• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outspoken Congresswomen Barred From Entering Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tlrmln said:
Perhaps you'll figure out that this has been the case for all of modern of history.

For 400 years, it was occupied by the Ottomans.

Then it was occupied by the Jordanians.

But for some reason, only the Israelis are criticized for occupying it in response to being invaded.
Click to expand...

The Israelis are the invaders. The Palestinians were the indigenous people of the land prior to 1948.
 
Atomic Kid said:
The Israelis are the invaders. The Palestinians were the indigenous people of the land prior to 1948.
Click to expand...

The Israelis, but not the Turks, or the Jordanians (or the Persians, or the Romans, or the ...etc.). Got it.
 
Tlrmln said:
The Israelis, but not the Turks, or the Jordanians (or the Persians, or the Romans, or the ...etc.). Got it.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, we aren't talking ancient history here. :roll:We're talking about the here and now.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Yeah well, we aren't talking ancient history here. :roll:We're talking about the here and now.
Click to expand...

Not really. We're talking about a piece of land that was never actually owned by the people who are now claiming to own it simply by virtue of the fact that they were born there.
 
Tlrmln said:
Not really. We're talking about a piece of land that was never actually owned by the people who are now claiming to own it simply by virtue of the fact that they were born there.
Click to expand...

Oh yes they did own it. And the lawsuits brought against Israel to reclaim their rightful property continues to languish in the Israeli 'legal' system. What is morally and ethically wrong doesn't change all that much over time. What was wrong then is still wrong now.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Oh yes they did own it. And the lawsuits brought against Israel to reclaim their rightful property continues to languish in the Israeli 'legal' system. What is morally and ethically wrong doesn't change all that much over time. What was wrong then is still wrong now.
Click to expand...

Really? When? At what point did the indigenous people of the West Bank or Gaza ultimately govern themselves?
 
gulfman said:
Let them visit Iran or North Korea instead.Then see how long their heads stay on their necks.
Click to expand...

Pretty amazing that you have to go to Iran and NK.
 
Tlrmln said:
Really? When? At what point did the indigenous people of the West Bank or Gaza ultimately govern themselves?
Click to expand...

God willing hopefully one day soon.
 
Atomic Kid said:
God willing hopefully one day soon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because they have made such great choices so far. Maybe if they get FULL independence, they'll double down and elect Al Qaeda to govern them.
 
j-mac said:
"Within the past decade, Israel has started banning people from entering the country who support the BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) movement against Israel. These two representatives were denied entry into Israel on these grounds as both openly support BDS.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office stated today: “Israeli law prohibits the entry into Israel of those who call for and work to impose boycotts on Israel, as do other democracies that prohibit the entry of people who seek to harm the country.”

Israel Denies Rep. Omar and Rep. Talib Visit | Corey Gary | The Blogs

This whole thing is a stunt...Israel was absolutely right to deny them.
Click to expand...

Dude, even AIPAC has condemned the ban.
 
Deuce said:
"Look at how free and open my country is. If you criticize our government in an unapproved fashion, we ban you from the country."

**** you, Bibi.
Click to expand...

Lying is the #1 tactic of the Democratic Party - always. As Joe Biden said, the Democratic Party must no longer tolerate "facts."

In FACT, no one was banned entry for "criticizing" Israel and this specifically stated. Americans, including officials, who have "criticized" Israel have been allowed entry. Rather, Israeli law prohibits allowing entry to anyone who is openly calling for economic warfare again Israel causing suffering to its citizens and endangering the very survival of Israel given that hundreds of millions of fellow Muslims of those Congresswomen call for the elimination of Israel as a nation.

Banning people, particularly foreign officials, who openly call for the destruction of Israel by economic warfare is obviously the rational course of action. Only self destructive people such as so many Democratic Progressives (ie corporate fascists) who want Americans and the USA massively punished and economically ruined think otherwise.

Sane, normal people not under domination control by their cult-like masters do not support their county and people being destroyed economically, militarily or in any other way - and therefore do not invite foreigners actively engaging in trying to destroy your country to come do so within their own country.
 
Last edited:
Atomic Kid said:
The Israelis are the invaders. The Palestinians were the indigenous people of the land prior to 1948.
Click to expand...

"Palestinians are indigenous" Lmao, you cannot be serious. They are Arab invaders over a couple of centuries. They were never indigenous. The Jews are the indigenous people of Israel.
 
Sheepdog said:
Israel has the right to keep these hateful Congress "women" out of their country and if you dont believe with me you are an anti Semite.
Click to expand...

Well that settles it.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Oh yes they did own it. And the lawsuits brought against Israel to reclaim their rightful property continues to languish in the Israeli 'legal' system. What is morally and ethically wrong doesn't change all that much over time. What was wrong then is still wrong now.
Click to expand...

You're factually wrong on nearly every single thing you said so far. Congratulations, it takes talent.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It might help prevent violence... regardless, I don't care if anti-Semites are banned from Israel or even Congress.
Click to expand...

I think there are many ignorant people who do not understand the activist movement Tlaib and Omar are supporting and are using their positions in the U.S. Congress to promote their agenda internationally. That activist movement is known as BDS. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions on Israel. What the "movement" stands for at its core is anti-Semitic as it attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel. This BDS movement, which seeks to inflict and encourage economic harm on the State of Israel and its people not only hurts Israelis of all religions and ethnicities, but also injures the numerous Palestinians employed by Israeli businesses.

There is a bill in the House, H. Res 246 to expose the BDS Movement in its attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel and there is overwhelming bipartisan support for it . Just because these two Democratic elected congresswoman that support BDS does not mean everyone in their party is overwhelmingly behind it. Members of their own party along with Republicans recognize it to be anti-Semitic movement cloaked in "social justice".

Netanyahu has every right to remove the welcome mat for Tlaib and Omar. They even have a law on the books to justify it as what these two are promoting will bring harm to Israel.
 
Deuce said:
Do you think banning people for disagreeing with the government improves security? Should we do that in the US?
Click to expand...

Yes, President Obama should have banned the Iranian Muslim cleric from coming into the USA by VISA to travel to Orlando, Florida with him on video stating it was to carry his message that all homosexuals should be murdered as an "act of love" to save them from sinning anymore. This not only on YouTube, but on TV news with video of him saying this was his message.

One those Muslim men in attendance then told people at work he wants to kill a lot of people and he went to a gun shop to buy a semi automatic 22 rifle, AR15 type, and lots of bullets and magazines. The people at work contacted the FBI and the gun shop contacted the AFT informing them of this and that they do not think this man should be allowed a gun.

The Obama administration had special rules about tolerance of Muslims. His FBI interviews him and he admitted he had said he wanted to kill a lot of people, but that he didn't really mean it. The ATF told the gunshop to sell him the weapon and ammo.

He then went to the Pulse nightclub (a carload of people we know were there), which was a very popular LGBT large nightclub. He shot over 100 people - with most of those wounded. The local police quickly trapped him in a bathroom with a few hostages, but Obama's FBI ordered them to get out. For 2 hours Obama's FBI tried to talk the Islamic radical terrorist to surrender, to his telling them he was doing this in retaliation for the USA's military in the Middle East and "Allah Ackbar!"

During this singular goal of saving the Muslim mass murderer, wounded and bleeding slowly to death LGBTs were begging on their cell phones to be rescued. Obama's FBI let most of those bleed to death (including 1 or the 5 young people there we knew - a gay man of Puerto Rican and Native American mixed heritage who liked to go as a Drag Queen and often won the dance contest among the Queens.) The FBI failed to get the Muslim mass murderer at terroristic war against Americans to surrender (himself a 1st generation born in the USA of immigrant parents). So Obama's FBI allowed all those gay American citizens to bleed to death for nothing.

Nearly half of those shot, 49, died and over 100 overall shot. The Obama Administration declared this was not a terroristic act. Rather, the mass murderer's motive was that he was a frustrated closet homosexual and murdered out of frustration. Why? Apparently that was the opinion of Obama's FBI and DOJ about what homosexual men are like.

Yes, that foreign Iranian cleric should have been denied a VISA for what he was saying publicly about his goals. Doesn't matter if you call it "free speech." For the same reasoning, Israel should deny entry of anyone calling for Israelis to be harmed in warfare - economic warfare.
 
Deuce said:
Do you think banning people for disagreeing with the government improves security? Should we do that in the US?
Click to expand...

You mean should we need admit non citizen subversives to the US?

No, we should not, neither should Israel.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Closed for review. Posts still subject to moderation. There is an existing thread over in the ME forum should you wish to continue these discussions.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Note to all. It is beyond obvious that there are posters in this thread who are fully aware of the the existing thread that has already been transferred to the ME forum. Instead of continuing discussions there, they have chosen to utilise this thread in an attempt to deliberately circumvent ML.

That's not ok either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom