08-16-2019, 08:23 PM
(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.
