• 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!

[*W:193*] Israel considers banning entry to outspoken US congresswomen

HumblePi said:
Essentially, he prevented them from leaving, we can't call it an out and out 'ban' but the end result was the same. Two members of Congress were prevented from traveling to Israel, which other Congressmen do regularly and freely.
Click to expand...

So, he did ban them, but you can't say that it was an out and out "ban"... do you not see, even a small problem with trying to say that he banned them from leaving, in this case?

He said nothing to the tune of banning them from leaving, only just voicing his opinion of the matter.

Then again, one was given the chance to go after giving a humanitarian reason to visit her grandmother, and then sternly refused their invitation when it was said that she would come.

So in her case, she is the reason that she isn't actually going.
 
HumblePi said:
Essentially, he prevented them from leaving, we can't call it an out and out 'ban' but the end result was the same. Two members of Congress were prevented from traveling to Israel, which other Congressmen do regularly and freely.
Click to expand...

He prevented them from leaving?

How pray tell did he do that?

Post Secret Service agents in the airports?
 
Fledermaus said:
He prevented them from leaving?

How pray tell did he do that?

Post Secret Service agents in the airports?
Click to expand...

Not physically of course, that would be silly to put it in that context. However, (pray-tell), the intense pressure by Trump on 'Bibi' Netanyahu essentially had them both barred from entering Israel for an official visit, which reversed a previous decision to admit both of them.
 
HumblePi said:
Not physically of course, that would be silly to put it in that context. However, (pray-tell), the intense pressure by Trump on 'Bibi' Netanyahu essentially had them both barred from entering Israel for an official visit, which reversed a previous decision to admit both of them.
Click to expand...

So Trump didn't actually stop anyone from leaving.

Israel decided she was persona non grata but then decided to allow entry if she didn't call for damage to Israelis....

At which point she no longer wanted to visit granny....
 
Fledermaus said:
So Trump didn't actually stop anyone from leaving.

Israel decided she was persona non grata but then decided to allow entry if she didn't call for damage to Israelis....

At which point she no longer wanted to visit granny....
Click to expand...

What he did was effective in prohibiting the travel of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib into Israel. That was the objective and the objective was accomplished.
 
HumblePi said:
What he did was effective in prohibiting the travel of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib into Israel. That was the objective and the objective was accomplished.
Click to expand...

What power does a President have to prevent someone from entering another country?

And she was allowed entry only to refuse to enter.....

IT WAS A PUBLICITY STUNT....
 
Evilroddy said:
Quite apart from the decisions made by the State of Israel regarding the two Congresswomen, the bigger question for Americans should be can/should one branch of the US Government (the Executive) have the power to block another branch from going on international fact-finding missions abroad in order to conduct investigations which the executive may not approve of? That is a very dangerous precedent and one that could erode both American institutional and personal liberties at the discretion of the US Executive.

On the Israeli side of the equation, can/should an occupying power block international investigators from visiting militarily occupied territories once military operations and open hostilities have fallen to the level of sporadic resistance. From an international perspective, the two congresswomen wanted to visit East Jerusalem and the West Bank, both occupied territories where Israeli law does not apply except military law and these territories are not recognised as part of the State of Israel, so the anti-BDS law does not apply to them strictly speaking. Suppose the two Congresswomen had travelled to Jordan and tried to enter the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordanian territory. Could and should the State of Israel legally stopped them?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

They are American. According to American law, East Jerusalem is Israeli territory. Just like it is according to Israeli law (which is the only one that matters when applied to the de facto control).
 
Apocalypse said:
They are American. According to American law, East Jerusalem is Israeli territory. Just like it is according to Israeli law (which is the only one that matters when applied to the de facto control).
Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

Cite the "law" because no such "law" exists. The fact that the US Government has recognised the Israeli claim to East Jerusalem does not make it law, nor does it make it a permanent recognition on the part of the USA. New elections may bring changes in that recognition. Finally, US recognition does not determine international law and does not change the rules of the various conventions which prevent the forceful military acquisition of territory during war by states since 1948. Nor does Israeli law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:

Cite the "law" because no such "law" exists. The fact that the US Government has recognised the Israeli claim to East Jerusalem does not make it law, nor does it make it a permanent recognition on the part of the USA. New elections may bring changes in that recognition. Finally, US recognition does not determine international law and does not change the rules of the various conventions which prevent the forceful military acquisition of territory during war by states since 1948. Nor does Israeli law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

It means that the US, the country these two women are lawmakers at, considers East Jerusalem as Israeli territory just like it is.
So for American congressmembers to be visiting East Jeursalem they are visiting Israel according to their own country (and to the facts on the ground).
 
Apocalypse said:
Your argument doesn't matter. In reality Israel is a liberal democracy, no matter how much it upsets you.
You cannot force another sovereign country to take in your lawmakers no matter how much you agree with their politics.
I'm not even sure why it upsets you so much that a country doesn't let in lawmakers from your country when they are working to harm it and its people.
Click to expand...

Sure, they're the sort of liberal democracy that claims that a deity, who chose them above all others, entitled them to take the land and imprison the Arab population. They're the sort of "democracy" that claims its constitution was inspired or guided by the Torah. Why does the right have to lie so brazenly in the face of contradictory facts? Let me ask you this one burning question, is there special treatment for Jews there?

As for the women "working to harm Israel", how does it harm Israel for these women to notice their oppressive, authoritarianism but it doesn't hurt Israel to actually be oppressive and authoritarian?

I think you knew before you wrote word one that you were wrong. We are Americans and we should never shrink away from the truth in order to placate even a useful ally.

Those women aren't wrong about Israel, they're just hypocrites for being Americans who say these things about them. But, we're apparently engaged in some sort of mutual denial pact, or something.

No, it's your own argument that falls flat. You demonstrate well, however, that magical thinking pervades conservative rhetoric, acting as an impenetrable wall of dumb through which no facts can gain purchase in their cookie-cutter minds. The shame of it is that you would sell out your own countrymen to preserve, in your minds, a reductionist myth about Israel being the ever-beseached-upon island of love in a sea of muslim/liberal slander. It's almost too stupid to believe conscious adults think it. But, it's the American theocrats who set the bar, so....yeah.
 
Taylor said:
So Israel invites them in, and in response Tweedles Dee and Dumb spit at them and tell Israel they're going to "Palestine" to do more spitting.

OMG, Trump!! :lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

What I find strange is that everyone attacks Netynahu and Trump as the bad buys in the debate of Israel and Palestine. Never does the leftist liberals and Democrats ever suggest the real problem in a solution is Hamas. The Palestinians only have to get rid of Iran backed terrorist groups leading them and Israel would make a deal with them. No more Hamas, PLO's or other terrorist groups to lead Palestinians and the problem will be peacefully resolved.
 
They call these two members part of the 'squad' but the way our immigration laws are formed unless Trump can stem the tide
in a decade or two these types will no longer be a 'squad' it will be more like a 'battalion'. Never in American history
have we witnessed even a hint of these Muslim fanatics viewpoints.

The good news is that though Omar whose district is more or less a Somali Muslim stronghold & she'll be re-elacted
again & again. Tlieb on the other hand won her race by being the only Muslim by defeating 5 black candidates that
split up the votes in that district. In the upcoming primary the blacks intend to run just one candidate against her
& more than likely her House membership will come to an abrupt end.
 
HumblePi said:
[h=1]Israel considers banning entry to outspoken US congresswomen[/h]Israel official: Netanyahu weighing ban on Omar, Tlaib visit - ABC News
Israel's prime minister and other top officials were meeting on Thursday to reevaluate the decision to allow two Democratic congresswomen who support the Palestinian-led boycott movement to enter the country next week.

An Israeli official said they were meeting about an upcoming visit by Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. The newly-elected Muslim members of Congress are outspoken critics of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Tlaib's family immigrated to the United States from the West Bank.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, said "there is a possibility that Israel will not allow the visit in its current proposed format."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's official. Based on Trump's recommendation, Israel has banned both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Wave 'bye bye' to your Constitutional freedoms people, they just got thrown out the window and are no longer part of the Constitution. Freedom of speech will come at a heavy price from now on.
Click to expand...

