LEGAL ANALYSIS: Ruling favors Jewish state over democratic

The whole article, from Ha'aretz may be found here.

PB

Israel is at war, so treating Palestinians as if they are unworthy of treatment as full human beings is permissible.

End of story.

israel is at war..not giving the enemy citizenship in ones country is common sense.....

end of story.

Not an ethnic or religious group. It's not considered normal to classify "the enemy" according to non-state factors. That's like, oh, classifying "The Jews" as "the enemy". Which I don't support in any way or form, anywhere. I'm just saying.

I'm curious as to why Israel allows any Arabs to be citizens at all since they are apparently "the enemy". Or, perhaps stripping them of citizenship is somehow on the agenda here too?

Or is that inconsistent with the security of Israel because it's just too stupid.

Instead of making assumptions like "all arabs have the same culture". (all arabs are alike?) ..one could try asking.... for instance:

Palestinians are a social/cultural group.....that is very different from israeli arabs. (i assume for reasons of ignorance you put them "together")

israeli arabs, of whom many do identify with the Palestinians and will claim their identity as Palestinian, will not be moving to the "Palestinian state. They have stated more than once their preference for israel in that regard.

Palestinians, those who live outside the israel borders are made up of multiple and overlapping cultural groups...many of which are intent on destroying israel as is evident by numerous attempts daily to sneak in bombs, as well as the missiles that fly into israel and the occasional successful suicide bomber...those guys via common sense, should not be allowed become citizens of israel. And since they tend not to wear uniforms, but infarct hide behind the civilians, its makes it rather difficult to find them.....hence the general ruling...which is common sense to many of us.


I guess i should emphasis a point which you obviously dont get: israeli arabs, citizens of israel are not intent on destroying their country, Palestinians, who are also arabs, have multiple groups that are intent on destroying the neighboring country...different cultures, different societies...both groups would be very insulted with your lack of knowledge and assumptions.

against Palestinians in the West Bank, are still allowed to settle there?

Why does that border gate lock only work one-way? It only serves to keep Palestinians away from part of their historic homeland, and not European settlers out of the West Bank.

Terror:
Settlers broke into a Palestinian-owned quarry in the West Bank village of Hawara on Thursday night, set fire to several caravans and escaped, Israel Defense Forces said Friday.

The sources said the settlers also beat a Palestinian guard who attempted to thwart the forced entry. The guard then ran to a nearby checkpoint to report the incident.

The guard told the IDF forces that he witnessed his six attackers fleeing toward the nearby illegal Bracha B outpost, one of three illegal outposts in the Nablus area.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/715348.html

Terror:
On February 4th, 2006 {11 year-old Ahmed Hadad} was assaulted by four rock-wielding settler adults in the olive groves outside his house. Ahmed was rushed to the hospital after sustaining multiple blows to the head and a fractured wrist.

I sat down with the Hadad family this weekend to see how they were coping in the aftermath of the attack. As we shared several cups of tea and coffee, it was clear that the family had not recovered from the trauma of the event.
http://www.pnn.ps/english/archive2006/feb/week2/140206/report3.htm

Terror:
HEBRON, January 15, 2006 (WAFA)- Jewish colonizers burned Sunday 6 Palestinian shops in the wholesale market in the old city of Hebron, while the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) and Police did not stop or arrest colonizers.
.
Colonizers are launching attacks, for the third consecutive day. They violently oppose the removal of them from the illegally occupied Palestinian wholesale market in the old city.
.
In a press release the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) reported that some soldiers do nothing while the colonizers attack Palestinians or the Human Rights Workers (HRWs) who live in Tel Rumeida to support them, whereas other soldiers do intervene at different levels.
http://english.wafa.ps/body.asp?id=5132

sounds like someones on "automatic"....try to read the topic at hand and relate to it

have been involved in terror, none should not be allowed into Israel, despite the fact that it is their historic homeland.

My question is, why doesn't that work the other way? Why must Palestinians in the West Bank accept colonial-settlers from New York, Los Angeles, London?

Sounds like someone does not want to answer a question.

the legality of not letting palestenians who marry israelis become israeli citizens....in case you missed it.

______________________________________

Your question has to deal with the settlements as legal entities, as far as the palestenains accepting them, they havent, but then they also havent accepted israel as well, so it gets rather messy with your question. Perhaps your question is, the one you have yet to ask is: why should israel exist at all, and in fact isnt it in itself an illegal entity?...there, i asked it for you.

Its the duty of Israel to protect her citizens by not allowing terrorists into the country..If they can not discern which ones are terrorists they have to do their best by not allowing most in...suicide is not an option.The PA government is not doing anything to help the situation by ecouraging continual terror attacks.

From Israel,New York,London,Argentina ,Yemen,Iraq,Morrocco,South Africa,Ethiopia,Montreal,Egypt...etc etc

They do not consider themselves Coloninial-settlers but the true origional inhabitants.

Now for the sake of peace in the new government`s convergence plan, most of the West bank will be cleared of Jews,but as its easy to understand , not all places.

For example Jerusalem (the East part that contains the Holiest of Holy Jewish land) will always remain in the hands of the origional inhabitants.

Other places that contain tens of Thousands of Jews,such as Ariel and Maaleh Adumim,with hardly any Palestininians living there will remain in Israel.

Pherhaps a referendum should be held amongst whoever is actually living on the land ,to which state they would like to belong.My guess is the Citizens of Ariel would choose Israel just as the Arab citizens of the villages in the Gallilee (which is not on any transfer list) would choose Israel too.

I just happen to think that the definitions of "war" and "enemy" here seem strange and not the ones a person would normally use. Seems to me that the real war here isn't about people getting blown up at all, but about people being born. Demographic war is one that the Palestinians can win without firing a single shot or blowing up a single building if allowed. Obviously they won't be allowed; the security of the state is being cited as a reason to keep any advancements in the demographic war from taking root, for security, of course.

See, the thing that I find very hard to understand is how the obvious can be so plainly disregarded. If Israeli Arabs identify with the Palestinians and claim their identity as Palestinian, why do they prefer Israel and "real" Palestinians what, don't? Or is it that they don't have a choice? (as a matter of fact, they don't actually have a choice, as this ruling demonstrates.) This raises the obvious question: if there's such little difference between the two, how can we account for the propensity of the one to not engage in terrorism, and the propensity of the other, to engage in terrorism?

Well, since the only variable seems to be citizenship, maybe there'd be less people being blown up at Israeli cafes and so on, rather than more, if more Palestinians were turned into Israeli Arabs by doing like the Romans did with the tribes of Italy (and later, the provinces) by conferring citizenship upon these Palestinians. By giving them an economic and political stake in the Israeli state, they would have that much more to lose, and that much more incentive to back Israel in external disputes.

But, since this would threaten the Jewishness of the Israeli state, it's not gonna happen. No way in hell is it gonna happen. And therefore, we see which war really matters to Israel and that the "enemy" is the enemy not because of the thoughts in their heads or the acts they commit, but simply because they exist and they are not Jewish. Winning that war means tolerating the war that most people see on TV, the one with people getting blown up. And people wonder why that war never seems to end...

He wrote a piece covering the uncomfortable reality of this topic:



As I said that thread:


PB

I'm not of the two wrongs make a right school (which leads to three wrongs and four wrongs which leads to an Israeli-Palestinian conflict...) and I'm not in the one free wrong school either. Regardless of other issues, it's not *good* for Palestinians to be taking terrorist actions against Israelis (not subdividing further because Israeli Arabs do get caught up in terrorism after all).

It's just, well, breathing and breeding should not be considered among those terroristic acts.

Indeed.

PB

your question:


If Israeli Arabs identify with the Palestinians and claim their identity as Palestinian, why do they prefer Israel and "real" Palestinians what, don't?
____________________

shows how little you actually understand, since the answer is that israeli arabs prefer israeli citizenship, while the Palestinians of the westbank and gaza prefer their own style and not israeli.

when you understand why that is, you'll start to have an understanding of part of the conflict...its called understanding the "locals." But i've seen it before when the 'great white university educated elitist" in europe or america armed with little information (probably dont even understand the local languages) believe that they actually understand the motives of the combatents.....when in reality, they no little of the history, less of the motivations and probably nothing of the cultures.

but then that never stopped the egotistical elitist before....

By giving them an economic and political stake in the Israeli state, they would have that much more to lose, and that much more incentive to back Israel in external disputes.....so little understanding of the motivations....

and another one:
if there's such little difference between the two. (arab israelis and palestenians)..since the only variable seems to be citizenship,....i shall correct you: there is a HUGE difference between the two, far more than mere citizenship, the israeli arab may call himself a palestenian to a european or even to an israeli, but never to a palestenian.....and if you dont understand that, again it shows how little you understand of this conflict.

After a while the believe they know better how to lead these Palestinians.They know whats best for them.They become more Palestinian than the palestinians.

or you can choose to respond to the article itself and speak to people who are not present, like egotistical white elite, but... it's hard to do both at the same time.

If you're actually speaking to me and calling me an egotistical white elite, well, that's one thing.

If you're just talking to yourself then tell it to the world and don't associate me with that business.

As for the parts actually addressed to me, personally, I understand there are differences between "Palestinians" and "Israeli Arabs". However, the statements to which I was replying were opaque about this and pretty thick on rhetoric and, more to the point, avoided two ltitle problems with the argument.

a) It's not like these Palestinians have a choice if they do want to turn themselves into "Israeli Arabs" in more than name. Israel won't let them, including by means such as marrying Israeli Jews.

b) Even if these Palestinians want to turn themselves into "Israeli Arabs", it seems that in the name of security, Israel doesn't want them, regardless of whether or not they're threats or not.

It's an issue of incentives. If you beat people into the ground and offer them no hope of improvement or advancement, they are more prone to want to blow you to smitherines than if that was not the case. My point's that Israel doesn't want Palestinians to swell the ranks of Israeli Arabs - even if it means them ceasing to be "Palestinian" - for reasons that have nothing to do with what normal people call security.

I hope you don't read a lot of things I don't believe and haven't said into this. That's tough to deal with. I'm not saying Israel should do otherwise at all. I'm saying that the logic behind the decision (i.e. security in perpetual war) is no more than half the story and glosses over what that "war" is. The actual war, war, part, Israel obviously has to protect itself. Beyond that, this starts to smell.

But if you wanna argue with white egotistical elitists, take it up with them...

that is what i am saying...making simplistic statements does not describe the situation:

no israel doesnt want the palestenians, en mass, to become israelis for a multitude of reasons-the most obvious is the mere voting power, but just as important is the cultural differences.

Its not a mater of "turning themselves into israelis"...they dont want to be israelis, they dont want israeli culture, they believe their own system, is superior (which is what most cultures think of themselves). That attitude, their own history would destroy israel from within.

you mention that they have "no choice"...they had lots of choices over the years, it is they and only they (the palestenians) that have developed their own unique culture...they have made their choices and the present gun battles in gaza, the destruction of the green houses the leaving of the various intl in gaza represent that cutlure. A culture that in its present form is hardly compatable with the israeli system of democracy.

As far as marrying israelis and moving to israel, there is an obvious security problem, they can however move to jenin, its not the marrage that is forbidden its the citizenship.

and its not an issue of incentives (economic).....this is basic to middle east culture. That basic course in econ 101 is relevant to the west not to the middle east.....in the middle east its a matter of education and changing some basic cultural norms.

Israel was branded an "apartheid state" by left-wing Knesset members on Sunday, who responded fiercely to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the existing Citizenship and Entry Law.

"We thought that the Supreme Court would be the last bastion but unfortunately, it failed in its mission," said MK Zehava Gal-On (Meretz). "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegated us to the level of an apartheid state."

The law, which prohibits Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from living within the Green Line, was lambasted by Arab MKs as "racist," while it was defended by Kadima MKs as "just and fair." Amidst the current atmosphere of the Knesset, which many Arab MKs have already declared the "most racist in recent memory" the ruling also contributed to the growing rift between Arab MKs and their counterparts.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961344738&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel/Occupied Territories: High Court decision institutionalizes racial discrimination

Public Statement: Tuesday 16th May 2006

The decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice on 14 May to uphold a law which explicitly denies family rights on the basis of ethnicity or national origins is a step further in the institutionalization of racial discrimination in Israel.

The “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law” bars family reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. It specifically targets Israeli Arabs (Palestinian citizens of Israel), who make up a fifth of Israel’s population, and Palestinian Jerusalemites,(1) for it is they who marry Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Thousands of couples are affected by this discriminatory law, which forces Israeli Arabs married to Palestinians to leave their country or to be separated from their spouses and children. Israeli military law forbids Israelis from entering the main population centres in the Occupied Territories and Israeli citizens cannot join their Palestinian spouses there, and at the same time Palestinian spouses staying in Israel without a permit are constantly at risk of being deported and separated from their families. Thus, Israeli-Palestinian couples would ultimately be forced to move to another country in order to live together – an option which is neither feasible nor desirable for those concerned. In addition, Palestinian Jerusalemites would lose their residency and their right to ever live in Jerusalem again if they move out of the city.

Five of the 11 High Court of Justice’s judges who ruled on this law on 14 May, including the Court’s President, voted against upholding the law, recognizing that it infringes human rights. The Court’s President, Aharon Barak, stated that the law violates the right of Israeli Arabs to equality.

Indeed, the law violates the absolute prohibition on discrimination contained in international human rights law, notably several treaties which Israel has ratified and is obliged to uphold, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The provision in the law which allows for the discretionary granting of temporary residence permits for Palestinian male spouses over 35 and female spouses over 25 is arbitrary in nature and does not alter the discriminatory character of the law. It will also not benefit the majority of Israeli-Palestinian couples, who marry at a younger age. Moreover, the permit applications of spouses who meet the age criteria can be rejected on the grounds that a member of his/her extended family is considered a “security risk” by Israeli security services. Thousands of Palestinians seeking family reunification prior to the passing of this law were rejected on unspecified “security” grounds in circumstances where the failure to provide detailed reasons for each rejection made it impossible for those rejected tomount an effective legal challenge to the decision.

The Israeli authorities have sought to justify the law on security grounds but have brought no convincing evidence to substantiate such claims. Even claims that some 25 people, some of whom were born to Israeli parents and were not in Israel as a result of family reunification,have been involved in attacks in security-related offences,cannot justify denying family reunification to every Palestinian. Doing so is discriminatory and disproportionate and would constitute aform of collective punishment, prohibited under international law. Moreover, statements by Israeli officials and legislators who support the new law indicate that it is primarilymotivated by demographic, rather thansecurity, considerations - that is, a determination to reduce the percentage of Israeli Arabs among the country's population.

The ban on family unification for Israeli-Palestinian couples, initially introduced by an administrative decision of the Interior Minister in 2002 and subsequently passed into law by the Israeli Knesset in July 2003, is due to be reviewed by the Israeli Knesset next July. Amnesty International reiterates its call on the Israeli government and on Members of the Knesset to repeal this law and to ensure that any steps taken to address security concerns, including any amendments to the citizenship law, comply with international human rights law – notably the principle of non-discrimination.

(1) Palestinians who remained in Israel after the establishment of the state in 1948 became Israeli citizens, whereas the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem received a special status as permanent residents after Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and its subsequent annexation. Today, there are about 230,000 Palestinian permanent residents of Jerusalem.

http://www.amnesty.ie/user/content/view/full/5877/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_1

JERUSALEM - The Supreme Court on Sunday upheld a law that bars many Palestinians from living in Israel with Israeli spouses and children, a landmark ruling that security concerns outweigh harm to those affected.

The court case, decided by an unusually large panel of 11 justices, centered on two of the touchiest issues that have been facing Israel for decades — balancing security and human rights, and maintaining the state's Jewish identity while dealing fairly with a large Arab minority.

