Israel denies entry to Reps. Omar and Tlaib

[Das Kaiser Reich]

that isn't an argument.
But if that Offends you too much to actually think of a Response
how about a White Russian who moved to America after the Revolution trying to Visit the Soviet Union ? or in the US civil war, a Yankee trying to get into Dixie ?
or a East German who fled East Germany trying to Visit East Germany ?

I did "think of a Response". You decided, for whatever reason, to liken Israel's policy to North Korea's.

no you just started to Virtue Signal, North Korea is a Modern Example. but since you clearly didn't read my other Comparisons i assume you don't actually have anything to say.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

I did "think of a Response". You decided, for whatever reason, to liken Israel's policy to North Korea's.

no you just started to Virtue Signal, North Korea is a Modern Example. but since you clearly didn't read my other Comparisons i assume you don't actually have anything to say.

Right, you also decided to say Israel's like East Germany, the USSR, and the CSA. What a nonsensical claim.

[Das Kaiser Reich]

no you just started to Virtue Signal, North Korea is a Modern Example. but since you clearly didn't read my other Comparisons i assume you don't actually have anything to say.

Right, you also decided to say Israel's like East Germany, the USSR, and the CSA. What a nonsensical claim.

yeah, because Israel can do no wrong Right ? get off your soap box.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Right, you also decided to say Israel's like East Germany, the USSR, and the CSA. What a nonsensical claim.

yeah, because Israel can do no wrong Right ? get off your soap box.

There's a difference between criticism of Israel and saying Israel = North Korea.

[Das Kaiser Reich]

yeah, because Israel can do no wrong Right ? get off your soap box.

There's a difference between criticism of Israel and saying Israel = North Korea.

i didn't say Israel is North Korea. but i will try to put it in Simple Terms
Country A is enemy's with Country B
a Person who is Ethnically form Country B who is a citizen of Country C will probably not be allowed into Country A on a visit,
as Country A is afraid of Spies or Terrorist Attacks, or whatever bullshit some damn visiting Politician who is of the Archenemy Ethnic group can cause.
is that simple and inoffensive enough for you ?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

There's a difference between criticism of Israel and saying Israel = North Korea.

i didn't say Israel is North Korea. but i will try to put it in Simple Terms
Country A is enemy's with Country B
a Person who is Ethnically form Country B who is a citizen of Country C will probably not be allowed into Country A on a visit,
as Country A is afraid of Spies or Terrorist Attacks, or whatever bullshit some damn visiting Politician who is of the Archenemy Ethnic group can cause.
is that simple and inoffensive enough for you ?

So why did you say Israel is like North Korea?

[Ifreann]

Sorry, is anyone else noticing a left wing hypocrisy here?
When it suits them, Jews are great and the holocaust was so bad and Nazis are all horrible etc etc
When it doesnt, just because Jews had the holocaust happen to them doesnt make this right etc etc

What does the Holocaust have to do with this?

---

Vass isn't criticizing the people involved because they're Jewish, but because they appear corrupt. Do you understand the difference?

I do.

Do you understand that the context matters here? "Israel is hypnotizing the world" is literally a recycled Antisemitic trope. "Zionists have dual loyalty" is literally a recycled Antisemitic trope. It's literally stuff far-right skinheads and Arab Anti-Semites say on a routine basis. You can criticize Israel without resorting to those, and it's pretty telling when you choose to resort to those.

Trump told Jewish Americans that Netanyahu is their Prime Minister. Clearly he believes that, as Jews, they feel some loyalty to Israel, regardless of them being American citizens, not Israeli.

Presumably this means that Trump is an anti-Semite and will always be an anti-Semite and should be banned from Israel, just like Ilhan Omar and everyone who knows her.

---

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I’m being serious. What more does she want? Israel to give up all its sovereign territory? To concede to violent Islamists? I know you have this thing where you support Islamists, even when you have no good reason to do so, but is this the hill you want to die on?

I imagine that what Tlaib wants is to be allowed to visit Israel without having restrictions put on what political opinions she may express.

