There was a fascinating op-ed in Haaretz last week which analyzed the social consequences of pro-Disengagement arguments that based themselves on the need to preserve a Jewish majority in Israel. I forget who wrote it (just sipping my first cup of coffee). However, if I am correct, the author very astutely pointed out that the social consequences of the privileging of this pro-Disengagement argument in terms of recent surveys in Israel supporting transfer etc...
On May 14, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4769661.stm>
>
> Court upholds Israeli spouse ban
>
> Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a controversial law barring West
> Bank Palestinians from living with their spouses and children in
> Israel itself.
>
> By a six-to-five majority, the court rejected petitions brought by
> civil rights groups, members of the Israeli parliament and Arab
> Israeli families.
>
> The government says the law, passed at a time of rising violence in
> 2002, is based on security concerns.
>
> But critics say it is discriminatory and violates rights to a
> family life.
>
> The case has been described as one of the most important questions
> the Supreme Court has dealt with in recent years.
>
> One of the groups that challenged the law said thousands of
> families were affected, that they have been forced to move abroad
> or live apart.
>
> Orna Kohn, a lawyer for a group defending Israeli Arabs, said
> Sunday's ruling caused "grave damage to the basic rights of
> thousands of people".
>
> But the Israeli state says the recent election victory of the
> militant group Hamas strengthened its case that Palestinians were a
> security risk and should not be allowed into the country.
>
> There are some 1.3 million Arab citizens in Israel - just under 20%
> of the population.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>