Canadian student faces deportation from Israel following protest

[Violet_Crumble]

A Canadian student who took part in a protest against the security wall Israel's building in the West Bank has been arrested and faces deportation from the Jewish state.

Victor McDiarmid, a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement, had been living in the West Bank for nearly a month when he was arrested Wednesday at a demonstration by women from the village of Nilin, where Israel plans to build the next section of its security barrier.

McDiarmid, 23, was arrested after taking photographs of Israeli soldiers who were breaking up the protest by villagers, who say the barrier will separate them from their farmland.

"He was taken by Israeli soldiers whilst at the front of the demonstration and was taken off towards the jeep. And then he has reported to us that for 20 minutes they were punching, kicking and spitting in his face," said Adam Taylor, ISM's media co-ordinator.

The organization's lawyers say they were told McDiarmid, who is from Kingston, Ont., was to be released Thursday from the Israeli military prison where he was being held. Instead, he has been transferred to a detention centre for people facing deportation.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/25/student-israel.html

[UndertheOcean]

1. Jewish State ethics in action .

Really , what did you expect from a state that identifies with only one ethnic group.

Jewish State ? laughable ... How would you feel if Britain was called the "Anglo-Saxon State" .... or Italy the "Christian State"

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Or something quite as silly as an Islamic state?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Islamic, Jewish, Christian or Hindu states are all equally silly n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Should we add Palestinian to the list too?

Or is it just religious states that are silly?

[UndertheOcean]

11. That depends on how Progressive you are ...

If you are very progressive then both Religious and Nationalist States are Silly , the Religious ones being sillier.

If you are somewhat progressive then National states get a pass from you .


Its a matter of time too , 200 years ago monarchy and slavery were more acceptable than today.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. So you set the scale?

I find that laughable.

How a state identifies itself is up to the people, real progressives understand that, as well as understanding, no matter the label of the country, the mark of a truly progressive state is one that allows freedom for all, no matter the occupants relation to the "official" or "unofficial" state identity.

[LeftishBrit]

17. So are you against state borders in general?

I would in principle love to live in a world without borders, where people of all ethnic and religious groups mix freely, without restriction or discrimination. But I realize that this is not likely to happen for a long, long time; and that 'forcing' it would probably be counterproductive.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Not unless we're going to add Israeli as well...

..or Australian, New Zealander, British etc. See, they're nationalities and encompass ALL citizens of those states, something that identifying a state by a religion doesn't do...

[UndertheOcean]

9. Ofcourse , the silliest of them all

[Sezu]

4. No problem since it's the ONLY Jewish state and so far

in history it seems the world needs one having been unable or unwilling to prevent such hatreds as the Holocaust.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Yep, if Israel had existed a few decades earlier, it'd have taken care of the Nazis!

Someone should get that memo of yrs to the around 40% of the global Jewish population that lives in the US. They're clearly unaware that the US would be unable or unwilling to prevent it if Hitler magically came back to life and kicked off Holocaust II ;)

Here's a novel idea for you to consider. Rather than having one Jewish state, one Islamic state, one Christian state, etc, how about being supportive of the idea of states not identifying themselves as religious or ethnic states, but as national entities (eg an Israeli state, an Iranian state etc)? I think it's fair enough that Israel is a refuge for Jews (though the vast majority who do go to Israel aren't fleeing persecution, but going for economic, seachange, or ideological reasons) but not at the expense of people who lived there before Israel came into being and who were expelled...

[shira]

28. Ignorant statement

If Israel existed prior to the holocaust, Jews would have at least had one place to go to escape nazi persecution. At that time, America turned back ships like the Exodus and did not allow Jews in - just as Europe did. It didn't help that the British white papers made Jewish immigration into Israel at that time illegal....and that's one reason Jews resisted British occupation of Palestine at that time.

At that time, Jews had no choice but to try for a national homeland. And they had no desire at all to rob it from the Arabs of that region.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. No, it wasn't...

What's ignorant is being under the mistaken impression that if Israel had existed prior to WWII, Jews who were victims of the Holocaust would have fled there. There might be an ignorance of what was going on prior to and during WWII at play as well. In Germany many Jews had already fled and found refuge (many in South American countries and unfortunately in other European countries that were later overrun by the Nazis). In other parts of Europe (eg the Soviet Union), there was little chance to seek refuge anywhere else as the danger wasn't apparent until the Nazis had invaded. And of course it was always the US that was the preferred destination. Also, there are quite a few years when the immigration quotas to Palestine weren't even filled, partly because there was a preference for pioneering types who could work the land, and also because there was a lack of funds to bring more people there...

Just curious, but when you talk about Jews resisting British occupation, are you talking about the likes of the Stern Gang? If so, do you think their forms of resistance was justified?

[shira]

31. yes it was

What's ignorant is being under the mistaken impression that if Israel had existed prior to WWII, Jews who were victims of the Holocaust would have fled there. There might be an ignorance of what was going on prior to and during WWII at play as well. In Germany many Jews had already fled and found refuge (many in South American countries and unfortunately in other European countries that were later overrun by the Nazis). In other parts of Europe (eg the Soviet Union), there was little chance to seek refuge anywhere else as the danger wasn't apparent until the Nazis had invaded. And of course it was always the US that was the preferred destination. Also, there are quite a few years when the immigration quotas to Palestine weren't even filled, partly because there was a preference for pioneering types who could work the land, and also because there was a lack of funds to bring more people there...

I'm not saying all 6 million jews would have fled to Israel had it been established 10 years earlier. Even if only 10% had fled there, that's 600,000 lives saved. You wrote as if to say that Jews could have maybe gone elsewhere besides Israel (like America) and that would make do just as well as a Jewish state of refuge. Simply put, there was nowhere else to go. You fail to acknowledge this.

Yes, it's great America is what it is today for Jews who seek refuge. 65 years ago, it was not like it is today. No other countries were. This is why Israel was so important. Whether Jews go to Israel now for different purposes is irrelevant.

Just curious, but when you talk about Jews resisting British occupation, are you talking about the likes of the Stern Gang? If so, do you think their forms of resistance was justified?

Terrorism cannot be justified. Irgun and Stern were outlaw organizations.

[eyl]

32. The US (and most other countries)

barred or severely limited the entrance of Jewish refugees. While obviously not all of the 6 million dead could have been saved, a lot more could have been if there was a port willing to recieve them.

[BioDan]

6. Except...

The Islamic Republic of Iran, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and I guess the Vatican if you consider that a sovereign state.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Britain and Italy may not be *called* these things..

but to quite a degree they *are* these things in reality. (And in fact if one wants to be picky, 'England' *does* literally mean 'land of the Angles'.)

Most countries identify predominantly with one ethnic group and discriminate against others. Britain has big problems with racial prejudice and anti-immigrant prejudice. As for Italy, its current treatment of Muslims, immigrants in general, and Gypsies, is getting to the point of being seriously scary.

I would love to see an end to all racial and ethnic discrimination; but Israel is hardly unusual in this respect. In fact, most Middle Eastern countries are worse; if you're not a Muslim, or in many cases if you're the wrong kind of Muslim, you will face serious discrimination or worse.

[UndertheOcean]

10. Bullocks , there are tons of christians in arab countries

Arab Christians , not immigrants , Having roots from before the Islamic invasion.

There are even Christian Bedouin tribes in Jordan.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Are we talking here about immigration policies or discrimination?

I am aware that there are Christian minorities in many Middle Eastern countries. There are plenty of Muslims and quite a few Christians in Israel, if it comes to that. They do suffer some discrimination, probably more because they are mostly Arabs, than because of their religion. Christian Arabs have not always been well-treated by non-Christians in Arab countries - and vice versa. Of course, one may tend to hear mostly in the news about the situations of conflict. Are there Arab countries where different religions get on well, and Christians (or other non-Muslims) don't suffer discrimination?

My points were more about the part of the world that I know best: Europe. In most Europaean countries, whatever sort of state they call themselves, there is significant discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities. The same seems to be true all over the world.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. England is an anglo-saxon state?

Maybe London's different than the rest of the country, but when I was there I saw a large number of people who weren't what I would have thought was anglo-saxon. And I didn't notice the govt discriminating against people who weren't anglo, though the little old lady from Bath who sat next to me on the flight over said some pretty nasty things in that horrible guileless little-old-dear way that old people do about all the foreigners crammed into London...

The discussion was about states that officially identify themselves as a religious or ethnic state, not about racial and ethnic discrimination in other states. Of course there's racial and ethnic discrimination in all states (some directly from the govt, some indirectly, and some from segments of the population), but the problem I see with states that identify officially as ethnic or religious states is that in doing so they're giving a message that citizens of their states who aren't members of the particular religious or ethnic group are living in a state that isn't really their state...

Just joining in on the pickiness, but I thought the Angles were a Germanic tribe that migrated there back in the year zip and the name England has existed for well over a thousand years. I'm just not seeing that there's any attempt to define the state by a religion or ethnicity there. If I was going to make the argument for that, I'd mention about the Queen being head of state as well as head of the Anglican Church being closer to the mark. After all, how come the head of state isn't representing British Catholics or Muslims? At least, I'd ask that question if I decided to ignore the history of the monarchy and the church...

on edit: I forgot to mention that for many years my country was one that identified itself ethnically with the White Australia Policy, which basically limited immigration mainly to the British and Irish, but also anyone else who was white and spoke English fluently. It was finally ditched as the discriminatory rubbish it was, and I hope the habit of states identifying themselves by religion or ethnicity goes the same way...

[LeftishBrit]

22. It's an Anglo-Saxon state the way Israel is a Jewish state.

About 20% of Israelis are Arabs. And there are a significant number of non-Anglo-Saxon people in the UK. (Actually 'Anglo-Saxon' is a bit of a misnomer as old-British includes Celtic, Norman and sometimes Viking ancestry; not just Anglo-Saxon.) In both cases, the 'minorities' are legal citizens, but often suffer discrimination.

Yes, London is unusual in its cosmopolitanism. Some other cities, such as my home-town of Oxford, are also very diverse but many cities, and most rural areas, are not so at all.

'I didn't notice the govt discriminating against people who weren't anglo,'

The immigration authorities certainly do; as in many cases do the police, though there's been a crackdown against it in recent years. And as for the popular press!!!!

[Shaktimaan]

23. Right...

or an Italian state! Or a Japanese state!

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Since when has Italian or Japanese been a religion or an ethnicity?

They're both nationalities and if Israel identified itself as the Israeli state rather than the Jewish state, then you would be right.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Judaism IS a nationality.

Actually, it doesn't fit cleanly into any specific category. But it has elements of a religion, an ethnicity, a culture and so on... basically, it is a nationality. The religion is a principal component of the identity, sure, but it's certainly not a required one. It differs from other religions and this way. And it differs from other ethnicities in that it accepts converts. (Conversion is not merely into the religion, but is an acceptance of the individual into the clan.)

Think of it like a clan or a tribe. What is the modern equivalent? A nation.

Israel is the religious and historic name for the ancient nation of the Jewish people. That is, the Jewish people in the national sense... NOT the religious sense. All Jews are accepted, even Christian or non-practicing ones. You are judging Israel on the grounds that it is unlike other nations but the truth is that it isn't Israel which is different, but Judaism. Your mistake stems from an incomplete or incorrect interpretation of what Judaism actually is.

The fact of the matter is that terms like ethnicity or nationality are fluid, flexible terms that take on different forms depending on the subject at hand. I'm not so sure that your belief that Italian and Japanese are not ethnicities is correct. Drawing the line between ethnicities is as problematic as drawing the line between races. There is no easy definition for these terms, they are wholly subjective creations whose definitions morph over time.

They're both nationalities and if Israel identified itself as the Israeli state rather than the Jewish state, then you would be right.

They are also identities that transcend mere nationality in the legal sense of the word. I have many Irish friends who resolutely consider themselves "Irish" despite being proud Americans. If "Irish" were merely a nationality in the way you are using the word then the term "Irish American" would be contradictory. But it isn't. Rather, Irish Americans enjoy a nationality that is tied to their identity; a borderless nationality based on a shared heritage. One which may be personified in the state of Ireland but is by no means exclusively defined by it.

One thing I can say for certain though. Judaism can be, (and often is) defined as a nation of people. Personally, I've struggled with trying to find an accurate definition for my identity over the years and have settled on "nationality" as the most comprehensive, (yet imperfect) definition available.

-----

edit: Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, English, Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, Quebecers and many others.

In several non-English speaking areas of the world, the cognate word for nationality in local language may be understood as a synonym of ethnicity, as nation can be defined as a grouping based on cultural self-determination rather than on relations with a state. For example, many people would say they are Kurds, i.e., of Kurdish nationality, even though no such Kurdistan state exists (the postulated homeland is divided among five countries). In the context of former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, nationality is often used as translation of the Russian and Serbo-Croatian terms (национальность/ natsionalnost, народност/narodnost) used for ethnic groups and local affiliations within those (former) states. Similarly, the term "nationalities of China" refers to cultural groups in China. Spain is one Nation, made out by nationalities, which are not nations, or can be considered smaller nations within the Spanish Nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

How is Judaism any different?

[Violet_Crumble]

26. The nationality of Israel is ISRAELI, not Jewish...

Y'know, just like the nationality of Australia is Australian, the nationality of Canada is Canadian, the nationality of Italy is Italian, and so on. Most states identify their nationality as such so that it's inclusive of ALL citizens of the state, not just a selected group. While some minorities do identify as nations (indigenous American tribes do that), their nationality is still that of the state they live in. When it comes to Jews being a nationality, that's no more correct than the arguments I've seen put up that Muslims are a nationality. Both are distinct religious, ethnic, and cultural groups, but they're not nationalities...

on edit: For anyone who may be confused as to what their nationality is, drag out yr passport and take a look at yr details. There's a line saying nationality, and for me it says Australian. For Israelis it'll say Israeli, not Jewish or Muslim or Christian...

[Vegasaurus]

27. Sorry but Israel IS a Jewish state

you seem to have problems with facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No-one here is saying it's not called the Jewish state...

you seem to have problems with comprehension. What's being discussed is what the nationality of Israel is. It's Israeli, which is why Israel should be known as the Israeli state. I feel the same way about any state that identifies as a religious or ethnic state that doesn't include all citizens of the state...

[azurnoir]

8. Meanwwhile back at the

subject-

The IDF does all this detain and deport for picture taking? That in and of it self could make people wonder what was in the pictures that IDF did not want seen.

Israel of course has the right to deport anyone they want.

[UndertheOcean]

12. If this forum had more resonable rules one would be tempted to stay on topic more

But the point I was making is that this action is nothing new , and does not surprise me at all.

[notfullofit]

14. Israel set to deport Canadian volunteer arrested at fence protest

snip...

McDiarmid had been moved to Interior Ministry custody at Ben-Gurion Airport, slated for immediate deportation back to Canada. A police officer said that the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) had requested his deportation.

An Interior Ministry representative said McDiarmid was being deported because his visa had been cancelled "for not following the army's orders." The deportation order was confirmed at a hearing held Sunday.

McDiarmid was told that if he decided to appeal the deportation order, he would have to wait "at least three weeks" in detention before the appeal would be heard, Adam Taylor, ISM's media coordinator, told The Jerusalem Post. Taylor also said McDiarmid was told that his deportation was inevitable, even if he chose to appeal.
snip..

No foreign citizen can be allowed to intentionally disturb operations by security forces, "especially while acting illegally and violently," the statement continued. The military contended that the Palestinians who routinely protest against the fence construction are joined by activists who cause "an already tense situation to flare up."

In order to deal with the violent protests in Ni'ilin, the IDF added, the army was compelled to reassign resources from regular security missions.

Regarding the alleged abuse McDiarmid suffered at the hands of the soldiers, Lasky said she intends to launch an official complaint with the IDF.

If the deportation order is upheld, McDiarmid would be the first ISM volunteer deported in years for issues not initially related to visa validity, and he would not be allowed to reenter the country for 10 years.
more
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331115917&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[azurnoir]

15. How to make bad PR-even worse

Gabi Lansky, McDiarmid's lawyer, said she planned to appeal the decision and that she believed McDiarmid was being singled out. Though last week's protest was large, she claimed, only one other individual was arrested - Jamal Amirra - the father of a girl who filmed an IDF soldier shooting a bound Palestinian in Ni'ilin on July 7. McDiarmid helped discover the video.

This is not a statement of whether or not Israel can deport this guy it more a question of should they, under the circumstances it makes Israel or IDF appear vindictive to say the least.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. You hit the nail on the head...

Everyone knows Israel can deport people who are protesting in the Occupied Territories - the real question is should Israel do that. This example isn't a real close comparison as my country isn't occupying Parliament House, but if an American tourist was at the big anti-war rally out front of Parliament House a few years back and got arrested, the govt could have deported them. If they deported them, there'd be a lot of complaints from the US for a start and plenty of bad PR for the govt....