Skip to main content

My participation in an interfaith delegation trip to Palestine and Israel was blocked by Israeli officials who detained, interrogated and then expelled me because they deemed me to be "a security risk."

The idea that a Quaker mother of two has the ability to be a risk to a country which has one of the most powerful militaries in the world is both absurd and telling at the same time.

The questions started at passport control. "What is your father's name?" "What is your grandfather's name?" I was immediately escorted to a dirty room to await further interrogation, and I was questioned no fewer than seven times and was even asked directly, "Are you a terrorist?"

All this because I am a Palestinian, and I will not be silent. I actively work to end the Israeli occupation and the Israeli Shin Bet did examine my online record while they held me in captivity.  

The Israelis demanded access to my gmail account. When I refused to provide my password, they said that I must be hiding something sinister. That's when they said I was a terrorist.

I was taken to security to claim my suitcase. They went through my belongings thoroughly and searched every inch of my body.  

When they discovered that I had taken detailed notes about my interrogations, the lead interrogator was furious. He accused me of sound recording or photographing the questioning. He was especially interested in my notes about my phone conversation with a staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. I told them that the Embassy advised me to keep a record of my treatment.

But in reality, the U.S. Embassy was of no assistance at all. The first question they asked me was "Are you Jewish?"

When I told them that I was a Palestinian with family in the West Bank, they responded that they could do nothing to assist me. In fact, they said the more they interceded on my behalf, the worse it would go for me.

So much for $3 billion U.S. tax dollars each year to Israel.

I was taken to a prison cell where I was detained overnight and then was driven onto a runway to board a commercial flight to Europe and then onto the States.  I did not have my passport returned to me until the plane was taking off.  The stewardess offered it to me with a look of sympathy.

I was unable to reach my husband from the airport in Frankfurt and no one was sure of my whereabouts for many hours. I feel especially sick about all the worry this caused to my family and friends.

As I was sitting in prison waiting for my deportation, I could not help but think of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention with no idea of when or if they will ever be released.

I thought of the millions of Palestinians denied the right to return to their homeland by Israel. Israel has created and maintains through violence a Jewish majority at their expense.

My experiences of detention and deportation were unnerving and designed to intimidate, and I am disappointed because I missed the delegation trip and my cousin's wedding in the West Bank this past weekend, but my ordeal is only a small part of Israel's systematic oppression of Palestinians.

In fact, I am among the very lucky. I am at home now with my beautiful family.

These experiences demand that I continue to speak fearlessly against the injustices of Israel against the Palestinian people.

Count on hearing from me.

Coverage of my story can be found at the following links:

Associated Press

Haaretz

Riverfront Times

Here's a photo from my cousin's wedding last Saturday.

Photobucket

I will write another diary on how the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the State Department treated me.  Look for it in the next few days.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (283+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david mizner, InAntalya, sofia, chidmf, ScienceMom, wordene, OldDragon, DRo, Russ Jarmusch, johnny wurster, absdoggy, Lib Dem FoP, poco, Terra Mystica, angry marmot, pfiore8, downsouth, Renee, letsgetreal, Matt Esler, Laughing Vergil, MadRuth, Catte Nappe, old wobbly, Claudius Bombarnac, dance you monster, Smoh, janl1776, blueoasis, cotterperson, socalmonk, jrooth, stevej, kharma, Friendlystranger, Aunt Martha, vacantlook, Diane Gee, ratzo, Geekesque, Brooke In Seattle, white blitz, Susipsych, IreGyre, anodnhajo, snoopydawg, slapshoe, chira2, roses, Flying Goat, skyounkin, Lupin, GoGoGoEverton, peacestpete, tin woodswoman, SanJoseLady, opinionated, gatorcog, statsone, gchaucer2, pasadena beggar, OIL GUY, Wolf10, BradyB, Assaf, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, jacey, blueness, MJ via Chicago, muddy boots, implicate order, elliott, mmacdDE, tampaedski, Deward Hastings, politik, HoundDog, blue aardvark, Robobagpiper, Colorado is the Shiznit, Kamakhya, FrankCornish, CorinaR, Sean Robertson, temptxan, pgm 01, duck152, zerelda, Hayate Yagami, Alice Venturi, hkorens, OutcastsAndCastoffs, Safina, icemilkcoffee, science nerd, Flyswatterbanjo, deben, K S LaVida, Tamar, samanthab, wasatch, a a, shortgirl, cany, Mariken, Deleuzional, Statusquomustgo, DeminNewJ, doroma, AverageJoe42, SneakySnu, gustynpip, ClutchCargo, most peculiar mama, bleeding blue, marleycat, artisan, prettygirlxoxoxo, Superskepticalman, hyperstation, greengemini, Isara, 2thanks, imokyrok, KibbutzAmiad, wu ming, myrealname, thePhoenix13, Anak, high5, Sanuk, don mikulecky, poligirl, elengul, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, paulsmith8, eve, desert rain, ToeJamFootball, Karl Rover, wsexson, chipmo, moviemeister76, brasilaaron, apollo4210, Helena Handbag, OleHippieChick, Donkey Hotey, dibsa, sortalikenathan, 420 forever, ask, shopkeeper, Roadbed Guy, legendmn, greycat, Tinfoil Hat, skrekk, CayceP, WisVoter, IndieGuy, sockpuppet, zedaker, phillies, LakeSuperior, DvCM, celdd, raptavio, enhydra lutris, thepothole, monroematt, wigwam, eztempo, Lujane, petulans, nickrud, Dexter, hubcap, Texknight, PhilJD, rja, strangedemocracy, liberaldeminpittsburgh, Son of a Cat, lysias, ChocolateChris, helpImdrowning, EeDan, edrie, ChemBob, maggiejean, cpresley, BachFan, Fireshark, ybruti, David Futurama, dewley notid, expatjourno, hatecloudsyourthoughts, ladybug53, tonyahky, Cinnamon, Trevin, maxomai, Matt Z, Oaktown Girl, Buckeye Nut Schell, jo fish, Floande, elziax, Foreign Devil, madgranny, owlbear1, xanthippe2, congenitalefty, CTDemoFarmer, ExStr8, kyril, lcs, tovan, Dallasdoc, CuriousBoston, strandedlad, Noctem Aeternus, windje, terjeanderson, Fire bad tree pretty, slowbutsure, WakeUpNeo, Emerson, AgavePup, scotths, Calvino Partigiani, LucyandByron, mjfgates, BobTheHappyDinosaur, tiggers thotful spot, bnasley, xynz, karanja, ZenTrainer, Simple, HeyMikey, ramara, Nailbanger, Calfacon, RichterScale, mickT, ER Doc, Gemina13, sfbob, JDWolverton, eyesoars, JesseCW, highacidity, Christy1947, codairem, Best in Show, marina, steamed rice, sfarkash, Swill to Power, fixxit, Anorish, babatunde, AaronInSanDiego, waiting for lefty, mchristi314, Yogurt721, DiegoUK, PinHole, jhop7, Carol in San Antonio, BlueMississippi, Christin, spunhard, A Mad Mad World, Lefty Coaster, AoT, Celtic Merlin, MrJayTee, WattleBreakfast, PeterHug

    If you need the other side to produce a Gandhi, you are on the wrong side

    by soysauce on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:00:05 AM PDT

  •  Two google accounts , iykwim . (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, opinionated, sockpuppet, DvCM, Lujane, kyril

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:06:56 AM PDT

  •  This comment of yours has always irked me: (40+ / 0-)
    So much for $3 billion U.S. tax dollars each year to Israel.
    .  If our government was really about ensuring the success of democracy in Israel, and elsewhere, we are not getting anywhere near the Return On Investment.

    -8.88, -7.77 Social Security as is will be solvent until 2037, and the measures required to extend solvency beyond that are minor. -- Joe Conanson

    by wordene on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:10:32 AM PDT

    •  Pray tell (15+ / 0-)

      What democracy?

      Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

      by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:24:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  aid to Israel not about democracy, never was (17+ / 0-)

      Aid to Israel is all about making money for the MIC, playing Risk, and religion.  Washington takes our money and gives it to Israel who buys stuff from defense and security services corporations with it.  For Washington's very amateur Risk club, Israel is basically meant to be a friendly military presence in the Middle East - as if Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. weren't enough - a Cold War style proxy tasked with keeping an eye on things and who can do things that would get us in much bigger trouble if we did them ourselves.  Fundies in both the US and the UK pushed hard for the creation of Israel after WWII in the hope of setting the End Times into motion.  They still believe that Jesus will not come back until the old Biblical kingdom is restored and the temple is rebuilt.

      Add all these together, and Washington would have absolutely no problem with a Jewish version of ancient Sparta (or modern-day North Korea): 19th Century romantic nationalism taken to its logical conclusions in the form of a hive-minded military state.  Bear in mind also that one of the reasons the Israelis take such a hard line is that their far right secular Zionists actually think Israel has already given up more than anyone had any right to ask of them by no longer claiming the East Bank (i.e. the country of Jordan, which used to be part of British Palestine).

      To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

      by Visceral on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:29:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  for $3 billion they could rebuild the damn temple (5+ / 0-)

        and then be shamed when nothing happens.

        NOW SHOWING
        Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
        Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

        by The Dead Man on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:53:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For a lot less we could have a red heifer (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sockpuppet, david78209, strandedlad

          within a generation.

          I am not sure we really want apocalypse now, though.

          Real plastic here; none of that new synthetic stuff made from chicken feathers. By the morning of 9/12/2001 the people of NYC had won the War on Terror.

          by triplepoint on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:40:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A nice man in Nebraska is helping (0+ / 0-)

            He's a cattle rancher and evangelical minister. In 1999, This American Life did a segment about his work with Israel to breed and fly some American red heifers over there.

            http://www.thisamericanlife.org/...

            He's still working on it, but it's all being handled by him and some rabbis, no public money needed.

            Warning: Erwin Schroedinger will kill you like a cat in a box. Maybe.

            by strandedlad on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:49:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oooo sick religion burn yo nt (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mdmslle, kefauver, sockpuppet, Dopeman
        •  you assume a lot with that statement (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, leftynyc, sockpuppet, alisonc

          since the monarchy comes before the Temple - and we aren't expecting some kind of immortal woo woo king to lead us - just a boring king whose parents fucked.

          The Temple is a place of worship for all - it's not the focus of some kind of anything other than Jews doing our Jewy thing.

          And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

          by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:24:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we're referring more to Christian beliefs (4+ / 0-)

            The Temple is supposed to be the place where Jesus sets himself up as both lawful king (as a descendant of David) and as the object of Temple worship ... or where the Antichrist tries to do these things and ultimately sets off Armageddon.  Neither will happen without a temple, so no matter what the particular fundie believes, a temple is necessary.

            The Temple is a place of worship for all
            I was not aware that non-Jews were permitted to worship at the historical temple. Were they in fact expected to sacrifice to the Jewish god according to Jewish rites, because that might be a problem for ecumenical efforts today.  I seriously doubt that a modern Temple could pull triple duty as sacrificial temple, mosque, and church, certainly not if the Orthodox have their way.

            Right now there's a mosque sitting in the way of a Third Temple which even the Israeli government won't touch, and I doubt that the other two religions that claim to worship the God of Abraham would be OK with Jews claiming the Temple Mount for their own exclusive use.

            To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

            by Visceral on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What do Christian beliefs (4+ / 0-)

              have to do with Israel the modern Jewish nation?  Nothing.

              This assumption that Christian belief is valid, universal and trumps Jewish belief and culture in Israel is patently stupid,  It's a Jewish nation - the Jewish view of the world is vastly different than the Christian POV.

              Jesus was not qualified to be the Jewish king - wrong line to start with and secondly - wrong time place and order.  There was a standing Temple.

              Read the Bible (not the NT add on, the Bible) and you will see anyone who chose to is welcome to bring a sacrifice and worship at the Temple.  You have to do it our way because it's our house - but anyone was welcome.  I'm not going to walk into a mosque and insist I pray my way - that's rude.  Same concept.

              The Temple Mount is literally the only place on earth we can put a Temple.  No other place.  And if you know anything about history - the Muslim who ordered the Dome of the Rock to be built believed he was a reincarnation of Shlomo haMelech and the Dome is a placeholder until a proper Jewish temple could be built again.  But don't let actual history get in the way or anything.

              And finally - The Dome is built on an area that isn't even holy ground - the Temple didn't stand over there.  There is actually no reason at all other than people being stupid that they both can't sit up there and be happy together.

              And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

              by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:15:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not claiming anything of the sort (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sockpuppet, ChemBob

                I and The Dead Man are trying in a roundabout way to mock nominally if fervently pro-Israel fundamentalist Christians who only want a temple (and an Israel) out of the belief that these things are necessary in order to get God to blow up the world and kill everyone, including most Jews.  The Israeli far right solicits the support of these Christians in Washington, but should instead be terrified of these people.

                I'm not trying to make any kind of statement one way or another about Jewish beliefs, except perhaps in the narrow terms of their relevance to contemporary geopolitics: i.e. a third Temple built and operated according to Torah (regardless of Jewish rights to same) would not be acceptable to the followers of two other religions who A) each have a powerful religious attachment to the same mountain, B) who each claim a monopoly on the legitimate worship of the god of Abraham and obedience to his will, and C) who each control political entities with the ability to fight a brutal and destructive war with Israel and each other over who does what there.

                To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                by Visceral on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:38:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you still don't seem to grasp (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TiaRachel

                  that Jews don't care what Muslims or Christians believe.  Not part of the discussion as far as we're concerned.  Approval isn't really an issue - cultural agreement to address the Temple is.

                  The Israelis haven't built it yet because they don't think it's time.  What it means to other people is immaterial - it's not for them or about them.

                  And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                  by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:56:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ..but they care about $ support from the US (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ladelfina

                    ..I presume. Much of which is justified with fundamentalist Christian lore. Unless the $ is immaterial, the suppliers' attitude about it should not be.

                    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                    by rhetoricus on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:34:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  not if the price is listening to assholes actually (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1, samddobermann

                      and I think if you watch what happens Israel will start telling the US to keep their vouchers and no they aren't getting the awesome Israeli developmental improvements back either.

                      Money is actually not what drives us - nor is what Christians want or think we should do as a people.  That said - Israel is a nation with it's own character and values and to try to assume that American values are it - is very wrong.

                      Israel will do what they do.  That I can guarantee.  Nothing else.

                      And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                      by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:18:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I fully agree (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Friendlystranger

                        ..and would encourage them therefore to go it alone. The truth is, though, fundamentalist Christian views are not what "drive" US involvement in Israel.. they are just used to justify that involvement. Proximity to oil, trade routes and drug routes are what drive US involvement. For these reasons, I'd like to see Israel go its own way without US "help."

                        If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                        by rhetoricus on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:21:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  US support started because Sovietsu (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dougymi, volleyboy1, Mortifyd

                          established themselves in Egypt, Syria and other midEast countries as client states — which they were supplying with arms and were interested in using as a base.

                          After a donation in their first year the US didn't fund Israel at all until the mid 60s.

                          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                          by samddobermann on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:30:13 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That was then, though (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Friendlystranger

                            Israel is now the US's oil proxy and foothold in the Middle East for trade routes, rare earth metals, pipelines, etc.

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:53:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you think they just "became American" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kane in CA

                            with a donation and some military equipment vouchers?

                            They are their own nation and us calling them "our proxy" and such is both insulting to them and a total lack of understanding they are not America Jr. - because they aren't.

                            It's going to bite the US in the ass one day because Israel will sigh, say "see ya!" and America will be standing there looking more like a dumbass still thinking we tell them what to do - when we never did.

                            And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                            by Mortifyd on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:40:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't seem to understand (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shawn Russell

                            ..that I am articulating US strategic motivation for giving those "military equipment vouchers."

                            Many Americans, including me, don't agree with that agenda. That said, pretty sure Israel needs the US more than the reverse. If you don't think so, please continue to persuade your countrymen that Israel can do fine on its own, militarywise. I know I (and Americans) would be much happier not subsidizing Israeli military efforts, and it sounds like you don't appreciate the "help" anyway.

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:41:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummm you do realize that Mortifydd (1+ / 0-)

                            is an American AND a U.S. Veteran.

                            Just so you know who you are talking too.

                            Would you like to continue along about his "countrymen" or would you like to "pull both feet out of your mouth"?

                            Oh yeah... and as for this:

                            Many Americans, including me, don't agree with that agenda.
                            More Americans (in fact the majority) including me fully support our aid to our Israeli friends. So, I am very sorry, but there are some lovely parting gifts by the back door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:05:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dual citizenship common (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shawn Russell

                            I don't consider imagining someone to be an Israeli citizen an insult to him, nor an implication that he can't also be American, even if I was mistaken. Regardless, from his statements, it sounds like he identifies with Israel on these matters.

                            Yes, more Americans do support military aid to Israel.

                            But many don't. I don't support US strategic reasons for military support (oil and pipeline access, trade routes, access to rare earths and opium). I think the US should be more sustainable and less dependent upon supplies we have to fight expensive and brutal wars to protect. Nor do I support fundamentalist Christian ideological justifications for military support to Israel (to hasten the End Times, wherein all non-Christians die). I think neither of these have Israeli security or safety in mind.

                            But the commenter's point appeared to be that US attitudes and justifications for military aid to Israel are irrelevant because Israel doesn't need, want or care about said aid anyway.

                            If you disagree, it's him you disagree with.

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 09:15:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummm you don't see how implying dual loyalty (1+ / 0-)

                            can be insulting? For Real???

                            I don't consider imagining someone to be an Israeli citizen an insult to him, nor an implication that he can't also be American, even if I was mistaken.
                            Mortifydd talked about this in a comment that he wrote that he was an American, had no plans on moving to Israel and had served in the U.S. Navy. It's in this diary.

                            But your assumption here:

                            If you don't think so, please continue to persuade your countrymen that Israel can do fine on its own, militarywise.
                            You didn't know he was Israeli - You knew he was Jewish so you just made an assumption. Rather than making that assumption don't you think it would have been better to ask before doing that? FURTHER, given the history of anti-Semitic claims of "dual loyalty" in the U.S. don't you think that this is something better off asked rather than assumed.

                            As for the rest of it... Just because someone says that Israel doesn't want or need aid (which is not what he said), doesn't mean it doesn't. If it didn't the Israeli Government can speak for itself. So far they want, need, and are asking for it.

                            Also, just because "many" Americans don't want something doesn't mean much to me. The vast majority of people in America support Israel and aid to Israel and I am one of that vast majority and furthermore I support that vast majority.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 11:39:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf.. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Shawn Russell
                            FURTHER, given the history of anti-Semitic claims of "dual loyalty" in the U.S...
                            I am unfamiliar with this. I can't think it would arise at all as a problem unless someone was in a position of high government leadership and there appeared to be conflict of interest.

                            Yes, I made an assumption based on the commenter's degree of identification with Israel. He can let me know if I'm wrong, but it's really immaterial to my greater point.

                            Just because someone says that Israel doesn't want or need aid (which is not what he said),
                            Perhaps you can clarify exactly what he meant, then.
                            Also, just because "many" Americans don't want something doesn't mean much to me.
                            That's fine.
                            The vast majority of people in America support Israel and aid to Israel and I am one of that vast majority and furthermore I support that vast majority.
                            That's fine. As a taxpaying citizen, I have a right to voice an opinion about whether tax money should go to certain military purposes. Whether or not you or "the vast majority" agree.

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 09:31:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                            Here's the series of statements that made me think the commenter was an Israeli:

                            The initial comment I replied to was this:

                            Him:

                            The Israelis haven't built it yet because they don't think it's time.  What it means to other people is immaterial - it's not for them or about them.
                            then, later, he said
                            and I think if you watch what happens Israel will start telling the US to keep their vouchers and no they aren't getting the awesome Israeli developmental improvements back either.

                            Money is actually not what drives us - nor is what Christians want or think we should do as a people.

                            Since my comments were entirely restricted to Israel and its policymakers who want US $, there is no reason that I should have understood that by "us" he meant to speak for non-Israelis.

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 10:23:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well considering he (0+ / 0-)

                            said "them" in his first comment. AND considering in a later comment he mentioned that he was American and a Naval veteran....

                            But anyway... You are not familiar with the anti-Semitic claims of "dual loyalty" amongst Jews? Really? Where have you been for the past 2000 years, or 300 years here.

                            Oh and when he was talking about "us" he was talking about Jewish people it is pretty obvious from the context of the comment.

                            AND If you are reading his comments in diaries he clearly says this:

                            I'm an adult American Jew (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            who served in the US Navy - that's who I am.

                            It's not a joke.  I am not an Israeli, do not intend to become one - but I know it's not the US as a good chunk of my family lives there now...

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:03:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did not see that comment (0+ / 0-)

                            ..re: "Not an Israeli," but thanks for blockquoting. It was not in reply to me, and I don't always read all comments in a diary.

                            And I clearly have not been in your world re: antisemitic charges of "dual loyalty" (language you used and falsely ascribed to me). I simply argued that American and Israeli citizenship were not mutually exclusive.

                            Oh and when he was talking about "us" he was talking about Jewish people it is pretty obvious from the context of the comment.
                            What on earth would have made that obvious? "Jewish people" in general were not remotely the subject of our exchange with each other, and how would invoking all "Jewish people" in the context of a discussion of US military policy re: Israel even be relevant? (Weren't you the one who said conflating "Jewish person" with "Israeli" was offensive?)

                            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                            by rhetoricus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:09:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  rotflmao (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Anorish, Shawn Russell, HoopJones

                        "Israel will do what they do.  That I can guarantee.  Nothing else."

                        Oh yeah, you so big and bad....LOL
                        What are you, some 13 year old?

                        "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

                        by renfro on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:47:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm an adult American Jew (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                          who served in the US Navy - that's who I am.

                          It's not a joke.  I am not an Israeli, do not intend to become one - but I know it's not the US as a good chunk of my family lives there now.

                          What Americans assume about Israel has about as much to do with Israel as what Americans assume about Muslims culturally.

                          Israelis don't take "push the Jews into the sea" as a joke - it's something that they will die rather than let happen.  Do not fuck with them unless you want your ass handed back to you - or think you can keep them concerned about international opinion.

                          Once they decide it's all out war - then it's war.  Don't go there.  They've  been horribly patient to this point.

                          And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                          by Mortifyd on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:47:47 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not sure what this means (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW
                    Approval isn't really an issue - cultural agreement to address the Temple is.
                    Half the time you sound like a rebuilt Temple would be something that everyone could support; yet at the same time you say it's something that should happen regardless of how anyone feels about it.

                    The Israeli government is unlikely to support any reconstruction so long as it's worried about Muslims causing trouble over it; they won't even allow Jews onto the Temple Mount for fear of provoking violence.

                    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                    by Visceral on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:34:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it's culturally more complex than that (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1, Kane in CA

                      80-something % of the population of Israel is secular.  They don't give a shit about the Temple.  The ones that DO give a shit about the Temple believe we can't do anything to actually build it - with minor small group exceptions.

                      The Israeli government is not going to encourage the Temple because they will eventually have to deal with the Temple but no monarchy issue - which they want to avoid - being the standing government and all.  Fear of violence from Arabs has nothing to do with it - civil war among Jews does.

                      And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                      by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:22:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Anorish, Shawn Russell

                    You don't seem to grasp that Muslims and Christians don't care what Jews believe.

                    "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

                    by renfro on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:44:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  we have known that for millennia n/t (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      volleyboy1, Mortifyd

                      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                      by samddobermann on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:32:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for proving WHY Israel needs to exist N/T (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JNEREBEL, Mortifyd

                      "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                      by volleyboy1 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 09:26:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't speak for me. (6+ / 0-)

                      I am a Muslim and neither you, nor anyone else, tells me what I believe or what I "care" about.  I absolutely care about what Jews believe, and also respect their right to believe it.

                      •  You know downsouth (5+ / 0-)

                        I don't agree with your views on this particular subject and Israel, BUT.... I have to say I do appreciate that you do stand up to this kind of crap spewed by RW and racist haters.

                        Thanks for saying this.

                        Now back to our disagreements.

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Ah, that's so sweet (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Shawn Russell

                        You care about what they believe even though they don't care about what you believe.

                        Stockholm syndrome maybe.

                        "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

                        by renfro on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 09:43:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Muslims... (4+ / 0-)

                          Christians and Jews are not monolithic in their beliefs or their attitudes towards each other.  This is something that even the most dense person should be able to understand.  There are Jews I despise.  Binyamin Netanyahu is one.  There are Christians I despise.  Pat Robertson is one.  I also strongly oppose many policies of the Jewish state.  But to make some kind of claim that as a Muslim, I must hate all Jews, or that I must not care what they believe, is just an idiotic statement.  Perhaps you are projecting your own prejudices onto people of faith, I honestly don't know.  Same goes, really, for this statement:

                          You care about what they believe even though they don't care about what you believe.
                          Do you magically know all Jews and Christians?  Are you a mind reader, that you know how all Jews and Christians feel about Islam?  You obviously aren't in my head, because if you were you would see the interfaith outreach meetings I attend, and hear the long discussions we have concerning common ground between our various faiths.  And you might even feel the respect we have for each other...and each others beliefs...in such meetings.

                          Your statements are designed to inflame and provoke.  I will not take such bait.  I say again that I fully respect the beliefs of both Jews and Christians.  So do many of my Muslim friends, both inside the USA and in other nations.  And I can tell you from experience that many Jews and Christians respect the beliefs of Muslims.  Do we agree theologically?  Of course not.  But agreement is not a prerequisite for respect  Compassion is.

                          •  Way to stand up to bigotry (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            downsouth

                            And for the record... as a Jew - I care very much what Muslims and Christians believe. I don't have to believe the same things to respect their beliefs and culture.

                            So thank you for standing up to this, and showing that people of all faiths can work in good faith with each other.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 02:20:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  The reason people can't be happy... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shawn Russell, Friendlystranger

                ...is dumb ideas like "The Temple Mount is literally the only place on earth we can put a Temple.  No other place." How come?   What does that even mean?  Is it magical earth?

                Superstition ruins everything.

                •  not true it's what YOU understand (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  downsouth

                  as the problem as an outsider.

                  It has to do with our concept of governance, geography, history, cultural identity, historical fact there have been two there before it and we just plain like it there.

