Egypt to strip men married to Israelis of citizenship


AFP/File – Egyptian couples arrive at Cairo stadium for a collective wedding organised by Karme el-Islam association, …

CAIRO (AFP) – A Cairo court on Saturday upheld a ruling to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women of their citizenship in a case that has highlighted national sentiment towards Israel.

Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting on the Supreme Administrative Court, said the interior ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.

The court said that each case should be considered separately, in a ruling that cannot be appealed.

The ruling reflects Egyptian sentiment towards Israel, more than 30 years after Egypt signed an unpopular peace deal with the Jewish state.

Before reading the verdict, Husseini said the case would not apply to Egyptian men married to Arab Israeli women.

“The case for (Egyptian) men married to Israeli Arab women is different to those married to Israeli women of Jewish origin because (Israeli Arabs) have lived under Israeli occupation,” Husseini told the court.

“The court’s decision is taking into account Egypt’s national security,” the judge said.

Lawyer Nabil al-Wahsh said he originally brought the case to court in order to prevent the creation of a generation “disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world.”

Children of such marriages “should not be allowed to perform their military service,” he said.

The number of Egyptian men married to Israeli women is thought to be around 30,000, according to Wahsh. Only 10 percent of them are married to Arab Israelis.

“This ruling is for the benefit of Egypt, a nation of leadership, history and civilisation,” Wahsh said. “It is for the protection of Egypt and Egypt’s youth and its national security.”

“The decision comes as Israel continues its assault on those who love peace. The latest example is the aggression against the aid boat which was heading towards the blockaded Gaza Strip,” he added.

On Monday, Israeli naval commandos raided a humanitarian flotilla carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip, in a bungled operation that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead and scores injured.

A lower court ruled last year that the interior minister must look into the cases of Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, in order to “take the necessary steps to strip them of their nationality.”

The interior and foreign ministries had appealed the case, saying it was for parliament to decide on such matters.

Thousands of Egyptians, particularly a large number who lived in Iraq and returned after the 1990 Gulf War over Kuwait, moved to Israel in search of work and married Israeli women.

In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel.

Thousand Rally in Support of the AZ Immigration Law

Supporters of SB1070 rallied in downtown Phoenix.

By: staff

PHOENIX – Up to 3,000 people have gathered from around the country across from the Arizona State Capitol in support of Arizona’s new immigration law.

“It’s a grassroots effort that really took off,” Daniel Smeriglio, one of the people behind the march said Friday.

Since Senate Bill 1070 passed in late April, protests and marches have been almost a daily occurance.

The law requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they’re in the country illegally.

Hundreds of motorcycle riders kicked off the downtown Phoenix rally off around by riding in a procession around the Capitol. Supporters waved American flags and some carried signs that read “What part of illegal don’t they understand?”

Former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and GOP state Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa are scheduled to speak at the event.

Imam unmosqued

SHIP-HEAD: Using convincing props yesterday, West Bank protesters restage Israel's attack of relief ships bound for the Gaza Strip.

Ground Zero booster tied to sea clash


The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.

Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.

Nine passengers aboard the largest ship died in clashes with Israeli commandos, and a new confrontation loomed today, when another Free Gaza Movement ship was due to reach Gaza waters in defiance of Israel.
SHIP-HEAD: Using convincing props yesterday, West Bank protesters restage Israel’s attack of relief ships bound for the Gaza Strip.

Efforts to reach Imam Abdul Rauf yesterday for comment were unsuccessful.

Deborah Burlingame, the sister of the American Airlines pilot whose hijacked plane struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, said the indirect ties of the imam to the protesters who confronted Israeli forces Monday were not surprising.

“I think it goes to show he is not the man he represents himself to be. We have two Imam Raufs,” she said.

“We have the anti-Israel, anti-democratic imam, and we have the smiling, soft-spoken moderate Muslim who says ‘Why can’t we all get along?’ ”

The Free Gaza Movement is a charity that has made nine seaborne aid missions in the past two years to break the Israeli blockade.

In the latest effort, the group’s ship, the MV Rachel Corrie, which sails under an Irish flag, had made it about 35 miles off the Gaza coast last night before it was intercepted.

Israeli ships were shadowing the vessel, but it had not been boarded. Earlier yesterday, the Irish government said it had reached an accord with Israel to avoid another showdown, but the activists aboard rejected the deal.

Irish diplomats said that under the agreement, the ship would have docked at the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection of its cargo under the supervision of UN officials.

Israel agreed to transfer all the content, except weapons and war materials, to Gaza, accompanied by two Free Gaza members, according to the agreement. But the activists said they would only allow a security check at sea.

“We will never stop at Ashdod,” said Free Gaza Movement spokeswoman Greta Berlin.

David Souter, Jim Crow, and the Living Constitution

Damon W. Root

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave a big commencement speech last week at Harvard University where he criticized originalism—the school of thought that says the Constitution should be read according to its original public meaning—for having “only a tenuous connection to reality.” According to liberal pundit E.J. Dionne, Souter’s speech proves that liberal champions of the “Living Constitution” now “have fighting words of their own.”

