Jaggi Singh has been allowed into Israel, but he’s barred from entering the Disputed Territories.
The media’s calling him a “peace activist” and a “committed protester”, while simultaneously quoting his buddy Samer Elatrash of the SPHR.
“It clearly demonstrates that Israel has formulated and is enforcing a policy of putting a lid on the West Bank and the Gaza,” said Elatrash, who disputed the Israeli court’s jurisdiction over the Palestinian areas.
No, the fact that Israel’s letting him in at all clearly demonstrates what an open and tolerant society it is – far beyond the call of duty. Singh threatened the security of Israel’s former Prime Minister, for godssakes! How many countries would then let someone like that come visit as a tourist, let alone as an activist intending to stir things up for media attention?
Now that Singh is stuck in Israel but can’t visit the Territories, what, oh, what, will he do? Jaggi, why not hang out in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem a while? Maybe check out the nightlife. Go see a few museums or historical sights. Who knows? You might even like it!
Or maybe – what a concept! – he can even try being a real “peace activist” for a change. He can ride buses for Israel to protest suicide terrorist attacks against civilians. And why not? What else does he have to do while he waits to be cleared to go to the Territories and disseminate anti-Zionist propaganda?
12/17/02: Update: Jaggi Singh now says he intends to defy the ban and go to the Territories anyway. (via LGF). I guess he doesn’t like Tel Aviv’s nightlife that much after all.
What violence? Oh yeah, catapulting teddy bears cops. lol.
He was involved in violence at the
Sept 9. He was also apparently considered
dangerous enough that the RCMP had to
detain him in Vancouver.
I like the way they keep on referring to
someone who employs violence to realize
his political goals as a “peace
activist.”
What a crock.
“Singh said he wanted to tell the judge he wasn’t a security threat just because he wants to write about the Middle Eastern country, particularly alleged human rights abuses by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza.”
It is perfectly acceptable for any state to deny entry to someone with a criminal record, and a history for causing trouble. Israel has enough problems, why ask for more?
I wonder whether he is going to be like good ol’ Svend Robinson and “demand” to be allowed to enter the West bank.
Perfectly legal not to allow him into Israel, however, Israel has no legal jurisdiction over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and therefore cannot decide whether or not a Canadian can enter or leave these OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.
Actually, Israel has exactly that jurisdiction.
You can claim occupation all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. If you were arguing that Israel was occupying some soverieign state that existed in those territories prior to 1967, that would be one thing. But there was no Palestinian sovereign state before 1967. When Israel acquired those territories, they belonged to Egypt and Jordan. Egypt and Israel signed a treaty in which the bulk of the land acquired by Israel in 1967 – namely the Sinai – was returned, but the Gaza Strip was not. As for Jordan, it relinquished all claims to the West Bank (and its annexation of this land in the first place was illegal and never internationally recognized).
So who, exactly, is Israel occupying? Whether or not the Palestinians should have a sovereign state is besides the point; the point is, none exists now. Therefore, Israel still retains control over entry and exit from the informal, ill-defined borders.
I hear he was heavy into shoplifting, too. Hanthaliar, you have all the SSPHR connections, you hear anything about this?
That’s not the international community’s position Segacs.
Hanthala, not only do Israeli Arabs have the right to run a party in the elections, they can run 8.
Yes Segacs, but that is meaningless if the condition for Palestinian-Israeli political organization is that they not advocate their full political and citizenship rights.
Press Release
National Democratic Assembly
December 18, 2002
In response to the decision of Israel’s Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein, to appeal to the Central Elections Committee (CEC) to disqualify the National Democratic Assembly’s list and its candidate, MK Azmi Bishara, the NDA has the following to say: elections without the NDA and its chosen representatives will not be free and democratic
elections.
Attempting to block Balad from participating in the upcoming general elections scheduled for January 28, 2003, the Attorney General will premise his appeal to the CEC on Basic Law: The Knesset (Amendment 9, Article 7A), which allows for the disqualification of party lists whose “objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include [the] negation of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”
In other words, the Attorney General has decided to disqualify the NDA for demanding the democratization of the State of Israel into a state of all of its citizens.
The National Democratic Assembly notes with grave concern that the democratic demand for a citizens’ state is no longer tolerated in the ‘democratic’ State of Israel, and is being used as a pretext to block political representation for its Arab public. If calling for the democratization of citizenship in the State of Israel is met with political disqualification, than the very citizenship rights of the Arab public are being disqualified.
In a parallel move, the Attorney General will appeal to the CEC for the simultaneous disqualification of MK Azmi Bishara, NDA’s sole representative in the 15th Knesset and the first candidate on the party’s list for the 16th Knesset, on the grounds that he allegedly expressed “support for armed struggle on the part of a terrorist organization,” politically motivated accusations which have yet to be
substantiated in a court of law.
The Attorney General’s latest decision corresponds with his previous decision to indict MK Bishara for his political opinions. It appears that the Attorney General, after failing to delegitimize the NDA, its platform, and its chosen leadership in court, has resorted to continuing his political witch-hunt by attempting to bar them from the electoral process.
A flagrant violation of the Arab minority’s right to political
representation and other democratic rights-such as freedom of speech-it is an attempt, by ‘legal means,’ to deny the Arab minority its right to express its own political attitudes. It is an attempt, in essence, to make concession to Zionist ideology a precondition for parliamentary participation.
The Attorney General also asked the CEC to disqualify former Kach activist Baruch Marzel, the second candidate on the rightwing Herut party’s list. The not-so-implicit comparison that Attorney General Rubinstein has drawn between an avowed racist and a liberal-democratic movement is outrageous. By no means is it possible
to compare people who espouse racism, transfer, and violence to people who advocate genuine democracy in the form of a citizen’s state that guarantees equality and justice for all-Jews and Arabs alike.
No less grave is the fact that the Attorney General has proven, once again, that he is guided by a political agenda, aligning himself squarely with the Israeli rightwing, which never ceases to try to erode the political rights of the Arab citizens of the state. An erosion of the Arab citizens’ rights is an erosion of every citizen’s rights.
Segacs – The Israeli’s begged Sadat to
take back Gaza, but he wouldn’t do it.
Maybe he didn’t want the problems of having
his own palestinian terrorists to control.
Hanthala,
Here are some comments made by Azmi Bishara:
“Hizbullah won, and for the first time since 1967
we have tasted the taste of victory.”
In an article on Arutz 7 Rubenstein says that
Bishara told Hamas leaders in Hevron two years ago that he is
“fighting the same war against Israel” as they are,
and that Bishara had called upon Israeli-Arabs to
form an army.
and that
Bishara had advised Yasser Arafat to establish a
united front with Hamas and Islamic Jihad,
promising that Israeli-Arabs would stand by his
side as “another front against Israel.”
To be fair, the article points out that Bishara denies
making these comments.
Hanthala, why should a nation in the midst of war allow
such people to serve in their legislature.
Also, wouldn’t the Arab citizens of Israel, who undoubtedly
make up most of MK Bishara’s constituents, be better
off if he thought more about improving their lives than
making traitorous comments.
“Also, wouldn’t the Arab citizens of Israel, who undoubtedly
make up most of MK Bishara’s constituents, be better
off if he thought more about improving their lives than
making traitorous comments.”
Wow. You really haven’t got a clue.