                  Everything we do and have done for the last oh - 3500 years or so has been oriented around a Temple being there, or us wanting to put one back there.  I'm sorry if you don't have that kind of personal history to be grounded in - but I do.  It's nice to actually know who you are.

                  Many Muslims know they (The Temples) were there - and some of them even want to help put it back.  Not all - but some, and that's good.

                  The Temple doesn't need to stand on the Dome at all, the Dome isn't in the spot we need.  It's fine.  But people like to stir shit and assume we want to destroy it, tell people we should or want to destroy it - and tell people there were never Jewish Temples to begin with - and that doesn't help.  

                  There is no reason at all that the Temple cannot go where it should be up on the Mount and the Dome is where it is now.  None.  No actual halachic reason.  But having said that - the Temple still should be where we want it - where the previous two stood as well.

                  Would you insist that Muslims share Mecca and move the Qaba because some new religion comes along and says that's theirs now?  Bullshit.  I would support the Muslim right to their holiest place because that's what it is.

                  That's what our Temple is to us.  It's not unreasonable to want it back where it was before in a Jewish nation.  That you don't like the Jewish nation being there - well, that's not up to you, is it?

                  And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                  by Mortifyd on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:37:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  let me repeat this part to be clear (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    downsouth, volleyboy1

                    The Temple doesn't need to stand on the Dome at all, the Dome isn't in the spot we need.  It's fine.  But people like to stir shit and assume we want to destroy it, tell people we should or want to destroy it - and tell people there were never Jewish Temples to begin with - and that doesn't help.  

                    There is no reason at all that the Temple cannot go where it should be up on the Mount and the Dome is where it is now.  None.  No actual halachic reason.  But having said that - the Temple still should be where we want it - where the previous two stood as well.

                    Neighbours.  Fun Friday nights.  It could be awesome.  All the singing and joy - But nooo.  Let's keep them fighting amongst themselves over shit they don't even believe.  

                    Thanks, Western world.

                    And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                    by Mortifyd on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:40:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  alhamdulillah (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mortifyd

                    Top two comments of the DECADE.

          •  The statement has more to do with X-ian fundies (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            highacidity

            who created/support Israel with our taxdollars in order for their god to destroy the world.

            NOW SHOWING
            Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
            Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

            by The Dead Man on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:53:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Uhm Obama would not HAVE to (0+ / 0-)

          be bipartisan if you would go elect enough progressives to make it unnecessary.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:21:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair (3+ / 0-)

        post-war the main protagonists were both Jews who wanted an Israel (promised by Balfour forty odd years before in exchange for a loan from Rothschild to pay for munitions in WW1) and Palestinians who wanted independence from the British after they were given the Mandate by the League of Nations.

        The British were stuck and the Foreign Office went into its automatic "divide it" mode that had been seen in Ireland and imperial India. Both sides refused to take part in negotiations and also indulged in terrorist attacks against the British (e.g. the murders at the King David Hotel) and each other. The Israelis however declared independence before the expity of the negotiating period and the British withdrew.

        Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

        by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:24:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jewish state & Palestinian indep. exclusive goals (6+ / 0-)

          The British weren't being cynical; it would not have been possible to achieve both a Jewish state and Palestinian self-determination in the same political entity.  A one-state solution is still an impossibility: you'd end up with apartheid or a loss of official "Jewishness".

          Some kind of partition would have been inevitable.  The original UN partition plan of 1948 was a good plan - very few people had to move, there was lots of room for Jewish settlement (the Negev was even included at Ben Gurion's request) - but it died in the war of 1949.  There was no significant Jewish presence (or religious/cultural interest) east of the Jordan, which is why that territory was destined to be outside any Israel (to the consternation of the Zionist far right), but the Palestinians didn't want to move there for reasons that would not be unfamiliar to Zionists: "This land is our home!"

          IMO solving the issue gets easier if you're able (or willing) to separate the Palestinians from the rest of the Arab world.  All they want is their personal property (i.e. land) back, no more occupation (full integration into Israel or full independence), equal rights in Israel in practice if they're destined to live on the Israeli side of any border, and an end to the harassment by the Israeli security apparatus when their lives cross the border.  There's no real constituency among the Palestinians for outright war against Israel or for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the area.  Retreating back to the 1967 borders would still be an enormous territorial gain for Israel over the 1948 borders, and this is a position that a majority of Palestinians are willing to accept.

          To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

          by Visceral on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:46:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just to point out (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lysias, kyril, Terra Mystica

            That the original UN independence plan - for two states with Jerusalem as an international city - was actually put forward by the UK to the UN General Assembly as a means of discharging the Mandate from the League of Nations.  

            The USA has not always been the staunch supporter of Israel that it has become. In 1956 for example, they more or less ordered Israel to withdraw after they failed to reach the Suez Canal. Israel had agreed invade in conspiracy with the UK and France. The idea was that by reaching the canal, they would provide the others with an excuse to invade the canal zone in order "to protect international traffic through the canal". The Israeli forces failed to reach their objective in time which rather embarrassed the French and British whose forces had already deployed.

            The current cosy relations stem from the refusal of the USA to give loan and aid to Nasser to build the Aswan High Dam. He secured the money from the USSR and the Cold War client statuses were defined.  

            Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

            by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:13:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Crap. The 67 borders meant Jordan (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kane in CA, volleyboy1, JNEREBEL, Mortifyd

            controlled (and annexed) most of Jerusalem and the rest of the territory that was supposed to be an independent jurisdiction. They marked off their area with barbed wire going down the street of Jerusalem. They refused Jews access to the Western Wall or any other place there. They even  forbid the Arabs who remained in Israel to go to Temple Mount just to be pissy. The desecrated and occupied the many synagogs and ripped up the gravestone and then built a hotel on the site of the old Jewish Cemetery.

            Gaza was occupied and ruled by Egypt.

            Had the Arabs won the 48-49 war their would still be no Palestinian state. The territory would be annexed by Jordan Syria and Egypt.

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:47:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You need to read more of the (0+ / 0-)

          original documents and other history.

          There wasn't a negotiating period after the UN partition map although there was supposed to be adjustment of lines locally. The Arab countries refused to accept anything or even talk about it.  

          The Arab people living in Palestine made no attempt to form a government.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:37:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  trying to make far right secular zionists happy? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        trying to make irrational people happy is the first mistake.  Now many examples throughout history are there for this?

      •  yes, it seems the havoc created by right wing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet, kyril, mickT, PinHole

        fundamentalists who have the State of Israel by the short hairs right now wreak the same havoc that the right wing fundamentalists that have the U.S. Congress by the short hairs right now.

        It is very tragic and sad.

        And the right wings in both countries apparently go hand in hand with support of the MIC.

        When will those with a sense of justice both here and in Israel rise to the task of exposing the hypocrisy and the hopelessness of right wing fear tactics and policy both for those at which it is directed and even those who do the directing of it, not to mention the millions of people who disagree with it, understand its folly but stand by helpless as they watch terrible policies done in their names?

        I've noticed that there are groups springing up in this country like J Street - the wise/pro peace alternative to AIPAC and APN (Americans for Peace Now) not to mention Haaretz journalists and others in Israel trying to push for a 2 state solution to a democratic crisis.

        I believe you are right, that Israel has been used as a military base in the Middle East to guard our oil under their sand for over 50 years.

        Here's to "democracy" here and in the Middle East
        ! Leonard Cohen:
         http://www.youtube.com/...

        Finally people have gotten sick and tired of being had and taken for idiots. Mikhail Gorbachev

        by eve on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:45:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  it's more crass than that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        renfro

        politicians give our tax dollars to israel in order to get contributions to their political future.

        Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

        by Keith930 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:21:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  and that $ figure is on the low side! (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti, downsouth, kyril, ladelfina, renfro
      The loan guarantees are in addition to the $13 billion in direct aid Israel has received since 2007. That's on top of the $3 billion a year in military aid.
      Read more: http://www.upi.com/...

      In other words, Israel gets that amount in military aid, then a bunch more (nobody really knows how much) in addition . .. .

    •  I thot that $3 billion was for Camp David (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, samddobermann

      Didn't President Carter agree to open-ended payment of cash to both Israel and Egypt as part of the Camp David Accord?  

      Peace between Israel and Egypt since then seems well worth the 'baksheesh'.

      •  So? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawn Russell

        So our now policy is "we changed our mind". What's Israel going to do, go back in time and refuse to go to Camp David with Carter and Sadat? Or go back to war with Egypt? Now, with Egypt a theocratically inclined military democracy just like Israel?

        30 years and $TRILLIONS (counting taking out Saddam Hussein, and so much more) later, Israel got a great deal. Especially since in return it's been creating war as much as it could, all on our credit card.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:46:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Since I live so near I've wanted to go (27+ / 0-)

    to Israel and Palestine for quite a while but I feel that I would probably be treated the same way.

    But still the desire to see and experience first hand the people, culture and history is great and I'm thinking about going this fall.

    Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

    by InAntalya on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:25:04 AM PDT

  •  Ah yes, the Middle East's only democracy in action (23+ / 0-)

    How many more incidents like this before we put this lie to bed?

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:26:49 AM PDT

  •  I'm sincerely glad to hear you're safe at home. (20+ / 0-)

    But given your not very discreet public record of agitating against the State of Israel, you shouldn't be surprised at all that you were denied entry into the country, U.S. passport or no. Nor is it our embassy's job to determine for Israeli border security who is and is not a security risk in their eyes.

    I've never been to Israel myself, but my boyfriend has, and he had no problems whatsoever, either at Ben Gurion or in-country. He did have to get his passport amended with a loose leaf for the Israeli stamp, because otherwise, he couldn't have travelled any further in the Middle East. And no, he's not Jewish, either.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:27:19 AM PDT

  •  Quaker (12+ / 0-)

    Did you tell them you are a Quaker and that Quakers would never advocate violence?

  •  Um, you are a security risk! (14+ / 0-)

    I don't think it's tendentious of Israel to define that to include anyone advocating a radically different country, in terms of borders and governing principles, from the one they currently have.  

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:32:01 AM PDT

      •  Advocating (8+ / 0-)

        Advocating for a boycott of a country would probably cause you to be considered a security risk in most places.

          •  It's (5+ / 0-)

            It's a fairly hostile stance to take.

            •  That's a dodge.ating (10+ / 0-)

              So let's ask again, more explicitly: in what manner is advocating a boycott the same as advocating violence?

              It's quite clear here that this was simply, "You don't agree with our country's policies toward Palestine so we're denying you entry."    And if you accept that sort of logic, you're walking on a very slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

              •  Where (5+ / 0-)

                Where did I say she was advocating violence? Trying to disrupt a country is certainly a threat to security but it doesn't have to be violent. Countries are free to deny entry to anyone they want for whatever reason. There's nothing totalitarian about that. If you show up as a guest and all you want to do is complain, you will probably not get an invite back.

                •  Yes, there's everything in the world (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Diane Gee, zedaker, kyril, JesseCW

                  about denying entry to a person not because they pose an actual risk of violence, but simply because they hold opposing, nonviolent political ideologies.  That's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.  And an international traveler is not a freaking dinner guest; freedom of movement unrestricted by political ideology is a human right.

                  •  No it's not (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1, word is bond

                    Where did you get that?

                    •  Not followed but the do sound lovely (5+ / 0-)

                      http://www.un.org/...

                      Article 1.

                          All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 2.

                          Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 3.

                          Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 4.

                          No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 5.

                          No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 6.

                          Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 7.

                          All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 8.

                          Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 9.

                          No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 10.

                          Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 11.

                          (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
                          (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 12.

                          No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 13.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
                          (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 14.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
                          (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 15.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
                          (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 16.

                          (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
                          (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
                          (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 17.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
                          (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 18.

                          Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 19.

                          Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 20.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
                          (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 21.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
                          (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
                          (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 22.

                          Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 23.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
                          (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
                          (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
                          (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 24.

                          Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 25.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
                          (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 26.

                          (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
                          (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
                          (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 27.

                          (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
                          (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 28.

                          Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 29.

                          (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
                          (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
                          (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

                      ^ Top
                      Article 30.

                          Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

                      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

                      by Steven D on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:21:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1

                        The poster said

                        freedom of movement unrestricted by political ideology is a human right.
                        That's not covered in that list, there.
                        •  At the very least, Europe explicitly recognizes it (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Diane Gee, JesseCW

                          ... as being in there:

                          Link

                          ... because "Such practices are difficult to reconcile with the rules on freedom of movement as well as with human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association."

                          That said, levels of humanity expressed by different nations do vary, of course.  Some nations would prefer to weaken international law and human rights as much as possible.  Hmmm....

                  •  Non-Citizens Don't have the same rights (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1

                    There is no Democracy on the planet that allows visitors to vote and participate in the civic life in the same way that a citizen of that nation can.

        •  Thats punitive against journalism (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          downsouth, david78209

          not a threat to the security of the state.

      •  Simple (8+ / 0-)

        The truth is always more dangerous than a bomb

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:05:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, Diane Gee

        Writers and their words are often the impetus for change. While writers themselves rarely offer a direct threat their words have a life of their own. No system that wants to preserve itself can afford to ignore the power of words.

        •  thats why when the freedom of the press (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, PinHole

          is curtailed, you know the govt is doing something wrong.

