airstrikes on Gaza

[cmkeller]

Can I assume that your post was a reply to Damuri and not to me?

[Dissonance]

@cmkeller

Can I assume that your post was a reply to Damuri and not to me?

Yes, my apologies if it was unclear.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@cmkeller

Damuri Ajashi:

Yes. Egypt has a peace treaty and full diplomatic relations with Israel and recognizes the State of Israel, and Pakistan has none of those three.

I was not asking about the nations of Egypt and pakistan. This law does not affect the nations of Egypt or Pakistan, it affect the people of Egypt and pakistan. IIRC, there are protests and demonstration ins the streets of Egypt denouncing Israel at least as frequently as there are demonstrations against Israel in pakistan.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

Not sure what your point is.

First, yes, Egyptians are friendlier - Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, for one.

Second, Egypt is an Arab country–or at least, moreso than (say) Pakistan (yes, I know that Egyptians sometimes dispute exactly how “Arab” they are). It would be a passing strange way to keep “Arabs” out of the country, to allow in Egyptians (and Jordanians!) but not Pakistanis.

The countries listed in your cite not all are Arab:

Of the 9 countries listed, three are not “Arab” - namely, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. [I throw in Libya as “Arab” even though it is a mix of berber and arab - as I am throwing in Egypt as “Arab”).

Yet several Arab countries are not on the list - such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, and most notably, Jordan.

So if the accusation is that these measures are aimed at “Arabs”, they are going about it in a very strange manner.

Who said these guys had to make sense?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Terr

Are you saying that Egyptians are not Arabs?

Are you channelling Ibn now?

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I was not asking about the nations of Egypt and pakistan. This law does not affect the nations of Egypt or Pakistan, it affect the people of Egypt and pakistan. IIRC, there are protests and demonstration ins the streets of Egypt denouncing Israel at least as frequently as there are demonstrations against Israel in pakistan.

Again, Egyptians are arguably Arabs and Pakistanis are definitely not Arabs. If the goal is to ‘keep Arabs out of Israel’, this would be a strange way of going about it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ibn_Warraq

Ummm… Yes.

You’ve heard of Anwar Sadat, the Camp David Accords and the last 35 years haven’t you?

So why are there anti-israel demonstrations in Egypt

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Dissonance

There is a certain level of ignorance about a topic under discussion that is understandable, and there is a point at which ignorance of basic facts becomes damning. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League in 1979 for signing a peace treaty with Israel and recognizing its right to exist.

I know that. But the people of Egypt still seem to be pretty hostile to the zionists. IIRC, it was one of the concerns about democracy in Egypt.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@XT

Hell, is he saying that Israeli Arabs can’t get busy with other Israeli Arabs and instead their population has to dwindle without outside marriage?? There have been a lot of WTF moments with Damuri Ajashi in this thread, but that one was worth a chuckle considering that the number of Israelis who self identify as Arab have gone up over time (though their percentage of the population as a whole has gone down, mostly because of Jewish immigration).

And Israel seems to be doing its darndest to suppress their population growth.

We are talking about a law that one of the Israeli supreme court justices called apartheidish and all the israel apologists are tripping over themselves to try and justify it. :smack:

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Who said these guys had to make sense?

They don’t have to, but your theory does.

Let’s put it this way: which is the law as drafted more consistent with:

(a) Keeping people from unfriendly nations from using “family reunification” as a tool for gaining easy access to Israel to carry out terrorist attacks; or

(b) Using terrorism as an excuse, keeping Arabs out of Israel, to ensure that the Arab population decreases?

If it was (b), it does a crappy job, as it doesn’t cover some pretty significant Arab nations, which happen to be neighbours of Israel and have large Arab populations - such as Jordan and Egypt.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

Again, Egyptians are arguably Arabs and Pakistanis are definitely not Arabs. If the goal is to ‘keep Arabs out of Israel’, this would be a strange way of going about it.

That’s a good point. Why would they try to keep out people from countries with hostile governments but disregard the fact that countries like Egypt have citizens that are hostile to them? Could it be because they are not concerned enough about security to piss off the governments of people that are hostile to them?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
And Israel seems to be doing its darndest to suppress their population growth.
[/QUOTE]

Not doing a very good job then, considering that the population growth of self identified Arabs with Israeli citizenship has steadily grown.

We are talking about a law that one of the Israeli supreme court justices called apartheidish and all the israel apologists are tripping over themselves to try and justify it.

No, all I see is people trying to beat facts into your head. They aren’t doing a very good job either.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That’s a good point. Why would they try to keep out people from countries with hostile governments but disregard the fact that countries like Egypt have citizens that are hostile to them? Could it be because they are not concerned enough about security to piss off the governments of people that are hostile to them?

The reason given by the Court as to why such a law is justifiable is that it excludes “enemy nationals” - that is, people who are citizens of countries that have a declared emnity with Israel.

Egyptians may, as individuals, hate Israel with a passion, but they are not “enemy nationals”, as Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel.

You can find an English version of the case here:

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/03/520/070/a47/03070520.a47.htm

The case appears to address only the version of the law excluding Palistinians from Gaza and the WB. The majority opinion stated, in the headnotes:

(Majority opinion —Vice-President Cheshin, Justices Grunis, Naor) Like other countries around the world, Israel does not recognize a constitutional right that a person may have foreign members of his family immigrate to Israel. Such a right exists only to the extent that statute grants it. Therefore the law does not violate a constitutional right to human dignity. The law also does not violate the constitutional right to equality. The fact that the Palestinian Authority is de facto waging a war or quasi-war against Israel makes the residents of the territories enemy nationals. The law, in prohibiting family reunifications with enemy nationals, makes a permitted distinction between family reunifications with persons who are not enemy nationals, and family reunifications with persons who are enemy nationals. This is a permitted distinction in view of the current circumstances, and therefore the law is not discriminatory. The law was therefore constitutional. Nonetheless, the state should consider adding to the law a provision allowing exceptions in special humanitarian cases.

The minority opinion:

(Minority opinion — President Barak, Justices Beinisch, Joubran, Hayut, Procaccia) The law violates two constitutional basic rights. It violates the right to family life, which is a derivative of human dignity, since the right to family life means the right of an Israeli citizen or resident to live with his family in Israel. The law also violates the right to equality, since only Israeli Arabs marry
Palestinians from the occupied territories and therefore the only persons harmed by the law de facto are Israeli Arabs. These violations of constitutional rights lead to the law being unconstitutional, since the law does not satisfy the last condition of the limitations clause in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, namely that the violation of the constitutional rights should not be excessive. The blanket
prohibition in the law against all Palestinians between certain ages provides somewhat more security than the system of individual checks, but it increases the violation of constitutional rights considerably. In view of the small increase of security and the large increase in the violation of rights, the law is disproportionate in adopting a blanket prohibition rather than a system of ndividual checks. It is unconstitutional and therefore void.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So why are there anti-israel demonstrations in Egypt

This is a pretty odd response.

You rather foolishly asked if Egyptians were friendlier to Israel than Pakistanis.

To anyone remotely familiar with Anwar Sadat, the Camp David Accords and recent Middle Eastern history.

As was posted before, there is some information that it’s understandable not to be familiar with but there’s some things that it’s pretty damning to be ignorant of.

Anyway, no one is saying that Egyptians aren’t hostile to Israelis or Jews in general but they’re less hostile than Pakistan.

You also chose a really terrible example to try and make a point.

Yes, there are anti-Israel protests in Egypt. There are also anti-Israel protests in the UK, the US, France, and even Israel itself.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

They don’t have to, but your theory does.

Let’s put it this way: which is the law as drafted more consistent with:

(a) Keeping people from unfriendly nations from using “family reunification” as a tool for gaining easy access to Israel to carry out terrorist attacks; or

(b) Using terrorism as an excuse, keeping Arabs out of Israel, to ensure that the Arab population decreases?

If it was (b), it does a crappy job, as it doesn’t cover some pretty significant Arab nations, which happen to be neighbours of Israel and have large Arab populations - such as Jordan and Egypt.

It doesn’t have to be an absolute bar to arab immigration to slow the rate of growth of the arab population in in israel does it?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[quote=“XT, post:572, topic:692856”]

No, all I see is people trying to beat facts into your head. They aren’t doing a very good job either.

They aren’t trying to beat facts into my head, they are trying to beat their interpretation of the facts 9i.e. opinion) into my head.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

The reason given by the Court as to why such a law is justifiable is that it excludes “enemy nationals” - that is, people who are citizens of countries that have a declared emnity with Israel.

Right so they are only barring arabs that they have some exuse to keep out. I understand that they need a pretext to have any chance of surviving judicial review.

Egyptians may, as individuals, hate Israel with a passion, but they are not “enemy nationals”, as Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel.

Yes but if security and fear of suicide bombs is the concern then why the heck to national level treaties matter?

You can find an English version of the case here:

Thanks, I had only been going by wiki articles. Its kind of hard to read but based on teh headnotes, it seems like this law might not survive a second challenge if justive Levy is still on the court.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ibn_Warraq

This is a pretty odd response.

You rather foolishly asked if Egyptians were friendlier to Israel than Pakistanis.

To anyone remotely familiar with Anwar Sadat, the Camp David Accords and recent Middle Eastern history.

As was posted before, there is some information that it’s understandable not to be familiar with but there’s some things that it’s pretty damning to be ignorant of.

Anyway, no one is saying that Egyptians aren’t hostile to Israelis or Jews in general but they’re less hostile than Pakistan.

You also chose a really terrible example to try and make a point.

Yes, there are anti-Israel protests in Egypt. There are also anti-Israel protests in the UK, the US, France, and even Israel itself.

You’re not making any sense. Its like you are trying find the least reasonaable interpretation of what I write so you can argue against silly propositions.

Are you saying that you don’t think this law is dscriminatory?

[cmkeller]

Damuri Ajashi:

I was not asking about the nations of Egypt and pakistan. This law does not affect the nations of Egypt or Pakistan, it affect the people of Egypt and pakistan.

The attitudes of one filter down from the other. When a government allows Israeli companies to trade with its citizens and Israeli tourists to put money into its hotels (and bell boys) and restaurants (and waiters) and publishes textbooks which have Israel on the map instead of “occupied Palestine” and refer to Israel by name rather than calling it “the Zionist entity”, and the military and police feel bound by treaty to prevent rather than support acts that will undermine the government’s peace with Israel, then guess what…you have a populace that is orders of magnitude more peacefully-inclined toward Israel than that of the governments that do the opposite.

Does that mean 100% support for Israel’s policies? No, but the peace treaty doesn’t mean that even for the government. Yes, there are people protesting in Egypt. But also, Egyptians are much less likely than Pakistanis to try backdoor tactics to gain access to Israel for would-be terrorists.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It doesn’t have to be an absolute bar to arab immigration to slow the rate of growth of the arab population in in israel does it?

It’s a dumb way of achieving that goal. So, occam’s razor, it strikes me as unlikely that the intent is to slow the population growth of Arabs by using a method that ignores Israel’s main Arab neighbours in favor of preventing Israel from being overrun by hordes of Pakistanis. Just how big an issue do you think the Pakistani migration to Israel is?