[leroy_masochist]

Israel banning people who are actively involved with the BDS movement from flying into Tel Aviv does not strike me as especially comparable to the Saudis prohibiting Israeli grandmasters from participating in a chess tournament in Riyadh. But that's just my opinion!

[abusoufiyan]

Strongly disagree. Why does actively being involved in BDS matter? It's a political stance against Israel's violations of international law by creating settlements and trying to annex them into Israel (among other things). Banning people because they don't agree with your politics is exactly what Saudi is doing.

[will4274]

> It's a political stance against Israel's violations of international law by creating settlements and trying to annex them into Israel (among other things).

This is the BDS viewpoint. The Israeli viewpoint is that BDS's singular focus on Israel to the exclusion of other human rights violation is a form of anti-Semitism. Though I am weary of endless Israeli claims of anti-Semitism, looking at the founders of BDS, this viewpoint is not without a kernel of truth. Without endorsing either view, it's important to recognize that for the Israelis, this is "banning hate speech" not "banning certain political views." Many many countries (including the US and UK) ban foreigners with a record of hate speech from entering their country.

> Banning people because they don't agree with your politics is exactly what Saudi is doing.

No. Saudi Arabia bars all Jews and Atheists from entering the country, regardless of their political ideas. Disbelief in God is not a political viewpoint by any normal standard.

[bhouston]

> The Israeli viewpoint is that BDS's singular focus on Israel to the exclusion of other human rights violation is a form of anti-Semitism.

This is called "whataboutism" btw and is a recognized logical fallacy. It can be used against any group who tried to raise awareness of a specific injustice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[will4274]

Au contraire, whataboutism is not always a logical fallacy. It can be simultaneously true that a) Israel is a human rights violator and b) BDS focuses on Israel to the exclusion of other human rights violators because of the anti-Semitic beliefs of their members.

Edit: a different explanation - it's true that "what about other human rights violators" is a logical fallacy in the context of Israeli human rights violations. But, our topic is immigration bans, and Israeli belief in BDS anti-Semitism and the corresponding ban on individuals entering the country is not necessary fallacious just because this point is irrelevant to the topic of Israeli human rights violations.

[bhouston]

> BDS focuses on Israel to the exclusion of other human rights violators because of the anti-Semitic beliefs of their members.

Ad hominem / Appeal to motive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

[grraaaaahhh]

Fallacy fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[will4274]

Again, logical fallacies only make sense in the context of a specific topic. People can actually be motivated by racism - regardless of whether Israel's actions are human rights violations.

In some cases, the leaders of BDS made anti-Semitic comments before joining/founding BDS. When a bunch of white supremacists join together to create an organization that accuses Afican countries of human rights violations, we acknowledge that that it's about a bit more than human rights.

For example, Omar Barghouti,the BDS founder believes that Jews don't have a right to self-determination, opposes the two-state solution (instead, he supports a single Palestinian state), and has no plan or suggestion for where Israelis should relocate. The UN recognizes that all people have a right to self determination.

My own experience is with the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) who threw rocks at the heads of Israeli students on my college campus and then published anti-Semitic fliers "to measure student viewpoints." SJP and BDS are closely associated.

[abusoufiyan]

Saudi Arabia does not ban Jews from entering SA it's a common myth.

Here is a testimony of a man who wrote "Jewish" under the religion item of the visa application and received his visa and visited

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/my-saudi-sojourn...

Please do not downvote me. I am the only one who provided a source for my claim of who is and is not denied visas.

[will4274]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-arabia-denies-allowing-j...

> Saudi Arabia has denied a report that it would begin allowing Jews to work inside the Gulf kingdom.

> In an official statement, the Saudi Labor Ministry denied a report last week in the Saudi al-Watan newspaper to the effect that non-Israeli Jews would be able to receive guest worker visas for the first time, the UK Middle East Eye reported Friday.

First page of Google results for "Jews Saudi Arabia"

[EGreg]

Because political activism takes a stance on a political issue. Simply being born in a country and playing chess does not.

Banning people because they don't agree with your politics is exactly what Saudi is doing.

No, it is what Israel is doing and Mozilla is doing as well. And Germany is doing with Nazi party, and so on. All are going to say it's because the given issue is that major for them. But what Saudi is doing is banning someone for being born in a country. Playing chess has nothing to do with agreeing with someone's politics.

[abusoufiyan]

So if playing chess has nothing to do with agreeing with someone's politics why is it okay to ban people for disagreeing with your state's politics?

It isn't. Israel is doing it. Saudi Arabia is retaliating. There isn't a BDS on Saudi Arabia though, so they ban players from Israel. Being born in a country is one thing, but all Israelis (all Jewish, 18+ year old Israelis) also participate in the IDF and along with that they are a bit more complicit in any human rights violations they may commit and in furthering the political agenda of Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory as a result.

[bhouston]

> Saudi Arabia is retaliating.

Technically that isn't true. Modern Saudi Arabia is discriminatory when it comes to other religions.

[EGreg]

Didn't I just explain it?

Being born in a country and playing chess is not "disagreeing with your state's politics".

And even that description is purposely flippant, and doesn't capture the real main reason why eg Mozilla fired its CEO or Germany bans the Nazi party. Or why many countries ban seditious speech (China, Jordan, and so on).

The reason is that they consider such speech to be dangerous to the security of the state itself. In that, if it spreads, it will undermine the current stability of the state. Also there are considerations from human rights point of view - that people could be threatened and suffer. For example gay partnes might have their equal right to visit each other in the hospital infringed. Israelis would be attacked as they were in Hebron in 1929. Nazis could wreak havoc and go on murderous rampages again. And so on.

What happened to freedom of speech? Well, it's not absolute in many places.

And anyway, equating Saudi Arabia to Israel on freedom of speech is rather silly. Israel allows all religions to come and worship openly. Saudis suppress all non-Muslim religions, and outlaw many types of observance. Israel allows gays to openly hold parades, and much more. Saudi Arabia executes gays and atheists for exactly that. A bit beyond "banning" for "disagreeing with politics". So keep a sense of proportion when you equate things.

Earlier this year for instance: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-ar...