          •  Speaking of freedom of the press, have you all (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diane Gee, downsouth

            noticed the kind of odd change in the manner in which Ha'aretz is handling its more controversial articles.

            They have now begun working on a digital subscription, but what they have done in doing it is identifying certain articles, usually the kind about which folk on places like this are interested and not always in a friendly way, and restricting them so that they keep track of the first ten you in particular read which are marked with a key and are requiring a subscription purchase if you want to read an eleventh.

            An interesting way of gaining information about readers who don't comment, by what they are interested in reading. I wouldn't have thought as much about it save for the peculiar selection they make in applying the restrictive key to certain articles but not to others which are somewhat similar. I am now only reading unkeyed ones, but if this continues I will stop reading Ha'aretz at all and not necessarily accepting its links or articles as authoritative as I have done in the past.

             Makes me wonder if I would get asked about what I read and why if I tried to go on pilgrimage to Israel. Wonder about who else gets this information and why.

    •  Who knew soy had so much power (24+ / 0-)

      as to be a risk to Israel's security!  That's quite the compliment, actually.

      •  maybe they're soy-intolerant. n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, Matt Z

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:19:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you miss the article in today's Israeli (5+ / 0-)

          papers, Ha'aretz and JP, about how Israel has officially admitted that since 1967 it has worked 'secretly' to eliminate the residence and return rights of what is now a quarter of a million Palestinians, usually people who went abroad to study  or work, and didn't return soon or often enough, and then found out they could not return at all. This program had been reported about a year or so ago, but the number then was 140,000, not a quarter of a million. They've now admitted doing the same thing to a hundred thousand Gazans. I do not think this number includes Palestinians who were living in East Jerusalem, either, but am not sure about that.

          Israel as a government apparently has issues over time about well educated or prosperous persons of Palestinian descent, not limited to Soy. I'm not at all certain that there really is any security issue as to Soy at all.

          •  This kind of policy (4+ / 0-)

            is what ethnic cleansing is all about - the creeping kind. First they get the "low lying fruit" ie the ones they can just not let back in. Then they encourage the ones who can to leave - like the Christians (cf. Simon's 60 minutes program). On top of that they make life as miserable as possible for people living on more than 70% of the land (Areas C and B). Then they will corral the rest into area A enclaves and turn them into mini gazas. If they could see a way of getting away with it they'd throw out (transfer every palestinian they could). Ask any israeli. That's what they want. Activists like soysauce and many others is what makes it difficult to accomplish this plan. So the next step is to make it more and more difficult for any palestinian solidarity people to enter israel and/or the west Bank. That includes those few brave israelis out on the forefront fighting a losing battle for common humanity.

            Israel has a plan - a very clear one on which more than 70% of the israeli citizens agree with another 20% agreeing less but not willing to do much about it. The job of the l"liberal zionists" in this country is to provide cover. The least we can all do is to help make that cover a little less effective.

            •  I agree with all of that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              downsouth

              I want a single secular state on the territory of Israel and Palestine.  I'm tired of liberal Zionism and I'm tired of fictional two-state solutions.

              My issue with the diary is that it gets us more upset at the denial of the right of a US citizen to visit a foreign country than we are about the core issue of dispossession and religious chauvinism.  And yes, I know it's not as foreign a country to the diarist as it is to me, but she's an American and we don't enjoy untrammeled rights to visit other countries.

              Romney '12: Bully for America!

              by Rich in PA on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:18:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tipped for... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Terra Mystica
                I want a single secular state on the territory of Israel and Palestine.  I'm tired of liberal Zionism and I'm tired of fictional two-state solutions.
                I have come to this same opinion, after many years of hoping for a two-state solution.  Israel has made such a solution virtually impossible with their settlement activity and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem.

                Many, even on the pro-Palestinian side of this issue, won't agree at all, but it is my firm opinion that a one-state solution is now the only possible way to resolve the issue.  By its unjust actions, Israel has sacrificed its very raison d'etre...a national state and homeland of the Jewish people.

    •  Thought was snarky, now not sure if serious nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  I'm serious. (0+ / 0-)

        Israel is not our country.  We don't have any right to tell them who to admit and not to admit to their country.  I say that as someone who would legitimately be barred from entering Israel based on my views, which are more extreme than the diarist's (I favor a one-state solution and it's not a Zionist superstate), except I'm Jewish and they have to take me, which is the very problem.

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:16:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  that kind of thinking is authoritarian.... (17+ / 0-)

      a difference of political opinion judged to be automatically dangerous and immediately leads to being judged an actual danger to life and property? nice....

      sure there is a history that lead to this state of mind but that state of mind and the measures it chooses guarantee the same level of partly justified paranoia will dominate indefinitely which of course suits the extremists on both sides... it feeds them and justifies their insanity and their dominance or at least their power to veto any change to the status quo.

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Security" isn't just about life and property, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zornorph

        at least not when it comes to allowing people into the US. People are regularly excluded from the US based on their political ideas. It seems odd, because the ideas themselves can cross borders without permission. But it makes sense if you think of it as a political decision to keep out people you don't like. Countries can do that at the borders, just like we can do it at the doorsteps of our homes.

        •  Youre simply wrong (11+ / 0-)

          Nixon had to throw the kitchen sink at John Lennon to have him deported. Ultimately relying on an old cannabis charge. This idea that it is acceptable to ban people from a nation or democracy based on their ideas is unamerican and antithetical to basic human rights.

          A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

          by cdreid on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:20:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lennon (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, word is bond, kyril, david78209

            Lennon was already in the country. Not the same thing. It's a lot easier to deny someone entry than to deport them. Actually in The Ballad of John and Yoko, John sings how Holland (I think) wouldn't let him in when he wanted to marry Yoko there. Or perhaps they just didn't want Yoko and no one could blame them for that. I doubt even Japan wants Yoko but they have to take her.

          •  Deportation and denial of entry are different (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JNEREBEL, volleyboy1, AaronInSanDiego

            The US regularly excludes people for being leftists or various types of suspected terrorists, and maybe on other grounds as well.  Cubans, former Sandinistas, Muslims, etc.  I don't know about Lennon, but since he was already in the country he had rights that a person wanting to enter the country wouldn't have. People inside the country are protected by the Bill of Rights; those wishing to enter are not.

            •  Er (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Nucleo

              youre making stuff up.

              We dont deny people entry based on their religion. We regularly let cubans in. The sandanistas were a political group...

              The people wishing to enter the country are protected by the law. The constitution is  the law and it prohibits certain behaviors by the state beyond the bill of rights. In addition the supreme court has clarified some extensive constitutional law regarding state treatment of noncitizens over the years. Theres a reason illegal immigrants recieve due process. Under your ideas they wouldnt have the right to due process.

              You both have a good point about deportation and denial of course, though.

              A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

              by cdreid on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:29:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1, JNEREBEL, cdreid

                I don't make stuff up, but I may not have been clear. Of course we don't deny people entry based on their religion, but we do deny people entry based on the views they have advocated or the governments, organizations and individuals they have been associated with in some way. There are numerous instances reported in the media. Some examples (only a few of the many) include some Cuban scholars under previous administrations and even most recently, not to mention Cuban Grammy nominees; a woman who had been offered a visiting professorship at Harvard Divinity School, denied a visa because she was a former Sandinista leader; and Muslim scholars Tariq Ramadan (accused of terrorist links because of charitable donations) and Adam Habib. The ACLU, which successfully litigated on behalf of Ramadan and Habib (and therefore obtained an explanation of the State Department decision that is normally not available), wrote:

                During the Bush administration, the U.S. government denied visas to dozens of foreign artists, scholars and writers -- all critics of U.S. policy overseas and many of whom are Muslim -- without explanation or on vague national security grounds.
                Quite recently, a Muslim actor from India was denied a visa because he failed to disclose that he had recently visited Iran.

                I wish I could agree with you on the scope of Constitutional protection for people hoping to enter the US. However, unless you can cite contrary authority, my understanding is that the Constitution provides no protection to people outside the US who are neither citizens nor visa holders. Illegal immigrants are, by definition, inside the US and entitled to due process under the Constitution. People who are denied entry have, by definition, not yet entered the country and don't get due process.

                •  The constitution (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shawn Russell

                  applies universally re federal action.. except for the parts where these incompetant low iq morons on the court now have decided to say "f*ck it the preznit can do whatever he wants" of late.

                  A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                  by cdreid on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 12:49:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, but (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1, cdreid

                    the protection of the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens who have not been legally admitted into the United States. A recent case, citing the relevant precedents, is Kleindienst v. Mandel

                    It is clear that Mandel personally, as an unadmitted and nonresident alien, had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise. United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 194 U. S. 292 (1904); United States ex rel . Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, 338 U. S. 542 (1950); Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522, 347 U. S. 530-532 (194); see Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 342 U. S. 592 (1952).
                    Consular decisions on visas are not subject to due process requirements. Maybe this is because the Fifth Amendment only states that a person may not be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law - the precise language matters, and visas don't fall under "life liberty or property".  Also, the courts have generally said that reviewing consular decisions on visas is outside the courts' jurisdiction.
                    •  That is incorrect (0+ / 0-)

                      we have a vast library of law relating to how the fed and the states have to treat noncitizens. (i'm referring very specifically and only to your first line. tx for providing the info on the rest )

                      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                      by cdreid on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 01:02:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, class dismissed. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1

                        Of course noncitizens have extensive rights, but unless they are legally in the US or entitled to be in the US, they don't have those rights.

                        If you know how to use that vast library of law you mentioned, please refer to it.  I appreciate your faith in the Constitution, but you are making generalizations and oversimplifications, which just doesn't work when it comes to constitutional law.  I am tired of being told that I am wrong after providing you with controlling legal authority, so this was my last attempt to educate you. Sorry it didn't work out.

    •  Scary, dangerous middle-aged Quaker women!!! (27+ / 0-)

      What a crock of shit.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  sort of an (27+ / 0-)

      odd way of looking at it. Considering that soy's family was living there before there was an Israel. Which means that Israel, as "a radically different country, in terms of borders and governing principles, from the one they [once had]," could by the same logic be seen as a "security risk" to soy and her family.

      Furthermore, I think the "United States" is pretty larval and stupid, and I "advocat[e] a radically different country, in terms of borders and governing principles, from the one they currently have." Should I be thrown out, do you think?

      •  Re your second paragraph (0+ / 0-)

        You can't be thrown out, but if you weren't a citizen and wanted to visit here, you could legitimately be barred.  The only claim that people hostile to the US in any way should be granted entry to the US involves the constitutional rights of US citizens to see and hear those people.

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:18:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  how generous (6+ / 0-)

          of you, to allow me to stay.

          I'm more interested in your response to my first paragraph. To the fact that Israel, as (to use your words) "a radically different country, in terms of borders and governing principles, from the one they [once had]," is a "security risk" to soy and her family, a family that lived there before there ever was an Israel.

          •  My response to that is "?!" (0+ / 0-)

            The actual injustice is that Israel is a religiously chauvinist state that expelled large numbers of people.  It's not that Israel refuses to let descendants of those people back into the country to agitate against Israeli religious chauvinism.  What do you expect Israel to do, welcome them in?  

            Romney '12: Bully for America!

            by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:21:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! She is a P.R. risk (3+ / 0-)

      to a country hostile to any open discussion of its permanent "Occupation"  or the harsh measures it uses to enforce its putrid repressive policies.  

      "We don't need someone who can think. We need someone with enough digits to hold a pen." ~ Grover Norquist

      by Lefty Coaster on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 07:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If they didn't want you there, they could've just (10+ / 0-)

    turned you away. Assuming everything you report is true (and thanks for the links), you were treated inhumanely and I hope the State Department files a complaint.

  •  so now we have one version of the story (0+ / 0-)

    Rashomon style...  

    "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

    by KnotIookin on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:48:17 AM PDT

  •  Borders (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, Hey338Too, leftynyc

    Countries have a right to keep out anyone they don't want to visit. I'm from a country where they maintain a 'stop list' of people who just won't get past immigration (usually for past deportations related to drug offenses) but it's not right to keep you there for long hours and making you jump through hoops if they aren't going to let you in after all that. They should have just said 'no' right from the break if that was their intention.

  •  Nor would have.. (40+ / 0-)

    ..complying with their outrageous demand to get into your Gmail account have helped, as the similar experiences of American citizens Najwa Doughman and Sasha Al-Sarabi a few days later show:

    Associated Press

    A female interrogator ordered Doughman to open her Gmail account, threatening she would be deported if she didn't.

    "She typed in gmail.com and she turned the keyboard toward me and said, 'Log in. Log in now,'" Doughman recounted. "I asked, 'Is this legal?' She said, 'Log in.'"

    She said the agent searched for keywords like "West Bank" and "Palestine" and made fun of a chat in which Doughman talked of reading graffiti on Israel's West Bank separation barrier.

    "After she read a bunch of stuff, humiliating and mocking me, I said, 'I think you've read enough,'" Doughman said, adding that agents jotted down names and emails of her friends as they inspected her chat history.

    [..]


    "The interrogator asked me, 'Do you feel more Arab or more American? ... Surely you must feel more Arab,"
    Doughman said. "I told her I was born in the U.S. and studied there, but she didn't like my answer."

    After hours of questioning, both women were told they would not be allowed in. They said they were subjected to strip searches, placed in a detention center and sent back to the U.S

    bolding mine.

    I'm so sorry you had to experience these humiliations soy and glad that you refused to give them access.  

  •  I heard the account on the radio the other day, (21+ / 0-)

    but didn't know it was you. Thank you for your compassion and courage, you are a good and brave woman.

    I quit school very young, and never learned how to believe things just because I was told to.

    by socalmonk on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:59:19 AM PDT

  •  soy, "sorry" sounds so trite, (22+ / 0-)

    but I am so sorry that this happened to you and that you were treated in this fashion.  I'm glad you're writing about it.

  •  Thank you for your bravery (14+ / 0-)

    and reporting and tireless work for justice.

    I am so very sorry you had to endure abuse, even as a pacifist peace activist in which they treated you like a criminal.

    Somehow, apparently having an opinion that does not exactly match the current R/W govt's line makes you a risk?

    Thats utter bullshit.

  •  Glad you're safe. Maybe someday you'll get an (19+ / 0-)

    explanation from the State Department as to why they felt they could not or simply would not facilitate your visit with your family, especially since they are living under occupation (i.e. you were in transit to NOT Israel), and despite your ethnicity and/or the fact that you seek to change that with your activism.  

    I'm curious as to why all the humiliation and privacy invasion if they were simply denying you entry.  If they thought you were a security threat and/or knew your activist background, why would they let you on the inbound flight?  It seems that humiliation was the operative word here.  As you say, it's hard to contemplate that Palestinians in Palestine are subjected to this on a daily basis and remain resilient.

    But again, glad you're safe.  Sorry you had to go through this.  

    More power to you.

  •  My now elderly parents... (11+ / 0-)

    ...had been donating money for years to a CHRISTIAN-run orphanage in Bethlehem and when they went to visit it in the late 90s, they were mercilessly harassed and interrogated by the Israeli border police at the airport.

    They were around 65 without any connections whatsoever to any Arab causes or ethic groups.  As a result, I'm embarrassed to say, it made them into anti-semites.

    Israel was once a worthy experiment but it has utterly failed as a state.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:19:40 AM PDT

  •  Glad you're safe, Soy. (5+ / 1-)

    I'm sorry to hear that the Zionists treated you this way.  One day, very soon I hope, Palestine will be free of the Zionist yoke, and you will be able to visit your family without being regarded as an enemy of the state for wanting to do so.

    Keep fighting the good fight.  You, and Palestine, are in my prayers every day.  May Allah (swt) bless and protect you and your family, and all Palestinians, and allow us to bring to an end the Zionist occupation of Palestine.  Amin.

  •  Very aggravating when so-called allies use (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cloud9ine, kyril

    the implicit threat of nuclear weapons being employed to extort money from the US as a condition to keeping them 'secure'.

    Israel and Pakistan - two sides of the same coin.

  •  Wow soy, I am shocked and ashamed. (23+ / 0-)

    I saw the media stories about Shin Bet now demanding to access visitors' email.

    But I missed the fact that it was you.

    On behalf of the Israeli people (if the current crooks, thieves and liars pretending to speak for them have the nerve to do so - than I certainly have the right)

    On behalf of the Israeli people, I deeply apologize for the unjustifiable mistreatment and for you missing the wedding.

    It is symbolic that this happened exactly on the 45th anniversary of the Occupation regime.

    Assaf

  •  The US treats potential visitors just as badly (8+ / 0-)

    Do you think that it is not a democracy?

    The fact is, there is no requirement for any country to admit any person past its borders other than its own citizens. Period. And it can be absolutely arbitrary in doing so.

    •  Furthermore, the US embassies/consulates (5+ / 0-)

      have no power to do anything about that.

      Or much of anything else.

      Surprising example: After the 1916 Easter Rebellion in Ireland, the British executed a bunch of the rebels. One of the rebels slated to be shot was Eamon De Valera, who would later serve for decades as Ireland's Taoiseach and then President. De Valera had been born in the US and was thus a natural born US citizen. (The Birther movement had yet to be born.) There was for many years a rumor that the US had intervened with the British to protect their citizen from execution and that such intervention had saved De Valera. It turns out that was not only not true, but the US officials explictly wrote that they had no ability to intervene. De Valera survived because by the time the British got around to execute him, they had decided that shooting Irish rebels was not making themselves very popular. Indeed in the UK's 1918 election, Sinn Fein won 75 of 99 Irish seats and would have been the Official Opposition in Parliament -- except that most of the new Sinn Fein MPs were in jail or in hiding, and the few that weren't agreed on an abstentionist policy which they still hold by.

      There may be lessons here from Ireland regarding the I/P conflict -- that is worthy of a separate diary, but it isn't that the US consulates have any influence on anything.

      •  Part of the question here is that if the US (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        downsouth, Diane Gee

        Embassy is not there at least partially to aid US citizens who have come acropper there, what are they there for at all? Remember that Mexican citizens who get arrested in the US have the right to that phone call to the embassy, and then the embassy acts in their behalf in various ways. My question is why is the US embassy different.

  •  i'd (13+ / 0-)

    read about this elsewhere, soy, but I'm very glad you're talking about it here. Keep talking about it. And keep talking about it here.

    They not only hurt you, when they behave in this manner, they also hurt themselves.

    Someday they'll see that.

  •  Sick of The Whole Damn Business!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    There must be some good and nice things going on in the so called Holy Land but every time I turn on the news all I ever see are a lot of Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs running around and screaming at each other and of course killing each other.  At least these volatile people are consistent and predictable about this.  

    Anyone looking for peace in this area, forget it!!!  In fact millions of evangelical and fundamentalist (pronounced EVEN JELLY CALLS AND FUN DULL MENTALIST) American Christians don't want peace because it would interfere with their fantasies of having a major war in the area to make way for the return of Jesus and all that.  That's why you see more than a few Americans running back and forth between the United States and Israel all of the time.   In that respect, both Jews and Muslims are pawns of a bunch of Christian religious fanatics.

    Those Americans (including Jewish Americans and Israeli Jews) who want peace in the area and are not fanatical supporters of a rigid Israeli State are smeared as anti-Semitic.  Any American politician who does not support a militant Israeli State is soon out of a career in one way or another.  Eventually the Zionist Christian crowd gets to him or her and paints them as enemies of Israel.  

    With that said, a major "weapon" in drumming up sympathy and empathy for whatever the Hell any Israeli right wingers want to do is rolling out the Holocaust as an example of what every single Palestinian, Arab Muslim wants to do to the Israeli Jews.  Forget the fact that the Holocaust was carried out by European Nazis.  Forget the fact that the majority of European Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. The propaganda is that the current existence of the State of Israel is somehow a byproduct of the Holocaust when in fact it is the byproduct a giant campaign by Christian religious fanatics in the United States in the wake of World War Two who saw the Holocaust as an opportunity to pressure the American Government under Truman to recognize Israel in 1948.  All this when more than a few American Jews and actual Holocaust survivors thought the whole business was a bad idea.  

  •  FBI (in america) is more concerned about Quakers (11+ / 0-)

    than with redneck militias.

    Go figure.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:41:03 AM PDT

  •  I'd read the Haaretz accont earlier, but didn't (13+ / 0-)

    make the connection. Sorry for your experience.

    I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

    by David Harris Gershon on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:49:11 AM PDT

  •  Israel should be worried about Syria (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, david78209

    When  Assad  is force to out of office ,the Palestinian will be least of the worry of the people of Israel ,  the government of Israel are praying  for Assad survival ,so they will not have to deal with the radical that will take his place  in Syria ,that not only  will gain control of Syria military assets , and all the bad stuff that will be left behind when Assad isd ousted

  •  It outrageous that the US Embassy would ask (15+ / 0-)

    you whether you were jewish or not. Shouldn't the only pertinent question be "Are you an american citizen"?  This is rank racism here.

  •  Now I Am Probably on Some Official Shit List (4+ / 0-)

    Having posted an opinion not gushing with support about every single thing that the government of Israel  does, I'm probably on some official Israeli Security Service Shit list by now. Come to think of it I'm probably on some unofficial Christian Evangelical and Fundamentalist Shit Lists also.  That's two Shit Lists, and if anyone can think of any other Shit List I would be on for expressing my opinion on this subject, please let me know.   Surely I must also be on some U.S. Government Shit List by now.    

    On that note, I wonder what some long deceased European Jews would say if they could see a bunch of Jewish people running around in uniforms and watching them beat up on some non Jewish people who beat up on them at one time or two and are now getting paid back, and on and on it goes.  Does this remind anyone of anything at all.  I mean the tanks and airplanes?!   Must be my run away imagination.

  •  I just don't know what you expected (11+ / 0-)

    Soy, if you

    actively work to end the Israeli occupation
    and
    thought of the millions of Palestinians denied the right to return to their homeland by Israel.
    what did you think was going to happen?

    It's not like it's a surprise that Israel is going to check everyone who enters the country - it's their responsibility to do so.  If you state publicly that you don't respect the country you are visiting, what is it in you that demands that they treat you with respect in return?

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:19:40 AM PDT

    •  Yes, yes, soy. Don't be silly. Stop trying to (26+ / 0-)

      enter the country your immediate family is from. Stop trying to go there and get turned away, and come home and write about it and let us all know about the injustice.

      Soy, you should really stop complaining. What kind of liberal wants to end a 45-year occupation, anyway?

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by Flyswatterbanjo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:29:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the problem soy highlighted. She wasn't (22+ / 0-)

      visiting Israel.  She was going to visit family in occupied Palestine.  Since Israel controls all access to Palestine, in order for her to get from here to there, she had to go through Israel, literally and/or militarily.

      So the question is not does Israel have the right to control people who visit it, the question is does Israel have the right to control people who have every right to be where they are going (i.e. NOT Israel).

      The answer to me is a moral no.  Nor do they have the right to question the politics of people who are not visiting Israel as a condition of not visiting Israel.  They make it impossible to get to Palestine any other way, and then exclude people who try anyway out of compelling moral or personal reasons.

      Maybe there's other countries that occupy and exclude like this, but certainly none in the "enlightened" group of nations of which Israel claims to be a member.

      •  I understand that Ben Gurion is the closest (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, Zornorph, alisonc, mole333, msirt

        airport to Soy's family.  But that doesn't absolve Israel from it's responsibility to protect its citizens from a perceived threat.  

        I find it interesting that Soy is an American, but she identified herself as a Palestinian American to the Israeli authorities - who knows, if she said that she was an American Quaker maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But she said what she said, she apparently publishes her opinions in opposition to the existence of the state, and she can't expect there to be no reaction from Israel in that situation.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:38:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm (8+ / 0-)

          I hate to even contemplate why you would "find it interesting" that a Palestinian woman is proud of her heritage.  Why should she not identify herself as Palestinian-American?  Also, her destination and reason for visit would make it pretty clear to even the most dense, idiotic border guard (or whatever the thugs call themselves) that she was both Palestinian and a Quaker.

          •  There is nothing wrong with Soy's... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            ... pride in her heritage.  What I found interesting is that given the chance to defuse the situation by simply saying that she is an American, she chose to increase the likelihood for confrontation.  I know that you may disagree with that, but the idea was to get to her cousin's wedding, not make a political statement.

            When I saw the picture of her cousin's wedding, my first thought was that the real shame was that Soy was not able to attend the ceremony and celebrate it with her family.  I believe that both of our religions believe that sharing life-cycle events is an important expression of our faith.  To that end, family and faith trump politics.  

            Israel makes no secret that all of her visitors are vetted.  It is also no secret that the vetting process includes profiling.  Israel does this because it feels that its very existence requires it.  If my objective is to get through security in Ben Gurion in order to get to a family function, making the intake function as painless as possible is my number one priority.  I don't agree with everything the Israeli government does, but I am not going to have a political policy discussion with a border guard during the passport verification process.  There is absolutely no upside to the discussion, and the more I push – the more likely I am to be told that I am not welcome.  In this situation, Soy chose a path that led to escalation, which eventually led to her not being able to achieve what could arguably be the most important mission of her visit – she wasn't able to be with her family to celebrate her cousin's wedding.

            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

            by Hey338Too on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:55:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "If she'd said 'American Quaker' instead of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Diane Gee

          'African American', maybe South Africa would have allowed her to pass through to Kavangoland ....'

          “The administration should be worried about the level of despair here.” ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

          by JesseCW on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:55:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  you sound like a red state blogger (0+ / 0-)

      there is only one point of view that is acceptable, amiright?

      •  Ha ha, nope, your totally wrong (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, leftynyc, Zornorph, Kane in CA

        I am a progressive democrat who lives in the south.  I grew up here and have the sense to know that I am not going to go to an LSU-Alabama football game in Tuscaloosa in a shirt that says that Nick Saban is a putz (which he is) and not expect a negative, probably physical, reaction from the people around me - hell, all it takes is some alcohol and they'll tea-bag you.  Likewise, I dare you to go to a NASCAR event and call Dale Earnhart Jr. a whiny little crybaby (which he isn't) and then be offended when 10 boys named Tiny kick your ass.  I would expect those things to happen and we're just using sports metaphors here.

        The situation in the Middle East is much more volatile, and it's not just a matter of me or you getting our butt's kicked - it's the existential matter of a country and the people who live there.  So if I publish negative statements about a country I am about to visit - I'm not going to be surprised if they aren't pleased a punch to have me there.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:57:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  is this acceptable behavior? nope (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mickT

          that was my point.

        •  ugh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          I already disliked your posts.  Now I find that you are an LSU fan?  OOOOooooooooooooo I really dislike you now!!!  And Nick Saban is no putz...he put you guys in your place in the NC game.  What was that score again??  Haha.  So there.  

          (On a serious note, the tea-bagging thing was atrocious and uncalled for, and as a Bama fan I apologize)

          Now to your comment.  I get what you're saying, but its kinda like comparing apples to oranges.  You can't compare personal relations between individuals with a person's relations with a state.  Individuals have similar power, though not exactly the same.  Bubba at the LSU-Bama game might be bigger than you, or he might not.  You might be faster than him, or you might not.  You have a chance.  Plus, of course, you can run, or go to security, or whatever.  Individuals have no such options when it comes to their dealings with a state, unless their own government is willing to step in and offer them aid.  Because she answered negatively to the question "Are you Jewish?", Soy was not extended that aid.

          Your point that Israel can't be expected to be happy with her, considering her published opinions regarding their country, is valid.  But not being happy with someone's opinions is not a valid reason to refuse entry, especially when occupied territory is involved.  Is she supposed to love the oppressor of her people?  Should she write glowing reviews and articles of praise for the Occupiers?  Of course not.  It is unreasonable for Israel to expect her, or any other Palestinian, to be happy about the occupation.  And it is unjust to refuse her entry simply based on her unhappiness with said occupation.

          •  I'll start with the NC game too... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, downsouth

            ... Saban is a great football coach.  He won a national championship for LSU, but what happened afterwards was pretty classless IMO (up there with Lou Holtz, Jackie Sherrill and Bobby Petrino).  That being said, Les may be one of the dumbest football coaches I've ever seen in a national program - college or pro (and as lifelong Saints, Tulane and LSU fan I've seen some pretty dumb football coaches).  Our best chance for winning a game is for Les to find a patch of grass to graze on and let our players work things out on the field.  The problem with the NC game was that the Superdome had artifical turf, so Les wasn't distracted from the going's on during the game - when he "coaches" we lose.

            On to the apples and oranges.

            Soy is an American.  As such she has the same rights and privileges that you and I share while we are within America's borders.  I totally agree with your statements here:

            But not being happy with someone's opinions is not a valid reason to refuse entry, especially when occupied territory is involved.  Is she supposed to love the oppressor of her people?  Should she write glowing reviews and articles of praise for the Occupiers?  Of course not.
            I'll concede that my examples may have been like comparing apples to oranges because:
            Individuals have no such options when it comes to their dealings with a state
            But when we travel to a foreign country - even if we are passing through - we must respect the authority of the country we are visiting.  And what stuck out to me was Soy's comment:
            All this because I am a Palestinian, and I will not be silent. I actively work to end the Israeli occupation...
            So now we are dealing with an apples to apples situation: Soy's direct interaction with the state of Israel.

            As I see it, Soy did have options here.  Her options were to accede to the authority under whose control she temporarily found herself, or do what she did which appeared to be to challenge the authority and legitimacy of Israeli customs agents.  Choosing the latter option will always result in a negative consequence regardless of the country you are traveling to.

            Furthermore, when Soy contacted the American embassy for their assistance, she:

            ...told them that I was a Palestinian with family in the West Bank ...
            Again, Soy had options in her dealing with her own government.  She chose to identify herself in terms that would make it more difficult for her own government to assist her.  We can both be certain that our government has been through this drill in the past, and they apparently advised her of that.

            Lastly, it appears that the rest of her group was able to enter Israel and go about their business.  Based on the diary it is not possible to know if others in her group share her passion for the Palestinians.  I would presume it is likely that they do as she was part of a self described interfaith delegation.  If the rest of the group was let in, including Soy's husband, there was a pretty high likelihood that Soy would have been admitted as well - if she had exercised the correct options.

            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

            by Hey338Too on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:40:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  US denies entry to Israeli terrorist (11+ / 0-)

    Michael Ben Ari, a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) has been denied a visa to visit the US and attend a women's conference. Because of his ties to Rabbi Meir Kahane he is considered a terrorist by the US.

    As a well-informed American, I'm sure soysauce is aware that the United States maintains a no-fly list and refuses entry to all sorts of people based simply on their political affiliations or expressed views. Why would anyone expect Israel to be any different?

    What would have happened if soysauce had arrived in Israel and made the same statement she made in the diary: "I am a Palestinian, and I will not be silent. I actively work to end the Israeli occupation"? She might have been denied entry without any further indignities. The fact that Israeli authorities made considerable efforts to investigate her indicates that, depending on the outcome, she might have been admitted if the authorities did not find anything they considered to be cause for concern. Several comments above mention arrivals in Israel where people were admitted after investigation.

    However, given her history, it seems unlikely that soysauce would have been admitted if her history was known. Perhaps she hoped against hope that her history would not be discovered. In any event, she has successfully garnered considerable media attention for her experience, which is a plus for her cause.

    The whole definition of "security" is questionable. Of course nobody expects one individual to defeat an army, but individuals have planted bombs and hijacked planes. But people won't necessarily engage in violent acts to further their political views. Evidently, the United States, and apparently Israel, have decided that they simply don't have to extend their hospitality to people whose affiliations or views they don't like.

    •  word is bond, that is an incredibly disingenuous (8+ / 0-)

      comment. Clearly, you have no knowledge of soysauce's history--and are just trying to obfuscate the issues.

      soysauce has every right to go to her homeland, to attend her cousin's wedding, to visit with her family, who have been living there for ages. Israel has no right to deny her these rights. Period!

      It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

      by poco on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:02:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually no she doesn't (7+ / 0-)

        without the permission of the government that controls the airspace and access.  She may not like it, she may not agree with it - but it's not a right to assume you can go where you like.

        You seem to be forgetting the Jews that lived there "for ages" too. Continuously - even after the Roman diaspora. It's a complex situation and that is oversimplification to the point of dishonesty.

        And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

        by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:34:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ACTUALLY SHE DOES (10+ / 0-)

          The UN Charter of Human Rights - which Israel accepts by reason of its membership of the UNO gives her the right to travel to her native land. These actions violate the following rights given to all by the Charter:

          Article 2.

              Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

          Article 5.

              No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

          Article 7.

              All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

          Article 12.

              No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

          Article 19.

              Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

          Fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.

          by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:38:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that doesn't mean that nations (4+ / 0-)

            do not have the right to police their borders and people who wish to cross them, sorry.  She does not have the right to make Israel let her go where she wants because she thinks that she should be able to do so.

            If they object to how she speaks of them - then they can stop her.  It's their country and the laws of America do not apply there.

            And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

            by Mortifyd on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:59:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  RUH-ROH (4+ / 0-)

            I read these articles and I am thinking... What nations follow this? I can't think of anywhere (including the U.S.) that sticks to this.

            Holy crap... we better call the U.N. police force and arr... Oh wait, there isn't one. WELL... we better lawyer up and get every.... oh wait there is no binding jurisdiction here.

            Well... that doesn't matter. Israel has to follow only the rules it's opponents decide are relevant. Forget that almost every other nation on Earth violates these rules on a constant basis. Forget that International Law is non-binding and has no enforcement mechanisms solely based on the law.

            Why let reality ruin the fantasy?

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yea, they do (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        word is bond, leftynyc

        She's not a citizen. End of story.

      •  Her history is the point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, JNEREBEL, Zornorph

        and it's a catch 22.  Her history does not give her the legal right to enter Israel, and disclosing it probably would have gotten her sent back more quickly.  Not disclosing it ended up creating more of an ordeal, which is unfortunate. On the other hand, her experience has received considerable attention in the  media, and that may rally support for her positiion.

        •  Was the 'ordeal' her fault, or a punishment? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          downsouth, Terra Mystica

          It would have been one thing to tell her, "We're sorry, but we can't, under the circumstances, feel sure enough that you are not a security risk to let you in.  We'll work with American consular officials to arrange your return to the US, or your travel to another country."

          Of course, the US State Department may not feel like calling Israel on the carpet for how they treated this lady since US Customs and Immigration folks have treated a few journalists the US doesn't like  about the same when they try to come in, even though those people are US citizens returning home.  In fact, some journalist has had her laptop computer confiscated, and not returned for months.

          We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

          by david78209 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:07:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Beside what poco said, Ben Ari is an unrepentent (10+ / 0-)

      Kahanist.  AKA a former member of an actual terrorist org.

      •  To be clear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JNEREBEL

        I had no intention of comparing soysauce to Ben Ari, or to imply any positive thoughts towards Kahane and his ilk. My intention was simply to point out that the US also excludes would-be visitors, including even Israelis, based on their political affiliations and opinions. Others who have been excluded, such as Cuban intellectuals, were more deserving of visas than Ben Ari.

        •  I know you weren't comparing soy to Ben Ari. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          downsouth

          But even when using Cuban intellectuals, and we could go with gay spouses, and others as well, the circumstances of soy's denial, and her rights as part of an indigenous extended family under illegal occupation, and those examples of US wrongdoing aren't really comparable, imo.

          •  The comparison I tried to make (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, Terra Mystica

            has to do with the rights of governments, rather than the rights of the people who are denied entry.  I actually think that people who want to visit family or participate in family occasions should get special consideration, although the mentality of "security" officials will no doubt oppose such a policy as offering a dangerous pretext.

            The problem with this type of situation is that although we can deplore it from the point of the individual who is excluded from entry, it is the governments that have the right to exclude, and the individuals being excluded have no right to enter. I know this sounds dispassionate and I'm sorry for that, because  I wish soysauce could have attended the wedding.

          •  Upon reflection, the US treatment of gay spouses (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            david78209

            wishing to immigrate or travel here is very comparable to soy's treatment and equally repugnant.

            My bad.  Sorry.

  •  Oh Soy, I'm so sorry. My daughter told me about (9+ / 0-)

    this last week but I had no idea you were one of the people detained and then expelled. I hope a lot of Americans see this and realize it could happen to them also.
    My daughter has been publicizing this as much as possible (it's the same group she toured Israel with, I'm sure you know).
    Israeli policies keep getting worse.
    The only good news is I'm seeing some real change among American Jews I know. My daughter had a showing of Two Worlds at a local temple -- the rabbi was more conservative on the issues than we are, but he was open and thoughtful. And with a few exceptions, the audience had a very good discussion. A few years ago, this never would have happened. And at our old temple, the one we left because they refused to have any discussion on Israel and Palestine, they just had a big event with 2 panelists, one is Peter Beinart and the other more conservative. While Beinart may not be where you are on the issues, he's still a voice for change in the American Jewish community and he's doing a great job.
    But I don't think there's enough change quickly enough to save the situation. Sometimes I just can't face the news on Israel and Palestine because it's so damn depressing.
    On another note -- I saw your last name in the article to which you linked. Does it mean "date" or "date tree" the way my screen name (and my real Germanic-based last name) do?

    We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

    by Tamar on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:50:28 AM PDT

  •  Just like America, I support Israel, just not... (5+ / 0-)

    every one of their policies that I find ludicrous.

    It's sad really, because Israel had, and still has such potential to be a beacon of justice, but has lost sight of that in their rush towards the right wing.

    Sounds a bit familiar, eh?

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:59:17 AM PDT

  •  some observations (18+ / 0-)

    1. Glad you are safe and sorry (though not surprised) to learn of your treatment.

    2. This goes beyond a discussion of the right of a state to deny entry to anyone it deems a security threat. Certainly a state can decide to deny entry to whomever it chooses. But we have the ability to object to how any state, including our own, operates. And these kinds of incidents reveal much about the nature of a state like Israel.

    This particular instance in Israel is coming at the same time that there is mob violence (dare we call them pogroms) against Africans in Israel and government officials calling Africans a 'cancer' and planning to relocate them to detention camps in the Negev desert. The far right is on the ascent in Israel and it is manifested in how "foreigners" or people deemed threats to national security are treated. It has been quite shocking how this story has been under-reported in the US media. The racism directed against Africans in Israel is not simply isolated cases of right wing fanatics being violent (which would be bad enough). The racism and racist language are being expressed at the highest levels of the Israeli government as a matter of policy.

    3. It goes without saying that soysauce, as a Palestinian, would be the natural recipient of the state's suspicion and brutality. Simply being a Palestinian is a threat to the Jewish identity of the state. Palestinians are considered not just a political threat but are spoken of in official discourse as a demographic threat to a Jewish majority, despite being native to the land. In other words, even if soy sauce were not active in seeking justice for her people under occupation, she would still face the possibility of being denied entry because she happens to be a Palestinian attempting to return to her homeland. Her very identity threatens the Jewish state. The film "Salt of this Sea" depicts this predicament for Palestinians.

    4. Any state that cannot tolerate peaceful dissent against its laws and policies, and must resort to attempting to silence free movement and speech, should be criticized and challenged, particularly one would think by liberals and progressives. Israeli military forces routinely attack peaceful protesters and imprison them without trial.

    5. The US Embassy's response to all of this was utterly disgraceful, and I hope soy that you look into taking legal action against the government. You are a U.S citizen. For an embassy official to ascertain your religion as a basis for whether or not the embassy might intercede on your behalf is appalling and unacceptable. If it happened to you, it can happen to any of us.

    Again, glad you made it back. I saw your story and have been thinking about you.

    Take care.

  •  What an ordeal, soy. (11+ / 0-)

    I'm glad that you're home safe and sound, and glad that you're writing about this experience here. I've not been through security at Ben Gurion in ages, but my memories are of a prodding and deliberately provocative gamut. In recent years, going into other countries, I am now careful to strip my laptop, phone and papers of anything but the most essential data, personal and professional. The request / demand for access to an email account is troubling, and will compel me to reconsider some additional aspects of how I travel.

    Thanks for the diary.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:16:13 AM PDT

  •  There was no reason to turn this one into a flame (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pot, Diane Gee

    war, and frankly the regular pro-Israel faction started this one, though the site douchemoths were attracted by the flames.

    InB4 mass zappings and complaints about Kos being heavy-handed with douches.

  •  Easy solution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, david78209, Diane Gee

    Don't go to Israel or Palestine. Don't go anywhere the Israeli government or their representatives might be.

    Of course, that's easy for me. I'm neither Jewish nor Palestinian, and I don't have any friends or relatives in either Israel or Palestine. My heartfelt sympathies to those who have to tolerate this day in, day out, petty apartheid and oppression.

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:06:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm Jewish, but I wonder if I'd be welcome (0+ / 0-)

      to visit Israel if authorities there have been reading my comments and connect them with my name.

      I doubt I'd want to visit, anyway, but still...

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:14:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't do that if you want to make a religious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      downsouth, Shawn Russell

      pilgrimage to any of the MANY Christian, Jewish or Muslim sites and shrines located therein. If you want to go see the Upper Room or the place of the crucifixion or the place from which the Blessed Prophet rode in the night to heaven, or the Wailing Wall, the last remnant of the Second Temple,  and especially if you believe it is your obligation to do so once before you die, you don't have other options.

  •  How is it everyone is ignoring the elephant (8+ / 0-)

    in the room?

    Soysauce is very clever in stepping around it. But even in her diaries here she makes it clear she opposes the existance of Israel. Full stop. She supports a "right of return" of all palestinians to Israel and equates palestinians recognising Israels right to exist as the equivalent of "giving up 78% of their land"... that's pretty clear.

    I abhore the games being played by extremists like Soysauce as well as the zionist extremist settlers. But soysauce is part of the problem.. and she's shocked Israel wont let a foreign citizen into a nation she believes should be eliminated? She has turned disengenuous behavior into an art form.

    People with her mindset are causing incredible amounts of Isreali and Palestinian suffering. Like the settlers her ends are all that matters. If people suffer and die to achieve those ends then so be it.

    Were it left to saner heads. To the adults rather than antisemitic extremists on the palestinian side and zionist racists on the jewish side Isreali and Palestinian states could coexist side by side and would likely become close allies over time. They have more in common with each other than any american has with either group. But the extremists scream the loudest.. and cause the most suffering.. so they get the voice.

    Israel was absolutely right to bar her. And if anyone thinks the US government would allow someone advocating for the destruction of the US into the country... theyre delusional. IF anyone thinks the cia wouldnt have already hacked that persons email theyre delusional.

    A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

    by cdreid on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:37:15 PM PDT

    •  I think the larger question is, (10+ / 0-)

      how can it be that equality under international law (all refugees have a right to return after all) threatens the existence of Israel?

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by Flyswatterbanjo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:55:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously? (5+ / 0-)

        First of all this international law claim is utter bullshit. International law declares israel has the right to exist and to make her own rules about who lives there and how. BTW .. you moving off that Iroquois land you stole (I'm assuming you live near the east coast).

        All "palestinians" 'returning' and being granted equal rights in Israel instantly turns the jewish majority into the minority. At which point the jewish leaders are all replaced by palestinians who abolish the Isreali state and .. in effect take it over en toto. Followed i would presume by the expulsion of the jews.

        This is just another "clever plan" by one "side" to get rid of  the other side. Make no mistake soysauce's true goal is the end of the existence of israel. Scroll back through her diaries.  The kind of dishonesty and the vile goals she has are just another example of the evil people causing so much pain to the two peoples. Meanwhile palestinian and isreali cousins die to bombs and fire. (and yes.. they are indeed the same people).

        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

        by cdreid on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:25:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I see. (10+ / 0-)
          All "palestinians" 'returning' and being granted equal rights in Israel instantly turns the jewish majority into the minority.
          So it's your opinion that people who were ethnically cleansed returning to their lands and being granted equal rights is what would destroy Israel, because it would be the end of the Jewish majority?

          Equal rights is what would destroy Israel?

          It sounds like you support ethnic supremacism.

          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

          by Flyswatterbanjo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:37:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mole333, Zornorph, msirt, word is bond
            It sounds like you support ethnic supremacism.
            So not agreeing to demands of Palestinian "Right of Return" means that one agrees with ethnic supremacism? Really?

            cdreid is right. Fully enacted Palestinian "Right of Return" would result in the end of Israel as it was created as well conceived.

            It is not as you say:

            Equal rights is what would destroy Israel?
            It is the creation of a Palestinian majority that would destroy Israel. Israel would no longer be Israel (which was created to be the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People). But you know this.

            The creative interpretation of history aside... you know full well what Palestinian RoR means... And you also know that there is pretty much no way that it will ever happen. Asking the Israelis to commit "national suicide" (in other words end the existence of their own nation) is not really a realistic notion.

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:32:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yet... (6+ / 0-)

              thanks to the constant Zionist settlement activity, creating "facts on the ground", a two-state solution which would avoid the "national suicide" you fear is rendered much less likely.  In other words, Israel is shooting itself in the foot when it comes to any solution other than a one-state solution.

              Are the Palestinians to live in Bantustans?  Little islands of psuedo-sovereignty where Israel controls the skies and Palestine is allowed no military?  That is not a viable state, nor is it ever going to happen.  It, too, is not a "realistic notion".

        •  Soysauce wanted to visit family in the West Bank, (8+ / 0-)

          which Israel is occupying contrary to international law.  What in international law gives Israel any right to exclude visitors to that illegally occupied West Bank?

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:46:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And since when is "international law" binding? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Libral Antibagger, JNEREBEL, Zornorph

            Do we live under "international law" here in the U.S.? Do Israeli's live under "international law" in Israel? Does any Arab Country set up their government in full compliance with "International Law"

            I believe the answer to all three questions. would be "No".

            So really what relevance does "International Law" have here? Not much of any.

            Last I checked the U.N. does NOT run the world and does not have authority over a countries borders. Or do they, and I just don't know it?

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:23:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Once again Volley commits the two wrongs=right (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, Mariken, Diane Gee

              fallacy.

              I feel like I have to repeat myself again and again. So if Arab country violates international law and Israel violates international law, the fact is that both of violated international law. Saying the Arabs violates it, so I can too is a logical fallacy. Because,

              Two wrongs make a right is an English phrase and a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...
              and regarding tu quoque fallacy, which is a specific type of two wrongs=right fallacy that Volley uses here:
              is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...
              •  Err... Not so much (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Zornorph
                I feel like I have to repeat myself again and again.
                I think that is because no one is really listening. Oh well...

                Now this would be right:

                Saying the Arabs violates it, so I can too is a logical fallacy.
                Had I said that. BUT I didn't. Can you please quote me in my response to lysias where I did say that?

                See Shawn.. reading comprehension is very important here. My point to lysias was that no one in the world follows international law and there are no enforcement mechanisms for international law AND frankly no one cares about it unless they find something that supports their side in an argument. So it is irrelevant to this situation.

                It doesn't matter what international law says about soy's visit to Israel. It really doesn't. Whether international law supports her position or not (I am not an international lawyer) doesn't really matter. Until Israel is ruled by the U.N. and the World has a single government THEN his point would be relevant. Until then... not so much.

                But thanks for accessing wiki for us to find new definitions for things.

                "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:39:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes I can (0+ / 0-)

                  This is what you wrote:

                  Does any Arab Country set up their government in full compliance with "International Law"
                  Now here is the one million dollar question: Why are Arab countries called I don't know...Arab Countries? Could it be because they house Arabs?

                  So how can you refer to Arab countries without by extension referring to Arabs?

                  So in saying that Arab countries do not fully comply with IL does not excuse Israel not fully complying with IL. They are either both violating it or both accepting it.

                  •  LOL... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Zornorph

                    I did write that sentence and did you happen to glance at the sentences around it. Let's look at the whole quote Shawn. Shall we?

                    Do we live under "international law" here in the U.S.? Do Israeli's live under "international law" in Israel? Does any Arab Country set up their government in full compliance with "International Law"

                    I believe the answer to all three questions. would be "No".

                    So really what relevance does "International Law" have here? Not much of any.

                    So... where in that does it say anything about
                    Saying the Arabs violates it, so I can too.....
                    Here let me help you: It doesn't.

                    What it says is that no one follows international law and as such... who cares what it stipulates on this - IF it even does support lysias' position which I cannot say it does.

                    Reading: It is Fun-Da-Mental

                    Now here is the one million dollar question: Why are Arab countries called I don't know...Arab Countries? Could it be because they house Arabs?
                    Shawn, you have a keen grasp of the obvious. I believe you are right about why they are called Arab Countries.
                    So in saying that Arab countries do not fully comply with IL does not excuse Israel not fully complying with IL. They are either both violating it or both accepting it.
                    Who said it excuses anything? NO one on Earth follows the dictates of International Law, so it's irrelevant what International Law states on soysauce's issue.

                    Nice try Shawn and I know you desperately want to link to all kinds of stuff and show us what you know of internet parlance. That is wonderful, but, if you are going to do so - make sure that when you respond to a comment especially with an attack response, that you actually understand the comment.

                    "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:00:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ROFLMAO!! If Israel doesn't follow IL why is it so (0+ / 0-)

                      proud of saying that it does?

                      The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs claims:

                      Israel's Commitment to Domestic and International Law
                      in Times of War

                      by (my insertion)

                      Judge Amnon Straschnov
                      Former IDF Military Advocate General
                      http://jcpa.org/...

                      It shouldn't create this false impression if by your own acknowledgement
                      "NO one on Earth follows the dictates of International Law"
                      Now let's not engage in double-speak Volley. How can you refer to Arab countries without by extension referring to Arabs?

                      If Arab countries violate IL it means that the Arab authorities, military, and/or legislatures, etc. are violating IL.

                      •  Heh.... No. Sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                        But Shawn this is entertaining.

                        Again... show me where I said:

                        Saying the Arabs violates it, so I can too.....
                        You keep pulling an out of context quote and thinking that if you repeat the lie long enough, people will believe you. But they won't because it's a lie and everyone can see it.

                        Anyway, Shawn.. let's stick to the original subject. Let's try this again.... lysias said that international law demands that the Israelis let soy into their country. I countered by saying international law doesn't matter because it has no jurisdiction over anyone nor does anyone recognize it as a legal system that overarches individual national legal systems.

                        Now, keep trying Shawn you are not doing well but you are trying. I appreciate that.

                        As for your silly screed about "the Arabs".... I am saying the Arabs along with the Israelis along with the Americans and along with every other country on Earth do not live within the confines of International Law but rather within the dictates of their national legal systems.

                        But while we are talking... Is it your assertion that only the Israelis should live under international law or do you feel the whole world should? AND if you feel the whole world should then why constantly single out the Israelis? Don't you think there should be diaries about EVERY violation of international law including those violations by the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Polity?

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:06:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  First of all I don't constantly single out Israel (0+ / 0-)

                          If you go through my diary history I have also singled out my country, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. My first diary here singled out Saudi Arabia.

                          Now if it makes you feel better you said Americans, Israelis and Arabs and in fact every nation in the world violate international law but you did mention the Arabs in this category. So it's not a lie.

                          Now when you say:

                           

                          I am saying the Arabs along with the Israelis along with the Americans and along with every other country on Earth do not live within the confines of International Law but rather within the dictates of their national legal systems.
                          Why is it that Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs contradicts you and says?:
                          Israel's Commitment to Domestic and International Law
                          in Times of War

                          Judge Amnon Straschnov
                          Former IDF Military Advocate General
                          http://jcpa.org/....

                          Is this judge lying about Israel and giving us a false impression?

                          If not, it seems that an Israeli Judge agrees that Israel is committed to uphold international law

                          Now to answer your questions, the whole world should uphold international law. And there are diaries about the violations committed by the PA and the Palestinians, some have been written by you. Like this one:

                          Palestinian Authority Blocking Critical News Sites
                          http://www.dailykos.com/...
                          What I find amusing is that you ignored by citation from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which says a whole lot.
                          •  Heh Shawn... you are cracking me up (0+ / 0-)

                            tonight.

                            Now don't try wriggle out... What I said was that NO ONE follows international law. Not only does no one follow it BUT, it is not jurisdiction that supercedes each nation's laws. So it is irrelevant to the conversation.

                            So what makes up your lie... as it is a lie. Is that your comment just stated that I said (to paraphrase) just because the Arabs violate international law (which they do with impunity), that it is ok that the Israelis do it.

                            That is a lie because that is not what I said.

                            Now as to the rest of your post.... Either it is stunning in it's naivete or I am not sure what.....

                            Israel like EVERY OTHER POLITY on Earth claims it follows International Law.. Until it doesn't. Are they lying about that? Well, I am not a lawyer so I don't know. Take that up with someone who actually practices internationally and can make a case. As for one Israeli judge. Okay... he is making a case for it. Maybe as he interprets international law they are. Just because an Israeli judge says it doesn't necessarily make it so.

                            As for this:

                            Now to answer your questions, the whole world should uphold international law.
                            And there should be no war. Everyone on the Planet SHOULD love each other. AND every family should have a Unicorn. But there is War, people on Earth DON'T all love each other and there is no such things as Unicorns (sorry to break it to you).
                            And there are diaries about the violations committed by the PA and the Palestinians, some have been written by you.
                            Yep they are written by me and people that agree with me. Curiously, I don't see anyone else BUT us writing that. Funny how that works, wouldn't you say?

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:01:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Man this is ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica

                            Now if you claim you do not know international law and whether or not Israel is lying in regards to upholding International law, how can you make the claim that Israel either follows or does not follow international law? These are your own words:

                            Israel like EVERY OTHER POLITY on Earth claims it follows International Law.. Until it doesn't. Are they lying about that? Well, I am not a lawyer so I don't know. Take that up with someone who actually practices internationally and can make a case.
                            That was precisely your whole argument in this thread i.e., you were trying to prove to us all that no country follows international al law now you are saying you don’t know whether Israel does or doesn’t and feigning ignorance. I don’t even have to argue with you really, your words contradict themselves. It’s like you are defeating your own arguments for me. LOL!

                            Now let’s go to what you said previously. Here is the whole quote:

                            Do we live under "international law" here in the U.S.? Do Israeli's live under "international law" in Israel? Does any Arab Country set up their government in full compliance with "International Law"
                            I believe the answer to all three questions. would be "No".
                            So really what relevance does "International Law" have here? Not much of any.
                            So essentially your argument is that no country follows international law hence, international law is moot or to use your words irrelevant. That once again is multiple wrongs=a right argument, which is a fallacy. Because if multiple countries fail to uphold international law then there are multiple wrongs committed in this world.

                            Let me give you this example. If Student A cheats on his test and gets caught his defense cannot be that last year Student B cheated on the same test, was not caught and passed the class.

                            And finally, no those diaries are not just written by you and those who agree with you. As I said before in the previous comment, they are also written by me. I criticized Saudi Arabia in my first diary on this site:
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            So it’s not so funny under proper investigation.

                            Good night Volley! And sweet dreams.

                          •  LOL, my great response to you just erased itself (0+ / 0-)

                            in a computer meltdown.

                            Anyway, I will make this short and sweet... Shawn - I disagree with almost all (but not quite all) of your last post. BUT that too (like international law) is irrelevant to this issue.

                            Here is the thing Shawn, you demand ideal performance (according to your ideals) to notions of civilization. That is fine but, rarely do P.O.V.'s that live in an ideal world actually work out. And those that follow them usually end up with the "short end of the stick".

                            I read through your diary history... I gave me a good perspective on you Shawn.

                            Here is the thing... we see the world differently. I don't demand ideal performances from people because no one can or will give it. I live in reality and while it is not always so nice it is what we deal with.

                            SO... this whole argument is silly. For you - The Israelis should only act according to international law as you or your ideological allies define it. For me... I disagree. I simply don't think the Israelis can or should do what you suggest. Not if they want to survive as a nation. Unfortunately, I have seen enough to understand that there is realpolitick at the heart of everything related to international actions. No one is an altruist.

                            Anyway, you are certainly welcome to have the last word here but good luck with your crusade to create the perfect world. I hope one day you will realize, that though you mean well, there are those that would take advantage of you and your ideals and that really you might not always be helping the "greater good" by demanding that everyone follow what you think.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:28:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  More like "four wrongs = right" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shawn Russell, Terra Mystica

                :-)

    •  Actually you're setting up convenient strawmen (11+ / 0-)

      and painting a binary picture of something that is far more colorful. Racism and anti-semitism exists everywhere and among all groups. In the Middle East, many of the supporters of Israel tend to be the rulers and elites propped up by US money and alliances - that does not mean they are free of anti-semitism any more than Christian Zionists who don't exactly have the long-term interests of Jews or Israelis at heart. Anwar Sadat who made peace with Israel was a known anti-semite. It would be great if you could read Arabic to read the anti-semitism in the Arab MSM (including that of some Arab elites, dictators and monarchs) which is generally  supportive of Israel. Not only that but recently I've seen video of an interview with a opposition Muslim fundamentalist fighters in Syria on Israeli TV who stated that Israel is not their enemy. The world is a lot more complicated than you make out.

      By contrast, I know many Arabs in the Palestinian solidarity movement, like soysauce, who are not anti-semitic. We work together with Jews and Israelis (including her in the Adalah group at dkos) to end restore Palestinian rights. What we all seek is equality. One of the things we do is work hard to ensure that our support for Palestinian rights is not anti-semitic. In fact, we are active in monitoring all forms of racism (including our own) precisely because we believe in equality and shared humanity. What we seek to eliminate are unjust structures that cause suffering for some and privilege for others. It is disingenuous of you and unjust to blame soy and us for the suffering of Palestinians that are caused by Israeli massacres, ethnic cleansing, occupation, seige and Israeli refusal to allow the refugees to return home.

      Try to remember that Zionist Jews actually eliminated another state to create Israel. Why should the people whose state was eliminated not struggle to restore their claim to their land and the rights that were taken away from them?

  •  Control of the So Called Holy Land (0+ / 0-)

    Is mostly based on a bunch of religious crap.

  •  Let Me Elaborate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Friendlystranger, david78209

    on what I call "religious crap".  

    For example, Muslims believe their prophet was translated to Jerusalem umpteen hundreds of years ago and rode to heaven on a horse with a woman's head where he talked directly to God.  Say what!?!!!

    The Jews want to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem so they can sacrifice thousands of animals again to appease God.  Really!! This is beneficial to human beings?  

    Christians want to start a war where hundreds of thousands will be slaughtered and then Jesus (who opposed violence) can come and consign all non Christians to Hell for eternity.

    Someone out there please tell me why the United States of America supports Israel or anything else to do with this damn piece of real estate that is smaller then most American counties.

    •  After Netroots Nation, I learned about Roger Wil- (0+ / 0-)

      -liams.  He quit three religions in his life, even though he was trained as a minister.  I read this  in a handout from the first Baptist congregation in Providence, which he founded but later quit.  

      I think he was pretty bummed  out about organized religion by 1639, when he quit that congregation.

      In my darker moods, I wonder if the world wouldn't be better if the Chernobyl accident had happened right in the middle of the "Holy Land" and made it off limits for a few generations.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:22:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In honor of Fire bad tree pretty just above (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diane Gee

      I'll add another Buffy quote; "Note to self: religion freaky."

  •  Labeled anti-Semite. (0+ / 0-)

    And terrorist lover…and you logged on as one also...
    ~interfaith delegation~ Oh vey! Why do you think there are so many Jewish interfaith dialogue jokes?

    Nudniks need not apply.

    by killermiller on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:06:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry this happened to you soy (9+ / 0-)

    and that you missed your cousin's wedding but glad that you are speaking out about it. I'm enraged about your treatment by US consular services and that, as Arab-Americans, we cannot expect the same protections overseas as other Americans. Keep the pressure on the State Department. They've got a lot of explaining to do.

  •  This is the system some people offer as a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terra Mystica

    alternative to our current airport security system, claiming it's less invasive that x-ray machines and pat downs.

  •  My blood boils at the injustice meted against the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichterScale, Diane Gee, lysias

    Palestinian people. It drives me insane that the world stands by as Israeli apartheid and concentration camps continue in Palestine. I am so sorry for your ordeal, for your family both here and in Palestine, but of course you're right, for the millions of Palestinians who can neither leave nor return to their homes, it's unimaginable. Thanks for writing this!

    Sept 2011 - How Obama got his groove back! I'm super charged, Fired Up and Ready to go!

    by karanja on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:52:31 PM PDT

  •  Another P/I diary that get's nowhere... (0+ / 0-)

    ... except for flame wars.

    Injustice committed on both sides.

    Israel is a fact of life and justified by law (as well as for some moral and historical justification).

    Right of return challenges that.

    Consequences result down the line like this egregious incident.

    Lots of wasted binary code from armchair politicians who think they know how to solve the dilemma.

    Evolution IS Intelligent Design!

    by msirt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:18:53 PM PDT

  •  Interesting how Israel is only receptive to US (3+ / 0-)

    diplomatic advocacy if the American being abused by Israeli  authorities is a Jew.

    Why would any non-Jewish American even want to travel to Israel if they risk being denied entry in a Kafkaesque nightmare, for having expressed an opinion out of compliance with Israeli policy on the internet?  

    "We don't need someone who can think. We need someone with enough digits to hold a pen." ~ Grover Norquist

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:19:05 AM PDT

Renee, maxomai, Superskepticalman, renska, Doug in SF, jo fish, DeminNewJ, Sean Robertson, MadRuth, eleming, deben, Christin, SaveDemocracy, mickT, tiggers thotful spot, PeterHug, bosdcla14, Emerson, wu ming, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, fugitive, hyperstation, lysias, LEP, celdd, xynz, delver rootnose, Foreign Devil, Just Saying, expatjourno, hubcap, lady sisyphus, Florida Democrat, opinionated, magnetics, whenwego, ask, highacidity, stevej, themank, phillies, roses, Himself, bincbom, PatrickUK, Texknight, kharma, edrie, sockpuppet, Dallasdoc, lucid, wordene, potatohead, HeyMikey, Oaktown Girl, Matt Esler, zerelda, ybruti, WisVoter, Deward Hastings, ScienceMom, xyz, vacantlook, eve, xxdr zombiexx, pontechango, julifolo, RanDomino, ExStr8, jrooth, greycat, LakeSuperior, Joe in NC, Brooke In Seattle, david78209, chidmf, YucatanMan, fixxit, owlbear1, pasadena beggar, Kayakbiker, sofia, gerardbellavita, most peculiar mama, babatunde, RichterScale, Sandino, LucyandByron, Isara, Geekesque, Rydra Wrong, Rogneid, peacestpete, Land of Enchantment, CJnyc, RJDixon74135, elliott, K S LaVida, poco, esquimaux, Sanuk, rcbowman, Kingsmeg, Mr Bojangles, tonyahky, HoundDog, cookseytalbott, AoT, VictorLaszlo, Son of a Cat, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, myrealname, ER Doc, BlueMississippi, jaym, zedaker, blueness, Statusquomustgo, a a, ZenTrainer, cpresley, pale cold, Tamar, old wobbly, Msanger, pgm 01, A Mad Mad World, pfiore8, Russ Jarmusch, verso2, Wino, DvCM, david mizner, Matt Z, gustynpip, sfbob, bnasley, Swill to Power, artisan, Aunt Martha, jhop7, gchaucer2, OIL GUY, madgranny, Korkenzieher, cacamp, Assaf, Terra Mystica, cville townie, JDWolverton, gundyj, hkorens, windje, Johnny Nucleo, poligirl, OleHippieChick, AshesAllFallDown, dadadata, Laughing Vergil, Buckeye Nut Schell, MrJayTee, dewley notid, triplepoint, brasilaaron, temptxan, codairem, Gemina13, petulans, dan667, Karl Rover, Al Fondy, Robobagpiper, Lib Dem FoP, David Futurama, shortgirl, statsone, GustavMahler, legendmn, Celtic Merlin, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, greengemini, The Dead Man, juca, socalmonk, don mikulecky, Donkey Hotey, Dopeman, Carol in San Antonio, WakeUpNeo, shopkeeper, JesseCW, RageKage, elziax, Calfacon, COwoman, Keith Pickering, Northern Light, sfarkash, Flyswatterbanjo, strangedemocracy, Christy1947, icemilkcoffee, Captain Marty, politik, David Harris Gershon, sortalikenathan, FrankCornish, Anak, Simple, Dexter, CayceP, samanthab, Mariken, DiegoUK, nickrud, Johnny Q, rja, elengul, Floande, science nerd, cany, Wisdumb, Jasel, kamrom, ToeJamFootball, slowbutsure, implicate order, southernmapper, imokyrok, Deleuzional, marleycat, AgavePup, Wolf10, Claudius Bombarnac, muddy boots, Yogurt721, downsouth, Fire bad tree pretty, enhydra lutris, Calvino Partigiani, CorinaR, Safina, chira2, PhilJD, dibsa, waiting for lefty, Friendlystranger, Hayate Yagami, Kurt from CMH, thepothole, OutcastsAndCastoffs, absdoggy, jacey, Tentwenty, OldDragon, anodnhajo, Flying Goat, angry marmot, Mindful Nature, IndieGuy, dance you monster, Trevin, 420 forever, 2thanks, Trotskyrepublican, congenitalefty, InAntalya, chipmo, pot, ClutchCargo, doroma, thePhoenix13, johnny wurster, Noddy, AverageJoe42, Diane Gee, George3, wasatch, databob, BradyB, BobTheHappyDinosaur, GoGoGoEverton, Setsuna Mudo, Noctem Aeternus, Smoh, Fireshark, R2P2, solarbay

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site