How many immigrants did, say, England accept from Germany during WW1? Or vice versa?
It is hardly unusual to avoid acceptig immigrants (except maybe those fleeing the regime as refugees) from nations with which one is at war.
Because it is unacceptable within the law of nations (not the law of human rights) to make a blanket exclusion of a “friendly” nation’s nationals. It is an insult, not to the citizens affected, but to the other nation.
It may very well not, given that it was a narrow majority. It could easily have gone the other way.
For the second time in less than a week, rockets have been found in a school in Gaza operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the body said.
Twice - that points to systematic use of UNRWA schools as storage for rockets. Add to that the fact that in the first find of rockets, a couple of days ago, UNRWA transferred the rockets to Hamas police - and you get an interesting picture of how UN operates in Gaza.
I believe the entire arab league has offered peace and according to some of the posters here, Israel has no need to be concerned about any of them, Only hamas.
And THATS why they aren’t applying the law to Ehyptians.
The headnote on Justice Levy’s position seems to say that the only reason he did n’t overturn was because it would have left a hole in the security apparatus and that he might not support the law if Israel did not apply an exclusionary rule based on individuals not a blanket exclusion based on nationality.
I will give you 10 (could give you many more) clips from US mass media sources showing Israeli soldiers fighting in Gaza.
You give me 2 clips from US mass media sources showing Hamas militants fighting in Gaza. Wonder if you will be able to find any.
If you watch US news, you may get an idea that Israeli soldiers are just rampaging in Gaza and there is no one but civilians on the other side. Talk about biased coverage.
That isn’t the question, though. The issue is the intent behind the law.
Whether you agree with the majority (law is not discriminatory because it makes a justified distinction between enemy nationals and others) or the minority (law is discriminatory and not saved by its security intention because a blanket prohibition is excessive) is quite irrelevant.
Your point I took it was that the intent behind the law was to work demographic change in Israel. Mine is that whether you side with the minority or majority, no-one is saying that the intent behind the law was to work demographic change, and the law is a poor way of doing that.
Of course, by dictionary definition, it discriminates. But the distinction between nationals of different foreign countries depending on how hostile said countries are to Israel, is a reasonable one to make.
One might also consider “discriminatory” the fact that many Muslim countries will not allow entry to holders of Israeli passports, and some of those, further, will not allow entry to anyone holding a passport from another nation that has an Israeli stamp in it. When it comes to foreigners, discrimination between friendlies and unfriendlies is very much within a nation’s right.
I thought I was just adding another example of how people who criticize israel are treated. The point of the article wasn’t that the media is in the bag for Israel, its that critics of Israel seem to be getting punished. How about you show me three examples where people seem to be getting punished for supprting israel or criticizing Hamas.
I think the demographic change is a happy side effect of a racist law. The law was first raised in the context of how shitty Israel behaves towards palestinians (and the original law was targetted at Palestinians).
I think you might have forgetten the context in which this tangent was broguht up in post 552 where i said:
“It seems like this law has the happy *UNINTENDED/i] side effect of reducing the growth rate of the arab population in Israel”
I am saying that the law was racist from inception and is an example of how shitty Israel treats the Palestinians.
But if you want to keep defending this law, it seems like you have plenty of company on this board.
First, there is no evidence it has any such effect. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, it is a damn stupid way of achieving that effect, and no evidence has been presented that it will change Arab demographics one bit.
Second, I object to the notion that the law is “racist”. It has nothing to do with “race”. It disriminates against certain countries it is true, but based on the fact of their emnity, not of the race of their populations.
Not honoring Israeli passports is diplomatic because some countries simply don’t recognize Israel as a country (they’re not all muslim). Israel could eliminate this by accepting the terms of the arab peace initiative and I suspect Israel would be recognized not only by all the arab states but places like Malaysia as well. I don’t think Indonesia is concerned about Israeli tourists committing acts of war under an Israeli passport.
So which of these countries will not extend marriage citizenship to people from Israel?
Not recognizing passports that have an Israeli stamp sounds like it might be racism. Do you have a cite?
Israel stopped stamping passports last year for this reason. But seriously, when you have leaders throughout the middle east who are holocaust deniers and calling for the destruction of the Zionist Entity, are you remotely surprised that they have racist policies?
This is the most backwards logic on the planet, and calling it Israeli apologetics is obscene. Israel could eliminate this by ceasing to exist. That is why Israeli is not recognized as a country; they do not recognize that it has a right to exist. You have perhaps heard of the Three Nos with your expertise in everything Arab?
Why isn’t Saudi Arabia on that list of nations on the Israel citizenship law? But yeah I agree that this is racism. Its one thing to protest zionist colonialism and oppression through armed conflict, its another thing to do so by simply hating Jews.
So I assume from your irrelevant response that you are conceding that critics of Israel get punished while there are no consequences for criticizing Hamas in the world of US journalism. Or did you not pick up on the fact that we were talking about journalists? :rolleyes: