I can simply answer that. Israel has absolutely not banned Nakba day (and you either knowingly are lying or your claim to expertise in the Middle East is inflated).
What they did was chosen not to give state funds to any agency's promotion of Nakba day.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/23/3086536/knesset-passes-nakba-law
I think it's is a understandable decision because unfortunately, Nakba Day has been so politicized that it is not a commemoration of the Arabs who fled Israel and have been essentially kept in captivity by their Arab neighbours but instead has simply become an attack against Israel's existence. I wouldn't sponsor this law but I can see why the government of Israel doesn't want its own tax dollars spent in attempts to delegitimize it.
From the link you posted...
"It is a softened version of the bill approved in July 2009 by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, which made participation in Nakba Day events punishable by up to three years in prison". - no mention of whether that July 2009 bill was removed from law. So you could very well be fined and prisoned.
"Israeli rights groups called the laws discriminatory and an attack against Israeli Arabs".
Did you even read it completely and try to make sense of it? And the same link you posted has no mention of Nakba Day being anything close to fuji's 'violent protests'. Thanks, maybe fuji can see how his preconceived notions are false.
By those very laws in 2009 and the current one, the Knesset has enacted to pull the plant from its roots. Without any funding and the threat of being prisoned looming over one's head, who's going to peacefully participate in Nakba day events. Bare in mind, fuji and basketcase, that violence is mentioned nowhere in the link that basket has posted.
Israel seems to be very insecure about its democratic nature. If you don't consider Israel a democratic or a Jewish state, you shall be jailed and fined!?
Yet you only have seen fit to comment against Israel. Your silence on Syria is deafening.
Why don't you start a thread on Syria and I'll open up about that issue? We are talking about Israel and Palestine here. What have you been smoking?
Anyways, just so you can satisfy your insatiable thirst to hear something out of me against Syria then IMHO, Syria is a corrupt, tyrannical regime that should be brought down. What's happening there has NO EXCUSE and Bashar should be brought to face an International Court of Justice. Well, so should Ariel Sharon.
Meanwhile you wholesale deny or ignore that extreme atrocities committed in Muslim nations. You can't even name ONE Muslim nation that comes anywhere close to offering the level of rights to ANY of its citizens that Israel extends to ALL of its citizens.
Why don't you open a new thread to vent your anger about that? Lets talk about that over there. This thread isn't talking about Muslim nations. In any case, my comment above about Syria should at least make you smile. C'mon?
So maybe you want to actually translate the clips I posted for us and explain why the MEMRI translation is so false.
I am at a disadvantage not speaking or reading Arabic, Hebrew, or anything else besides English (and maybe pretend in French) but I posted those clips specifically because the Arabic is clearly audible for anyone who disputes it. If the translations are wrong, please step up and prove it.
Even if I were to translate those videos for you, I don't think you are going to believe me because you seem hell-bent on proving MEMRI as an authentic institute. The criticism of MEMRI is widespread. I'll post the criticism here and if you are in tune with well-known media research institutes then you'll recognize popular and well-educated people criticizing MEMRI for bias, selectivity and translation inaccuracies. I'll give you an example here:
Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Al Jazeera invited Hani al-Sebai, an Islamist living in Britain, to take part in a discussion on the event. At one point al-Sebai stated in regard to the victims:
there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.
Memri was critisized for translating this sentence as:
the term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb [at war] or not.
By leaving out the condemnation of the "killing of innocents" entirely, this translation left the implication that civilians (the innocent) are considered a legitimate target.
In a Muslim country a women would be stoned for dressing immodestly.
That's a fallacy.