Israel Bans Omar/Tlaib

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Israel is asking that Tlaib not support the BDS movement, or to decry Israeli human rights violations--while claiming Israel is a free and open democracy, the only one in the Middle East, supposedly.

While she's a guest in their country, yes.  I don't see them trying to silence her when she's in the US.  

Quote:They are taking away her right to travel to the occupied territories, which are not part of Israel, but under Israeli military control

She has a right to travel anywhere she wants?  I don't think this is true.

Quote:--despite UN General Assembly resolution to the effect that the Palestinian people, not Israel, have sovereignty over this territory.

Is that a binding resolution?  Also, how did the US vote on this non-binding resolution?

Quote:They can (illegally) block her right to travel because they have already taken away the rights of millions of Palestinians to travel. From the perspective of the UN's International Court of Justice, this would certainly be a violation of Tlaib's human rights.

Can you please cite the law they are breaking in denying her access?  Also, what human rights are we talking about?  Where are these rights codified and under what authority?  I know about rights as a US citizen, something you seem to take an a la carte approach to, but I'm not familiar with the organ of governance that proclaimed these rights you claim are being violated.

Quote:Tlaib's refusal to visit her family under these circumstances is a principled refusal to countenance Israel's illegal control over her family.

Sure, right after she stated she only wanted to see her grandmother as she may not get another chance and then agreed to the terms set forth.  While a person is certainly entitled to change their mind one has to wonder as to the motivation behind doing so in this instance.

Quote:If Tlaib was originally invited to visit Palestine/Israel by the lobby group AIPAC, then she certainly was going for a "political reason." And her visit is now blocked for a political reason.

We mostly agree here.  Except her visit wasn't blocked entirely.

Quote:Further she is a member of Congress, and, owing to the doctrine of the separation of powers, Congress has oversight over foreign policy and funding of the Exec. If Bibi blocks her entry to Israel in the wake of a Trump tweet, then Trump has effectively negated her ability to observe US/Israeli policy on the ground in Israel--i.e., negating her oversight responsibilities as a sitting member of Congress. I don't think there is precedent for this (may have happened once during the Vietnam War, not sure).

As a US citizen on US soil Trump has the human right to have an opinion and express it.  Is he not, by virtue of the first amendment, entitled to make the statement he made?  Why are you so against Trump exercising his rights?  Also, your tyrannical point aside, you have no proof it was Trump's tweet that made this decision for Netenyahu.  While one could certainly come to this conclusion you cannot state so definitively, as you just did.  Also, you are wrong, the executive branch has the lion's share of control over foreign policy.

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 07:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: If you go to the occupied areas in the West Bank (as you know), you have to do it through Israel because they are occupying. Hence, you would be their guest.

LOL, been there, done that. But from the Jordanian side, and not treated as a guest.

Guest status is still a problem for me, where visitors are just tolerated. 

(08-16-2019, 07:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think it is perfectly reasonable for a country to ask someone visiting them not to incite people within the country while they are visiting there. What if the President of Mexico came to the U.S. and, while he was visiting, he encouraged people in other countries to boycott America because of our treatment of Native Americans? We wouldn't appreciate that. Sort of breaks diplomatic protocol.

Agree with you here, if the risk is incitement to violence, as opposed to merely voicing criticism. But did Tlaib threaten to incite?

Depending on circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for the president of Mexico to urge a boycott or otherwise criticize the US while in the US, especially if here for diplomatic business.  Or even private business. Think of Vincente Fox criticizing Trump during a lecture at the Northwestern University. https://www.vallartadaily.com/former-president-of-mexico-criticizes-trump-praises-nafta-in-nu-speech/. Protocol would be violated, certainly, if Fox were invited as a personal guest of the president and staying in the WH.

In fact, liberal democracies invite or allow "inciters" and other critics to visit all the time.  

Whether diplomatic protocol is violated depends somewhat on the mission. E.g., Washington demanded French Ambassador Citizen Genet be recalled for attempting to incite Americans to join France in its war against Britain. e.g., by commissioning privateers, thus violating US neutrality. But when the Girondists (who wanted Genet's head) took over the French government, George let him stay in the US, where he married and became a citizen. The human rights angle created a "pass" for Genet, who wasn't really criticizing the US (just ignoring a request), but it often creates a pass for others who may be speaking against US rights violations or other policy questionables, in part because liberal democracies claim to value freedom of speech. So Castro, for example, could visit the US and criticize our human rights record, but a US citizen could not go there and do the same.

Also, the UN is in the US, and people come there all the time to rail against US policies--in line with diplomatic protocol. We have had frequent guests who "speak out" against US policy, from Kruschev to Daniel Ortega to whichever NK ambassador is there. Further, at academic conferences, foreigners frequently present papers criticizing US policy, and Trump, upholding the value of scholarly/scientific inquiry free from government intereference. But we generally don't bar the door to them unless suspected of violent/terrorist activity. 

Banning people, especially political figures, is always problematic in liberal democracies, or countries claiming to be. Think of the 2016 debate in the UK Parliament over whether to ban Trump from entering because of his Muslim ban statements. In this case, it looks like Israel would have let the matter slide, as it often does to maintain a claim to liberal values, until Trump put the AIPAC invitation on Bibi's radar and he sensed political opportunity.

[Bengalzona]

(08-16-2019, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: In fact, liberal democracies invite or allow "inciters" and other critics to visit all the time. 

Well, there is the problem!

I'm not sure Israel fits under the category of "liberal democracy" anymore.... on either count.

I think they are working towards "conservative neo-theocracy" at this point.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2019, 08:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, there is the problem!

I'm not sure Israel fits under the category of "liberal democracy" anymore.... on either count.

I think they are working towards "conservative neo-theocracy" at this point.

They have a right leaning conservative government that they voted for.  The next election they may not, much like the US.  That doesn't change the fact that they hold elections.  

[6andcounting]

Trump knows a winner when he sees one. Holy shit though!

Rep. Tlaib wrote a letter to Israeli officials desperately wanting to visit her grandmother. Permission was quickly granted, whereupon Tlaib obnoxiously turned the approval down, a complete setup. The only real winner here is Tlaib’s grandmother. She doesn’t have to see her now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2019

[Bengalzona]

(08-16-2019, 08:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They have a right leaning conservative government that they voted for.  The next election they may not, much like the US.  That doesn't change the fact that they hold elections.  

I wasn't being serious.

[GMDino]

(08-16-2019, 08:52 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Trump knows a winner when he sees one. Holy shit though!

Rep. Tlaib wrote a letter to Israeli officials desperately wanting to visit her grandmother. Permission was quickly granted, whereupon Tlaib obnoxiously turned the approval down, a complete setup. The only real winner here is Tlaib’s grandmother. She doesn’t have to see her now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2019

Be best.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2019, 09:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I wasn't being serious.

Sorry dude, when Dill is involved in a discussion about Israel it's harder to tell.  Although the winking emoji should have been a tip off.

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 08:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As a US citizen on US soil Trump has the human right to have an opinion and express it.  Is he not, by virtue of the first amendment, entitled to make the statement he made?  Why are you so against Trump exercising his rights?  Also, your tyrannical point aside, you have no proof it was Trump's tweet that made this decision for Netenyahu.  While one could certainly come to this conclusion you cannot state so definitively, as you just did.  Also, you are wrong, the executive branch has the lion's share of control over foreign policy.

I made no quantitative distribution of the foreign policy powers of the Legislative and Executive branches, such that one branch had more. It is not a question of who has "the lion's share" (though control of the purse strings settles that question quickly if we are talking about magnitude of power).   Rather, I referred to the SEPARATION of their foreign policy powers. I am not wrong that Congress is responsible for funding and oversight. That means the president does not get to block or go around those funding/oversight powers. And he certainly could not defend a violation of the separation of powers on grounds of his right to free speech any more than he could so defend obstruction of the Russia investigation. 

I am not against Trump "exercising his rights" (though, to borrow your phrase, he appears to take an "a la carte" approach to the 1st Amendment, and would deny other Americans free speech on US soil, from Kapernick to network news broadcasters to whole cable channels).   But you should know by now that he is president of the US. He thus speaks for and as the US government, whether he understands this responsibility or not.  So no, an appeal to First Amendment Rights does not entitle Trump to use speech to set in motion a violation of the separation of powers, or even the appearance thereof. All government officials speaking publicly have office-appropriate limitations on their speech. A judge cannot tweet that some accused person headed for trial in his courtroom was clearly guilty, and then defend himself against removal by appeal to the 1st Amendment. Nor could an Army general who asserted in a public speech that the US Army was a Christian Army. Worse if it appears government officials are using government speech to pursue personal vendettas.

Finally, I don't have to state "definitively" that Trump made a decision for Netanyahu in order to raise the issue of separation of powers. We only need "coulda woulda" for that.  Government speech has to avoid appearance of suppression of rights. And presidential speech has to avoid the appearance of violating the separation doctrine by engineering a desired outcome in a foreign country which would interfere with a Congressperson's oversight responsibilities.

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 08:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: She has a right to travel anywhere she wants?  I don't think this is true.

Is that a binding resolution?  Also, how did the US vote on this non-binding resolution?

Can you please cite the law they are breaking in denying her access?  Also, what human rights are we talking about?  Where are these rights codified and under what authority?  I know about rights as a US citizen, something you seem to take an a la carte approach to, but I'm not familiar with the organ of governance that proclaimed these rights you claim are being violated.

Did you already know the answer to the "binding" question before asking me? If you know that much, you should also know the US voted for Security Council Resolution 242, which passed unanimously. And with the support of Israel at the time, whose representative to the UN explicitly disavowed any intent to annex the occupied territory.

You might also know that the foundation of the resolution was in international law, which, since the 1949 UN Charter, specifically forbids countries from acquiring new territory by force. It also forbids importing and settling the occupier's population in occupied territory. (See for example, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=77068F12B8857C4DC12563CD0051BDB0.)

International Law is not set down in a single "organ of governance."  It is affirmed in documents with international signatories, like the Geneva Convention, as well as foundational documents by organizations like the UN, the Organization of American States, and the Council of Europe. Individual members of such organizations are then bound then to uphold the law.

Hence the UN affirmation that sovereignty over the occupied territories resides with the Palestinian people, not the Israeli state.  (e.g., UN resolution 3236: http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20150614054045/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/738/38/IMG/NR073838.pdf?OpenElement.)  And that the administrative apparatus set up to control the occupied territories is illegal (e.g. UNSC Res. 476:  https://undocs.org/S/RES/476(1980).

If Israeli control of the West Bank is not legal, then it is not legitimate; their regulation of who may enter or leave is not legitimate. That decision should legally rest with the State of Palestine. (Israel disagrees, of course, disputing that the West Bank is "occupied territory" within months after the the vote on Resolution 242, arguing that the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter's definition only applied to already constituted states.)  

More later . . . .

*Further, even "customary" international practices may, after a time, be regarded as international law, even not actually written down anywhere.

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 08:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They have a right leaning conservative government that they voted for.  The next election they may not, much like the US.  That doesn't change the fact that they hold elections.  

Elections alone don't make for liberal democracy. Israel is an ethnic democracy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2019, 12:42 AM)Dill Wrote: Elections alone don't make for liberal democracy. Israel is an ethnic democracy.

Inshallah, amirite?

Your defense of Omar's anitsemitism is starting to make a lot more sense.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2019, 12:36 AM)Dill Wrote: Did you already know the answer to the "binding" question before asking me? If you know that much, you should also know the US voted for Security Council Resolution 242, which passed unanimously. And with the support of Israel at the time, whose representative to the UN explicitly disavowed any intent to annex the occupied territory.

Kind of like Iran's complete disavowal of seeking nuclear weapons which doesn't appear to trouble you at all.  You seem to have a double standard that is predicated on a certain set of circumstances.  If I could just put my finger on what those particulars are...  

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say, whoever is giving you advice about your overuse of hyperbole is spot on.  Your posts would certainly benefit from a cessation it its use.

(08-17-2019, 01:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Elections alone don't make for liberal democracy. Israel is an ethnic democracy.
Inshallah, amirite?
Your defense of Omar's anitsemitism is starting to make a lot more sense.

(08-17-2019, 01:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:  And with the support of Israel at the time, whose representative to the UN explicitly disavowed any intent to annex the occupied territory.
Kind of like Iran's complete disavowal of seeking nuclear weapons which doesn't appear to trouble you at all.  You seem to have a double standard that is predicated on a certain set of circumstances.  If I could just put my finger on what those particulars are...  

You ask questions and in answer get two posts explaining legal issues, plus one properly classifying Israeli democracy. The response is diversionary personal attack, meaning you are unable to respond in kind.

I don't call you a "white nationalist" because you run interference for Trump on thread after thread. (See my discussion of authoritarian framing in post #35 above, and the link in post #55 below.)

If you don't know what ethnic democracy is, and are unable to Google, all you have to do is ask--if your goal is clarity and not smoke.

[Dill]

(08-17-2019, 01:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kind of like Iran's complete disavowal of seeking nuclear weapons which doesn't appear to trouble you at all.  You seem to have a double standard that is predicated on a certain set of circumstances.  If I could just put my finger on what those particulars are...  

LOL all falls into place when you factor in the Illuminati.   https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/2/

Normally I don't track a red herring, but this one is based on such a desperate and unstable analogy, I cannot resist a few comments.

I'm guessing the consistent standard here would be to "disavow" BOTH illegal settlement of occupied territory AND an Iranian bomb. Is there any evidence I wouldn't do both?

Also, Iran doesn't have a bomb, and until Trump trashed the Iran Deal, wasn't on the path to getting one.  For your analogy to work, Iran would have to "avow" a bomb and build it in plain sight. And then I would have to "appear not to be troubled."

In any case, what does Iranian nuclear policy have to do with illegal settlement of the West Bank--other than to distract from Israel's behavior and the theme of this thread?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 10:59 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't call you a "white nationalist" because you run interference for Trump on thread after thread. (See my discussion of authoritarian framing in post #35 above, and the link in post #55 below.)

