied that elsewhere!), why do you deny that the “constitutional right OF equality” can neither be found in the Basic law nor in the Adalah case – given that both are the SAME? What kind of a gigantic buffoon are you?

            TB:
            “Regarding you dishonest accusation that I have accepted that a right to equality is in fact enshrined in the Basic Law and that I was wrong: My argument still stands, that it is not, especially not explicit”.

            Again, which one is it, moron – that (a) ‘a right to equality is NOT enshrined in the Basic law’, or (b) “a right to equality” IS ‘enshrined in the Basic law, but NOT “explicitly”’.

            Answer ONLY the question and clarify YOUR CONTRADICTORY mumbo jumbos, which further shows that you have no idea what you are rambling about. Boy …. this is good stuff. We are just getting started.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            TB is also CROOk:

            “In principle, Levy concurred with the minority justices. [… But] Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the Law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any event expire within a short time, Levy refrained from concurring in his opinion with those [minority justices] who proposed declaring the Law null and void. (p. 497)”.

            That’s a falsification. “Page 497” of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED FROM is not only MISSING!

            And even if one assumes the QUOTE is correct, which it is NOT, it does NOT change the fact that Justices Levy, Adiel and Rivlin are saying the SAME thing but with different words and different sentences: the law violates constitutional rights, but meets the requirements of the limitation clause (TB does NOT know what “limitations clause” means) and therefore constitutional.

            ROFLMAO …. what desperate foolish crook. Woof!

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            TB is also CROOk:

            “In principle, Levy concurred with the minority justices. [… But] Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the Law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any event expire within a short time, Levy refrained from concurring in his opinion with those [minority justices] who proposed declaring the Law null and void. (p. 497)”.

            That’s a falsification. “Page 497″ of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED FROM is MISSING! He fabricated the quote. That’s what thieves do!

            Reply to Comment
          • TB7

            Whonoze: Ah, so, someone asks you, for example: “what is water” and you answer him: “make an argument involving “water” and I will respond”?”

            No, If some tells me: “Moron, you don’t know what water is, moron, tell me what water is, moron, after you told me what water is, moron, I’m going to tell you what water is moron, and prove to you, moron, that you are wrong about water, moron.” I just wait what he has to offer.

            Whonoze: “Limitations clause” is a legal principle …”

            But what does it “mean”, Whonoze, what does “limitation clause” mean? Answer your question! Rofl.

            Whonoze:… that forms part of the CORE of the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond!”

            Do you claim that “the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond!” contain a limitation clause that can infringe ANY constitutional right like the limitation clause in Israel’s Basic law?

            Whonoze: “The correct answer to this question is KEY to understanding what Justices Adiel, Levy and Rivlin are saying: the SAME thing with different words and sentences!”

            No they are not. Justice Levy ruled that this law has to be modified, because it violates the “least restrictive means” aspect of the limitation clause. Rivlin and Levy ruled that the limitation clause was not violated at all.

            Whonoze: “You are a-greeing and dis-agreeing AT THE SAME TIME that “The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things”!”

            Rofl. I never claimed, that a “right to equality” and a “CONSTITUTIONAL right to equality” were different things. The whole discussion started when you accused me of not knowing the case and I simply mentioned that your wording “right OF equality” can’t even be found in the case. But keep on riding a dead horse.

            Whonoze: Again, which one is it, moron – that (a) ‘a right to equality is NOT enshrined in the Basic law’, or (b) “a right to equality” IS ‘enshrined in the Basic law, but NOT “explicitly”’.

            The Basic Law does not include an express provision with regard to equality like most western democracies. It was explicitly removed.
            And there were disputes at the Supreme Court in the past, if it can even be derived from the general right to human dignity. Assuming that it can, it is limited to only those aspects of equality that are closely related to the principle of human dignity. And this Basic law does not even need an absolut majority of Knesset members to me amended or repealed. A simple majority of the deputies present at the time of voting is enough.

            Whonoze: “That’s a falsification. “Page 497″ of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED FROM is not only MISSING!”

            Are you saying that I fabricated this quote and that this book has no page 497?

            Whonoze: “And even if one assumes the QUOTE is correct, which it is NOT it does NOT change the fact that Justices Levy, Adiel and Rivlin are saying the SAME thing but with different words and different sentences: the law violates constitutional rights, but meets the requirements of the limitation clause (TB does NOT know what “limitations clause” means) and therefore constitutional.”

            Nope. Here’s another quote from the same page of the same book:
            “Levy added that if the validity of the Law would be extended without changes being made to it as called for by the instructions of the ruling, it would be possible to request another discussion on the constitutionality of the Law.” (Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making, p. 497)

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            What a confused rambling mad man. What an imbecile! It really does not matter which aliases e.g. Carmen/Ben/Bruc eGould/”Israel”/ etc. you use, the imbecile in you always reins supreme. Woof!

            Reply to Comment
          • carmen

            You lost. You’ve been schooled very effectively in your errors. A mature person would have seen that by now and an intelligent person would have bowed out gracefully, but a spoiled, overindulged brat will continue to stamp their feet, hold their breath (please continue) and lash out with nothing but insults when they’ve been bested and clog up a thread with utter nonsense. That’s you all over.
            It’s all over though, certainly even to you, when you reach for your standard lumping all your adversaries into one persona ‘Carmen/Ben/Bruc eGould/”Israel”/ etc. ‘Woof!’ Woof? More like a whimper. What a tool. And I’ve always imagined you were nothing more than a snarling, salivating junkyard dog.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            TB7/Carmen/Ben/etc., whoever said that a fool like you ever realizes when he has become a laughing stock? You are not only confused, falsifying quotes, unable to understand what you “read” and what YOU yourself write, but also transforming from one alias into another: Ben/TB/Carmen/etc. to obfuscate, distract, support and congratulate yourself for your own imbecility that is playing out on this site in front of everyone! Better than that cannot be expected of a fool, Tuberculosis.

            Reply to Comment
          • carmen

            Your first post included the poignant ‘don’t let the hate in your heart get the better of you’ (ha!) and quickly morphed into the usual ‘moron’, ‘psychotic’, ‘take your meds’, ‘moron’, etc. You exemplify the end of the zionist experiment. Well, you and your sock puppets. I wonder how quick you’ll go from ‘arab’ to ‘my Palestinian brothers’ when the walls come tumbling down? We’ll see!

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            1. TB is also CROOK:

            “In principle, Levy concurred with the minority justices. [… But] Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the Law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any event expire within a short time, Levy refrained from concurring in his opinion with those [minority justices] who proposed declaring the Law null and void. (p. 497)”.

            • That’s a FALSIFICATION! (you need the definition of “falsification”, moron?).
            • “Page 497″ of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED from is MISSING, while the page of the actual book does NOT contain that quote!
            • TB fabricated HIS quote. That’s what thieves do!

            2. QUESTION

            What does “limitation clause” mean?

            pUleez answer ONLY the question. The only reason why you thought I answered the question is because you have no idea what you are rambling about. I merely gave you a hint that “limitations clause” is a legal principle in ALL Western countries and beyond, moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • tb7

            Whonoze: Ah, so, someone asks you, for example: “what is water” and you answer him: “make an argument involving “water” and I will respond”?”

            No, If some tells me: “Moron, you don’t know what water is, moron, tell me what water is, moron, after you told me what water is, moron, I’m going to tell you what water is moron, and prove to you, moron, that you are wrong about water, moron.” I just wait what he has to offer.

            Whonoze: “Limitations clause” is a legal principle …”

            But what does it “mean”, Whonoze, what does “limitation clause” mean? Answer your question! Rofl.

            Whonoze:… that forms part of the CORE of the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond!”

            Do you claim that “the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond!” contain a limitation clause that can infringe ANY constitutional right like the limitation clause in Israel’s Basic law?

            Whonoze: “The correct answer to this question is KEY to understanding what Justices Adiel, Levy and Rivlin are saying: the SAME thing with different words and sentences!”

            No they are not. Justice Levy ruled that this law has to be modified, because it violates the “least restrictive means” aspect of the limitation clause. Rivlin and Levy ruled that the limitation clause was not violated at all.

            Whonoze: “You are a-greeing and dis-agreeing AT THE SAME TIME that “The “right to equality” and “constitutional right to equality” are the SAME, NOT two different things”!”

            Rofl. I never claimed, that a “right to equality” and a “CONSTITUTIONAL right to equality” were different things. The whole discussion started when you accused me of not knowing the case and I simply mentioned that your wording “right OF equality” can’t even be found in the case. But keep on riding a dead horse.

            Whonoze: Again, which one is it, moron – that (a) ‘a right to equality is NOT enshrined in the Basic law’, or (b) “a right to equality” IS ‘enshrined in the Basic law, but NOT “explicitly”’.

            The Basic Law does not include an express provision with regard to equality like most western democracies. It was explicitly removed.
            And there were disputes at the Supreme Court in the past, if it can even be derived from the general right to human dignity. Assuming that it can, it is limited to only those aspects of equality that are closely related to the principle of human dignity. And this Basic law does not even need an absolut majority of Knesset members to me amended or repealed. A simple majority of the deputies present at the time of voting is enough.

            Whonoze: “That’s a falsification. “Page 497″ of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED FROM is not only MISSING!”

            Are you saying that I fabricated this quote and that this book has no page 497?

            Whonoze: “And even if one assumes the QUOTE is correct, which it is NOT it does NOT change the fact that Justices Levy, Adiel and Rivlin are saying the SAME thing but with different words and different sentences: the law violates constitutional rights, but meets the requirements of the limitation clause (TB does NOT know what “limitations clause” means) and therefore constitutional.”

            Nope. Here’s another quote from the same page of the same book:
            “Levy added that if the validity of the Law would be extended without changes being made to it as called for by the instructions of the ruling, it would be possible to request another discussion on the constitutionality of the Law.” (Israeli Constitutional Law in the Making, p. 497)

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            1. TB/Ben/Carmen the CROOK:

            “In principle, Levy concurred with the minority justices. [… But] Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the Law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any event expire within a short time, Levy refrained from concurring in his opinion with those [minority justices] who proposed declaring the Law null and void. (p. 497)”.

            • That’s a FALSIFICATION! (you need the definition of “falsification”, moron?).
            • “Page 497″ of the E-book TB linked and QUOTED from is MISSING, while the page of the actual book does NOT contain that quote!
            • TB fabricated HIS quote. That’s what thieves do!

            2. QUESTION 1

            1. What is the difference between (a) “Constitutional right OF equality” and (b) “Constitutional right TO equality”? (Begin answering the question this way: “Constitutional right OF equality” is…., while “constitutional right TO equality” is…… The diff. b/w the two is……’. That’s not difficult at all, is it, moron?).

            • TB/Ben/Carmen does NOT know the answer!

            3. QUESTION 2

            What does “limitation clause” mean?

            • TB/Ben/Carmen does NOT know the answer!

            Indeed, TB/Ben/Carmen/etc. is a complete buffoon that FALSIFIES quotes, rants and rambles about what he does not understand and makes public fool of himself with his looong, incoherent mumbo jumbo.

            Reply to Comment
          • tb7

            Rofl. Your whole comment is nothing but another expected demonstration of argumental void, mixed with the usual spam of personal insults and ludicrous accusations.

            1.) Here’s a screen shot of page 497 which includes the quotes:
            http://postimg.org/image/fvmpitmrh/82a8a42d/

            2.) You are still riding a dead horse with your irrelevant question about “of equality” vs. “to equality”, because you have nothing to say about this:
            TB7: “The Basic Law does not include an express provision with regard to equality like most western democracies. It was explicitly removed. And there were disputes at the Supreme Court in the past, if it can even be derived from the general right to human dignity. Assuming that it can, it is limited to only those aspects of equality that are closely related to the principle of human dignity. And this Basic law does not even need an absolut majority of Knesset members to me amended or repealed. A simple majority of the deputies present at the time of voting is enough.”

            Feel free to replace “right to equality” with “right of equality”, if you think that you can FINALLY make an argument. Lmao.

            3.) You still claim that I [!] don’t know what “limitation clause” means, allthough it’s YOU who
            3.1.) didn’t answer my question:
            TB7: “Do you claim that “the constitutions/Basic Laws of ALL Western countries and beyond!” contain a limitation clause that can infringe ANY constitutional right like the limitation clause in Israel’s Basic law?”
            3.2.) don’t have anything to say to:
            TB7: “Justice Levy ruled that this law has to be modified, because it violates the “least restrictive means” aspect of the limitation clause. Rivlin and Levy [of course I meant Adiel, not Levy] ruled that the limitation clause was not violated at all.”

            If you would know what what the “limitation clause” in Israel’s Basic Law means, then you would know its requirements, the proportionality test and its subtests that examine, if the requirements are met and what Justice Levy ruled regarding the proportionality test contrary to the rulings of Rivlin and Adiel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            1. And that is the evidence that you are a CROOK. You FALSIFIED the quote to suit your confusion. Here is the correct quote:“Edmond Levy J was the one who tilted the scales. In principle, Levy concurred with the minority Justices. He went hand in hat with Barak, leaving him the only bottom line. Levy thought that the state should be given an extension of nine months to prepare for the invalidation of the law, and since at the time of the rendering of the judgment, the Law would in any even expire within a short time, Levy REFRAINED FROM CONCURRING IN HIS OPINION with those who proposed declaring the law null and void. Levy added that if the validity of the law would be extended without th changes being made to it as called for by instructions of the ruling it would be possible to request another discussing on the constitutionality of the law.

            2. Here is what Levy actually ruled (the judgment itself, moron):

            “(Majority opinion — Justice Levy) The law violates both the right to family life and the right to equality. With regard to the conditions of the limitations clause, the main problem lies in the requirement that the law should adopt the least harmful measure. The blanket prohibition will have to be replaced by an individual check of each applicant for family reunification. In this check, in view of the clear hostility of the Palestinian Authority, applicants should be regarded to have a presumption of dangerousness, which they must rebut. The applicant should not be present illegally in Israel while the application is pending and he should be required to declare his loyalty to the state of Israel. Notwithstanding, since declaring the law void would create a void in security arrangements, the law should be allowed to stand, but if changes are not made, the law will be unlikely to satisfy judicial scrutiny in the future”. file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/Israel%20-%20Adalah%20Legal%20Centre%20for%20Arab%20Minority%20Rights%20et.%20al.%20v.%20Minister%20of%20Interior%20et.%20al.,%20Supreme%20Court,%202006%20[Eng]%20(1).pdf

            3. Justice Levy did NOT rule that the law was “unconstitutional” as you foolishly claimed, etc.

            4. If you have even the slightest understanding of what “limitations clause” mean, you would have realized long ago that Justices Levy, Rivlin and Adiel are saying the same things – albeit with different words, different sentences and different arguments. None of these judges ruled that the law was “unconstitutional” and the only way they can do that is within the system of “limitations clause”, moron!

            So, again:

            Question

            What does “limitations clause” mean?

            Answer ONLY that question, moron, and stop running and meandering.

            The other question is still unanswered, but we will get to that later.

            Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Btw, “limitations clause” goes way beyond “proportionality test” in individual cases and on a case by case basis during time of quiet, moron. The “limitations clause” is the same in Israel, Europe and the United States and enjoys even more extensive interpretation in Israel. The ONLY way Justice Levy could avoid declaring the law “unconstitutional” is within the system of the “limitations clause”! THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, moron, except ‘Arbitrarism/Arbitrariness’, which you are NOT accusing him of. You might want to tell the person feeding you info that he is a complete moron. It seems the more you talk, the more your glaring, towering ignorance is revealed. If have any idea what it means, just define it without all these meanderings, quibbling and quisling trying to find a face saving way out.

            Start answering the question this way:

            “Limitations clause mean………….”

            Is that too difficult for you to do?

            Reply to Comment
    2. Carmen

      Excellent writing as usual by Ms. Roth and other 972 writers. It’s shameful the continuous lies and assorted BS by the “regulars” who quote “Jewish law” despite the fact that there has been 2 separate systems of “justice” in israel, one for Jews and one for “others”. The pseudo-jurists and their faux outrage at the printed truth, which always refutes their hasbara continues to be amusing, but offers nada. Capital letters doesn’t prove your point. All you demonstrate, as usual, is the willful ignorance of the entitled Jewish israeli. How dare you talk about Jewish values knowing damn well they have nothing to do with the reality on the ground here. What a pitiful excuse for a human being you continue to be.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        LOL. WTF are you talking about Carmen? You are confused as usual. You are a confused little &@#% idiot. Ginger, Zeus, Lewis and WHONOZE are running rings around you lot.

        Spot the difference: they present facts, you present BS driven from hatred and bias.

        Go get a life Carmen and learn to love your fellow human beings. Yes, even Jews. Your war mongering Arabs are not the only ones who are people. We are people too and we have the right to defend ourselves from hateful brainwashed terrorists who still did not give up their on plan to destroy the Jewish state and repace it by an Arab Islamic state (the 23rd one).

        Reply to Comment
    3. Zeus

      Excellent that Natasha writes about “equality”. The discrimination in Israel is in favor of Muslim Arabs who for example reject the state of Israel, side with the enemies like Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, etc. during wars, refuse to serve in the military, are exempted from military service by the state of Israel, but at the same time accept free welfare monies which they are heavily dependent on every month from Israel, free education for their offspring, health care, jobs, equal legal protection, full cultural, religious, civil and political rights, etc. Another name for it is reverse the discrimination against Jewish Israelis and the Druze. Israeli Jews, the Druze, Circassians are obligated to serve in the military or go to jail if they refuse, not Muslim Arabs. Young Israeli Jews and the Druze die in wars living their young children, wives and parents behind grieving, not Muslim Arabs. When Muslim Arabs die, they die in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against their fellow Israeli citizens, not in wars against Israel’s enemies! They also not only support ISIS but are joining that terrorist organization. http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/11/18/5-israeli-arabs-charged-after-attempting-to-join-isis-in-syria/# These are some of the “inequality” Natasha and Zahalka are talking about. Excellent article, Natasha!

      Reply to Comment
    4. Carmen

      None of you have proven anything except further demonstrating the mind of the sociopath. You’re all liars. Most of you are atheists, but you try to pimp the Almighty when it suits your purposes. Typical colonialist behavior. You think everyone is supposed to believe your lies, because if they don’t, they’re, what’s that word again? Right – antisemitic. Of course. Using your logic, we can assume that you all hate non-Jews. Now with this tremendous storehouse of hatred in every zionist’s heart, you then demand we love you? Another hallmark of an antisocial beast, whose captives are regularly beaten and killed and must declare their love for the beast. Seriously Gustav, you’ve demonstrated your heavy investment in this criminal enterprise and this is obviously a well enough paying gig to keep you at it, but we’re not buying into it and as horrible as you are, none of us are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. When the money stops flowing into settlements, this BS, as well as this conversation, will forever be over. God continue to bless the Palestinian people and the righteous ones who support them.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Ben

      All of you noisily fulminating that Natasha Roth has no idea what she’s talking about when it comes to equality are curiously silent when, in the area of land use and housing, rank discrimination against Arabs and in favor of Jews is clearly described:
      http://972mag.com/israels-housing-policy-for-arabs-is-designed-to-fail/116599/

      The discrimination is severe, systemic, entrenched, a state’s deliberate policy. You all know this is true but you’d prefer to harangue Ms. Roth for having the temerity to articulate the truth.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Whonoze

      Oh, the IN-equality

      “Discriminatory Lies and Discriminatory Laws

      In the racist state of California, there are over 50 laws on the books that discriminate against Latino citizens. Actually, that’s a lie. But it is a lie that The New York Times, according to editors, would have no problem publishing. We know this because the newspaper recently published an Op-Ed containing the outlandish claim that Israel has “over 35 laws” that “discriminate against Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.” This falsehood, the latest version of a shopworn anti-Israel canard, was cleared for publication by fact checkers despite journalism’s ethical guidelines calling for opinion pieces to be held to the same standards of accuracy as news stories.

      CAMERA has asked editors to provide substantiation for the allegation, which appeared in a May 23 Op-Ed by Yousef Munayyer entitled “Not All Israeli Citizens Are Equal.”

      They have yet to provide a credible source. And it seems clear that this is because no such source exists”.

      Read the rest here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=2253

      Reply to Comment
        • Whonoze

          Amjad made several false claims in his article. Let’s start debunking Amjad step by step – beginning with the the first falsehood I think would be very easy for you to address. Amjad claims in his article that Israel has “racist laws”. Here is the question:

          QUESTION 1

          Name ONE SINGLE Israeli law that discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis and cite the precise Article of that law.

          Amjad could not answer that question. Maybe you can. So, answer ONLY the question or stop parroting that hate-propaganda against Israel.

          Reply to Comment
    7. Ben

      For those wishing to understand the real history of discriminatory laws of the state of Israel these sources will provide succinct summaries:

      Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel’s Laws
      By Dr. Israel Shahak
      http://www.wrmea.org/1998-january-february/other-voices-israeli-discrimination-against-non-jews-is-carefully-codified-in-state-of-israel-s-laws.html

      The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel
      Roland Nikles on June 14, 2015
      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/database-discriminatory-israel/

      Reply to Comment
    8. Ben

      Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel’s Laws
      By Dr. Israel Shahak

      “The legal system of the State of Israel can be described as a weird mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality….”

      http://www.wrmea.org/1998-january-february/other-voices-israeli-discrimination-against-non-jews-is-carefully-codified-in-state-of-israel-s-laws.html

      Reply to Comment
    9. Ben

      The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel
      Roland Nikles on June 14, 2015

      “…Many of the laws discussed are not discriminatory on their face, but were apparently passed with discriminatory intent, and have been administered in a discriminatory manner. There is no constitutional clause for equal protection under the law to appeal to in Israel. Still some of this can potentially be fixed. But some discrimination, as Beinart noted, is inherent in a state that defines itself based on ethnicity and cannot be fixed….”

      http://rolandnikles.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-adalah-database-of-discriminatory.html?m=1

      Reply to Comment
      • Whonoze

        Above we discussed the case: HCH 7052/03 Adalla v. Minister of Interior which brought before the Supreme Court of Israel by no other than **Adala** in which Adala claimed that the *Constitutional Right of Equality” of its clients **enshrined in Israel’s Basic law** have been violated by Israel. And here you are now peddling the propaganda from the SAME Adalah claiming that “there is no constitutional clause for equal protection under the law to appeal to in Israel”? Seems you hateful people can’t even get your own lies and propaganda straight.

        In case you missed the question, here it is again:

        QUESTION 1

        Name ONE SINGLE Israeli law that discriminates between Jewish Israelis and non-Jewish Israelis and cite the precise Article of that law.

        Neither Amjad Iraqi nor Dr. Israel Shahak or even Adala answered that could answer that question. Maybe you can. So, answer ONLY the question or stop parroting hate-propaganda against Israel.

        ANSWER THE QUESTION, and stop peddling propaganda!

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Wrong. You want to play tricks with narrow literal readings of clauses. That’s exactly the game of tricks these articles expose. In that sense you illustrate nicely the spirit of trickery and deceit that characterizes these laws, the discriminatory intent for which they are carefully crafted and implemented. It’s not just laws. It’s the laws and the multilayered system of discrimination for which they are designed to fit like lock and key. Thanks. Nice job.
          I shall have more to say later. If I get around to it.

