Israel bars U.S. Democratic lawmakers under pressure from Trump

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well I was wrong. 

Tlaib won't accept the restrictions and won't take the trip to visit her Grandma.

I don't blame her for that but that's a shame and this entire mess was completely avoidable if only "trump" had kept his piehole shut. 

 

It was a PR stunt.

 

Her initial "humanitarian grounds" request clearly included acceptance of any conditions involved. Soon as it was approved she declined citing the very same conditions as the reason.

[Baerboxer]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Havent you heard of netanyahu invited to US to talk to the senate to spout his vitriol? You really dont know that happens?

 

Are you suggesting an elected government can't invite who it wants from any other country to address it's parliament? Or only ones you approve of?

 

Bit like the jerks in London who all opposed Trumps visit but had no problem with Xi or King Saud. 

 

 

[Morch]

42 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Disinformation again!

 

>>Their visit had nothing to do with overseeing how aid funds were put to use. Both pretty much oppose such aid anyway.

"As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is my job to conduct oversight of foreign aid from the United States of America and to legislate on human rights practices around the world. The irony of the 'only democracy' in the Middle East making such a decision is that it is both an insult to democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation."
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Rashida-Tlaib-and-Ilhan-Omar-respond-to-Israels-decision-to-bar-them-598786

 

And yet, they had no meetings scheduled with Israeli officials. No visits to any facilities and such related to USA Aid etc. Wonder how they were going to check on things.

[dexterm]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

Try as you might whitewash her words, your rendition is not quite how they were accepted and understood. Even her own party distanced itself from her statements. She was rebuked and had to publish some fake apology/clarification.

 

Ilhan Omar and the Myth of Jewish Hypnosis

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/ilhan-omar-israel-jews.html

 

Ilhan Omar Apologizes for Statements Condemned as Anti-Semitic

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/politics/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html

 

House Foreign Affairs leader tells Omar to apologize for saying pro-Israel groups push foreign allegiance

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/ilhan-omar-engel-statement/index.html

 

That you don't see an issue with her statements and views means very little, considering your posting history and agenda.

 

As I have shown above the anti Semitic claims against Omar were complete hype. Opinion piece links do not support your claims either.

 

How people perceive Omar's words or more like deliberately choose to perceive, is not her problem. 

All gets a bit silly. You cant use the word "hypnotise" or "money" when discussing US relations with Israel. Utter nonsense.

 

Trump himself has done and said far worse: addressing a group of Jewish Americans recently and repeatedly referring to Netanyahu as "your country's Prime Minister".

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-slamming-omar-for-anti-semitic-tropes-trump-pulls-out-some-of-his-own-1.7090268

 

Omar was made to apologise by cowards who are frightened of admitting the truth. She should not have apologised because anti semitism was not her intention.

That's what appals me the cowardice and hypocrisy of both sides in US politics to speak the truth. A case of PEP...Progressive Except for Palestine.

 

The one good thing that may come out of all this is for a few more voters to have the scales lifted from their eyes about the true relationship between USA and Israel, thanks to Trump and Netayahu's blundering

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, Sujo said:

 

Again misquoting and misrepresenting what I said. No surprise there.

 

1. I never said israel was obliged to do anything. My subsequent posts made that clear that israel can do whatever it likes, its the fact trump intervened that i said was wrong.

 

2. Preaching 1 sided extreme and bigoted policies are not confined to these two. Netanyahu is quite good at that.

 

3. Pretending you think you know what they will say and do is only your opinion, nothing else.

 

4. I know it was approved then denied after trump got involved. I have posted that same thing. Take your biased blinkers off.

 

5. I did not say they must be compelled to allow them, i even stated in other posts that israel can do what they want, but it was trumps intervention that was wrong. So please do learn to read.

 

6. My comment re trump being banned was a sarcastic response to those thinking its ok to ban the congresswomen simply because they dont like their views.

 

so you really should learn to read posts and a bit of comprehension before you go off track misrepresenting my posts. Yet again.

 

you do have a bad habit of that, even with dexterms posts you denigrate his opinions with your own but offer nothing on facts.

 

I guess you have your own interpretation of what "quote" means, and that this leads you to make the repeated nonsense claims about being misquoted. For the record, your posts were included in their entirety when I replied.

 

When Netnayahu comes to the USA he does so on invitation. His views might not be your (or mine) cup of tea, but as far as I recall, he never called for a boycott on the USA and such. Your comparison doesn't hold. The two congresswomen may certainly preach their creed in the USA - it doesn't follow that the same applies when visiting the country they harshly criticize.

 

And no, not "my opinion" when it comes to "what they will say", they were pretty clear about their agenda and intentions. I think it would be naive to expect something else out of them.

 

I think that "don't like their views" is minimizing their rhetoric, which goes beyond that. It isn't like all countries (not even Western ones) allow all people and all views in.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It was a PR stunt.

 

Her initial "humanitarian grounds" request clearly included acceptance of any conditions involved. Soon as it was approved she declined citing the very same conditions as the reason.

I'm not saying she's a saint but if the initial unrestricted visit was allowed it would have been a minor news story.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Anyone who pretends that these two opinionated Muslim ladies aren't following their Pro-Palestinian Pro-Muslim anti-semetic anti-Israel agendas is either extremely naive, foolish or pushing their own similar agenda.

 

An interesting similarity. The American left, the Democrats, like the British left, the Labor Party, both seem to be adopting anti Jewish pro Muslim stands. Although denying it of course. Islam as a political system as well as religion, has always got on well with totalitarian dictatorships that deny democracy, dissent and criticism such as the USSR, Nazi Germany. Democracy, real democracy, seems to be under threat in many many countries where it has traditionally existed.

 

I think one of them (Omar) holds antisemitic views. The other, maybe, but at least not overtly that I can tell. Being anti-Israel, anti-Israel's right-wing government, anti-the-Israeli-occupation or pro-Palestinian is legit - regardless if one agrees with such views.

 

I don't think that there's quite the same phenomenon such as you describe in the USA. For one, the USA's "left" is not all that "lefty", for real. And of course, the USA comes with less historical baggage when it's concerned to these issues.

 

Kinda sad so many posters feel the need to harness any semi-related topic to push extreme agendas, left or right.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Havent you heard of netanyahu invited to US to talk to the senate to spout his vitriol? You really dont know that happens?

 

41 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes, the republican held senate does exactly that inviting netanyahu to give a speach on the floor.

 

The key elements here would be that (a) Netanyau was invited, (b) his "vitriol" wasn't targeting the USA, and (c) it was considered controversial both in the USA and Israel.

 

Your comparison doesn't stand.

[BestB]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It was a PR stunt.

 

Her initial "humanitarian grounds" request clearly included acceptance of any conditions involved. Soon as it was approved she declined citing the very same conditions as the reason.

Perhaps if she was American Muslim instead of Muslim American then she would get more support. Once initial outrage passes and dust settles more might see her true colours and intentions. 

[dexterm]

36 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The US gives more money to Afghanistan and Iraq (2017 figures). Has she arranged oversight trips to those countries first?

 

Many African countries, including her own birth country Somalia, also receive substantial amounts of US Aid. Does she also plan oversight visits to these countries, given their unfortunate reputations for corruption and misspending of aid money?

 

Has she made any comments about any other  country receiving US Aid and/or planned any other oversight visits?

 

Or is she simply using her position on this committee and US Aid as an excuse to try and go to Israel for provocation and to further her own agenda?

Apart from your silly whataboutery maybe you have a point. Perhaps the US needs more brave politicians like Omar and Tlaib to speak up and question how US taxpayers money is being misused world wide.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. Israel generally does not allow supporters of BDS, which represents an existential threat to the existence of the Jewish State, entry in to the country. It seems they were willing to look the other way because these two were US Congressmen, but do you think Israel was happy about that? Do you think Bibi wanted these two parading around it the territories? Yes, it is possible Trump was just perusing "the shows" and saw the story and then, as he is won't to do, decided to Tweet his personal opinion about it. But it seems just as likely that Israel specifically requested that Trump provide them with "permission" to ban the two, which would be the total opposite of "pressure". "Pressure" in any case seems like the wrong word because it implies strong arming when I don't think anybody on either side of this debate thinks Israel actually wanted these two in their country to begin with. Trump either unilaterally gave Israel permission to do the thing they preferred to do anyway or he was asked behind the scenes to make that Tweet so that the heat for Israel's decision would fall on Trump rather than Israel. 