[Hakons]

I imagine that what Tlaib wants is to be allowed to visit Israel without having restrictions put on what political opinions she may express.

And I imagine that Israel wants to combat the BDS movement that aims to destroy their state. Nations, including the US, ban certain political groups because they are considered harmful and dangerous to the existing state. Considering Tlaib's (and Omar's) public support for BDS, Israel has every right and justification to prevent them from entering their borders and advocating for their destruction. It's sad that Tlaib doesn't get to visit her grandma, but Israel offered a visa under the condition she didn't foment BDS views against Israel. Tlaib refused the offer, showing that her desire to visit her grandma is apparently a political tool to try to get in Israel and create BDS propaganda.

[Ifreann]

I imagine that what Tlaib wants is to be allowed to visit Israel without having restrictions put on what political opinions she may express.

And I imagine that Israel wants to combat the BDS movement that aims to destroy their state. Nations, including the US, ban certain political groups because they are considered harmful and dangerous to the existing state.

There are lots of things that nations can do that are wrong to do and ought not be done.

Considering Tlaib's (and Omar's) public support for BDS, Israel has every right and justification to prevent them from entering their borders and advocating for their destruction. It's sad that Tlaib doesn't get to visit her grandma, but Israel offered a visa under the condition she didn't foment BDS views against Israel. Tlaib refused the offer, showing that her desire to visit her grandma is apparently a political tool to try to get in Israel and create BDS propaganda.

Generally in free countries people are allowed to criticise the government and foment acts of protest against it.

[Hakons]

And I imagine that Israel wants to combat the BDS movement that aims to destroy their state. Nations, including the US, ban certain political groups because they are considered harmful and dangerous to the existing state.

There are lots of things that nations can do that are wrong to do and ought not be done.

Considering Tlaib's (and Omar's) public support for BDS, Israel has every right and justification to prevent them from entering their borders and advocating for their destruction. It's sad that Tlaib doesn't get to visit her grandma, but Israel offered a visa under the condition she didn't foment BDS views against Israel. Tlaib refused the offer, showing that her desire to visit her grandma is apparently a political tool to try to get in Israel and create BDS propaganda.

Generally in free countries people are allowed to criticise the government and foment acts of protest against it.

In free countries there is still a limit on how far one can go in protesting the government. Someone advocating terrorism against the government would obviously have their protest restricted. Someone advocating for the total boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel would obviously have their protest restricted.

[Fahran]

Trump told Jewish Americans that Netanyahu is their Prime Minister. Clearly he believes that, as Jews, they feel some loyalty to Israel, regardless of them being American citizens, not Israeli.

Presumably this means that Trump is an anti-Semite and will always be an anti-Semite and should be banned from Israel, just like Ilhan Omar and everyone who knows her.

Trump is an Anti-Semite, albeit the remark in question does not insinuate that Jewish Americans are a fifth column because Trump doesn't view support for Israel as akin to a betrayal of basic morality and American geopolitical interests. In particular, I'm inclined to argue that Trump's alleged remarks about preferring to have his money handled by guys "with funny hates" evokes the stereotype that Jews are good with money. The distinction here, however, is that the Antisemitic attitudes expressed in each case differ in tone. Trump has the weird positive Antisemitism that a lot of evangelicals seem to have. Omar's parallels the Antisemitism of the Arab world in that it is implicitly negative.

Beyond that, Omar and Tlaib actively rub shoulders with authors of blood libel and support an organization dedicated to dismantling the Israeli economy. She and her allies are a threat to the State of Israel, and, supposing they succeed in dissolving Israel, would become an immediate threat to the People of Israel who had lived there, most probably through apathy as Israel's neighbors endeavored once more to push them into the sea. Israel, like any sovereign state, has the right to ban people the government feels intend to damage the state or harm citizens. Omar's visit would clearly do both. And you can express criticism without actively recycling Antisemitic canards and wanting to dissolve a nation-state. A visit from Trump will likely harm Jews because the left seems to lash out frantically at any cause Trump champions and they will likely find increased justification in the creeping Antisemitism that has begun corrupting their ranks.

May I ask if you supported the UK banning Laura Southern? I did for more or less the same reasons as Israel supports banning Omar and Tlaib.

[Ifreann]

There are lots of things that nations can do that are wrong to do and ought not be done.

Generally in free countries people are allowed to criticise the government and foment acts of protest against it.

In free countries there is still a limit on how far one can go in protesting the government. Someone advocating terrorism against the government would obviously have their protest restricted. Someone advocating for the total boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel would obviously have their protest restricted.

Neither boycotts, divestment, nor sanctions are terrorist actions.

---

Trump told Jewish Americans that Netanyahu is their Prime Minister. Clearly he believes that, as Jews, they feel some loyalty to Israel, regardless of them being American citizens, not Israeli.

Presumably this means that Trump is an anti-Semite and will always be an anti-Semite and should be banned from Israel, just like Ilhan Omar and everyone who knows her.

Trump is an Anti-Semite, albeit the remark in question does not insinuate that Jewish Americans are a fifth column because Trump doesn't view support for Israel as akin to a betrayal of basic morality and American geopolitical interests. In particular, I'm inclined to argue that Trump's alleged remarks about preferring to have his money handled by guys "with funny hates" evokes the stereotype that Jews are good with money. The distinction here, however, is that the Antisemitic attitudes expressed in each case differ in tone. Trump has the weird positive Antisemitism that a lot of evangelicals seem to have. Omar's parallels the Antisemitism of the Arab world in that it is implicitly negative.

Beyond that, Omar and Tlaib actively rub shoulders with authors of blood libel and support an organization dedicated to dismantling the Israeli economy. She and her allies are a threat to the State of Israel, and, supposing they succeed in dissolving Israel, would become an immediate threat to the People of Israel who had lived there, most probably through apathy as Israel's neighbors endeavored once more to push them into the sea. Israel, like any sovereign state, has the right to ban people the government feels intend to damage the state or harm citizens. Omar's visit would clearly do both. And you can express criticism without actively recycling Antisemitic canards and wanting to dissolve a nation-state. A visit from Trump will likely harm Jews because the left seems to lash out frantically at any cause Trump champions and they will likely find increased justification in the creeping Antisemitism that has begun corrupting their ranks.

May I ask if you supported the UK banning Laura Southern? I did for more or less the same reasons as Israel supports banning Omar and Tlaib.

Lauren Southern? Given that she personally participated in attempts to hamper rescue operations by the Italian coast guard I think it's fair to say that she's a dangerous person. But I'm not familiar with the specifics of her being banned from the UK. I imagine there were concerns that she'd incite racial hatred.

[Fahran]

Lauren Southern? Given that she personally participated in attempts to hamper rescue operations by the Italian coast guard I think it's fair to say that she's a dangerous person. But I'm not familiar with the specifics of her being banned from the UK. I imagine there were concerns that she'd incite racial hatred.

Whatever her name is. She was ostensibly banned from the UK because her opinions were deemed racist and likely to incite tensions between local communities. Essentially, those are the same reasons that Bibi can reasonably cite for banning Tlaib and especially Omar. They're quite transparently going there to stir up Anti-Zionist sentiment and have actively supported instability and the dissolution of the State of Israel in the past. It is wholly in keeping with Israel's interests to ban them and seemingly holds to the same standard employed by the UK to ban far-right activists.

"Southern was planning to meet Sellner and Pettibone in Britain, according to the conservative news website Breitbart. Breitbart also said Sellner had been planning to make a speech in London’s Hyde Park, but that papers served on him by the British authorities alleged the speech was likely to incite “tensions between local communities”." Source.

Her past record of incitement in the UK included holding posters in areas populated by British Muslims that read "All-h is a gay G-d", and thus past incitement in the UK seems to have played to some extent on the homophobia present in some of those communities as well as her expressed belief that Islam is incompatible with Western values, an opinion held by a good many popular atheist intellectuals in all fairness. I do believe, however, that banning her is more than justifiable in light of such behavior and such nakedly rabble-rousing intentions.

I'd additionally point out that a good chunk of the support for Palestine emerges from a right-wing nationalist and Islamist perspective. Palestine is not by its nature a nation inclined to produce political movements that we in the West would perceive as left-wing. The PLO is a nationalist group that implicitly promotes ethnic cleansing of Jews to create a wholly Palestinian state. They're socially progressive in some respects by Arab standards, but they're not going to become Denmark or even the United States tomorrow. And Hamas is, well, Hamas.

[Ifreann]

Lauren Southern? Given that she personally participated in attempts to hamper rescue operations by the Italian coast guard I think it's fair to say that she's a dangerous person. But I'm not familiar with the specifics of her being banned from the UK. I imagine there were concerns that she'd incite racial hatred.

Whatever her name is. She was ostensibly banned from the UK because her opinions were deemed racist and likely to incite tensions between local communities. Essentially, those are the same reasons that Bibi can reasonably cite for banning Tlaib and especially Omar. They're quite transparently going there to stir up Anti-Zionist sentiment and have actively supported instability and the dissolution of the State of Israel in the past. It is wholly in keeping with Israel's interests to ban them and seemingly holds to the same standard employed by the UK to ban far-right activists.

Is it? Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are peaceful, legal forms of non-violent protest. Whereas Lauren Southern is so concerned about "the great replacement" that she wants migrants to drown at sea. Doesn't seem quite the same to me.

"Southern was planning to meet Sellner and Pettibone in Britain, according to the conservative news website Breitbart. Breitbart also said Sellner had been planning to make a speech in London’s Hyde Park, but that papers served on him by the British authorities alleged the speech was likely to incite “tensions between local communities”." Source.

Her past record of incitement in the UK included holding posters in areas populated by British Muslims that read "All-h is a gay G-d", and thus past incitement in the UK seems to have played to some extent on the homophobia present in some of those communities as well as her expressed belief that Islam was incompatible with Western values, an opinion held by a good many popular atheist intellectuals in all fairness. I do believe, however, that banning her is more than justifiable in light of such behavior and such nakedly rabble-rousing intentions.

I'd additionally point out that a good chunk of the support for Palestine emerges from a right-wing nationalist and Islamist perspective. Palestine is not by its nature a nation inclined to produce political movements that we in the West would perceive as left-wing. The PLO is a nationalist group that implicitly promotes ethnic cleansing of Jews to create a wholly Palestinian state. They're socially progressive in some respects by Arab standards, but they're not going to become Denmark or even the United States tomorrow. And Hamas is, well, Hamas.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your belief that a person's political views are determined by their ethnicity.

[Fahran]

Is it? Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are peaceful, legal forms of non-violent protest. Whereas Lauren Southern is so concerned about "the great replacement" that she wants migrants to drown at sea. Doesn't seem quite the same to me.

It is given the cited reason for the ban. All of the individuals in this discussion would exacerbate existing tensions within communities in the name of a somewhat radical right-wing ideology. The states in question have a vested interest in not allowing that.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your belief that a person's political views are determined by their ethnicity.

I was not talking about an individual person. I was talking about the overarching political culture of a nation and the emergence of particular strains of thought, namely Palestinian/Arab nationalism and Islamism.

[Page]

Is it? Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are peaceful, legal forms of non-violent protest. Whereas Lauren Southern is so concerned about "the great replacement" that she wants migrants to drown at sea. Doesn't seem quite the same to me.

It is given the cited reason for the ban. All of the individuals in this discussion would exacerbate existing tensions within communities in the name of a somewhat radical right-wing ideology. The states in question have a vested interest in not allowing that.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your belief that a person's political views are determined by their ethnicity.

I was not talking about an individual person. I was talking about the overarching political culture of a nation and the emergence of particular strains of thought, namely Palestinian/Arab nationalism and Islamism.

The violence and authoritarianism that has characterized some elements of the Palestinian movement is a natural reaction to the desperate conditions of the Palestinians. Hamas took power in Gaza because Gaza is a prison. They would have never had a chance if things hadn't gotten so bad in the first place. If you were burned by white phosphorus you might find yourself sympathetic to the violent extremists.

Hamas is brutal and destructive, but it's a demon Israel helped to create.

[Kowani]

Trump told Jewish Americans that Netanyahu is their Prime Minister. Clearly he believes that, as Jews, they feel some loyalty to Israel, regardless of them being American citizens, not Israeli.

Presumably this means that Trump is an anti-Semite and will always be an anti-Semite and should be banned from Israel, just like Ilhan Omar and everyone who knows her.

Trump is an Anti-Semite, albeit the remark in question does not insinuate that Jewish Americans are a fifth column because Trump doesn't view support for Israel as akin to a betrayal of basic morality and American geopolitical interests. In particular, I'm inclined to argue that Trump's alleged remarks about preferring to have his money handled by guys "with funny hates" evokes the stereotype that Jews are good with money.

I would put it more on the “racist against African Americans” side, but sure.

[Fahran]

The violence and authoritarianism that has characterized some elements of the Palestinian movement is a natural reaction to the desperate conditions of the Palestinians.

To some extent, yes, however, democracy and tolerance have not found an accommodating home in the Middle East for reasons that range wide beyond Israel. The Dar as-Salaam has not had events on par with the Reformation, though the development of sects such as the Salafis and Deobandis might represent something similar, or the Enlightenment. The Levant did absorb some of those ideas from Turkey and the Mandates, with multiple poets and intellectuals championing them vigorously, but, even if Israel had never existed, Palestine would still skew well to the right of liberal democracy because the political culture is not one that lends itself to liberal democracy. The best we can likely hope for, at least if we have a misguided interest in spreading our ideology there, is likely illiberal democracy in the moderate Islamist mold or Baathism.

Hamas took power in Gaza because Gaza is a prison. They would have never had a chance if things hadn't gotten so bad in the first place. If you were burned by white phosphorus you might find yourself sympathetic to the violent extremists.

Hamas took power at a time when Israel was withdrawing from Gaza because the Palestinian population had already been radicalized by decades of unrelenting conflict with Israel and an educational system that tends to promote Antisemitism. There's a reason Antisemitism isn't a problem confined to Palestine, possessing a great deal of currency across the Dar as-Salaam, especially compared to the United States or Europe. And Israel's blockade seems to actually reduce the frequency of missile strikes since they increase every time security measures are loosened. At the moment, there's next to no hope for peace with Gaza at any point in the foreseeable future. And that's on the Israelis and Palestinians both.

Hamas is brutal and destructive, but it's a demon Israel helped to create.

A demon Israel helped the Palestinians create, yes. They've not absolved of responsibility for supporting a group that throws LGBT+ people off of roofs. But, again, this conversation isn't really relevant to my essential point, namely that most support for Palestine emerges from radical right-wing perspectives that have been pigeon-holed into left-wing politics in the West by the necessity of coalition-building. There's a reason it's next to impossible to find a Palestinian activist group that doesn't engage in blood libel or have one or more members who have been accused of Antisemitism. It's because around 98% of the Palestinian population holds Antisemitic attitudes according to studies. It's a pretty big elephant in the room when we give them uncritical support.

Frankly, I'm increasingly inclined to leave them all to their own devices and ensure that the UN leaves them to their own devices unless one or the other group becomes outright genocidal. They're not doing themselves any favors, and I'm nervous about the Antisemitism and Islamophobia infiltrating our politics by lending these activists too much of our time.

[Fahran]

I would put it more on the “racist against African Americans” side, but sure.

He's that too, but we were discussing his weird positive Antisemitism.

[Nova Cyberia]

It is given the cited reason for the ban. All of the individuals in this discussion would exacerbate existing tensions within communities in the name of a somewhat radical right-wing ideology. The states in question have a vested interest in not allowing that.


I was not talking about an individual person. I was talking about the overarching political culture of a nation and the emergence of particular strains of thought, namely Palestinian/Arab nationalism and Islamism.

The violence and authoritarianism that has characterized some elements of the Palestinian movement is a natural reaction to the desperate conditions of the Palestinians. Hamas took power in Gaza because Gaza is a prison. They would have never had a chance if things hadn't gotten so bad in the first place. If you were burned by white phosphorus you might find yourself sympathetic to the violent extremists.

Hamas is brutal and destructive, but it's a demon Israel helped to create.

Hamas openly wants to exterminate all Jews. That is not a "natural reaction".

And Palestinian hatred for Jews long predates Israel.

[Kowani]

I would put it more on the “racist against African Americans” side, but sure.

He's that too, but we were discussing his weird positive Antisemitism.

Fair.

[Hakons]

In free countries there is still a limit on how far one can go in protesting the government. Someone advocating terrorism against the government would obviously have their protest restricted. Someone advocating for the total boycott, divestment, and sanctioning of Israel would obviously have their protest restricted.

Neither boycotts, divestment, nor sanctions are terrorist actions.

Sorry if I implied that, but I was focusing the the speech. A person not directly doing terrorism but advocating terrorism with words can be curtailed, because their speech is so dangerous that it is harmful to society. BDS isn't terrorism, but it still seeks to destroy Israel, so the Jewish state definitely has right and reason to curtail such speech on its sovereign territory.

[Takso]

I do not support either representatives. I was not even aware of their existence. Banning them has only proven another example of the Streisand effect.

To be quite honest if you weren't aware of the existence of Omar and Tlaib (possibly two of the most controversially public congressmen since this winter election) you were probably living under a rock. It's not even remotely close to the Streisand effect, given the nature of Omar and Tlaib's political platforms.

You're very close fellow netizen, in actuality I live on a rock.

[Terra enim colubri]

Any country can refuse any person no matter what country they are from. I would not allow someone who hates every person in that country who is jewish. Omar only has freedom of speech in america. I would let her come but she wouldn't leave. I think that is what they are afraid of her getting hurt or killed Why would you want to go to a country you hate so much? Like i said I would tell her shes invited at her own risk and without additional protection. Everyone is blind she is a fraud a asset to stir up trouble. They have 5 investigations into this woman right now she might not finish her first term i know it will be her last (omar) Talib is another joke this will be her last term change is coming to america in a big way save this and print it Their will be a many military tribunals coming you might not see them in action but all of those deep state will disappear from tv

[Ifreann]

Is it? Boycotts, divestment and sanctions are peaceful, legal forms of non-violent protest. Whereas Lauren Southern is so concerned about "the great replacement" that she wants migrants to drown at sea. Doesn't seem quite the same to me.

It is given the cited reason for the ban. All of the individuals in this discussion would exacerbate existing tensions within communities in the name of a somewhat radical right-wing ideology. The states in question have a vested interest in not allowing that.

What I'm getting at is that Lauren Southern is likely to exacerbate tensions in ways that would lead to violence, whereas calling for people to not financially support the state of Israel is...not that.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your belief that a person's political views are determined by their ethnicity.

I was not talking about an individual person. I was talking about the overarching political culture of a nation and the emergence of particular strains of thought, namely Palestinian/Arab nationalism and Islamism.

Okay, but I still don't see what the relevance is. If you're telling me that the popular political beliefs in Palestine would not align with my own...okay? I don't care.

---

Neither boycotts, divestment, nor sanctions are terrorist actions.

Sorry if I implied that, but I was focusing the the speech. A person not directly doing terrorism but advocating terrorism with words can be curtailed, because their speech is so dangerous that it is harmful to society. BDS isn't terrorism, but it still seeks to destroy Israel, so the Jewish state definitely has right and reason to curtail such speech on its sovereign territory.

Mmm, so you say. But consider, what was the Scottish independence referendum, if not an attempt to destroy the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island? What would an Irish border poll be, if not an attempt to destroy the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Clearly states can and do tolerate political advocacy to the effect of "This state is bad and should go away". If people can advocate for the independence of Scotland or Northern Ireland from Britain, or for the independence of various parts of America from the Unites States, why can people not advocate for the independence of Palestine from Israel?