I agree and sort of like the neutral zone trap in hockey or the grind and stop basketball of the late 90's, if a strategy makes the game tougher to watch but is actually effective in terms of wins/losses than you can’t rely on evolution or market forces to prompt changes. You actually have to address rules.
John Olerud's Helmet
johnolerud-
That’s a bullshit argument. It’s basically saying that the unreasonable demands of entitled whiners justifies itself because people would never be whining if it weren’t fundamentally important.
As far as I know all this decision was is that Tlaib and Omar can’t enter Israel.
Well, Israel has every right to decide who comes in to Israel but if you mean, say, if she wanted to enter the West Bank via Jordan I think Israel’s ability to restrict that crossing was part of the Oslo accords.
Israel didn’t out and out say it but trust me when I say that there are a lot of pro-Israel people who look at BDS as being an antisemitic movement and not in a cynical way. I don’t agree with them about that, although I think it has troubling elements, but I think it’s based on certain interpretations of the IHRA…
It’s not even that much of a hypothetical. Remember that Milo whatever jackass being banned from Australia? The comments on Splinter were ok on that one.
Not to get all freshman poli sci major, but in order to have a democracy by any meaningful measure means allowing people to freely express their ideas for what policies ought to govern a country. If you say “you cannot advocate for this policy,” that is undemocratic.
I absolutely 100% agree that it was a bad and wrong decision here both in the interest of a free dialog and just in Israel’s own interests and I agree 100% with your characterization of the current Israeli and American governments.
As someone with a couple extra pounds let me assure you that nothing I wear changes what my face or arms look like and those are places where fat happens. A heavy woman in spanx doesn’t suddenly look model-thin, it’s just slightly less noticeable in some parts. Again, the analogy isn’t helping us here.
What else would you call a law that says “You cannot openly advocate for this point of view”?
Well, if we have to continue the analogy, no the Bride doesn’t get everything they want. Spanx don’t make a fat person thin. They just make them look a little less noticeably chubby in photos for as long as they’re on. If they really didn’t want fat people in their wedding party, then a fat person wearing some sort of…
Well, just speaking personally, then I don’t care so much as I tend to agree with a lot of those laws and when I look at your country, sometimes, I think maybe you guys have maybe taken a bad stance on the “absolute freedom/protecting everyone’s safety” divide.
If the potential bridesmaid, upon being told she can’t be in the wedding, responds with “Please let me be in the wedding, I’ll wear spanx” instead of “Fuck you” then, yes, it is conciliatory as clearly not being in the wedding matters a great deal to her even though her friend is a piece of shit. This is a middle…
Ok. So I’m happy to concede that you did not say that you think Israel isn’t a democracy and I will go back to “If this is undemocratic, it is undemocratic in the way that lots of democracies are.”
The restrictions she proposed to them, you mean.
I feel like we’re just going round in circles at this point but if Thing X is viewed by said country, in good faith, to be of sufficient negative impact that it warrants that person not being let into the country then, yes, it is conciliatory.
My substantive point is that most countries, including Western Democracies, have laws that ban speech that could be considered “political” (although I recognize that America tends to fall on the “It’s more democratic to let the Klan march through town than it is to say they can’t” side of the spectrum) and I don’t see…
Again, that’s what she proposed to them.
What I mean is that if you were to look at this removed from the particulars of the situation where Person A wants to visit Country B for both political and personal reasons and Country B says no because they feel the political message she’s spreading is one that is directly negative to their state of being(if not…