Thats not the impression I get from the stories. The clear implication of the stories is that this might have been “punishment” for statements critical of israel or supportive of palestinians.
OK, a lot of Israel’s neighbors are assholes too, I don’t think I’ve ever said otherwise. Do any of them deny citizenship to the spouse of a current citizen based on Israeli nationality?
I know about that. I point and laugh at you when you start implying that there is a reading list that I need to complete before I can engage in the conversation.
Yes, many of them deny citizenship to Jews and in virtually all it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Jew to immigrate to.
Others have already pointed this out.
This claim strains credibility since you were earlier insisting that it was ridiculous that Israel would be more concerned about immigrants from Pakistan than Egypt.
I’m not the only person to point this out.
The second part is not remotely true. The first part I strongly doubt. If you want to contine to engage in personal attacks, I recommend taking it to the pit.
I was alive and remember the Camp David accords pretty well, it made the news here in the USA. I also remember Sadat getting assassinated. I find it shocking that someone who purports to be an expert on the middle east doesn’t know that Sadat was assassinated. Simply shocking 
:eek: 
Perhaps I can suggest a reading list for you so you can catch up with the rest of us and make meaningful contributions to the conversation. (This is what you sound like when you say some of the shit you do, so if you find this sort of thing irritating, perhaps you can tone down your condescending snark just a bit, this isn’t the first time someone has called you out on this particular annoying habit). 
Where do I insist that it is ridiculous that Israel would be more concerned about immigrants from Pakistan than Egypt? Are you putting words in my mouth? Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Are you insisting that the anti-zionists in Egypt all turned over a new leaf and embraced Israel when Sadat signed that treaty?
Is Pakistan a serious topic of conversation in Israel? Have there been Pakistani terrorist operations in Israel? Or is it a pretext?
Are you also insisting that the Israel citizenship law isn’t racist and is merely a security measure?
Jew /=Israeli
Just like we are assuming that Palestinian/Pakistani/Syrian /= arab, right?
Your comparison is ridiculous. “Pakistanis” are not Arabs whereas Syrians and Palestinians are.
Israeli Jews are Jews.
Anyway is your point that somehow discriminating against Jews is somehow more acceptable than discriminating against just Israelis.
I, on the other hand, asked him for a reading list, and have obtained at least one of the books he recommended. I’m going through it…slowly.
Hell of a lot to digest.
I’m very happy to be in a conversation that Ibn Warraq is part of: he has the patience to teach those who want to learn.
(I’m gonna keep spouting my opinions, but I won’t pretend that they’re really knowledgeable. It’s an American thing.)
Less, surely? One nation may be at war with another nation…but no one can be at war with a religion. Italy is a largely Catholic nation, but when Britain was at war with Italy in WWII, they weren’t at war against Catholics.
The Jews are a nation.
That’s the opinion of most Jews and most Middle Easterners.
Respectfully, you’re trying to look at the Middle East from a Western/European standpoint.
That doesn’t work.
As Allessan once said “I’m sorry if we don’t fit your idea of a nation. We came first.”
Then your “impression” was wrong. I stated exactly what actions each reporter was alleged to have been “punished” for. Neither could reasonably be interpreted as supporting or opposing either side.
Hamas has not permitted an election in Gaza since they took over. Its not that clear to me that Hamas represents the will of the people there.
Hamas may not represent the will of the people there but Hamas exercises the power/authority there.
I did not say these were convincing examples, I asked for equally convincing examples. Show me a journalist that was fired or removed or something after making pro-israeli comments or criticizing Palestinians?
Among the “questions surrounding the removal of Ayman Mohyeldin” is whether he was removed for being too pro-Palestinian or saying that the State Department blamed Hamas for deaths caused by Israeli missiles.
Diana Magnay was removed after calling a bunch of israelis “scum” for cheering when missiles hit gaza and threatening to destroy her car if they didn’t like what she said.
Rula Jureal seems to imply that there is a link between the cancellation of her TV appearances and her criticism of israel.
So if you don’t like my use of the word alleged, then how about you just point out a few examples of where journalists are removed or television appearances are cancelled under equally suspicious circumstances? Do you really think this sort of thng doesn’t have a chilling effect?
Also, Hamas launches rockets into Israel, again would have been a more accurate thread title.
Ooops, you’re right. take out Pakistani.
and israeli Arabs are Arabs. Whats your point?
So, wait, I’m confused. Are you saying you support the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law - Wikipedia?
So far the entire Israel apologist faction other than yourself has seemed to make a full throated endorsement of this law. So are you going to join your fellow Israel apologists?
Good for you. But the convention here is not to give people reading assignments before participating in a debate. I think I know enough to have an opinion and unless you can show me how the assumptions underlying my opinion are wrong or my analysis is flawed, my opinion is good.
Just my opinion but, Israel was created under questionable circumstances and they had no right to expect the people living there to just go along with ther declaration of a Jewish state. This notion has been rebutted by people claiming that Jews had bought the land (which is clearly a mischaracterization considering how little of the land had been bought). Some people bring up historical ties that go back to fucking biblical times, seriously:rolleyes:. Others point to a series of documents including the Balfour Declaration or UN resolution 181, but these seemed to include a requirement that Israel allow Palestinians to live peacefully amongst them with equal rights and everything, not consign them to ghettoes. And frankly, a partition plan that is imposed on a population that is entirely satisfactory to the minority while being unacceptable to the majority seems like a recipe for trouble and trouble is what we have.
Israel apologists rant and scream at people who deny Israel’s right to exist like they’re denying the holocaust or something. But simply put, Israel’s right to exist is based on right of conquest, I do not see any legitimacy beyond that and a people that gained a right through force of arms (including terrorism) cannot complain too loudly about the efforts of those who try to retake that right through force of arms, including through terrorism. They can retaliate and they can wage war but they shouldn’t whine about how evil and unfair the freedom fighter/terrorists are being when they might be doing the same thing if the situation were reversed (and so might any of us if someone treated us the way Israelis have treated the Palestinians).
Israel is not the only country to be created this way (most of America being an example) and we also portrayed the American indians as savages who burned our crops and raped our women when we settled on their land and put them on reservations. But standards have changed since then.
This doesn’t mean that hamas are angels but they are at least to some extent the product of an environment largely created and controlled by Israel. Society creates angry young men in ghettoes all over the world and we put those men in jail (and we should) but we cannot pretend that the source of the problem is the men rather than the circumstance.
So what incorrect assumptions am I making that is leading me to the wrong conclusion?
If you want people to show “equally convincing” examples of a “problem” from the other perspective, first you have to show there actually exists a problem.
How about this: Ayman Mohyeldin was removed because the network was concerned about his safety, after he tweeted that Hamas was to blame for civilian casualties. He was removed, in other words, for being critical of Hamas - score one for the “other side”.
It is at least as convincing a narrative as “Ayman Mohyeldin was removed for being too pro-Palestinian”, for which, as far as I can see, there is no evidence whatsoever.
Are you claiming America has no right to exist?
The fact is, pretty well every country in the world has been created, or its borders defined, by wars - often involving major displacements of populations.
For example, at the very same time as Israel was being created, so was India and Pakistan - the partition of which and subsequent conflicts created a human tragedy of displacement that dwarfs the Arab-Israeli one by an order of magnitude. Do India and Pakistan have the right to exist?
See, the problem with your position is a complete lack of historical perspective - an apparent desire to see the Arab/Israeli thing as unique. It isn’t. Yet it has lead to a unique situation - people questioning a whole country’s very right to exist.