The Maldives bans Israeli passport holders

[julili]

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wireStory/maldives-ban-israelis-entering-country-war-gaza-110754096

Wonder whether any other countries will follow suit.

It is your opinion stated as a fact.

That does not make it a fact.

Who is dehumanising Palestinians?

Stop making ridiculous points you can't stand over if you don't want them challenged?

Honestly folks, why bother.

@ConnieCounter you have just proved my point for all to see.

Exactly this

This

Yep - it is racism and anti-Semitism at its most rampant. And there are people on this thread cheering this one!

@keenforhelp
It is not my opinion stated as fact. It is fact. It all there for you to research

I can post all the research later, but I'm at work.
Those who dehumanise Palestinians are those who have been calling them cockroaches, human animals, have said they don't love their children like 'they' do, etc.

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.

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

Yep. Israeli lives just seem to be worth more. It’s not acceptable and I hope the Maldives are the first of many counties who will one day push the bullies back.

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

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter

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."

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?

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."

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

Epic fail by The Maldives