 

I said nothing about Netanyahu or other Israeli officials being happy about the visit. Quite the opposite.

 

As for your "just as likely" bit - do you have any shred of support for that conspiracy theory your just posted? Just asking because of that "assuming facts, not evidence" opening line.

 

There was some lively debate about the visit in Israel during the past weeks. Con and Pro considerations weren't kept secret, exactly. And as facts go - the visit was approved. Same goes for the following PR act by Tlaib.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Great. I will take half your house then offer half back, the other half will have my friends as squatters in it until u agree to the terms. If u dont agree i willmtake more and more aquatters will come and i will offer you less.

 

great deal.

 

In a few lines, you've managed to disregard that the conflict was on before the Israeli occupation, and before the Israeli illegal settlements became an issue. Whiitewashing Palestinian rejectionism and what it cost the Palestinian people is a choice.

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. Israel generally does not allow supporters of BDS, which represents an existential threat to the existence of the Jewish State, entry in to the country. It seems they were willing to look the other way because these two were US Congressmen, but do you think Israel was happy about that? Do you think Bibi wanted these two parading around it the territories? Yes, it is possible Trump was just perusing "the shows" and saw the story and then, as he is won't to do, decided to Tweet his personal opinion about it. But it seems just as likely that Israel specifically requested that Trump provide them with "permission" to ban the two, which would be the total opposite of "pressure". "Pressure" in any case seems like the wrong word because it implies strong arming when I don't think anybody on either side of this debate thinks Israel actually wanted these two in their country to begin with. Trump either unilaterally gave Israel permission to do the thing they preferred to do anyway or he was asked behind the scenes to make that Tweet so that the heat for Israel's decision would fall on Trump rather than Israel. 

No, he said he spoke to ‘someone’ in israel about it. Not just tweeted.

 

though a whitehouse spokesperson said it was fake news trump later stated he did in fact discuss it and it was passed up the chain in israel. After that he sent the tweet.

 

he just threw his spokesperson under the bus, yet again.

[Sujo]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I guess you have your own interpretation of what "quote" means, and that this leads you to make the repeated nonsense claims about being misquoted. For the record, your posts were included in their entirety when I replied.

 

When Netnayahu comes to the USA he does so on invitation. His views might not be your (or mine) cup of tea, but as far as I recall, he never called for a boycott on the USA and such. Your comparison doesn't hold. The two congresswomen may certainly preach their creed in the USA - it doesn't follow that the same applies when visiting the country they harshly criticize.

 

And no, not "my opinion" when it comes to "what they will say", they were pretty clear about their agenda and intentions. I think it would be naive to expect something else out of them.

 

I think that "don't like their views" is minimizing their rhetoric, which goes beyond that. It isn't like all countries (not even Western ones) allow all people and all views in.

 

 

 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, dexterm said:

As I have shown above the anti Semitic claims against Omar were complete hype. Opinion piece links do not support your claims either.

 

How people perceive Omar's words or more like deliberately choose to perceive, is not her problem. 

All gets a bit silly. You cant use the word "hypnotise" or "money" when discussing US relations with Israel. Utter nonsense.

 

Trump himself has done and said far worse: addressing a group of Jewish Americans recently and repeatedly referring to Netanyahu as "your country's Prime Minister".

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-slamming-omar-for-anti-semitic-tropes-trump-pulls-out-some-of-his-own-1.7090268

 

Omar was made to apologise by cowards who are frightened of admitting the truth. She should not have apologised because anti semitism was not her intention.