You heard it here first people... Israel denied entry of some foreigners and that means that our Constitutional Freedoms were just thrown out the window. All it took was one Tweet by Trump and like that (SNAP!), they are gone...
 
D_NATURED said:
Sure, they're the sort of liberal democracy that claims that a deity, who chose them above all others, entitled them to take the land and imprison the Arab population. They're the sort of "democracy" that claims its constitution was inspired or guided by the Torah. Why does the right have to lie so brazenly in the face of contradictory facts? Let me ask you this one burning question, is there special treatment for Jews there?

As for the women "working to harm Israel", how does it harm Israel for these women to notice their oppressive, authoritarianism but it doesn't hurt Israel to actually be oppressive and authoritarian?

I think you knew before you wrote word one that you were wrong. We are Americans and we should never shrink away from the truth in order to placate even a useful ally.

Those women aren't wrong about Israel, they're just hypocrites for being Americans who say these things about them. But, we're apparently engaged in some sort of mutual denial pact, or something.

No, it's your own argument that falls flat. You demonstrate well, however, that magical thinking pervades conservative rhetoric, acting as an impenetrable wall of dumb through which no facts can gain purchase in their cookie-cutter minds. The shame of it is that you would sell out your own countrymen to preserve, in your minds, a reductionist myth about Israel being the ever-beseached-upon island of love in a sea of muslim/liberal slander. It's almost too stupid to believe conscious adults think it. But, it's the American theocrats who set the bar, so....yeah.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you seem to believe that your inability to face reality should effect other people.
No, Israel isn't a theocracy. No, its historical claim to the land is historical and not religious. Religious claims do not hold any water, since religion is completely subjective and depends purely on belief.

These two promote boycotts against Israel and promote antisemitic nonsense and there's no reason for Israel to let them in and you cannot force a sovereign country to let in radicals that you align with politically.
It's really weird that you think you can, but then again you seem to believe many weird things.
 
Taylor said:
They certainly do the opposite:

Carter says Hamas leader committed to peace, Netanyahu not
Ex-president doesn't meet PM, says it would be a 'waste of time'; claims Mashaal is 'not a terrorist' and 'strongly in favor of peace process'
Carter says Hamas leader committed to peace, Netanyahu not | The Times of Israel
Click to expand...

As Mashaal lobs missiles into Israel killing Israeli citizens. Netanyahu simply doesn't want to give up any land nor Jerusalem. And, he doesn't believe a terrorist, just Yassirfat of the PLO talked about peace before he'd kill Israelis.
 
Apocalypse said:
I'm not sure why you seem to believe that your inability to face reality should effect other people.
No, Israel isn't a theocracy. No, its historical claim to the land is historical and not religious. Religious claims do not hold any water, since religion is completely subjective and depends purely on belief.

These two promote boycotts against Israel and promote antisemitic nonsense and there's no reason for Israel to let them in and you cannot force a sovereign country to let in radicals that you align with politically.
It's really weird that you think you can, but then again you seem to believe many weird things.
Click to expand...

It's weird how liberals think other countries have to live by our form of democratic republic rules with a Constitution that allows free speech. Israel is a sovereign nation with its own rules. All we can do is suggest and in this case, those two witches need to stay far away from Israel.
 
Cougarbear said:
It's weird how liberals think other countries have to live by our form of democratic republic rules with a Constitution that allows free speech. Israel is a sovereign nation with its own rules. All we can do is suggest and in this case, those two witches need to stay far away from Israel.
Click to expand...

Except they don’t. China? Venezuela? Pakistan? Indonesia? Myanmar? Turkey?

Only Israel. Which to anyone trying to pay attention is easily recognizable as not being anywhere close to as bad as any of these and many more countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Josie said:
1. It's not "official". Do you even read your own link or maybe just the title? There's no decision yet.

2. The US Constitution isn't an Israeli document. In fact, they already have a law on the books supporting blocking their entry into the country.
Click to expand...

I am very familiar with Israel’s policy of blocking people and the populations of entire nations from entry. Other countries have also blocked all Israeli citizens from entry.

All of it bothers me. I think it’s wrong. I don’t think a country should ban people over speech, no country should do it.

I am also highly concerned that so many American right wingers in this country don’t see this an issue.
 
Perotista said:
They have freedom of speech. We have the first amendment, other countries do not. Those two can say whatever they want here in the USA. Israel is a sovereign country and can let whomever visit it wants or deny those they don't want to visit. Israel like very other nation has the right to allow those in they want in and to deny those entry they want to deny. This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Both congresswoman can continue to spout off and say whatever they want. That hasn't been hindered.
Click to expand...

These arguments are exactly why Trumps rhetoric of a Muslim ban were a real threat. I am not comfortable with Israel’s policies on these matters, and other nations similarly targeting Israel. My husband can’t visit Israel, because of his birth place. His nation of origin does not allow anybody with an Israeli passport in either.

Americans shouldn’t be defending such immigration and entry policies. The American passport is currently the most powerful passport to hold in the world, and we don’t put a travel ban on somebody unless for good reason
 
Harshaw said:
What exactly do "Constitutional freedoms" have to do with whom Israel decides to let in or not?

People around here were cheering the idea of the UK banning entry to Trump.
Click to expand...


Our constitution has to do with our values of giving Israel our blessing or not. This country also elected a man who called for a Muslim ban. The issue is very much about our values. If you want to excuse this and give Israel your blessing, then it’s fair to ask if you think our VISA process should look more like Israel’s.
 
Felis Leo said:
First, your statement is incomprehensible. Either Donald Trump controls Israel or Israel controls Donald Trump. Choose your conspiracy theory and stick to it.

Second, whatever Donald Trump did, that does not change the fact that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib hate Israel and would want to see the country done away with if they could. No sovereign country should be forced to suffer entry of their nation's self-declared enemies into their midst.
Click to expand...

Check with Trump. He has a problem with Jewish disloyalties
 
SheWolf said:
Check with Trump. He has a problem with Jewish disloyalties
Click to expand...

It is wrong when Ilhan Omar attacks Jewish loyalty to the United States as a wedge against Israel. It is wrong when Donald Trump attacks Jewish loyalty as a wedge for Israel. Attacking anyone's loyalty to their country for no other reason than disagreeing with you politically makes you a rotten piece of garbage. Hence, why I consider both Omar and Donald Trump rotten pieces of garbage on a personal level.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
Our constitution has to do with our values of giving Israel our blessing or not. This country also elected a man who called for a Muslim ban. The issue is very much about our values. If you want to excuse this and give Israel your blessing, then it’s fair to ask if you think our VISA process should look more like Israel’s.
Click to expand...

The problem with you is that you delude yourself into believing that the executive branch has the ultimate power....It doesn't just as it has not for every president who preceded President Trump.... There are two other branches of government.

The judicial said Trump's decision had nothing to do with banning Muslims because of their religion, because it never did.

in June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the third version of the travel ban in a 5-4 decision. That version restricted the entry of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea and Venezuela.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's majority opinion, saying Trump's directive was "facially neutral toward religion."
"The proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

Although five of the seven nations in the order have Muslim-majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Roberts added, saying that the policy covered 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and was limited to countries previously designated by Congress or other administrations as posing national security risks.
Click to expand...

Trump-O-Meter: Establish a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. | PolitiFact
 
Felis Leo said:
It is wrong when Ilhan Omar attacks Jewish loyalty to the United States as a wedge against Israel. It is wrong when Donald Trump attacks Jewish loyalty as a wedge for Israel. Attacking anyone's loyalty to their country for no other reason than disagreeing with them politically makes you a rotten piece of garbage. Hence, why I consider both Omar and Donald Trump rotten pieces of garbage on a personal level.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom