Leaving aside the relative merits or lack thereof of Trump's ban, it's not really an unprecedented move in world politics.

The governments of Iran, and several other countries (Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Kuwait, Iran, non-Kurish Iraq, Sudan, Yemen), ban citizens of Israel, and even people who have been to Israel as indicated by a passport stamp.

Admission is refused to holders of passports or travel documents containing a visa/stamp for Israel Israel or any data that passenger has been to Israel or indication of any connection with the State of Israel. ("Visa policy of Iran@Wikipedia")

Given the massive outcry about Trump's executive order being something Truly Epically Bad by a lot of high profile persons and organizations, did any of them go on record previously denouncing the same - or worse - policies by Iran etc... just as publicly?

  • 6
    > did any of them go on record previously denouncing the same - or worse - policies by Iran etc.. I think you are trying to bring reason and rationale to a political discourse on the internet, otherwise known as that crazy place. :). Seriously, fair and balanced aren't known to frequent this place where the goal is to shut / shoot out the opposing views so people can live in their echo chambers ever after, :)
    – dannyf
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 21:48
  • 8
    While I do think that this question is in line with SE policy, I still don't like it. The implication is that an American legislator opposed to Trump's executive order, who hasn't spoken out about bans Muslim countries impose on citizens of Israel is okay with those bans. This seems a very odd assumption to make. A better question might be whether anyone has gone on record opposing Trump's executive order while praising or defending the Muslim countries' bans on Israeli citizens.
    – Publius
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 22:10
  • 2
    @Avi - There are several possible interpretations to the discrepancy. But the fact is that the discrepancy does seem to exist, very consistently and - from my subjective view - on large scale, which makes it an interesting political phenomena.
    – user4012
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 22:29
  • 9
    @user4012 I think it's not that interesting a phenomenon for the same reason that the fallacy of relative privation is a fallacy. We pay more attention to issues that are less severe because they're closer. Republicans who criticized Obama's minimum wage increase may not have criticized Switzerland's referenda on a basic income guarantee or a wage cap. Is this some interesting phenomenon suggesting hypocrisy, or is it just an example of politicians looking primarily at the policies of their own country?
    – Publius
    Commented Jan 29, 2017 at 22:37
  • 4
    -1 and recommend closing as leading or off-topic. This question seeks to push an agenda (and rather plainly too) by implying hypocrisy where none necessarily exists using a rhetorical sleight of hand. The standard that people who oppose one policy in their own country must have spoken out against similar policies in other countries where they are unlikely to have any standing or interest is unusual and unreasonable.
    – J Doe
    Commented Jan 31, 2017 at 0:16

2 Answers 2


I thought this would be silly easy but it's surprisingly difficult to find current pundits' stance on 70 year old issues or current statements from previously prominent politicians.

Jimmy Carter signed laws limiting the Arab League boycotts which are related to the visa bans of Iran. He spoke out against Trump's stance on Muslim immigration during the campaign. It's unlikely a former president will make direct public statements criticizing the current one though.

Religion is at the core of the Iranian state and immigration has been at the core of the American; if both states let religious issues lead immigration policy one is much more surprising than the other.


Amnesty International Australia has given opposition to travel bans on Israelis, after one of its volunteers supported bans on Israelis, in response to questions about it, on Facebook. From the Algemeiner Amnesty International Australia Apologizes for Facebook Comment Defending Muslim Discrimination Against Israeli Passport Holders

Amnesty International Australia has apologized after one of its volunteers posted a comment on its Facebook page earlier this week defending the 16 Muslim-majority nations around the world that bar entry to Israeli passport holders.

“The countries that banned the passport have done so for a reason,” the comment in question read. “They are aware of the atrocities committed by the Israel Defence Force and have seen Palestinians being displaced from their homes for the illegal settlements.”


On Tuesday 31 January, a comment was posted on the Amnesty International Australia Facebook page regarding travel restrictions on Israeli passport-holders. The comment did not reflect Amnesty International’s position on this issue, and as such we would like to apologise for any misunderstanding this comment has caused.

To clarify our position: Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. No person should be denied their human rights on the basis of their nationality.

Amnesty International is opposed to any ban on entry to a country purely on the basis of nationality or religious belief. Naturally this includes any restrictions on entry for Israeli citizens. We note that these kinds of restrictions have had a negative impact on the ability of our staff and our partners to research and report on human rights violations across the region.

After they deleted the original comment, they defended not opposing the travel ban against Israel. From blog posts Amnesty Australia Volunteer Posts Justification For Ban On Israelis and Amnesty Australia apologizes for justifying Arab ban on Israeli travelers

enter image description here

And even the apology doesn't include a specific condemnation of Arab nations. It was just a backtrack saying that freedom of movement is a human right, and that Amnesty won't speak out against Arab violations of human rights because they only have finite resources.

Meanwhile, Liberty Victoria, a civil rights organisation in Victoria, Australia, has said that the ban on Israelis is different to the Trump ban:

@jjcoolau Point well taken, but see this for why it's just not the same. Donald Trump's travel ban on Muslim countries is not the same as their bans on Israelis, says expert

  • 3
    Re: your last point: that supposed "expert" posits that Hamas is a good peace partner for Israel. That is very telling about his views, biases, and competency on that specific topic.
    – user4012
    Commented Feb 4, 2017 at 2:54
  • @user4012 I'm not agreeing with what AI or Liberty Victoria are saying, I'm just reporting what they're saying.
    – Golden Cuy
    Commented Feb 4, 2017 at 6:42
  • Why the grudging opposition expression for the AIA? Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. No person should be denied their human rights on the basis of their nationality It is very clear that they oppose it, period. No "but" or "in some cases" or "maybe", just a total opposition to travel bans based on nationality. What makes AIA statement "grudging", apart from your opinion about them?
    – SJuan76
    Commented Feb 5, 2017 at 22:15
  • @SJuan76 AI's Facebook account posted several comments, not just one comment, justifying why AI was not opposing travel bans against Israelis. Would you like me to include all of them?
    – Golden Cuy
    Commented Feb 5, 2017 at 22:21
  • If you are posting the official posture of AIA and not someone's personal opinion, sure. Maybe you could use them to show that AIA has "grudgingly changed" its position in response to critics, if you are right. But that would be a different concept. There is no way that you can claim that the last statement is a grudging opposition.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Feb 5, 2017 at 22:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .