Israel Bans Omar/Tlaib

[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.