          Reply to Comment
          • Whonoze

            Those are the claims of a liar and a loser on the run. But hey, we are waiting ……
            No kidding!

            Reply to Comment
    10. Whonoze

      Equality and the Fifth Column

      “With the collapse of the Oslo peace process and the subsequent outbreak of the “al-Aqsa intifada” in September 2000, Israeli security officials voiced concerns over the role of Israeli Arabs in the violence. Some Israeli politicians went as far as calling the Israeli Arabs a “fifth column.” Gideon Ezra, minister for internal security at the time, said, “Since September 2000 we have seen a significant connection, in terrorist attacks, between Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs.” In 1999, Israeli Arabs perpetrated two attacks. In 2000, there were eight; in 2001 it rose to 30; and in 2002 the number jumped dramatically to 77.

      In 2004, Avi Dichter, the director of Israel’s General Security Services (GSS) told the Israeli cabinet that the Arab population in East Jerusalem, “represents today the largest reservoir for terror attacks within the Green Line.” He noted that terror attacks perpetrated by East Jerusalem Arabs stemmed from the same ideological roots as terror attacks by Palestinians from the territories. By 2005, the GSS identified a significant rise in Iranian attempts to recruit Israeli citizens as spies. Of particular concern were the Israeli Arabs with jobs that afforded them access to sensitive information. Jaris Jaris, one Israeli Arab convicted of spying for Iran, sought election to the Knesset as a member of the left-wing political party, Meretz. The plan was to provide Tehran with sensitive information gleaned from that position.

      Some Israeli Arabs have also aligned with the global jihadist movement after exposure to Islamist material on the Internet. For example, two Israeli Arabs from the town of Jaljulya in northern Israel were arrested for planning al-Qaeda-inspired attacks against Israeli military targets. The two had learned al-Qaeda philosophy from the Internet, as well as how to produce an explosive device.”
      http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/113/the-threat-from-israels-arab-population

      Israel’s Law guarantees full citizenship and equality for ALL its citizens: Muslim Arabs, Druze, Jews, Christians, Circassians and others. Muslim Arabs must do their own part in realizing de fact equality. Dreaming , collaborating with the enemies of Israel and working to bring about the destruction of Israel: a country that feeds and protects them, guarantees free education for their children and grants them Freedoms that are denied to their fellow Arabs in Muslim Arab countries, will only bring about their own unhappiness.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Whonoze

      Adala published on its website what it calls “The Discriminatory Laws Database”, which is nothing but pure anti-Israel propaganda devoid of any legal merit. This is the first of Adala’s “50 discriminatory law” (we will go thru ALL of them one by one if the arising questions are answered).

      CASE 1: “Increased Governance and Raising the Qualifying Election Threshold – Bill to Amend Basic Law: The Government (1160)

      Description: This amendment, enacted in March 2014, raises the threshold percentage of votes required for political parties in order to obtain seats in the Knesset from 2% to 3.25%. The amendment to increase the threshold undermines the parliamentary representation of the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel in particular, more than other groups of citizens. The increased threshold prevents the Arab parties from contesting the elections within multiple party lists that represent the broad range of their political and ideological beliefs. The amendment to raise the threshold is an instance of the Knesset majority imposing its will on the Arab minority, in violation of its political rights. In January 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by private attorney Yehuda Gutman to cancel the amendment. Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) participated in a hearing on the case in December 2014 as amicus curiae”. http://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771

      Election threshold in Israel is one of the lowest in the Western World, e.g. Germany, etc. Here is question:

      QUESTION 1

      a. HOW does that Bill to raise the election threshold discriminate between (a) Israeli Jews and (b) non Jewish Israelis?

      Pls. answer ONLY the questions. It seems ADALA either does not know what **discrimination** means or is willfully spreading lies and hate against Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Click here to load previous comments