Fighting words, maybe. But accurate words? Not exactly.

Souter argued that originalism has nothing useful to say about the racial segregation imposed by the South’s Jim Crow regime, and claimed that it was only thanks to living constitutionalism that the Supreme Court eventually nullified the vile doctrine of “separate but equal.” Here’s the relevant portion of his commencement speech:

[Brown v. Board of Education] ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites. One argument offered in Plessy was that the separate black car was a badge of inferiority, to which the court majority responded that if black people viewed it that way, the implication was merely a product of their own minds. Sixty years later, Brown held that a segregated school required for black children was inherently unequal.

For those whose exclusive norm for constitutional judging is merely fair reading of language applied to facts objectively viewed, Brown must either be flat-out wrong or a very mystifying decision. Those who look to that model are not likely to think that a federal court back in 1896 should have declared legally mandated racial segregation unconstitutional. But if Plessy was not wrong, how is it that Brown came out so differently?

Here’s the problem with Souter’s claims: The Plessy decision is wrong under an originalist reading of the Constitution. Originalism includes the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment, which commands: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Among those privileges or immunities is the right to economic liberty. Remember that the origins of the 14th Amendment lie in the anti-slavery politics of the Radical Republicans who drafted it and spearheaded its ratification. Their philosophy centered on a radically libertarian form of self-ownership, one that included both the right to armed self-defense and the right to liberty of contract. That philosophy was enshrined in the Constitution when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

In Plessy, the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to black customers. That law was a blatant violation of economic liberty under the 14th Amendment and should have been struck down as such. That the Supreme Court failed to do so isn’t an indictment of originalism, it’s an indictment of the justices who failed to take the Constitution at its word.

Should the West Ban the Burqa?

By Phyllis Chesler

Early in June, Iran denounced European “intolerance” vis-à-vis the burqa. But is this true?

Many Muslims have come to the West in search of freedom and modernity; others have not. Controversy is inevitable. Islamist leaders believe that the West must “tolerate” the practice of gender apartheid as a “religious” right.

Western leaders have condemned the Islamic veil as a sign of hostility to Western ways and as a refusal to integrate. Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and secularists have condemned the veil as a violation of women’s human rights and claim that it is not a religious requirement.

Many Muslim and ex-Muslim experts on Islam insist that the Qu’ran does not command women to cover their faces, bodies or hair. Women are merely told to dress modestly. They further point out that for part or all of the 20th century, many women in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Afghanistan, stopped wearing the veil and wore western dress. Islamists claim that the veil is a religious requirement; that bikinis are worse than burqas; that veiled Muslim women are sacred and as such, should not be exposed to corrupting Western, secular mores.

All Europe is wrestling with the issue of whether to ban the Islamic veil.

On May 19, the French cabinet finally voted to ban the burqa. If parliament approves the bill this summer, female violators will be fined 150 euros; men who force their wives to cover their faces will be fined 15,000 euros and will face jail time. France did this despite a 2009 threat by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to “do all in our power and take revenge at the first opportunity against France.”

In May, 2010, a burqa-clad woman in Novara, Italy, was fined 500 euros; the city had previously banned burqas and niqabs. In April, 2010, the lower house of Parliament in Belgium approved a ban on burqas and niqabs. In April, in Madrid, a girl wearing hijab was sent home from school. Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing a burqa. As of January 2010, 53% of Swedes polled wanted a ban on burqas and niqab in public. In May, 2010, in France and Switzerland, women physically attacked women who were wearing a burqa or a headscarf.

Where does America stand on the Islamic veil? In his June 2009 speech in Cairo, President Obama had this to say: “The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.” Muslim feminists have condemned the president, arguing that the West must fight for a woman’s right not to wear the veil as well.

In 2002, a Florida woman, Sultaana Freeman, sued the state for refusing to allow her to wear niqab for her driver’s license photo. She lost on appeal. In May, 2004, after the Justice Department joined the suit, the Oklahoma school system agreed to pay an undisclosed sum and to change its dress code in a settlement with the lawyers of a sixth-grade Muslim girl who was suspended for wearing a hijab to school. The code now allows exceptions for religious reasons.

In 2006, in Michigan, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammed refused to take off her niqab while she testified. The judge dismissed her case.

On January 1, 2010 a ban on “any head covering that obscures a student’s face” went into effect at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Science “for reasons of safety and security.” Under pressure from CAIR, however, the school later amended the ban to allow religious exemptions. Also in 2010, A Muslim woman sued a Michigan judge for making her remove a hijab during a court proceeding.

In my view, the burqa and niqab function as isolation and sensory deprivation chambers. Such garments do not allow the wearer to interact freely with others. Wearing the burqa (and niqab) may also lead to health hazards. Lifetime burqa wearers may suffer eye damage and may be prone to a host of diseases which are related to sunlight deprivation, e.g. osteoporosis, heart disease, hypertension, and depression.

Religious headgear and garments that do not cover the five senses are obviously permissible. Thus, a nun’s habit and wimple; a Hasidic Jewish woman’s wig and headscarf; a Muslim woman’s headscarf (as well as various male Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Sikh, Hasidic, and Hindu attire), all allow the wearer to breathe, hear, see, smell, and speak.

Those who wear such attire are easy to recognize and identify. They can move freely, see clearly, and are easy to identify. This is not true of the niqab or burqa wearer.

For such reasons, I suggest that we begin a national conversation about whether Americans should ban the burqa.

Inviting War

By: Oliver North

WASHINGTON — Sixty years ago this month, the North Korean People’s Army, enticed by the Truman administration’s announcement that Korea was no longer within the “U.S. defensive perimeter,” launched a surprise attack across the 38th parallel — the arbitrary demarcation line drawn by the United Nations between the Republic of Korea and the communist north, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The onslaught was so successful that in a matter of just three days, Seoul was captured and the poorly trained and equipped ROK military was smashed. Hundreds of American advisers and hastily deployed reinforcements were killed, captured or listed as missing in action. By mid-July, the remnants of U.S. and ROK forces were driven into a tiny defensive perimeter around the port of Pusan.

Three years and more than 150,000 American casualties later, an armistice ended the fighting — but not the war. Ever since, American national security policy has been based on the idea that attacks against the U.S. homeland, our national interests and our allies could be prevented by “containing communism” and maintaining sufficient nuclear and conventional forces to deter aggression. American intelligence capabilities were focused on knowing what our adversaries were up to and sharing that information with our allies. Until Jimmy Carter came along, it was a strategy that generally worked.

Carter decided — and Congress agreed — to gut U.S. defense and intelligence budgets, dramatically reduce the U.S. military presence in the Republic of Korea and replace deterrence with “diplomatic engagement.” America’s adversaries wasted no time in taking advantage of his perceived naivet? and weakness. Though the U.S. withdrawal from South Korea was stopped thanks to a major political movement launched by World War II hero Maj. Gen. Jack Singlaub, other American allies weren’t so fortunate.

While Americans here at home were distracted by economic woes that included double-digit inflation and interest rates, Panama, Nicaragua, Iran, Angola, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique and eventually Afghanistan all succumbed to “revolutionary” regimes or outright invasion during Carter’s mercifully brief tenure as commander in chief. He used the threat of reduced arms sales and aid for Israel to initiate the novel concept of a “Palestinian homeland” during negotiations for a peace treaty with Egypt.

Though Ronald Reagan restored the idea of “peace through strength” and carried out his promise to confront Soviet expansion, we still are paying the price for the Carter administration’s ineptness and misfeasance. The undetected nuclear weapons programs in both North Korea and Iran trace their lineage to Carter’s intelligence cuts. As a consequence, two of America’s most steadfast allies — Israel and the Republic of Korea — now face the clear and present danger of existential annihilation. Both democracies are literally under the gun — and getting little but platitudes or worse from the Obama administration.

After the Cheonan, an ROK navy patrol boat, blew up in international waters, killing 46 sailors March 26, Seoul’s military — as our mutual defense treaty requires — turned to the U.S. for advice on how to respond. The O-Team counseled caution — urging the South Koreans to invite an “international committee” to conduct a “fair, impartial and transparent investigation” to determine what happened. They did — and the panel found overwhelming evidence that the Cheonan had been sunk by a torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine. The Obama administration’s response to this overt act of war: to refer the matter to the United Nations. In Pyongyang, the brutal regime that has starved its people to build nuclear weapons now promises “total war.”

It’s even worse for Israel — abandoned by the Obama administration and beleaguered by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon’s detonating on Tel Aviv, renewed rocket attacks on civilians from Iranian-supplied Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and a rearmed, Iranian-supplied Hezbollah terror movement in southern Lebanon. Last week’s flawed effort by Israel Defense Forces to inspect a so-called “humanitarian aid flotilla” for weapons and military equipment has resulted in international opprobrium because nine “activists” aboard the vessels were killed. The O-Team’s response: to demand that the United Nations conduct a “fair, impartial and transparent investigation.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to be thankful no one insisted on a U.N. investigation after more than 70 were killed in Waco, Texas, in April 1993.

Americans once again are distracted by economic woes and a Gulf oil spill. The U.S. intelligence community is leaderless and in nearly total disarray. Our southern border is an open passage for unlawful entry at best — and a virtual invasion path for well-armed enemies at worst. The Iranian regime, having brutally suppressed its internal opposition, overtly is arming Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida while racing to acquire nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. The vicious despots running North Korea — having escaped any retribution for repeated violations of international law — commit an act of war, and the U.S. backs down. Meanwhile the Obama administration is intent on turning the U.S. military, already engaged in a two-front war, into a laboratory for radical social experiments. Even Jimmy Carter didn’t try that.

Helen Needs To Go!

by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

Once again the liberal media has shown its true colors! The White House media dinosaur, also known as Helen Thomas has called on Jews to leave Israel and move back to Poland and Germany. This anti-Semitic sentiment has no place in our public discourse. I call upon her employer, Heart Corporation to dismiss her at once! The White House needs to revoke her press credentials immediately.

Her apology is not sufficient, considering her many previous negative sentiments against Israel. Her language is offensive, vulgar and intolerant.

%d bloggers like this: