Israel bans entry to outspoken U.S. congresswomen

  
Via:  cms5  •  2 months ago  •  188 comments

Israel bans entry to outspoken U.S. congresswomen
Interior Minister Aryeh Deri issued a statement saying that after consultations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials he decided not to allow Tlaib and Omar to enter because of "their boycott activities against Israel."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In this Feb. 5, 2019 file photo, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, joined at right by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., listen to U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

JERUSALEM -- Israel said Thursday that it will bar two Democratic congresswomen from entering the country ahead of a planned visit over their support for a Palestinian-led boycott movement, a decision announced shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that it would "show great weakness" to allow them in.

The move to bar Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota from visiting the close American ally appeared to be unprecedented, and marked a deep foray by Israel into America's bitterly polarized politics. It is also a sharp escalation of Israel's campaign against the international boycott movement.

Interior Minister Aryeh Deri issued a statement saying that after consultations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials he decided not to allow Tlaib and Omar to enter because of "their boycott activities against Israel."

The two 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. Deri said Israel would consider any request from Tlaib to visit relatives on humanitarian grounds.

Shortly before the decision was announced, Trump had tweeted that "it would show great weakness" if Israel allowed them to visit. "They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." He went on to call the two congresswomen "a disgrace."

Israel has sought to combat the BDS movement, which advocates boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli businesses, universities and cultural institutions. The country passed a law permitting a ban on entry to any activist who "knowingly issues a call for boycotting Israel."

Last month, Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer had said Israel would not deny entry to any member of Congress.

The interior minister's statement said "the state of Israel respects the American Congress, in the framework of the close alliance between the two countries, but it's unacceptable to allow the entrance to the country of those who wish to harm the state of Israel, especially during their visit."

Supporters of the boycott movement say it is a non-violent way to protest Israeli policies and call for Palestinian rights. Critics say the movement aims to delegitimize Israel and ultimately erase it from the map, replacing it with a binational state.

Israel often hosts delegations of U.S. representatives and senators, who usually meet with senior Israeli officials as well as Palestinian officials in the occupied West Bank.

MIFTAH, the Palestinian organization that was set to host Tlaib and Omar in the West Bank, issued a statement saying that Israel's decision was "an affront to the American people and their representatives" and "an assault on the Palestinian people's right to reach out to decision-makers and other actors from around the world."

It was not immediately clear if the two congresswomen had planned on meeting with Israeli officials during their visit. Their spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The decision to ban the congresswomen could further sharpen divisions among U.S. Democrats over Israel ahead of the 2020 elections. Republicans have amplified the views of left-wing Democrats like Tlaib and Omar to present the party as deeply divided and at odds with Israel. Democratic leaders have pushed back, reiterating the party's strong support for Israel, in part to protect representatives from more conservative districts.

In July, the Democratic-led House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution against the BDS movement.

Tlaib and Omar have also been the target of repeated attacks by President Donald Trump in recent months, including a series of racist tweets on July 14 in which he said they should "go back" to the "broken" countries they came from. Both are U.S. citizens and Tlaib was born in the United States. The two are members of the so-called "Squad" of newly-elected left-wing Democrats, along with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.

American Jewish organizations had objected to barring the two Democrats from entering the country. The American Jewish Congress said that despite Omar and Tlaib's planned "propaganda exercise," it believed that "the costs in the U.S. of barring the entry of two members of Congress may prove even higher than the alternative."

Politicians and former diplomats also spoke out against barring the congresswomen from visiting.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro wrote on Twitter that the decision to bar their entry "harms Israel's standing in the U.S., boosts BDS."

Israeli lawmaker Ayman Odeh, leader of the Joint List of Arab parties, criticized the move, writing that "Israel has always banned Palestinians from their land and separated us from other Palestinians, but this time the Palestinian is a U.S. Congresswoman."

Arthur Lenk, formerly Israel's ambassador to South Africa, said barring Omar and Tlaib "would be sinking us deeper into U.S. domestic political quagmire."

Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
cms5
1  seeder  cms5    2 months ago

I wonder if they're surprised.

 
 
 
cms5
1.1  seeder  cms5  replied to  cms5 @1    2 months ago

More ...

“As a vibrant and free democracy, Israel is open to any critic and criticism, with one exception: Israel’s law prohibits the entry of people who call and operate to boycott Israel, as is the case with other democracies that prevent the entry of people whose perception harms the country," he said in a statement posted to his official Facebook page .

"Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting boycott legislation against Israel in the US Congress.

“The two-member congressional visitation plan shows that their intent is to hurt Israel and increase its unrest against it,” he added, citing the fact that two lawmakers called their visit destination Palestine rather than Israel.

Netanyahu noted that Tlaib may be granted entry into the territory to visit her Palestinian grandmother in the West Bank.

"However, if Congresswomen Tlaib filed a humanitarian request to meet her family members, subject to a commitment that she would not act to promote the boycotts against Israel, the interior minister announced he would consider this request," he said in the statement.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  cms5 @1.1    2 months ago

The decision to ban them was made when it was leaned that their itinerary DID NOT INCLUDE the normal meetings with Israeli lawmakers or officials, even the opposition lawmakers, and included only sites that were Palestinian, and NONE that would have provided them with a view of anything positive about Israel or its government.  In other words, the whole purpose for them was to bolster their BDS intent to destroy Israel as a nation.  As Netanyahu explained, we will accept criticism, but we will not accept the BDS intent to destroy Israel. He said that Israel is a “vibrant and free democracy” that is open to all criticism, with the exception of a call for boycotts.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.2  Heartland American  replied to  cms5 @1.1    2 months ago

She declined the option for the family visit, proving her real intentions.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.1    2 months ago
In other words, the whole purpose for them was to bolster their BDS intent to destroy Israel as a nation.

To quote a famous film... "There's a big surprise.  I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from not surprise."

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2  devangelical  replied to  cms5 @1    2 months ago

nah, they both knew all along how bibi and trump each need to jerk off the religious extremists in their base.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 months ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cms5
1.2.2  seeder  cms5  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 months ago

These congresswomen have brought this upon themselves.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  cms5 @1.2.2    2 months ago

Serves the racist and hateful sluts right.

Why should Israel have anything to do with their sworn enemies.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  cms5 @1.2.2    2 months ago
These congresswomen have brought this upon themselves.

Um, how? By having religious beliefs? Trump has been screaming his head off about Muslims for years, but Muslim CITIZENS of the USA are NOT allowed to express their views? 1st Amendment. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    2 months ago
[delete
 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 months ago

Wait...    Are you seriously trying to say that Israel is not allowing these congresswomen's 1st Amendment rights? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.5    2 months ago

@1.2.5

removed for context.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.5    2 months ago

Oh snap!!!!!!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.9  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @1.2.6    2 months ago
removed for context

Um, not that's not at all what I said. Read it again. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.11  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 months ago

No, they just can't go to Israel and spew their hatred there.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    2 months ago

I have a pretty good idea that those two's sole purpose for visiting is to try to stir up as much hatred and internal dissent as possible. Israel is fully within their rights as a sovereign nation to deny anybody entry into their own country despite those two thinking they have the right to visit solely because they are politicians from a foreign country. I say let them set foot in Israel and then revoke their passports...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.13  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.1    2 months ago

Are you clapping for their bigotry?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.13    2 months ago

I see that she clapped for this comment

nah, they both knew all along how bibi and trump each need to jerk off the religious extremists in their base.   (1.2)

What are you looking at? Something else? 

 
 
 
cms5
1.2.15  seeder  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.4    2 months ago

It has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with their views on Jews and Israel. Anti-Semitism and Hate.

These women can express their views, but they cannot expect a country they profess hate for to let them 'in'.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2.16  devangelical  replied to  cms5 @1.2.2    2 months ago

bibi got played politically by 2 novice congress persons. after his pal in the white house threw him under the bus by making bibi jump thru the xenophobe hoop. bibi has another critical election to win shortly and he just did a major face plant in the eyes of his base.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.17  KDMichigan  replied to  devangelical @1.2.16    2 months ago
bibi got played politically by 2 novice congress persons.

How did they get played? The racist bitch is the one that got played. They folded to let her in because as a typical liberal she used her grandma for political clout. Then the dumb bitch states if they wont let me protest I don't care to see my grandma. What a joke.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  cms5 @1    2 months ago

I dont think either side came out of this looking very good. The bottom line though is that Israel receives monetary assistance from the United States and that makes it the business of US congresspeople.  It would have been better for Israel and Trump to let them go over there and criticize them as much as he wanted when they got back. Neither Trump or Israel look good after this, although Im not that sure the two congresswomen look that good about it either. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 months ago

These two from the "Taliban 4" had a chance to go with "The" group. They chose not to, for "Selfish" Reasons.

They SUCK !

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.2  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3    2 months ago
I dont think either side came out of this looking very good.

That's as far as I read before you went off on a Trump rant. 

I agree.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2  Texan1211    2 months ago

Couldn't have happened to two "nicer" people!

LOL!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @2    2 months ago

These bitches are only going there for photo ops defaming Israel and getting cozy with the soldiers of Hamas, who hide behind women and children.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3  It Is ME    2 months ago

Those two will be screaming "Racism" and "Bigotry" and "Anti-Semitic" shit soon !

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 months ago
deleted

 
 
 
Enoch
4  Enoch    2 months ago

Dear Friends cms5, Texan1211 and IT Is Me: Ms. Talib could bring her grandmother to the USA to visit her and other family. 

When one cannot for good cause enter a house they wish to tear down, they can still see family in their own home by inviting them.

Mrs. E. who is a Sabarit (Native born Israeli) is often inviting immediate and extended family and friends from her native country to come visit and stay with us.

They are always most warmly welcomed.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 

 
 
 
cms5
4.1  seeder  cms5  replied to  Enoch @4    2 months ago

That's very true. Ms. Talib can also agree that she will not not act to promote the boycotts against Israel...and see her family as requested.

