The Maldives bans Israeli passport holders

@Vittuunterroristit yes, as the Maldivian authorities were previously unaware that not all Israelis are Jewish, they're now trying to find a way to ban only Jewish Israelis without making it look like antisemitism is official government policy.

Didn't they backtrack after realising the ban would also apply to some non-Jewish people?

Sounds a bit apartheid

Well that is why the propaganda against Palestineans repeatedly fails. Because most people can see straight through it and fortunately only a handful make the appalling choice to ignore the facts you state.

Agreed and also have the same experience amongst all the people I have spoken to. I don't bother engaging with the IDF supporters on any forum and just flick past their posts without reading, as they are always trying to drag you down rabbit holes, derail threads and waste time.

Except the Maldives don't want a blanket ban and neither does their population.

Thirteen countries have NOT joined South Africa's ICJ case either. Only "Nicaragua, Colombia, Mexico, Libya and Palestine have filed formal requests and are waiting for the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, to grant approval to join the case."

The rest?

"Others have taken a political stance by announcing their intention to join the case in support of South Africa, such as Belgium, Türkiye, Egypt, Maldives, Ireland, Chile and now Spain. But their declarations of interventions still have to be filed with the ICJ."

Haven't joined. Important to be clear and accurate.

Spain has told their ministers to stop calling it "genocide" as it means they have international law obligations to take in Gazans as refugees. And their consulate staff don't want to relocate to Ramallah either.

There's a lot of politics going on.

Agreed.

Re the ban, I think a blanket ban is fine as it would be easier to administer and should apply to anyone with dual nationality too so it couldn't be avoided. I'd be supportive of other countries following suit. The case against Israel in the ICJ started with just S. Africa prosecuting it, but has now extended to 13 countries joining S.Africa, including Belgium, Ireland and Spain. Sky News did an excellent piece on Israel's increasing international isolation and the pariah status it has now achieved.

Yep! Turns out they don't want to, or can't have a blanket ban on all Israelis. It's just the Jewish ones they wanted to target.

There's a word for that.....🧐

As I said before, the Maldives should focus on their own urgent problems.

Epic fail by The Maldives

Well yes but then sometimes it has to be a blanket ban. I am sure there were a handful of white South Africans who did not agree with apartheid but the boycott needed to be in place even though it affected them too.

I am absolutely appalled by some of the tosh that comes out of Sunak's mouth on this topic, and he does not speak for me nor many others, but as PM he ends up speaking for Britain and people think he represents us - luckily not for long.

This.

I guess none of the others matter.

Replied to wrong post. Was replying to person who suggested Chinese, and other countries etc not banned in Maldives regardless of genocides committed by them. Strikes as none of the others matter. See a lot of this.

So both groups have no legal backing but authorities turn a blind eye to them.

You were the one who initially moved the goal posts. I was discussing state sanctioned freedom of movement, like what the thread is discussing. You then compared this to "small, violent groups not representative of the Palestinian population as a whole"

So please... answer my question!

Because you're the one who shifted the goal posts and brought the subject up, so I assumed you'd be keen to share your thoughts on it. No worries if you don't know.

Why did you just repeat my own question back at me? 😂

Do you think they're similar to violent Israeli settlers?

So are they similar to the Israeli violent settlers then? Just acting as they wish knowing they will not be stopped?

The small violent groups have the backing of the Jordanian authorities and the PA, neither of whom condemn them. Maybe have a look at the incidents and actions which have prompted restrictions on entry for the context which seems to be missing.

Yes of course... but 'small violent groups' probably don't have the backing of the law behind them, so of course are condemned.

But the following seems to specify that Palestinians are restricted by the Israeli government, so not comparable at all:

"Israel has restricted access to the site for Palestinian men over 55 and women over 50 since October."

There's really no equivalence between a tiny country banning Israeli passport holders and the longstanding conflict over Jewish people being banned from praying on the holiest site in Judaism. Temple Mount has always been a flashpoint for confrontational behaviour between groups to whom the site is significant. If a synagogue had been built upon the holiest site in Islam and Muslims were banned from worshipping there, I suspect the same issues would arise. It would be challenging for Israel to annex the area as administration, visiting and worship there is under Jordanian control.

There are frequent attempts by small, violent groups not representative of the Palestinian population as a whole to prevent non-Muslim visitors entering the site completely, including stopping Jewish people from praying at the Western Wall, and Jewish people were banned entirely from the Western Wall from 1948-67. Does this restriction of movement, access and worship earn equal condemnation?

Those of you upset about this, are you just as upset about the Israeli government limiting freedom of movement for Palestinians, as mentioned in this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/05/jerusalem-israeli-nationalist-flag-march-muslim-areas

"The Temple Mount area has also been unusually quiet: Israel has restricted access to the site for Palestinian men over 55 and women over 50 since October.
Under a longstanding compromise agreement, Jews are allowed to visit, but not pray at the Temple Mount. In recent years, however, growing numbers of Jewish visitors, sometimes praying or with police escorts, have inflamed longstanding Palestinian fears that Israel plans to annex the area."

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter

What does stupid mean?
What does obtuse mean?
What's the difference?

Anyone with half a brain knows the Palestinians have been dehumanised for years, some people just choose not to accept facts even when it's staring them in the face unfortunately

Sorry but the facts speak for themselves:
Israel's apartheid against Palestinians - Amnesty International
Israel: 50 Years of Occupation Abuses | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)
Ex-IDF general likens military control of West Bank to Nazi Germany | The Times of Israel
I could go on.