That's what appals me the cowardice and hypocrisy of both sides in US politics to speak the truth. A case of PEP...Progressive Except for Palestine.

 

The one good thing that may come out of all this is for a few more voters to have the scales lifted from their eyes about the true relationship between USA and Israel, thanks to Trump and Netayahu's blundering

 

You haven't "shown" anything. You opined - and given that the range of your views on related issues is rather limited, said opinion doesn't carry much weight. But do go on about "opinion pieces" - or ignore the fact that not all links provided were such.

 

In the same vein, what you decide is "silly" or "not her problem" doesn't reflect how her comments were received. That you don't see (or pretend not to see) an issue doesn't mean a whole lot. Funny enough, you often go on rants alleging hidden meaning is politicians statements - when it suits.

 

I'm not defending Trump. Unless you've missed it - not on his corner. That doesn't make Omar comments any more acceptable, though.

 

As for labeling her party members "cowards", well that's the sort of rhetoric you resort to whenever some politician fails to act according to your views. Your standing PEP nonsense was dealt with on several past topics, give it a rest.

 

Me, I don't think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a deciding factor in USA elections, but then I'm  not solely focused on a single issue, like some.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You haven't "shown" anything. You opined - and given that the range of your views on related issues is rather limited, said opinion doesn't carry much weight. But do go on about "opinion pieces" - or ignore the fact that not all links provided were such.

 

In the same vein, what you decide is "silly" or "not her problem" doesn't reflect how her comments were received. That you don't see (or pretend not to see) an issue doesn't mean a whole lot. Funny enough, you often go on rants alleging hidden meaning is politicians statements - when it suits.

 

I'm not defending Trump. Unless you've missed it - not on his corner. That doesn't make Omar comments any more acceptable, though.

 

As for labeling her party members "cowards", well that's the sort of rhetoric you resort to whenever some politician fails to act according to your views. Your standing PEP nonsense was dealt with on several past topics, give it a rest.

 

Me, I don't think the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a deciding factor in USA elections, but then I'm  not solely focused on a single issue, like some.

Again thinking your opinion are facts. 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not saying she's a saint but if the initial unrestricted visit was allowed it would have been a minor news story.

 

If you're referencing her intended trip with Omar, I think that would have ended up with some diplomatic incident - worse or not, hard to guess. If it wouldn't have been of their own doing, then there's plenty of right-wing elements in Israel that would go for that, and then there's the nature of their planned trip, which was almost a setup for something to go wrong.

 

If talking about the intended second (solo) trip - without limitations, the Israeli government would have found itself both angering Trump and letting Tlaib having a provocation tour. I think it was a PR ploy, and a low one, at that ("last chance to see" her grandma...gimme a break).

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

In a few lines, you've managed to disregard that the conflict was on before the Israeli occupation, and before the Israeli illegal settlements became an issue. Whiitewashing Palestinian rejectionism and what it cost the Palestinian people is a choice.

I didnt say the conflict wasnt on. 

 

in a few lines you have misconstrued what I said. Israel is the agressor. Why should the palestinians accept what they dont want. That is their choce.

 

but that rejection does not give licence for israel to take what they want. It only exacerbates the issues.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Again thinking your opinion are facts. 

 

Again making pointless comments.

[JamJar]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Even if one was unaware of your posting history and views, then putting up this rant right after claiming "I don't have have an inherent bias." in a previous post sort of gives up the game.

 

Of course not, Mordechai. My first girlfriend is Jewish and obviously I had Jewish people invite me to their homes. So definitely no inherent bias. But also not blind to the truth.

Happy to discuss with anyone who is willing to discuss both sides of the argument.

Anyone who tries to feed me BS will get short shrift. Unfortunately, I've seen way too much bias and bad behaviour from people from that region. So no inherent bias. I say what I see and I've seen a lot.

 

[Sujo]

Just now, Morch said:

 

If you're referencing her intended trip with Omar, I think that would have ended up with some diplomatic incident - worse or not, hard to guess. If it wouldn't have been of their own doing, then there's plenty of right-wing elements in Israel that would go for that, and then there's the nature of their planned trip, which was almost a setup for something to go wrong.

 

If talking about the intended second (solo) trip - without limitations, the Israeli government would have found itself both angering Trump and letting Tlaib having a provocation tour. I think it was a PR ploy, and a low one, at that ("last chance to see" her grandma...gimme a break).

They are duly elected congresswomen wanting to go to an allied country.

 

With your reasoning the US diplomat to germany should be sent home and refused return. But it seems germany is more grown up than the US and israel.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Again making pointless comments.

As you are adept at doing 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Sujo

[Morch]

Just now, Sujo said:

I didnt say the conflict wasnt on. 

 

in a few lines you have misconstrued what I said. Israel is the agressor. Why should the palestinians accept what they dont want. That is their choce.

 

but that rejection does not give licence for israel to take what they want. It only exacerbates the issues.

 

Yawn.

 

The way you presented things related to things after the Israeli occupation. Palestinian (and before that, Arab) rejectionism preceded that. This would also apply to determining who's the "aggressor".

 

Questions such as "why should the Palestinians...." are pointless. The World is not ideal. So is the their situation. Sometimes you can't get everything you want or deserve. And it's fine to say it's their choice - so long as one acknowledges that choices comes with consequences, and that making choices goes hand in hand with accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, JamJar said:

 

Of course not, Mordechai. My first girlfriend is Jewish and obviously I had Jewish people invite me to their homes. So definitely no inherent bias. But also not blind to the truth.

Happy to discuss with anyone who is willing to discuss both sides of the argument.

Anyone who tries to feed me BS will get short shrift. Unfortunately, I've seen way too much bias and bad behaviour from people from that region. So no inherent bias. I say what I see and I've seen a lot.

 

 

My name isn't Mordechai - troll harder. And you can post whatever supposed background stuff you like - I have a pretty good memory, though - hence my comment stands.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They are duly elected congresswomen wanting to go to an allied country.

 

With your reasoning the US diplomat to germany should be sent home and refused return. But it seems germany is more grown up than the US and israel.

 

If one ignores their views and rhetoric regarding the "allied country" this might hold. As it stands, they made their views and agenda clear prior to the visit.

 

With regard to the Germany example - I don't think his rhetoric was quite on par with these two, at least not when it comes with attempts to to de-legitimize the country. And unless mistaken, this happened after he assumed his post - which would make sending him away more complicated, diplomatically.

 

If, for example he would engage in anti-Germany rhetoric for quite a while prior to his appointment, you'd have a case.

 

Again, your comparison just doesn't hold.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.

 

[Roadman]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

They are duly elected congresswomen wanting to go to an allied country.

 

With your reasoning the US diplomat to germany should be sent home and refused return. But it seems germany is more grown up than the US and israel.

And after 18 pages of petty arguments that is the simplicity of it. 

[Greenhill]

19 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I support Israel in their borders from 1940. Problem solved.

Please explain the significance of 1940?    Did you mean 1948?    If you did, at least that makes some sense but of course, 5 Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948, so they obviously weren't too happy at that partition.    You should really brush-up on your history before spouting on about things you know so little about!

[Greenhill]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

Your link is rubbish.

 

In your link, she said "It's all about the Benjamins". She was 100% correct. 70 new Congress members who "think right" have been admitted and are as I write on all expenses paid tours of Israel (but they wont be visiting Palestinians in the West Bank villages to hear their side of the story!), and of course AIPAC and other PACS and individuals can buy influence in US politics. It's a totally venal system.

 

The other accusation in your link, Omar: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."
She was 100% correct again. Look at Trump's behavior in the OP for crying out loud.

 

She has said or done nothing anti Semitic at all. Where has she ever preached blind hatred of Jews simply because they are born Jewish? That's what anti Semitism really is and you demean that currency by crying wolf every time some criticizes the current Israeli government.

Do you think that it's only Israel who have paid lobbyists?   Just Google 'Pro-Palestinian US lobbyists' and see that they make every effort to influence US lawmakers as well!!