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.1  Enoch  replied to  cms5 @4.1    2 months ago

Dear Friend cms5: True.

Good point.

Both Ms. Talib and Ms. Oman are claiming that in nations Members of Congress visit for fact finding in order to make good objective fact based foreign policy decisions sometimes Congress Persons are restricted in where they can and cannot visit.

Fine.

Why are they, and folks supporting the attempt to deligitmize and then destroy economically the State of Israel make the same objections and take the same actions for other less open to American sociities?

Why the selectivity, and unilateral singling out of Israel and only Israel?

I think we are all tired of hearing the canard that one can not be anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish etc. and still criticize Israel when the criticism is one sided, and aimed at Israel. Never at nations (including in their case) predominantly Muslim countries where the thing being criticized is worse?

Why do they not visit those places?

Why are they so silent about them?

I think we all know the answer here.

If it looks like, swims like, eats like, waddles like, and quacks like a duck it is most surely not an aardvark.

It is time to address the double standards and those who perpetuate them.

In Israel, the government has not only the right, but the moral and practical responsibility to defend the State against those wanting to exterminate it by any and all means.

The first and most primary role of government is to defend and keep safe the state and its population.

Let the voters in Michigan and Minnesota decide if they want to be represented by haters of the only Jewish State on the planet.

Their votes, their state, their call.

Vox Populi. Let the voice of the people be heard.

Hopefully it will sound like the embracing of bedrock American values.

The best interests of former Egyptian and Jordanian citizens who only self referenced as Palestinians after they lost a war to commit genocide by war is ill served by continuing to rely on politicians who profit from hate peddling. 

If they want self determination, do so in areas which do not threaten the existence of a neighbor they cannot defeat, murder or terrorize.

In this life, success is not earned by swelling on what one is against.

It is achieved by what one can realistically do to improve ones lot.

Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Make and obey a treaty with Israel for ever lasting peace, mutual recognition of statehood, and learn to live in harmony with the Jewish State. 

How simple is that? 

They tried the rest, now try the best.

Forget about destroying Israel and killing Jews.

Focus on making a life for themselves as part of the Middle East.

They should not be surprised to find support for that from Israel, some Muslim nations and people and worldwide folks of good will, including Jews where ever they live.

Don't boycott Israel.

Boycott terrorism, despots, corrupt state leaders and politicians who want to trade on hate and prejudice.

Israel had made peace over turns since the 1940's.  

Presently, it has no credible party with whom to make things happen for both sides to benefit.

Give them such.

The future does not have to be like the past, just because the past is like what has and hasn't happened to date. 

P&AB to All Who Seek It for One and All.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Enoch @4.1.1    2 months ago

Dear Brother Enoch, very well said and I totally concur.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Enoch @4.1.1    2 months ago

Boozhoo niijii,

I agree with most of what you stated, but since Isreal is a democracy would it not have been better to allow them entry. I would think that it would show that Isreal really is a democracy that is willing to tolerate both congresswomen. 

I believe that if they did go off script, which, IMO, they will do, they will show the world what they really are. That would seem to me to be the ultimate goal and much to Isreal advantage.  

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @4.1.3    2 months ago

I'll add that this decision by Isreal is, IMO, a mistake. The two congresswomen will use this as proof that Isreal is far from being a democracy in the ME...Barring them because of their beliefs will give them a real bully pulpit and I'm sure that they will take full advantage of it.  

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.5  Enoch  replied to  Kavika @4.1.3    2 months ago

Dear Brother Kavika: Initially Israel granted them permission.

When Mr. Trump asked that they not be allowed into the country to visit the Israeli Prime Minister concurred.

Mr. Netanyahu is facing a tough re-election.

He cannot afford to appear weak on anything involving national security. 

Israel is a Democracy.

They are not a door mat.

My point isn't political.

The optics of this will not play out well for the Land of Milk and Honey (Eretz Zvat Chalav U'D'vash).

Ms. Talib and Ms. Oman are no more the face of the Democratic Party than Stephen King is the face of the Republican Party.

Still, birds of a feather flock together.

People in both parties will pressure Israel to reverse their decision and let them in.

The USA is the greatest and most reliable ally Israel has in this world.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu are close.

This will not make Israel look good. 

My point isn't a political or a public relations one. 

Rather it is to let those who want to hurt if not destroy Israel in any fashion know Israel will choose to be disliked and thrive before it will opt for capitulation and perhaps extinction. 

As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

This is my point.

Israel must do what it must for its survival.

This will hurt but far from mortally wound Israel in the realm of public opinion.

With ever shortening attention spans and news cycles, by next week this story will disappear.

Sooner or later Talib and Oman will put themselves back on the hot seat with anti-Israel rhetoric. 

They play to their bases, not seek out and speak the truth.

That doesn't make them different than most in the political arena.

Isn't that tragic?

Peace, Abundant Blessings, Fresh Blueberries, Hot Sassafras Tea, Fry Bread and Roast Bear Meat for One and All.

Enoch.   

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.6  Enoch  replied to  Raven Wing @4.1.2    2 months ago

Thanks.

E.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Enoch @4.1.5    2 months ago
As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

I remember that saying by Ms. Meir well...I have always greatly admired her.

And I fully understand the survival of a nation, something that we both share. 

And yes, it is a political game as well. A very serious political game.

Will Israel survive this. Of course, they will. The downside for Isreal is that the two will use this against Israel and there are millions across the world that will listen. 

Waanakiwin (peace)

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Kavika @4.1.4    2 months ago

I agree. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Unless they thought these people were going to do something physical that threatened national security, there is no reason to deny them entry. Keeping them out will only martyr them and make it look as if Israel can't make a case for itself in the public forum.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @4.1.3    2 months ago

They already indicated that they were going to go off script. Their itinerary, not meeting with any Israeli lawmakers (even opposition ones) or officials, and intending only to travel to Palestinian sites, is NOT an open-minded tour that virtually every other American lawmaker has done and intends to do in order to obtain a fair and just picture of Israel, which is supposed to be the intention of the trip.  Their intent was, by their itinerary, make CLEAR that their tour was meant for no other purpose but to support and bolster their BDS (hatred of and destruction of Israel) position.  I'm sorry to disagree with you, Kavika, but fair criticism of Israel is acceptable, but the intent to destroy it is not, democracy or no democracy.

Until their itinerary was released, indicating their TRUE intention, I was on the side of allowing them entry, but once their true intent, that is to NOT obtain a fair and honest picture of Israel, I agree with the Israeli government on their decision. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @4.1.7    2 months ago

This was a no-win situation for Israel, Kavika.  Had they been allowed to go on their intended itinerary, it would have been to provide them with ammunition to bolster the BDS movement, because they were only looking for the worst, to the exclusion of anything better, and because they are not being permitted to enter, they will use that to bolster their hateful invective about Israel and, as I have seen Omar has already done, Trump.

Golda Meir also said another truism:

"If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace.  If the Jews lay down their arms, there will be no more Israel."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.8    2 months ago

As I have already pointed out, this was a no-win situation for Israel.  Once those two released their itinerary, it was clear that their intention was not to learn about Israel, which is the whole intent of those trips, but to bolster their hateful invective about Israel and their BDS destruction of Israel intent.  In my opinion, Israel will weather that storm because anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see what the truth is.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.12  dave-2693993  replied to  Enoch @4.1.5    2 months ago
As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, it is better to be hated and live than loved and be a footnote in history.

She even understood this from a personal standpoint. I personally know of one such attack when terrorists from Lebanon landed on the Tel Aviv beach where she considered home.

Literally, right around the corner from where the ex was living then, long before she became the ex.

Bad decision and poor execution on the parts of the Lebanese terrorists.

Nonetheless, the intend was there.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.13  dave-2693993  replied to  Enoch @4.1.1    2 months ago
Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Make and obey a treaty with Israel for ever lasting peace, mutual recognition of statehood, and learn to live in harmony with the Jewish State. 

How simple is that? 

They tried the rest, now try the best.

Forget about destroying Israel and killing Jews.

Focus on making a life for themselves as part of the Middle East.

They should not be surprised to find support for that from Israel, some Muslim nations and people and worldwide folks of good will, including Jews where ever they live.

Don't boycott Israel.

Boycott terrorism, despots, corrupt state leaders and politicians who want to trade on hate and prejudice.

It really is a very simple formula.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.10    2 months ago

I would assume that a congresswomen visiting Isreal would have protection/bodyguards from the Israel government. Assuming that that is true if they rejected protection that would be a perfect excuse to refuse them entry. 

I never said anything about Israel lays down their arms, Buzz. I'm presenting what could be a win for Israel, that's all. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Enoch @4.1.1    2 months ago
Instead of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, take concrete steps to vote out of office the thugocracy mishandling the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank are not allowed to vote so that might be an issue...

Israel had made peace over turns since the 1940's.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070330173859/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

The Court notes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (i.e. the part of the West Bank lying between the Green Line and the wall) some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and has been traced in such a way as to include within that area the great majority of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem). The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @4.1.14    2 months ago

I don't think bodyguards has anything to do with it.  As I said, I agreed that they should be allowed to enter Israel, and Israel was willing, until they released their itinerary that indicated that they had no intention whatsoever to take advantage of what the trip was for, to learn about Israel, but their intent became very clear that it was only to gain ammunition to bolster BDS and hatred and destruction of Israel.  As I said, then it became a no-win situation for Israel, and IMO Israel made the right choice. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.1.15    2 months ago

SUMMARY OF ISRAEL'S RIGHTS TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA

  Background:

The Middle East was a part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled it some 400 years when World War I broke out. The Ottomans allied themselves with Germany. And so it was that, when the war ended, the Ottomans had lost their land. As part of the readjustments, the map of the huge area we call the Middle East was reconfigured. The original plan was to create a Jewish state in what the British called Mandatory Palestine (some 45,000 square miles on both sides of the Jordan river) and an Arab state in the rest of the region. In 1922, the British put the Hashemite family in charge of "administering" the area on the east side of the Jordan -- some 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish state -- leaving the Jews with some 8,840 square miles, 1/10 of 1% of the area of the Middle East, for a future homeland. The land holdings of the 22 Arab League countries, in contrast, is 6,145,389 square miles.

 

1.  According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in three legally binding international treaties. These rights have   not   expired and are still in full force and effect. [1]

The process began at San Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home [*] in what is now the Land of Israel.

  1. The 1920 San Remo Resolution

    This was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire, i.e, redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants.

    The relevant resolution reads as follows:

    "The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust... the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

    The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is "a sacred trust of civilization" to provide for the well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are "not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to form a Jewish national home in Palestine.

    Professor Jacques Gauthier wrote that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - but says nothing about any "political" rights of the Arabs living there.[2]

  2. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine

    The League of Nations' resolution creating the Palestine Mandate included the following significant clause: "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted.

  3. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.

    The United States of America ratified a treaty with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

    "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

    The United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration" and the "Mandate for Palestine."

2. The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:

  1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)  
  2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923)

3. The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine to TransJordan and the Golan to Syria:

ART. 5. "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.

4. In the   1924 Anglo American Convention   the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:

  1. Drawing the borders of Palestine  
  2. Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide  
  3. Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land

There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine.

In November 2009, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), a non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law, as well as American law. OFICL directer Mark Kaplan said:

"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence, but the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on   ad infinitum ."

5.   The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922,   was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people..."

confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine — anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

6. Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.

7. Both the Lodge-Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

8. The 1924 Anglo American Convention on Palestine included the whole text of the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate included the Balfour declaration preamble committing to reconstitute Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and to recognize their historical connection to the land. It did not mention anything about creating an Arab State in Palestine. The Mandate explicitly prohibited ceding any land in Palestine to any foreign powers or changing the terms of the Mandate without the League's expressed permission. That permission had to be unanimously passed by all members. That never occurred.[3]

9. The significance of the above (see #8 ) is that no decision made by the US or Britain, may be in conflict with the terms of the Mandate or the Anglo American Convention. France, Italy and Japan sat on the San Remo Supreme Council - along with the US and Britain - approving the San Remo decision. After the Supreme Council approved the San Remo decision, the resolution was further approved by the League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding international Treaty. The Treaty became   Res Judicata . Consequently all the above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented from changing their approval without Israel's consent.

10. No decision, policy or measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to reconstitute Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish People world-wide and recognize their historical connection with the land.) Under the Doctrine of Estoppels the US is estopped from making policies, taking any steps, measures, spending any monies on policies, which run contrary to its covenants and undertaking under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, because among other things they are violating US Law.

11.   Both their Excellencies, the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions.   At different points in history, Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river and later Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan until they had the approval of Emir Feisal.[4]

12.   All rights emanating from the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.

The UN has no right to pass a resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on its books.
The UN or Britain are not sovereigns and had no right to change borders at its pleasure.
The same Supreme Council that drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon, gave Israel the right to its borders from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This was approved by the League, and its members: Britain, France, Japan and Italy. They have no right to vary that which they had approved.

13. The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line [the armistice lines after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war], these borders would not have been legally enforceable.

14.   The Partition Plan of 1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.

  • It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;

  • The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.

  • The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. ( Res Judicata ). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

  • The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.

  • No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel, were ever challenged or changed;

  • In 1923 Britain - the Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British American Convention of 1924 - contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate, ceded the Golan to Syria.[5]

    "This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in effect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)"[6]

OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor has stated, "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders. The UN partition plan [1967] was just that -- a plan."

Significant precedents:

1. The Vienna decision on treaties: According to Howard Grief:

Rights gained from Mandates don't cease at the expiration of the Mandate

The principle of law that rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Treaty on Treaties). This article states that "unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty... does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination".

As a result, Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel remain in full force today under international law.

The South Africa decision on Mandates basically says the same thing: rights gained by a country through a mandate don't expire at the expiration of the mandate.[7]

Article 80 of The UN charter: No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate.  
 

End Notes

[*]   Jewish National Home   and "homeland for the Jewish people" were a less in-your-face way of saying "Jewish State."

[1] See, for example,   this ,   this ,   this ,   this   and   this,   for starters. Other articles can be retrieved by googling for "Howard Grief" and/or "Yoram Shifftan".

OFICL chairman Mark Kaplan has pointed out that IDF's presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.

"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation. And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention -- and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."  
( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).

[2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense,  
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/12/02/an-e-mail-that-is-about-jacques- gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,

[3] Howard Grief,   The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel , pg 204

[4] Jacques Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo Conference.  
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/jerusalem-is-jewish-issue.html

[5] Joan Peters,   From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine,   pg 236.

[6]  Jacques Gauthier, Thesis, pg 404.

[7]  Jacques Gauthier.  
http://www.globalpolitician.com/26079-israel-west-bank-settlements  
 

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

Israel is entitled to annex Judea and Samaria, legally entitled, but there isn't a relevant court or judging body in the world that isn't SO BIASED AGAINST ISRAEL that it would find on behalf of Israel.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @4.1.14    2 months ago

Oh, sorry. I meant for that Golda Meir quotation to follow the one Dave quoted.  I guess I posted it in the wrong place.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.19  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.10    2 months ago

I agree Israel was in a no win situation with the two Congress women. 

However the Golda Meir is inaccurate.

If either side lays down their arms it will not result in peace.

Lumping the Arabs as one entity is a complete and utter fallacy. Even if they managed to wipe Israel off the map they would continue to fight each other forever. Religious, tribal, and clan differences would not end with the destruction of Israel.

If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be a peace that none outside of Israel could accept. The West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights annexed fully by Israel- the Palestinians, and other Arab minorities forced out of Israel proper. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Egypt turned into larger war zones by displaced Palestinians trying to create a new homeland. Wars between Israel and between the surrounding countries over water and dwindling resources. Hamas and whatever is left of the PA fighting each other and Israel. Sure there still would be "Arabs" left after laying down their arms against Israel; but the already destabilized ME would be much more so.

Neither side really wants peace. They have shown so repeatedly.

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.20  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.19    2 months ago
"Neither side really wants peace. They have shown so repeatedly."

They have?  And other than defending themselves or retaliating when attacked, what wars has Israel started? *

How many times have the Palestinians walked away from the table when offers of 95% and even 97% of their demands were offered to them?  Israel has given up land for peace, such as the Sinai and evacuating every Jew out of Gaza.  Israel has released hundreds of Palestinian terrorist prisoners who had blood on their hands (some then returning to kill again) in order to get the Palestinians to negotiate by fulfilling that demand, to no avail.  Israel put an 11 month moratorium on settlement building as demanded by the Palestinians, and then they demanded it be further extended, but the Palestinians would not negotiation....

What concessions, what initiation of negotiations, what ANYTHING have the Palestinians done?

*Before you blame Israel for the 1967 Six Day War, besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

https:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com / casus+belli

Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.

 
 
 
cms5
4.1.21  seeder  cms5  replied to  Enoch @4.1.1    2 months ago

Well said.

It appears that Ms. Talib wrote a letter...received a humanitarian exception to visit her grandmother and then decided she didn't want to visit.

ECE8IFtVUAEzf5F?format=jpg&name=small

So, what is her real agenda? Well, for certain...it wasn't to visit her Grandmother.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.20    2 months ago
They have?  And other than defending themselves or retaliating when attacked, what wars has Israel started? *

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/six-day-war

The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of diplomatic friction and skirmishes between Israel and its neighbors, Israel Defense Forces launched preemptive air strikes that crippled the air forces of Egypt and its allies. Israel then staged a successful ground offensive and seized the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria . The brief war ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire, but it significantly altered the map of the Mideast and gave rise to lingering geopolitical friction.

I suppose a preemptive strike isn't consider starting a war?

https://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/provoked-fighting-survival/

Finkelstein emphasizes that no genuine academic today, whatever their political orientation, endorses the Mainstream Narrative. He starts by identifying what he has called the “Two Biggest Lies.”

* The truth is that Nasser and the other Arab leaders had absolutely no intention of invading Israel in June 1967.

* And Israel’s existence was never in the slightest doubt, as both Israeli and American leaders knew that Israel could easily win any conflict, even against a coalition of  Arab states.

Finkelstein insists we cannot understand the Six-Day War without going back 11 years, to the 1956 Suez Crisis. That year, the Egyptian leader, Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal — and Israel, Britain and France launched an unprovoked joint invasion of Egypt to seize the waterway back. But the United States, under President Dwight Eisenhower, opposed the attack, and pressured the tripartite invasion force to withdraw and leave the Canal to Egypt. Suez was a catastrophe for all three invading nations, and British Prime Minister Anthony Eden was forced to resign. Meanwhile, Nasser’s reputation in the Arab world, and across Africa, Asia and Latin America, rose to new heights.

Norman Finkelstein argues that the historical record shows that in 1967 Israel yearned to complete its failed mission of 1956. First, he says, Israel’s “primary goal was to neuter Nasser, to deliver a death blow to these uppity Arabs, and finish off what was called radical Arab nationalism.” He goes on that Israel’s government had a “secondary goal” — “to conquer the lands they had coveted but didn’t manage to seize in ’48: East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan.”

Israeli leaders had only one big doubt: what would America do? If Israel did attack, would the United States force another humiliating climbdown, as in 1956? Or would Washington look the other way?

Finkelstein challenges the Mainstream Narrative’s account of the specific events in the months leading up to the war. His analysis is not at all unusual, and is shared to a great extent by other scholars. He argues that the facts show that Israel was not peacefully minding its own business, but instead regularly and violently provoking its Arab neighbors. In November 1966, in the largest military action since the Suez invasion, Israel attacked the West Bank town of Samu, then under Jordanian rule, killing 18 Jordanian soldiers and destroying 125 homes. Israel continued instigating along its border with Syria in April 1967, triggering an aerial battle in which 6 Syrian planes were shot down, including one over Damascus. Voices in the Arab world started to accuse Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of the Arabs, of standing by and doing nothing.

So Nasser did ask the United Nations to remove the peacekeeping troops from Egyptian Sinai, mainly so he could be seen to be taking some action. But Finkelstein points out that Israel could have asked for UN peacekeepers to be placed on its side of the border, which would have maintained the tripwire. Israel did no such thing.

Nasser’s closing of the Straits of Tiran has been similarly distorted in the Mainstream Narrative. Finkelstein explains that Nasser may actually have had the legal right to close the Straits, that he probably did not intend to maintain the closure, and that he offered to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but Israel refused. And Israel would not have choked overnight, but got 95 percent of its imports through its other ports and had a several months’ reserve supply of oil.

Meanwhile, Finkelstein says, Israeli diplomats descended on Washington, D.C. to find out if the United States would give them a green or at least an amber light. Finkelstein has looked through the historical record, and here is a summary of what he found:

* The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.

* The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other Arab nations.

* And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower’s repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.

Once Israel attacked first, Finkelstein says the conflict should more aptly be called the Six-Day Walkover. “In fact,” he says, “the war did not last six days; it lasted closer to six minutes. Once Israeli planes in a surprise blitzkrieg knocked out the Egyptian air force still parked on the ground, the war was over. . . If the war lasted longer, it was only because Israel wanted to conquer the Egyptian Sinai, the Jordanian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights.”

Finkelstein does recognize that the Israeli public did believe the Mainstream Narrative, took to heart the lies and distortion their government was feeding the world, and genuinely feared the Arab states wanted to push them into the sea. He explains that the Israeli government “figured the Israeli people would give their all if they feared their backs were up against the wall. The leaders were culpable twice over; they provoked the crisis and then launched an unprovoked attack.”

Once the war ended, in the United States it was treated as a lark, a thrilling adventure. After Israel occupied the Egyptian Sinai, jokes circulated: “See the Pyramids. Visit Israel.”

But it was no joke for the at least 18,000 people who died in the fighting: 10,000-15,000 Egyptians; 6000 Jordanians; 1000-2500 Syrians; and nearly 1000 Israelis.

Israel did win its immediate war objectives; Nasser’s image was severely damaged, and he died three years later, with his brand of Arab nationalism greatly discredited. Israeli soldiers did occupy the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan.

Whether the occupation, now shuddering into its 51st year, has been good for Israel is still to be decided by history.

Sorry, you don't get your own alternative set of facts. Nasser offered to take the closure to the International Courts of Justice- Israel refused. Israel wanted the land, they had the military built up and backed by the US to take it, so they did, period.
Also, when it comes to provoking actions Israel holds it's own with their neighbors.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon “recorded 550 air violations, totaling 2,057 overflight hours,” according to a report written by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, which the Security Council in New York debated behind closed doors on Wednesday without any conclusions.
“Unmanned aerial vehicles accounted for 481 of these violations (87%), with the remaining violations involving fighter jets or unidentified aircrafts. UNIFIL protested all air violations to the Israel Defense Forces and urged their immediate cessation,” Guterres stated

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 (Xinhua) -- Israel continued to violate Lebanese airspace almost daily, in violation of Lebanese sovereignty, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a report to the Security Council released on Monday.

Focusing on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701 concerning Lebanon during the period from Oct. 27, 2018 to Feb. 17, 2019, the report said that from November to February, United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) recorded an average of 96.5 air space violations each month, with an average of 262 overflight hours.

Unmanned aerial vehicles accounted for approximately 77 percent of the violations, while the remaining violations involved fighter jets or unidentified aircraft, it added.

The UN chief is "seriously concerned that Israeli overflights of Lebanese territory continue to be a frequent occurrence, including by fighter aircraft. Such overflights constitute a violation of resolution 1701 and of Lebanese sovereignty," said the report.

The Resolution 1701 called for an end to hostilities between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah forces, the deployment of the Lebanese army along the Israeli border, and the establishment of a weapons-free zone south of the Litani River, an important water resource in southern Lebanon.

"I reiterate my condemnation of all violations of Lebanese sovereignty and my call for Israel to cease its violations of Lebanese airspace and to withdraw its forces from northern Ghajar and the adjacent area north of the Blue Line," said the Secretary-General.

The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations in 2000.

https://www.newsweek.com/israeli-jet-beirut-lebanon-949942

Israeli air force commander Major General Amikam Norkin showed the high-quality photo of a U.S.-made F-35 hovering over Beirut during a presentation at an international security conference last week. During the presentation, he said he believed Israel is "the first to attack with the F-35 in the Middle East."

In recent months, Israel   has launched   several airstrikes in Syria, attacking Hezbollah, Iranian and regime targets. Following some of these attacks, Lebanese officials claimed Israel illegally used its airspace. Last September, Lebanon said it would officially complain to the U.N. over such violations,   Reuters reported .

At the time, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri said his country would issue a complaint "against Israel for planting spy devices on Lebanese land and continuously breaching" its airspace.

As for your demands with peace with the Palestinians. I have study the offers. You are correct in that they offered 95% to 97% of what the Palestinians wanted in terms of land; but you left out some very important details. 
1) Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, when the Palestinians wanted it for their capital as well. Israel would never agree to it; and the Palestinians won't sign any treaty that doesn't address Jerusalem. Especially Israeli control of Palestinian holy sites.
2) Water rights. The most important thing in desert, Israel controls the water rights on what would be Palestine- unacceptable under any conditions.
3) Air Space and territorial waters. Israel controls both and will not relinquish them.
4) Settlements- Israel wants the major settlement blocks within the West Bank to be incorporated into Israel. Take a look at a map of where those settlements are and how far into the West Bank they reach.  They have grown even bigger since 2016.
5) No land bridge between West Bank and Gaza Strip. Can't expect a cohesive Palestinian government to ever form when Israel completely controls passage between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Israel is content with things the way they are. Gaza is the world's largest open air prison. They are slowly taking over the West Bank with settlements by creating "facts on the ground". They have a divided and warring Palestinian PA and Hamas to make sure their is no coordinated effort on the other side. Israel will get what it ultimately wants, it is just a much longer road than it would like.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.22    2 months ago

Well, let's get some things straight first. Quoting from Mondoweiss is like quoting from a Palestinian paper. Quoting from Norman Finkelstein is like quoting from Arafat. So this version of history is hardly unbiased. 

That being said, did you know that even Norman Finkelstein calls the BDS movement a "cult" bent on the destruction of Israel?

Now I might not agree with Finkelstein, but the man does know his international law and according to him, the BDS movement goes beyond what is legally allowed. 

I will post these two videos (sorry Buzz you will not be able to see them), in the event, anyone is truly interested in how someone who is really anti-Israel (refers to it as the "Holocaust Industry"), regards the BDS movement from a legal standpoint. May I point out, that although I don't agree with Finkelstein's POV on Israel, he is no moron either. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.23    2 months ago
May I point out, that although I don't agree with Finkelstein POV on Israel, he is no moron either. 

Many folks are under a false impression that all people, who are biased and/or who have a different world viewpoint than they do, are all stupid.

When nothing could be further from the truth.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.22    2 months ago

If a Palestinian state was to be comprised of Gaza and part of the West Bank, but none of the area between those two places, it would be absurd. 

I would suggest divide Jerusalem with the larger portion being in Israel but a small area of the city dedicated to the Palestinians, and then apportion land to each side outward from Jerusalem so that each side has self contained and contiguous territory. 

I know that is a pipe dream, but creating a Palestinian homeland in two pieces separated by the Israeli army is not a prescription for peace. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.24    2 months ago
Many folks are under a false impression that all people, who are biased and/or who have a different world viewpoint than they do, are all stupid. When nothing could be further from the truth.

I have to agree with that. I don't have to agree with someone to see that they are well informed on a subject. It just may be that we take different items at a different level of importance or none at all. Most of how we interpret things are experience based anyway. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.27  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.25    2 months ago

John,

There has never been a real attempt at a two-state solution that the Palestinians were pleased with, the least being how to connect the two. The last time they couldn't even get past the verbiage of Isreal being a Jewish state. 

It's really sad for them as a people. I do believe in a two state solution, but you need to have real partners, and BDS now in the mix is not helping that cause, since they want full right of return, which would mean no Isreal and that is never going to happen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.27    2 months ago

If Israel stopped creating new settlements COMPLETELY and maybe dismantled some of the more recent existing ones, I bet they could create a basis for two state negotiations. Netanyahu  and the Israeli hard line right just rub the Palestinians noses in it. 

The hard right of Israel believes they have won, and have no intention of ever allowing Palestinians a state. They will offer non Jews a form of second class citizenship and that will be that. Take it or leave it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.28    2 months ago

John,

Long before Netanyahu and the right, there were offers made in good faith towards a 2 state solution that the PA turned down under Arafat. You must have forgotten that Jews were torn from their homes to deliver Gaza to the Palestinians as part of that good faith.... long before any wall. Here let me refresh your memory:

They will offer non Jews a form of second class citizenship and that will be that. Take it or leave it. 

May I remind you that are Muslims who are in the Israeli government and vote. Can you please find me 1 Muslim nation in the M/E that has ant Jews left within their borders nevermind in their government. 

Or don't murder gays

Or treat women as second class citizens. 

I don't like Netanyahu, but in a region full of petty despots, what do you think it would breed? Why are they not held to the same standards as Israel is?

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.30  Enoch  replied to  cms5 @4.1.21    2 months ago

Dear cms5: No grass grows under your feet.

You see the world for what is it.

Goo point.

Excellent observation.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.17    2 months ago

So is it your posit that the International agreements sighed by the present day Israeli government are null and void? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.32  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.1.31    2 months ago

I didn't know Israel was on trial and adherence to International Agreements was the topic here.  When you can establish the absolute perfection of your own country, or in fact ANY country in the world, please come back and put Israel on trial. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.33  dave-2693993  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.22    2 months ago
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/six-day-war
The Six-Day War was a brief but bloody conflict fought in June 1967 between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Following years of diplomatic friction and skirmishes between Israel and its neighbors, Israel Defense Forces launched preemptive air strikes that crippled the air forces of Egypt and its allies. Israel then staged a successful ground offensive and seized the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria . The brief war ended with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire, but it significantly altered the map of the Mideast and gave rise to lingering geopolitical friction.
I suppose a preemptive strike isn't consider starting a war?

That excerpt is leaving out some details:

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/six-day-war

ORIGINS OF THE SIX-DAY WAR

A series of border disputes were the major spark for the Six-Day War. By the mid-1960s, Syrian-backed Palestinian guerillas had begun staging attacks across the Israeli border, provoking reprisal raids from the Israel Defense Forces.

In April 1967, the skirmishes worsened after Israel and   Syria   fought a ferocious air and artillery engagement in which six Syrian fighter jets were destroyed.

In the wake of the April air battle, the   Soviet Union   provided Egypt with intelligence that Israel was moving troops to its northern border with Syria in preparation for a full-scale invasion. The information was inaccurate, but it nevertheless stirred Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser into action.

In a show of support for his Syrian allies, he ordered Egyptian forces to advance into the Sinai Peninsula, where they expelled a   United Nations peacekeeping force that had been guarding the border with Israel for over a decade.

MIDEAST TENSIONS ESCALATE

In the days that followed, Nasser continued to rattle the saber: On May 22, he banned Israeli shipping from the Straits of Tiran, the sea passage connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. A week later, he sealed a defense pact with King Hussein   of Jordan.

As the situation in the Middle East deteriorated, American President   Lyndon B. Johnson   cautioned both sides against firing the first shot and attempted to garner support for an international maritime operation to reopen the Straits of Tiran.

The plan never materialized, however, and by early June 1967, Israeli leaders had voted to counter the Arab military buildup by launching a preemptive strike.

SIX-DAY WAR ERUPTS

On June 5, 1967, the Israel Defense Forces initiated Operation Focus, a coordinated aerial attack on Egypt. That morning, some 200 aircraft took off from Israel and swooped west over the Mediterranean before converging on Egypt from the north.

After catching the Egyptians by surprise, they assaulted 18 different airfields and eliminated roughly 90 percent of the Egyptian air force as it sat on the ground. Israel then expanded the range of its attack and decimated the air forces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

By the end of the day on June 5, Israeli pilots had won full control of the skies over the Middle East.

Israel all but secured victory by establishing air superiority, but fierce fighting continued for several more days. The ground war in Egypt began on June 5. In concert with the air strikes, Israeli tanks and infantry stormed across the border and into the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian forces put up a spirited resistance, but later fell into disarray after Field Marshal Abdel Hakim Amer ordered a general retreat. Over the next several days, Israeli forces pursued the routed Egyptians across the Sinai, inflicting severe casualties.

A second front in the Six-Day War opened on June 5, when Jordan – reacting to false reports of an Egyptian victory – began shelling Israeli positions in   Jerusalem . Israel responded with a devastating counterattack on East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

On June 7, Israeli troops captured the Old City of Jerusalem and celebrated by praying at the Western Wall.

ISRAEL CELEBRATES VICTORY

The last phase of the fighting took place along Israel’s northeastern border with Syria. On June 9, following an intense aerial bombardment, Israeli tanks and infantry advanced on a heavily fortified region of Syria called the Golan Heights. They successfully captured the Golan the next day.

On June 10, 1967, a United Nations-brokered ceasefire took effect and the Six-Day War came to an abrupt end. It was later estimated that some 20,000 Arabs and 800 Israelis had died in just 132 hours of fighting.

The leaders of the Arab states were left shocked by the severity of their defeat. Egyptian President Nasser even resigned in disgrace, only to promptly return to office after Egyptian citizens showed their support with massive street demonstrations.

In Israel, the national mood was jubilant. In less than a week, the young nation had captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

LEGACY OF THE SIX-DAY WAR

The Six-Day War had momentous geopolitical consequences in the Middle East. Victory in the war led to a surge of national pride in Israel, which had tripled in size, but it also fanned the flames of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Still wounded by their defeat in the Six-Day War, Arab leaders met in Khartoum, Sudan, in August 1967, and signed a resolution that promised “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation” with Israel.

Led by Egypt and Syria, the Arab states later launched a fourth major conflict with Israel during 1973’s   Yom Kippur War .

By claiming the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the state of Israel also absorbed over one million Palestinian Arabs. Several hundred thousand Palestinians later fled Israeli rule, worsening a refugee crisis that had begun during the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and laying the groundwork for ongoing political turmoil and violence.

Since 1967, the lands Israel seized in the Six-Day War have been at the center of efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1982 as part of a peace treaty and then withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but it has continued to occupy and settle other territory claimed in the Six-Day War, most notably the Golan Heights and the West Bank. The status of these territories continues to be a stumbling block in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.

That so called "preemptive strike" was in reality one of the first attempts at Arab propaganda. They were by no means sitting around, minding their own business. They were set to strike Israel and invade.

Their problem was, Israel was quicker on the draw.

The October 1973 Yom Kippur war was arguably a bigger stun to the Arab world when Israel was "caught with their pants down" when massive numbers of Mechanized units, artillery, infantry, Air Forces, etc. attacked on a Holy day. 

Israel had next to nothing in place.

Within about 72 hours Israeli forces began to turn the tables even though after troop build up, where outnumbered 7 or 8 to 1 vs the Syrian forces.

It was bad.

The Syrians launched one last offensive to take the Golan, which had been won by Israel in the 6 day war, back and thanks to folks like Col Kahalani, Israel stopped a vastly greater force of Syrian tanks at a place that became known as the Valley of Tears. Look it up.

Col Kahalani finished that battle with 4 or 5 remaining operational tanks. Hundreds of Syrian tanks ran at that point in time. 

Short take, anyone over there or over here who thinks they can tell or demand what Israel can and can not do with that land, is delusional.

Yet Israel has made offers. The Arabs have consistently found a way to fail at getting their 2 state solution.

Their solution is a 1 state solution. The one where Israel is pushed in to the sea.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.32    2 months ago
I didn't know Israel was on trial and adherence to International Agreements was the topic here.

You MADE it the topic of this discussion Buzz. You just posted a plethora of information about International Agreements that you claim are still in effect. Funny that the Israeli government didn't make that argument to the court. 

When you can establish the absolute perfection of your own country, or in fact ANY country in the world, please come back and put Israel on trial.

A country need not reach 'absolute perfection' before it can and should be held to the international agreements that is signs onto.

It's quite hypocritical to cite dated International agreements to defend Israel's action but then to ignore the FACT that Israel is violating International agreements to which their government is a signatory.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.35  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.28    2 months ago

Israel has as much right to build settlements in Judea and Samaria as you have to build a house in the USA.

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/47248/israel-bans-entry-to-outspoken-us-congresswomen#cm1138173

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.36  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.1.34    2 months ago

Okay then. I will pay attention to that. Please provide a list of the agreements Israel is bound to that it has violated. Don't bother listing the Oslo Accords.  The Palestinians walked away from them before.

By the way, the League of Nations Mandates are NOT abrogated by the United Nations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.34    2 months ago

Is it hypocritical for a Congresswoman to request entry into Israel, despite her knowing Israeli law forbids it because of her stance on BDS, have Israel deny her entry, her sign a letter asking for entry on humanitarian grounds to visit her grandmother, have Israel grant that entry, and then she turned it down.

Sounds pretty damn hypocritical to me!!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.38  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.37    2 months ago

I think we can conclude that Israel's Interior Minister, Aryeh Deri nailed it when he said "I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother."

I also think it's time we all admit the obvious - Tlaib represents a radical Palestinian fringe group, rather than the 13th District of Michigan.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.39  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.38    2 months ago
"I also think it's time we all admit the obvious - Tlaib represents a radical Palestinian fringe group, rather than the 13th District of Michigan."

Absolutely.  When she won the election, she wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag.  Just look at my comment below:

 
 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.40  Enoch  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.13    2 months ago

Dear Brother Dave: Its a great point you raised here. 

In the case of soda stream, Jewish Israeli's opened a plant to manufacture a beverage product.

They opened it is the liberated territory of the west bank.

They hired locally.

This brought good paying stable jobs with comprehensive benefits to area residents. 

BDS and its allies boycotted this firm.

Thus depriving those living in the West Bank from earning a good living for their families and selves.

The best way to make peace is to make peace.

Hurting your own, whether economically, or using them a human shields in combat started by terrorist acts shows what is really going on here. 

By the way, where is the International Court of Law when terrorists use as human shields to protect themselves after they murder others?

Isn't that the very definition of a crime against humanity?

Best to let all people in the area find ways to live together in peace and prosperity.

Peace and Abundant Blessings To All.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.41  Enoch  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.12    2 months ago

Dear Brother Dave: Superb example.

Right on the money.

The intent was there and glaringly obvious.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.42  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.33    2 months ago
Besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

https:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com / casus+belli

Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.

That made the Six Day War a Defensive War, and lands conquered in a defensive war belong to the victor.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.43  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.36    2 months ago
Please provide a list of the agreements Israel is bound to that it has violated.

Your question tells me that you didn't read the link I provided. The international agreements that Israel violated are listed there. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.44  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.1.43    2 months ago

I always thought an agreement had to be signed, or else adhered to in some way to indicate its acceptance, but then, after all, I only have that opinion because of my profession.  I do not read Mondoweiss, nor do I read Der Stormer since I would expect the same opinions from both.  As for the Six Day War?  Ever heard of Casus Belli?  I think some border violations were pointed out elsewhere in these comments, and besides, if Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt was considered to be the start of a war against Egypt, Israel gave back the conquered Sinai to Egypt. Jordan and Syria struck Israel BEFORE Israel retaliated against them, and therefore there is NO ARGUMENT that Israel's conquest of THEIR lands were by means of defensive wars and therefor to the victor go the spoils. That may be contrary to the opinions of Mondoweiss, Der Stormer, Al Jazeera, Al Arabya and Veterans Today, which you would rather prefer. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.44    2 months ago
I always thought an agreement had to be signed, or else adhered to in some way to indicate its acceptance, but then, after all, I only have that opinion because of my profession. 

It's ironic that you would say that after posting a plethora of international agreements which Israel is NOT a signatory to. 

I do not read Mondoweiss, nor do I read Der Stormer since I would expect the same opinions from both.

WTF is your point Buzz. MY link has nothing to do with either...

As for the Six Day War? Ever heard of Casus Belli?

Blah, blah, blah...

You seem to be mixing my comments with other member's Buzz. Try to keep up. 

If you're going to respond to me, how about canning the deflection and addressing the content of the link that I posted. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.46  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @4.1.45    2 months ago

No, Dulay, I'm not going to waste my time, because it should be pretty obvious to you what side of this issue I'm on, and which side of it you're on, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.  So I'm through with you on this issue. Let's continue to be civil with each other and give it up. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.46    2 months ago
No, Dulay, I'm not going to waste my time, because it should be pretty obvious to you what side of this issue I'm on, and which side of it you're on, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. 

The link that I posted isn't MY opinion, it's the ruling of the International Court. 

So I'm through with you on this issue.

Actually Buzz, you didn't even start. You refuse to address anything that other members contribute yet you bloviate at will. 

Let's continue to be civil with each other and give it up. 

No worries but I will continue to post facts. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    2 months ago

Under Israeli law, Israel was more than justified in denying entry to these women.

That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.49  dave-2693993  replied to  Enoch @4.1.40    2 months ago

Thank you and good example Enoch.

Another "cut off the nose to spite the face" on the part of those who refuse peace.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.50  dave-2693993  replied to  Enoch @4.1.41    2 months ago

Thank you again Enoch.

Yet the same intent remains with the shift to the propaganda war.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.51  dave-2693993  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.42    2 months ago
Besides the fact that armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria were amassed on the border with Israel prepared to strike...  Israel launched the first attack of bombing Egypt's Air force, but Egypt provided a prior casus belli by blocking the Straits of Tiran (an illegal act according to international law).

Casus belli legal definition of casus belli - Legal Dictionary

https:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com / casus+belli

Casus Belli . [Latin, Cause of war.] A term used in International Law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.

That made the Six Day War a Defensive War, and lands conquered in a defensive war belong to the victor.

It is true I did not include the blocking of the straights of Tiran. Didn't think I needed to, but it does build a stronger case.

IMO, to call the attack Israel launched on the buildup by the surrounding aggressors an act of unmitigated aggression would be like calling a "preemptive" strike by the Poles on the Nazi's a an attack on innocent bystanders.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.48    2 months ago
Under Israeli law, Israel was more than justified in denying entry to these women.

Under US law the Congresswoman are more than justified to voice their opinion on that decision. 

That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.

Trump is the one that made a 'huge issue' out of it and his lap dog, Netanyahu, did his bidding.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.53  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.52    2 months ago
Under US law the Congresswoman are more than justified to voice their opinion on that decision.

Yes, and I haven't ever said otherwise. They are completely free here to express whatever fucked-up opinion they have.

Trump is the one that made a 'huge issue' out of it and his lap dog, Netanyahu, did his bidding.

Trump DID make an issue of it--after the women refused to join a bi-partisan delegation that was scheduled to visit.

So I think they made it an issue as well, especially after one said that she desperately wanted to see her grandmother, was granted permission, then went back and refused to go. I have zero sympathy for them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Enoch @4.1.40    2 months ago
BDS and its allies boycotted this firm.

Thus depriving those living in the West Bank from earning a good living for their families and selves.

The best way to make peace is to make peace.

It's self-preservation.

Peace and prosperity are the poison that will bring about the death of BDS.  Prosperous people don't protest.  They have no need or patience for organizations that foment discord, disrupting the very peace and prosperity they have finally achieved.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.46    2 months ago
Let's continue to be civil with each other and give it up.

Nice attempt, but probably a fruitless endeavor.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.53    2 months ago
Trump DID make an issue of it--after the women refused to join a bi-partisan delegation that was scheduled to visit.

So when you said: 

That the women chose to make it a huge issue is all on them--just riling up their base.

It was bullshit. Got ya...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5  igknorantzrulz    2 months ago

ole Benji boy attempting to appease our tweeter in chief

while our tweeter in chief pleases his little Putin

WTF happened ...

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5    2 months ago
WTF happened ...

Looks like Israel decided it didn't need to let people who hate them into their country.

Problem?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    2 months ago
Looks like Israel decided it didn't need to let people who hate them into their country. Problem?

No problem at all, the next Dem POTUS can cancel the 10 billion a year we give them in handouts. 

Problem? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    2 months ago

Problem?

Not at ALL.

LOVE to see another Democratic politician commit political suicide!

Bring it ON!!!

BTFW, do you know that Congress appropriates money, not the President--even a Democratic one?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    2 months ago

UNBELIEVABLE EXAGGERATION ON YOUR PART MISTER FROST.  Israel gets somewhat over 3 billion dollars a year in MILITARY AID much of which is spent back in the USA keeping American jobs and industry viable.  Joint development of military equipment such as anti-missile systems is part of that, or since Russia and Iran are preparing to wipe the USA off the map, are you unhappy with Israel's contribution to the defence of the USA?  The extent of your exaggeration of that does say something about YOU, MISTER FROST.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.3    2 months ago

@5.1.3

You'll just have to excuse it. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.4    2 months ago

Maybe he read it on Mondoweiss or Veterans Today.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.3    2 months ago

I said nothing about military aid BUZZ. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.6    2 months ago

Since that's the only aid Israel gets from the USA, what other aid did you mean?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.7    2 months ago

LOL.  Cat got your tongue, MISTER Frost?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.8    2 months ago

Okay, MISTER Frost, I guess you're sleeping on it in order to come up with an answer.

 
 
 
cms5
5.1.10  seeder  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    2 months ago
No problem at all, the next Dem POTUS can cancel the 10 billion a year we give them in handouts.  Problem? 

Over denying entry of two anti-Semitic Congresswomen? No Hate or anti-semitism here. /s

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  cms5 @5.1.10    2 months ago

Isn't it sad that they expect Israel to disregard its own laws to placate a couple of freshmen Congresspersons?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
5.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.9    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    2 months ago

I think it might actually be weakness to deny them entry. Show the world they don't intimidate you and let them go where they will, saying what they want. Chances are, they will only embarrass themselves and reveal their true colors anyway.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

I think I answered that already. It was a no-win situation for Israel, and IMO they made the right choice.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    2 months ago

This is exactly what they were wishing for.  

Now they can spew more anti Israel rhetoric.

It will be SOSDD for "the squad."

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1  WallyW  replied to  Sparty On @7    2 months ago

I disagree.

They would do that anyway.

They are up to no good...this visit was meant to be for propaganda purposes

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/brooke-goldstein-israel-smart-about-omar-tlaib-%e2%80%93-they-are-enemies-of-the-jewish-state/ar-AAFRkMA?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1.1  WallyW  replied to  WallyW @7.1    2 months ago

Excerpts from the above story.....

"Omar and Tlaib’s proposed itinerary read like a laundry list of provocative actions designed to intentionally stoke ethnic and religious tensions. Their rumored demand to pray alongside leaders from the Palestinian Authority at the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site and also the location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam – could have incited a riot and kicked off a round of deadly violence."'

"One item that wasn’t on the agenda for Omar and Tlaib was official government business. They planned no meetings with Israeli or Palestinian officials during the trip."

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  WallyW @7.1.1    2 months ago
"Omar and Tlaib’s proposed itinerary read like a laundry list of provocative actions designed to intentionally stoke ethnic and religious tensions. Their rumored demand to pray alongside leaders from the Palestinian Authority at the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site and also the location of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam – could have incited a riot and kicked off a round of deadly violence."

I agree that both were using this trip to further their agenda; but them praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque should not have been a part of the reason.  As stated it is the third holiest site in Islam. Both Congress women are Muslims, and Israel is supposed to be open about religion according to the Balfour Declaration.

https://fanack.com/palestine/history-past-to-present/balfour-declaration/?gclid=CjwKCAjwqNnqBRATEiwAkHm2BKcqg50z_pVYQjOuQQ4SauNCtSuDYh_9A4u9V5XJlyxDlTmHqXQY6xoCZoQQAvD_BwE

His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’ The wording of the letter was significant. Arab Palestinians, who made up more than 90 per cent of the population , were categorized as a ‘non-Jewish community’ whose ‘civil and religious’ rights had to be respected. Also notable was the absence of any reference to the Arabs’ national rights or right to self-determination

Now, barring them on this part is completely understandable.

"One item that wasn’t on the agenda for Omar and Tlaib was official government business. They planned no meetings with Israeli or Palestinian officials during the trip."

The argument for barring them is much stronger if religion is left out of the equation. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  WallyW @7.1    2 months ago

This just gives them one more reason to bag on Israel.

They know they better get their shots in while they can.  

After the 2020 election, both will likely be out of congress and living in a van down by the river.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.3    2 months ago
"After the 2020 election, both will likely be out of congress and living in a van down by the river."

From your fingers to God's eyes.  (A keyboard variation of "From your lips to God's ears.")

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.2    2 months ago

Religion was not the reason.  Praying at the Al Aqsa mosque (which by the way has been disputed as being a holy Muslim site) was not the reason.  BDS itself was not the reason.  The purpose of their trip was so obvious and explained enough times in these comments that it should be unnecessary to explain over and over again.

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    2 months ago

It is a good idea to keep troublemakers out of your country

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
9  Goodtime Charlie    2 months ago

If Omar's and Tlaib's intention was to truly see the facts on the ground for what they are, they could have easily joined 72 of their fellow House members who visited Israel last week as part of a congressional delegation.

Omar and Tlaib were invited to be part of that delegation by the leadership of the House Democratic Caucus. But the pair ruled this out, instead choosing to plan their own trip to advance their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic political agenda.

No country on Earth would allow its sworn enemies to use its territory as a base from which to continue an insidious campaign of delegitimization.

Thankfully, Israel is prioritizing the safety and security of its own citizens ahead of the political agenda of two hateful members of Congress.

 
 
 
Enoch
9.1  Enoch  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @9    2 months ago

Dear Friend Goodtime Charlie: Fine points all. 

Sincere best wishes to you and yours for a great summer, and a better fall.

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10  MrFrost    2 months ago

Just pointing out that swooning over Israel is not a requirement and expressing your religious views is not a crime. While I do not support these two's criticism of Israel, I do respect their right to do so. 

As to trump once again, acting like a baby and throwing another fit? Same shit, different day. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10    2 months ago
Just pointing out that swooning over Israel is not a requirement and expressing your religious views is not a crime. While I do not support these two's criticism of Israel, I do respect their right to do so

Yes, they have every right to criticize anything under the sun. 

Unfortunately for them, their right to do so doesn't include doing it in Israel.

Aw, too bad.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    2 months ago
Unfortunately for them, their right to do so doesn't include doing it in Israel.

They were in Israel when they were criticizing Israel? You sure? Pretty sure you're wrong. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.1    2 months ago

You are correct.  He is not, as usual.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.1    2 months ago

@10.1.1

No, Mr. Frost, the women were NOT IN ISRAEL.

No one said or implied that they were.

Where in the hell do you GET this crap?

from the same sources that told you Fox was banned in Canada and the UK?

Here:

The women are Americans. They are in America. They are critical of Israel. They have that right.

Israel decided they weren't going to being criticizing Israel IN Israel.

Hence, the women's right to criticize Israel is NOT being allowed IN Israel.

Get it now?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.3    2 months ago

LOL. Look at how he and his [Deleted] JUMPED at the opportunity to totally misinterpret what you said in an unsuccessful attempt to embarrass you for YOUR CORRECT understanding and use of the English language.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.4    2 months ago

@10.1.4

Gee, you don't think that someone would deliberately misinterpret my post in order to argue something no one stated, do you?

Naw……….……..

/s!

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.4    2 months ago

@10.1.4

Removed for context

I like it!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.4    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
10.1.8  squiggy  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.3    2 months ago

"They were in Israel when they were criticizing Israel?"

Yea, that's a chronic problem with a few of them - going scorched-earth when logic fails.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  squiggy @10.1.8    2 months ago

No--it is just being intellectually dishonest and lazy.,

 
 
 
cms5
10.2  seeder  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @10    2 months ago
Just pointing out that swooning over Israel is not a requirement and expressing your religious views is not a crime. While I do not support these two's criticism of Israel, I do respect their right to do so. 

No-one is swooning over Israel, nor is anyone suppressing the congresswomen's rights to express their views.

They do not have the right to spew hatred towards any religion that is not their own. They wouldn't stand for anyone freely voicing hatred towards their religion, would they?

 
 
 
MrFrost
11  MrFrost    2 months ago

I would also point out that after the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, the local Muslim mosque donated more money to the victims families than any other group. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @11    2 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    2 months ago

deleted for context by Charger 383

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.1    2 months ago

@11.1.1

You keep stretching far enough and eventually you might make some valid, reasonable point.

[Deleted]

The Pittsburg shooting and what occurred in the aftermath really doesn't have a damn thing to do with Israel barring a couple of haters.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.2    2 months ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.3    2 months ago

deleted for context by Charger 383 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.4    2 months ago

Oh?  So please advise what other financial aid Israel gets, and how much, or did Mondoweiss or Veterans Today not explain it?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.5    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

LOL.  It's not hard to determine the bias exhibited by EVERYONE on this article (or is this statement going to be deleted as well?)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13  Buzz of the Orient    2 months ago

From ISRAPUNDIT

Why ZOA supports the banning from Israel of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib

ZOA PRESS RELEASE

Earlier today, we published two press releases, one in  support of Israel’s decision  to refuse entry of Israelophobic and anti-Semitic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and another emphasizing that  no nation –– including Israel –– shall be required to admit persons  who seek to destroy or harm the host country.

Did you see anyone else proudly and publicly stand with Israel today? ZOA is not afraid to speak the truth:

  • Rep’s Tlaib and Omar seek Israel’s destruction, and are leading promoters of anti-Jewish anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS). They outrageously compare boycotting Israel to boycotting Nazis.
  • Rep. Tlaib’s associates include  Hezbollah-backer  and anti-Israel Al Awda head Abbas Hamideh.
  • Rep. Tlaib publicly praised 18 colleagues who are  close associates of Palestinian terrorists  with Jewish blood on their hands, for helping Tlaib to win office.
  • Rep. Tlaib invited Hezbollah supporters to her swearing-in and took pictures with them and convicted Jew killer Rasmeah Odeh.
  • Rep. Tlaib claimed that Arabs “provided a safe haven for Jews” after the Holocaust; deleted Israel from her office map; and has written for Farrakhan’s newspaper.
  • Rep. Omar accuses Jews of bribing Congress to support Israel; showed sympathy to ISIS; called Israel “Apartheid State;” called Israel “evil” & and “hypnotized” the world.
  • Rep. Omar described 9-11 as “some people who did something”; wouldn’t answer if she supported Al Qaeda; and supports murderous dictator Communist Venezuela’s Maduro.
  • Rep.  Omar’s financial backers  include top anti-Israel BDS leaders and Hamas supporters.
  • Rep. Omar demanded a judge should show compassion towards and  reduce the sentences  of convicted ISIS terrorists.

Other nations, including the U.S., have elected to deny admission to persons posing a potential security risk, or who seek to destroy or harm the host country. For example, the United States properly denied admission to:
i)  President of Austria and former Secretary General of the United Nations  Kurt Waldheim ;
ii) PLO Executive Committee member, propagandist and terror supporter  Hanan Ashrawi ; and
iii) Co-founder and leader of the antisemitic anti-Israel international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to delegitimize and economically destroy Israel,  Omar Barghouti .
Today’s events exemplify the rise in anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and Israelophobic bigotry permeating our society, and why the ZOA is active in courtrooms, on college campuses, and Capitol Hill:
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

According to the news this morning, Israel is reversing its decision and will let them enter.  I hope the PM is prepared for the tantrum Trump will unleash via twitter.  How dare they defy El Trumpo.

 
 
 
squiggy
14.1  squiggy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    2 months ago

Maybe Trump concurred and they left you off the distro.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  squiggy @14.1    2 months ago

Yeah right.  Like Trump would back off on anything concerning these women and his hatred for them.  Who is running your Kool Aid stand while you are here?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.1.1    2 months ago

They are jihad supporters and thus enemies of both the US and Israel.  They should be sent to live with their fellow jihadists

 
 
 
Ronin2
14.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.2    2 months ago

Could we stop calling for US citizens being sent anywhere?

If anyone breaks US laws there is a legal system to deal with that.

As much as I don't like the political views, racism, or anti-Semitism of "the Squad"; they are all US citizens entitled to the same protection under the law as the rest of us.

They haven't broken any laws yet, though AOC is under investigation for campaign funding fraud.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  Ronin2 @14.1.3    2 months ago

I agree it’s preferrable  that they should be tried as enemies and traitors. I felt it was leniency to let them permanently leave the country

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.4    2 months ago
'I agree it’s preferrable  that they should be tried as enemies and traitors'

I agree we should try this 'president' and his cabinet of gangsters, thugs, grifters, thieves - as enemies and traitors.

Quite fitting.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @14.1.5    2 months ago

Trump is a patriot.  These two support the violent overthrow of the US so that we would be under Islamic rule.

they are known for providing financial and verbal support to jihadist organizations 

if you support them, you are giving support to supporters of Islamic terrorism

 
 
 
katrix
14.1.7  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.6    2 months ago
Trump is a patriot

My definition of a patriot is NOT a person who admires Putin and Kim while disparaging his own intelligence and military communities.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @14.1.7    2 months ago
while disparaging his own intelligence and military communities.

"Intelligence" since before he was elected.....not so great (Trump must be stopped before he is elected).

The "Military" …. "Billions" allocated by Trump to shore them up.

Oh...and the thing about "Vets" being able to go elsewhere for "Medical" issues with no worries.....hmmmmmmm.

What's the issue again ?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
14.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @14.1.7    2 months ago

He doesn't admire those two, and he never "disparaged" the intelligence and military communities.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
14.1.10  Raven Wing  replied to  katrix @14.1.7    2 months ago
My definition of a patriot is NOT a person who admires Putin and Kim while disparaging his own intelligence and military communities.

Nor is my definition of a Patriot a person who will knell in praise of the those who are intent on destroying their own country, and its people, then expect to be worshiped by his own country as being the Messiah.

There is a special place for that person, and it doesn't have Pearly Gates.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
14.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Ronin2 @14.1.3    2 months ago
Could we stop calling for US citizens being sent anywhere?

Thank you Ronin, and I totally agree. If someone has broken or committed Treason in our country, then they should be dealt with according to the laws of our country here in America. If someone chooses to permanently leave the country of their own free will than that is their own call to make. 

No American has the right to demand that any other American be made to leave the country just because they don't agree with their religious or political views or beliefs, then they should be made to leave the country as well, because there may be those who don't agree with their THEIR religious or political views or beliefs either.

It does not work just one way, no matter how much some people think, or demand it should.

We are all equal under the law here in the US. And we are all entitled to the same rights under the Constitution. Yeah....that Constitution....the one that some endlessly bloviate about and think only they and those they approve of are entitled to.

 
 
 
WallyW
14.2  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    2 months ago

Islam fellow traveler Obama would have applauded their arrogant hatred.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
14.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  WallyW @14.2    2 months ago

Let's not forget that Obama wrote to say that in the event of a conflict HE STANDS WITH THE MUSLIMS.  He proved it was true when he stabbed Israel in the back at the UN at the end of his tenure when he no longer needed Jewish money or votes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.3  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    2 months ago

Tlaib has chosen not to go--even though she earlier claimed it was her "last chance" to visit her grandmother.

Guess that wasn't so important to her after all.

Seems like a whole lot of whining over NOTHING.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
14.3.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Texan1211 @14.3    2 months ago

Of course Israel is going to deny entry to two potential suicide bombers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @14.3.1    2 months ago

The deal is that Israel said Tlaib could enter, and now she chooses not to.

I don't give a fuck what else SHE has to say about it--she has proven herself to be a disingenuous liar.

 
 
 
It Is ME
14.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @14.3    2 months ago
Tlaib has chosen not to go--even though she earlier claimed it was her "last chance" to visit her grandmother.

So much for the "Grandma" cry fest the media pushed, and "Grandma" herself ! jrSmiley_50_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
14.3.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Texan1211 @14.3.2    2 months ago

After she sent a nude selfie to the hot Palestinian jihadist she met on the Bang an Antisemite dating app he canceled over the fear that dinner would cost him too much.

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
14.3.5  Goodtime Charlie  replied to  Texan1211 @14.3    2 months ago
Tlaib has chosen not to go--even though she earlier claimed it was her "last chance" to visit her grandmother.

Her hate for Israel overrides her love for granny. Tlaib got what she wanted, a chance to blast Israel no need to make the trip now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @14.3.5    2 months ago

Tlaib is probably just pandering to her base.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
14.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    2 months ago
Israel is reversing its decision and will let them enter.

From what I understood, Israel only rescinded the ban on Tlaib in an humanitarian gesture to allow her to visit her ailing Grandmother, but, it was not rescinded for Omar. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
15  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 months ago

These two wenches have ties to terrorists. 

CAIR and BDS.

 
 
 
charger 383
16  charger 383    2 months ago

A few years ago there was a lot of contraversity about the Prime Minister of Israel addressing the U S Congress,  some did not want that to happen 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
17  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

"Huge congrats to Rashida Tlaib, whose bigotry and unparalleled political skills have joined forces to explode her grievance narrative, shift the PR battle back into Israel’s favor & gratuitously shun her own grandmother"......Guy Benson

Guy you said it better than I could have.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18  Raven Wing    2 months ago

This whole thing has turned into a big circus. Israel issues a Ban on the two women. Then Tlaib sends a letter pleading to be able to go to Palestine to see her sick Grandmother as it may be the last time she will be able to see her.

Then Israel rescinded the ban to allow Tlaib permission to travel to Israel to visit her Grandmother in a humanitarian gesture.

Then Tlaib says she will NOT go to Israel after being allowed to do so to visit her Grandmother.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/rep-tlaib-says-she-will-not-go-to-israel-after-the-country-initially-rejected-her-request-for-a-visit-then-reversed-course/ar-AAFTk70?li=BBnb7Kz

This is truly a total circus at this point. 

JMOO

 
 
 
It Is ME
18.1  It Is ME  replied to  Raven Wing @18    2 months ago

Tlaibs "Greatest Self Gratification Show on Earth" !

I suppose just an 18% approval rating, really pisses her off !

She's going for 2% now. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Raven Wing @18    2 months ago

It was never about visiting Grandma. These two bigots wanted to make the visit all about shitting on israel.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18.2    2 months ago
It was never about visiting Grandma.

Yeah....I got that from day one. It was simply a ruse to try and make Israel look bad. What these two newbs don't seem to understand is that, there is no other country in the world that MUST allow anyone entry to their country simply because they are an American Congresswoman or Congressman, or even just American for that matter. 

And if Tlaib really was that desperate to visit her Grandmother, she would have been on a plane ASAP after Israel rescinded their ban on her. So she showed her true intentions by then deciding not to go there. 

I have no use for those who play political games, no matter which side they are on. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
18.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @18.2.1    2 months ago

I have no use for those who play political games, no matter which side they are on.  

There's hope for you yet!  jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.2.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Greg Jones @18.2.2    2 months ago

I don't need your hope. I know who I am, and that is all that matters to me. I don't need any political party to define me, nor do I need any politician to define me. Nor do I need the approval of anyone to define me.

Save your hope for yourself.

 
 
 
MUVA
18.2.4  MUVA  replied to  Raven Wing @18.2.3    2 months ago

You have my approval any way.jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  MUVA @18.2.4    2 months ago

Thank you MUVA. I appreciate your approval.  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
18.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Raven Wing @18.2.5    2 months ago

I know you didn't need it but I want to be there for you.jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.2.7  Raven Wing  replied to  MUVA @18.2.6    2 months ago

Thank you for your very kind words, MUVA. And I will be there for you as well. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
18.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Raven Wing @18.2.1    2 months ago
"I have no use for those who play political games, no matter which side they are on."

Well said.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
18.2.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @18.2.8    2 months ago

Thanks Buzz. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
18.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Raven Wing @18    2 months ago
"This is truly a total circus at this point."

That's exactly what she wanted it to be - she could not get better publicity even if she wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag when she won the election.......oh, she DID?  That's so "American" of her.

Rashida.png

 
 
 
squiggy
19  squiggy    2 months ago

One wanted to visit nana and the other was a fig picker. Sure.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
19.1  Raven Wing  replied to  squiggy @19    2 months ago
fig picker

Em....is that some kind of slang? Or a species of figs?    ??

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
squiggy
19.1.1  squiggy  replied to  Raven Wing @19.1    2 months ago

I’m dilcyesx.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
19.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  squiggy @19.1.1    2 months ago

Ah...thanks for the clarification. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20  Raven Wing    2 months ago

What Congress people on both sides need to learn, is that they need to leave their personal grudges at home when representing our government, be it here in America or other countries.

These two women are good examples of how interjecting their personal grudges into their representation of our country can be a detriment not only to themselves, but, to our country as well.

Being elected into the Congress of America does not give one carte blanche to bring their personal feelings toward another country into how they represent America. That they can't play out their personal grudges just because they have been elected to our government.

This is a very important lesson these two Congresswomen are finding out the hard way. 

JMOO

 
 
 
Dulay
20.1  Dulay  replied to  Raven Wing @20    2 months ago
Being elected into the Congress of America does not give one carte blanche to bring their personal feelings toward another country into how they represent America. That they can't play out their personal grudges just because they have been elected to our government.

Yet pro-Israeli Congressmen are allowed, even encouraged to voice those opinions here and in other countries. Why the distinction? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @20.1    2 months ago

They're not just voicing their opinions. Or have you not noticed the difference. There is a difference in how they are presenting their opinions and how they are being played out in the game of world affairs.

 
 
 
Dulay
20.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Raven Wing @20.1.1    2 months ago
They're not just voicing their opinions. Or have you not noticed the difference. There is a difference in how they are presenting their opinions and how they are being played out in the game of world affairs.

Other that a difference of opinion, what 'difference' are you talking about? I've seen them 'presenting their opinions' verbally and in writing? I've seen pro-Israel Congressmen do the same and they've managed to use US taxpayer funds to subsidize the Israeli government for decades. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @20.1.2    2 months ago

To me....me....the difference is how they are voicing their opinions. Are they voicing them merely as opinions, or as accusations? Are they merely voicing them as opinions, or as calling for the extermination of another group of people?

Such as: "I don't think that person seems to be as honest as they pretend to be.

Or: "That person is not worthy to be alive and all their people should be exterminated.

Note...I am only presenting these comparisons to demonstrate what I meant by "difference". It is not aimed in any way toward anyone or any group of people. I hope that is understood.

As I said, this is the difference as it applies to my thinking. 

 
 
 
Dulay
20.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Raven Wing @20.1.3    2 months ago
Are they voicing them merely as opinions, or as accusations?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they are citing facts, they're entitled to include accusations in their opinions. 

Are they merely voicing them as opinions, or as calling for the extermination of another group of people?

I haven't heard anything like that coming from them. Have you? 

IMHO, they have a POLITICAL difference of opinion. It amazes me that Trump can say whatever the fuck he wants and people blow it off and these Congresswomen are criticized for every word they say. Compare the alleged 'anti-Semitic' trope from Omar that caused such and uproar and today's statement from Trump that any Jew that votes for a Democrat is disloyal. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Dulay @20.1.4    2 months ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive. If they are citing facts, they're entitled to include accusations in their opinions.

True, they can state their opinion with any facts they have. However, expressing an accusation without any facts to verify the accusation is another thing. 

But, as I said, I was expressing my own opinion and the differences as I see them. You may have a different POV.

IMHO, they have a POLITICAL difference of opinion. It amazes me that Trump can say whatever the fuck he wants and people blow it off and these Congresswomen are criticized for every word they say. Compare the alleged 'anti-Semitic' trope from Omar that caused such and uproar and today's statement from Trump that any Jew that votes for a Democrat is disloyal.

I totally agree with you on this part of your comment. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
20.2  Willjay9  replied to  Raven Wing @20    2 months ago

But yet you seem to not have a problem with personal feelings when dealing with Muslim countries though.....sounds hypocritical to me

 
 
 
Raven Wing
20.2.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Willjay9 @20.2    2 months ago
sounds hypocritical to me

Sorry that you see it that way. And I am not sure how you think I was talking about my personal feelings in that comment.

I was not at all talking about me, or my personal feelings. I was talking about the personal feelings of those who are elected to our American Congress who are supposed to represent ALL those who voted for them, not just those of the same ethnic group or belief, but, ALL of those who gave their vote to put them in Congress. 

And no....I do not have a problem with the Jewish or Muslims, or any other people of another country or ethnicity. 

We are all one people, we are all human being. No one of us is better or lesser that any other people. There is good and bad in all people no matter what their skin color, religious beliefs, or where they come from. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Wheel
WallyW
Freefaller
Ender
devangelical
Kavika
pat wilson
GregTx
MrFrost
NV-Robin6



CB
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


62 visitors