New Israeli law bars entry to foreigners supporting Israel boycott

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Foreigners can be denied entry to Thailand if passing overt criticism or showing disrespect with regard to certain issues and institutions. Forum rules even allude to such. To which level these things are enforced is another matter.

Yes, and although I think the law is a mistake, when you consider the proposed guidelines for enforcement, well, that really wouldn't be that bad. But I wouldn't trust them to stick to that as it's too fuzzy. Similar to the Russian anti-gay propaganda law, it can mean almost anything. 

 

Quote

A spokesman for Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs told the Forward the law was not aimed at European politicians or casual tourists, but rather “only extremists acting against Israel and the Israeli economy,” who come “to collect information on the state of Israel, to make serious damage, not just talk.”

 

 

http://forward.com/news/israel/365278/explained-why-did-israel-impose-an-anti-bds-travel-ban/

Edited March 13, 2017 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are differences between your version of BDS goals and the quoted BDS goals. The quoted version does not refer to the 1967 lines or even to Palestinian territories, but to "all Arab lands". There is no mention of land swaps, and the physical barrier between the sides is to be dismantled. These goals could be interpreted in more than one way. The second "precept" is aimed at fundamentally changing the character of Israel as a Jewish national home, which was the core purpose of its creation. On the so-called Palestinian Right of Return bit, again, the quoted version does not refer to "token", but rather to the full blown variety. Hence, two issues present:

Taken as a whole, the quoted BDS goals do indicate it aims to re-define Israel, rather than limiting itself to promoting Palestinian statehood. The other issue relates to the gaps discussed above between your claimed position and the quoted BDS goals. Such gaps serve to highlight the point made earlier, with regard to the BDS movement nature as somewhat of an "ideological supermarket".

 

The last part of your post is incoherent, at best. Editing troubles, again? Selectively quoting from sources is a bit of thing with you, but honestly, going on about straw man, then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake. Well done.

 

Because I was addressing the point why I personally supported BDS, I added my interpretation of BDS goals via the wiki link just below in numbered format....that is pretty clear from my use of the words : In every peace initiative I am aware of.. But as usual you deliberately attempt to distort my post, muddy the waters and conflate my quoted selection from wiki with my personal unquoted interpretion. Otherwise it would have been in quotation marks to adhere to forum rules, wouldn't it. An apology would be nice.

 

>>Selectively quoting from sources is a bit of thing with you, but honestly, going on about straw man, then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake. Well done.
..hypocrisy plus. I did exactly what you did quoting from the wiki link when you wrote "Skip down to the part referring to criticism,.."

but I had the good grace at least to quote a link to the source I was using 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Criticism

 

>>then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake.
...Who said I was referring to your post? I would have quoted your exact words for that. My reference followed on from my  wiki link.
The phony anti-semitism attack against BDS is in the next wiki paragraph. You claimed to have read the article...right??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Allegations_of_antisemitism

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Replies_to_allegations

 

You seem to delight in nitpicking every single word I use, I think most times just for the sake of arguing and troll baiting. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Because I was addressing the point why I personally supported BDS, I added my interpretation of BDS goals via the wiki link just below in numbered format....that is pretty clear from my use of the words : In every peace initiative I am aware of.. But as usual you deliberately attempt to distort my post, muddy the waters and conflate my quoted selection from wiki with my personal unquoted interpretion. Otherwise it would have been in quotation marks to adhere to forum rules, wouldn't it. An apology would be nice.

 

>>Selectively quoting from sources is a bit of thing with you, but honestly, going on about straw man, then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake. Well done.
..hypocrisy plus. I did exactly what you did quoting from the wiki link when you wrote "Skip down to the part referring to criticism,.."

but I had the good grace at least to quote a link to the source I was using 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Criticism

 

>>then bringing up antisemitism, when this wasn't even mentioned in my posts, does take the cake.
...Who said I was referring to your post? I would have quoted your exact words for that. My reference followed on from my  wiki link.
The phony anti-semitism attack against BDS is in the next wiki paragraph. You claimed to have read the article...right??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Allegations_of_antisemitism

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Replies_to_allegations

 

You seem to delight in nitpicking every single word I use, I think most times just for the sake of arguing and troll baiting. 

 

The usual "nitpicking" comes whenever inaccuracies, inconsistencies and distortion of truth prevalent in your posts are pointed out.

 

To make it simple - you quoted a set of BDS goals, which does not match your own stated goals. Figuring which one you flaunt at which part of which post can be a handful. That's pretty much the issue raised with regard to the BDS being rather ambiguous and "ideologically" flexible, when the need arises. The set of goals quoted is pretty much a recipe for fundamentally changing Israel, to a degree it will no longer be the Jewish national home. Your current version of these goals is less extreme, albeit still retaining some of these elements. Make up your mind which set you wish do discuss, and then we may proceed.

 

With regard to selective quoting, I haven't quoted anything from the link provided - not sure what you're on about. I made a general reference to the sections dealing with criticism of the BDS appearing on the Wikipedia page. What you did was quote a specific bit related to antisemitism charges and wrap it there. The criticisms cover more than that, of course, and yet you chose to quote this specific bit as representative.

 

Troll on.

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, and although I think the law is a mistake, when you consider the proposed guidelines for enforcement, well, that really wouldn't be that bad. But I wouldn't trust them to stick to that as it's too fuzzy. Similar to the Russian anti-gay propaganda law, it can mean almost anything. 

 

 

 

http://forward.com/news/israel/365278/explained-why-did-israel-impose-an-anti-bds-travel-ban/

 

I do not have a clear idea how the mechanics of sorting which people are prevented entry would work. Probably not too hard to compile a list of related prominent figures and activists, and keep it updated. The rather vague terms employed are more reminiscent of Trump's travel bans. As posted earlier in the topic, the authority to deny entry was already in place, without much need to specify reasons. This lends more support to the notion that the bill is more about domestic point scoring than anything else.

 

Unless mistaken, this would be the first application:

 

British pro-BDS activist barred from entering Israel

http://www.timesofisrael.com/british-pro-bds-activist-barred-from-entering-israel/

 

While on the boycott front...:

 

Intel to buy Israeli technology firm Mobileye for $15 billion

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-mobileye-idUSKBN16K0ZP

 

[dexterm]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The usual "nitpicking" comes whenever inaccuracies, inconsistencies and distortion of truth prevalent in your posts are pointed out.

 

To make it simple - you quoted a set of BDS goals, which does not match your own stated goals. Figuring which one you flaunt at which part of which post can be a handful. That's pretty much the issue raised with regard to the BDS being rather ambiguous and "ideologically" flexible, when the need arises. The set of goals quoted is pretty much a recipe for fundamentally changing Israel, to a degree it will no longer be the Jewish national home. Your current version of these goals is less extreme, albeit still retaining some of these elements. Make up your mind which set you wish do discuss, and then we may proceed.

 

With regard to selective quoting, I haven't quoted anything from the link provided - not sure what you're on about. I made a general reference to the sections dealing with criticism of the BDS appearing on the Wikipedia page. What you did was quote a specific bit related to antisemitism charges and wrap it there. The criticisms cover more than that, of course, and yet you chose to quote this specific bit as representative.

 

Troll on.

 

Amazing chutzpah. The Zionist's ability to call black white.

 

I say these are the BDS goals that I support; you say you don't believe me.
BDS has a set of goals they publish; you say you don't believe them.

 

Quite prepared to besmirch, but at the same time hedge your accusations with vague phrases like "pretty much" (twice) and "rather ambiguous".

 

Your pedantry reaches its zenith with the nonsense: it's OK for you to selectively paraphrase from an article, but not OK for me to actually quote from the same article.

 

Enough of this baloney. I have better things to do.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Amazing chutzpah. The Zionist's ability to call black white.

 

I say these are the BDS goals that I support; you say you don't believe me.
BDS has a set of goals they publish; you say you don't believe them.

 

Quite prepared to besmirch, but at the same time hedge your accusations with vague phrases like "pretty much" (twice) and "rather ambiguous".

 

Your pedantry reaches its zenith with the nonsense: it's OK for you to selectively paraphrase from an article, but not OK for me to actually quote from the same article.

 

Enough of this baloney. I have better things to do.

 

Faux tantrums aren't much of an argument.

 

The differences between the list of BDS goals quoted (by yourself) and your personal version of this list were pointed out. They are not quite the same. In line with ongoing deflections, nothing was posted to address this discrepancy.  So the questions stand - when you talk about "BDS goals you support", which list is referred to? And how are the differences between the two sets of goals are to be taken?

 

As for "believing" - twist that all you like. The bottom line is that the set of BDS goals quoted goes further than what most posters claiming to support it care to admit. When it comes to trusting your own statements regarding your positions, not much to explain there - not much trust afforded based on reading thousands of your posts.

 

Not being an extremist, a zealot or of any strong ideological persuasion, I do tend to qualify my statements. Call it acknowledgment of reality's complex nature.

 

I still have no idea what you're on about with regard to selective quoting (now changed to "paraphrasing"). The only posts including such elements were yours.