That's a smart move on your part since I don't do that.  This would be easily disproven on your part if it where true btw.

Quote:If you don't know what ethnic democracy is, and are unable to Google, all you have to do is ask--if your goal is clarity and not smoke.

I'm aware of what it is.

(08-19-2019, 11:00 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL all falls into place when you factor in the Illuminati.   https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/2/

Normally I don't track a red herring, but this one is based on such a desperate and unstable analogy, I cannot resist a few comments.

I'm guessing the consistent standard here would be to "disavow" BOTH illegal settlement of occupied territory AND an Iranian bomb. Is there any evidence I wouldn't do both?

Uhh, yes.

Quote:But Iran doesn't have a bomb, and until Trump trashed the Iran Deal, wasn't on the path to getting one. 

The second part is patently untrue, but please continue.

Quote:Why should someone be "troubled" by Iran's disavowal of nuclear weapons?

By the disavowal, not at all.  By then pursuing them anyways, absolutely.

Quote:What does Iranian nuclear policy have to do with illegal settlement of the West Bank--other than to distract from Israel's behavior?

Nothing, except to point out the obvious double standard you have when anything to do with islam comes into play.  We get it, you don't like that Israel exists.  Point taken, let's move on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

In a shrewd attempt to fire back Omar and Tlaib retweeted a cartoon by a man who won second place in Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-omar-share-image-by-artist-who-once-entered-irans-holocaust-cartoon-contest


Too be fair, I didn't really think the cartoon they tweeted was antisemitic. Inaccurate, yes, but not antisemitic. But to tweet anything from a person who participated in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition hosted by the Iranian government (yeah they said they had nothing to do with it. I don't believe that for a second), let alone won second place is a horribly stupid move on their part. Here's a link with some of the other "winners" from that contest.

https://www.memri.org/reports/tehran-presents-winners-irans-2016-holocaust-international-cartoon-contest

[GMDino]

(08-19-2019, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In a shrewd attempt to fire back Omar and Tlaib retweeted a cartoon by a man who won second place in Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-omar-share-image-by-artist-who-once-entered-irans-holocaust-cartoon-contest


Too be fair, I didn't really think the cartoon they tweeted was antisemitic.  Inaccurate, yes, but not antisemitic. But to tweet anything from a person who participated in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition hosted by the Iranian government (yeah they said they had nothing to do with it.  I don't believe that for a second), let alone won second place is a horribly stupid move on their part.  Here's a link with some of the other "winners" from that contest.

https://www.memri.org/reports/tehran-presents-winners-irans-2016-holocaust-international-cartoon-contest

Will this now move into guilt by association?  And do we want to go there in a topic about Trump and Israel?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2019, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Will this now move into guilt by association?  And do we want to go there in a topic about Trump and Israel?

You can go wherever you'd like.  My reasons for making that post are explained within it.  

[Dill]

(08-19-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: I don't call you a "white nationalist" because you run interference for Trump on thread after thread. (See my discussion of authoritarian framing in post #35 above, and the link in post #55 below.)
That's a smart move on your part since I don't do that.  This would be easily disproven on your part if it where true btw.

As easily disproven as my supposed support of anti-semitism.  Absence of proof (and of desire to fog) stops me, but not you. That's my point.

(08-19-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: I'm guessing the consistent standard here would be to "disavow" BOTH illegal settlement of occupied territory AND an Iranian bomb. Is there any evidence I wouldn't do both?

Uhh, yes

Well is that evidence classified or something?  Or another impression based on sweeping reference to my "history"?

(08-19-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But Iran doesn't have a bomb, and until Trump trashed the Iran Deal, wasn't on the path to getting one. 

The second part is patently untrue, but please continue.
By the disavowal, not at all.  By then pursuing them anyways, absolutely.

Apparently "patent untruths" also don't require evidence. Just what we "already know" about Iran. Like we knew about Saddam's WMDs.

(08-19-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:What does Iranian nuclear policy have to do with illegal settlement of the West Bank--other than to distract from Israel's behavior?

Nothing, except to point out the obvious double standard you have when anything to do with islam comes into play.  We get it, you don't like that Israel exists.  Point taken, let's move on.

Ha ha, "we."   You just failed to demonstrate an "obvious double standard" on this thread. 

So why should "we" believe your "obvious double standards" are obvious? Or your "patent untruths" are patently untrue?  

Your "arguments" here are nothing more than a form of special pleading--that your claims should be accepted at face value; that mine should require evidence.  That is also a double standard.

One final clarification: Under international law Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal.
That is the point you want to "move on" from, not that I "don't like Israel."