The answers are never clear-cut, as reflected by the 6-5 vote to uphold the law, which bans Palestinian women under the age of 25 and men under 35 from living in Israel with their Israeli Arab spouses.

The restrictions, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, are believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel. Exact numbers are not known.

"This is a very black day for the state of Israel and also a black day for my family and for the other families who are suffering like us," said Murad el-Sana, an Israeli Arab attorney married to a Palestinian woman from the West Bank town of Bethlehem.

nt

The fact that anyone voted for it at all, despair.

PB

It passed by just one vote? So did the SCOTUS decision handing the presidency to Chimpy.

In Supreme Court matters, close doesn't count. That law is now as firmly fixed as if the decision had been unanimous.

But, of course, it doesn't really count, since they're only nigg...I mean Ay-rabs. Not like it was affecting real people. Right? :sarcasm:

Let's see -- in the US there used to be laws about whites and blacks marrying -- oh and Native Americans weren't considered human -- so it was legal to take scalps. Yep -- Israel has a way to go before entering the 21st century.

it is about acquiring permanent resident status and/or citizenship through marriage to a citizen.

Do you then see the law of Israel forbidding some Palestinians from immigrating as racist? Is there that much of a parallel? I think you are bending the concept of
1) citizenship (you can't have apartheid of non-citizens)
2) racism (the law does not have broad racial implications)
Please explain your reasoning more rationally. I am a novice at this.

and how are they different from the arab israelis...is it color, size, nose, eyes....i 'm having some trouble recognizing the racial characteristics from israeli arabs, jewish israelis, bedouin and druz,....perhaps you can enlighten me?

Citizens may have the right to vote for their elected officials.

It may have a Constitution and a legislature and a secular court system.

But some citizens are more equal than other citizens.

It may be a democracy, but it's in name only.

My wife taught in the New Orleans LA Public Schols - in the Lower Ninth Ward - when we lived in NOLA.

I am still working with Katrina (American Nakba? or American Kristallnacht?) refugees.

Definitely apartheid in the US of A.

and germany....and every other so called "democracy"....

2nd class citizens. Especially in terms of land ownership. Nearly all land is reserved for Jewish ownership only.

they are not citizens at all......they are deported when found in israel

Palestinians. The fact remains that Israeli/Arabs or Palestinians are not treated equally. Israel is State for Jewish citizens (and those who pretend to be Jewish) from around the world, and not a State for all its that live there.

If you identify Palestinians as those that live in the West Bank/Gaza... then are the residents of Ariel settlement-- Palestinians???

to give an identity to anyone...nor is it yours.....(you somehow think israel has that power...thanks for racist statement....)

as it stands Palestinians are usually arab christian muslims living in the west bank/gaza and from israel...israeli arabs also take the identity.but up to a certain point.

and yes israel doesn't treat its minorities with equal status, no democracy has successfully done that, ....whats your point?...are you assuming that israel has to have a system that no other country has yet to achieve? are you saying that israel is to be "a light unto other nations?.."...that it somehow has to live up to higher standard?

sorry if i don't buy that racist crap.....

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 15 May 2006

Israel's High Court has narrowly upheld a law denying Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens the right to live in the country with their spouses.

The judges voted by six to five not to cancel a four-year-old amendment to the Citizenship Law which outlaws "family unification" in Israel between Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel.

It was passed as a one-year emergency measure in 2002 on the ground that it was needed to protect Israeli security. But the amendment, described yesterday by the Knesset member Ran Cohen, of the left-wing Meretz party, as "rooted in racism", has been renewed every year since then.

Israel's Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, sided with the minority on the bench, declaring: "This violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel. As a result, therefore, the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article484122.ece

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/18/isrlpa13403.htm
(Jerusalem, May 19, 2006) – The Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a law barring Israeli citizens and their Palestinian spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territories from living together in Israel constitutes unlawful discrimination that cannot be justified by the country’s security interests, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch said that the legislation, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 2003, discriminates against Palestinian citizens and permanent residents of Israel on the basis of their ethnic or national origin. Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute the vast majority of Israelis who are married to Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

" The Supreme Court has upheld a law that unfairly targets Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin. This ruling undermines the rights of thousands of Israelis to live together with their families, and the rights of certain Israeli children to live with both parents. "
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch

all of the postings that complain and "prove" how horrible israel is: not a democarcay, an apartheid state (i.e. S.Africa)....or so goes the attempts.

why is it amusing?...because the ruling whether it be good or bad is simply the signs of a vibrant democracy that can debate its problems in public. The fact that the ruling was so close further signifys the difficulty of the decision.

few of the postings here actually debate the issue, show the arguments.... it shows some of the real reasons behind the posts....its not worrying about the palestenian welfare, its to show how bad israel can be, no matter what the subject..and this is simply one more example.

(..and off topic but curious:

anybody look into gaza recently-no posts complainin of palestenains children being killed/targeted....the future palestenain state.....or is the welfare of its citizens of no concern to anyone since israel is not involved....)

On this particular issue, just the mere fact that such a discriminatory law not only exists, but has been extended is unarguably bad. There are no excuses, no justifications, nothing at all that can make it less wrong. As for yr claim that it shows what a vital and vibrant democracy Israel is, there's quite a few vital and vibrant democracies that have made stinky laws such as this - the difference is here at DU I don't tend to see people rushing in to defend the stinky law or to claim that it's ever so wonderful that the vote was so close on it. And after reading this thread, it's obviously clear that those who have opposed this law are the ones who do care about the Palestinian's welfare. After all, it takes a lot of stretching for someone to dance around the edges of supporting it while claiming they're the ones who care about Palestinian welfare. Maybe someone could explain how refusing Palestinian spouses of Israelis citizenship while granting citizenship to spouses of Israels if they come from anywhere else is showing concern for the welfare of Palestinians?

A question about yr off topic but curious question - I'm safe in assuming that yr only interested in hearing about Palestinian children being killed if they're killed by Palestinians? Just checking, coz I'm figuring if anyone points it out when the IDF kills them, they'd be met with a resounding chorus of *You Pick On Poor Israel For Every Little Thing!!!*....

For the record - there are some instances when Israel doesn't need any help at all when it comes to being horrible and this discriminatory law is one of those cases where Israel manages to prove it without any help at all...

Violet...

the law is discriminatory...the environment is complex and its hardly black an white. It has nothing to with "Palestinian welfare" and everything to do with the complexities of laws in the middle of low level war. Which is why the voting was so close. If it was lopsided i might be worried, but the fact that it is controversial tells me that its only temporary. but then i have confidence in the system of courts. When the environment changes so too will it. (as it just did)

as far as gaza (again off topic), on one hand i am not surprised, and i am worried, but what bothers me more, is not the lack of info coming out, but what it shows. "Internal strife with in the Palestinian areas are basically "nobodies business", Let it expand to the west bank, and it will get worse...and still nobody will really cares...the lack of news in itself shows that few are willing to report whats happening, despite the large amount of journalists

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/laila_elhaddad/2006/04/post_42.html
this is a person to read from, she has an understanding of the politics in gaza:

however, this is probably one of the most effective decisions Hamas could have made at this stage and time.

For one, the Samhadana family is one of the most powerful clans in southern Gaza. By appointing their leader as director general of the police forces in the interior ministry and absorbing members of the PRC and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - who account for two of the most volatile factions in Gaza - into the new force, Hamas is effectively ensuring their allegiance and making them "keepers of the street" rather than "keepers of the clan". They all pledged to fight (the word was more like "crush") lawlessness and crime.

but she is a lone voice

_______________________


that aspect more than any has me worried. The very first thing a failed or failing or dictatorship does is control the press...from there it only gets worse.....problems aside, an open press, speaks volumes of society that has confidence itself. And i do have a "bone to pick" with the ISM. Running away, from gaza, the internationals just when its time to start with human rights etc may have been the "wiser decision" in terms of their own safety, but doesn't show much of a backbone when it comes to the human rights, that they so loudly shouted about during the occupation when its the palestenains doing the "crimes."