It appears that Russia as denied visas to two U.S. Senators regarding an upcoming visit to Russia. The individuals denied visas are Senators Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, and Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Johnson said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Russian officials continue to play diplomatic games with this sincere effort. Regardless of this petty affront, I will continue to advocate a strong and resolute response to Russian aggression and frank dialogue when possible."

Mr. Murphy accused Russian officials of "further isolating their country by blocking the trip."

Both lawmakers have been outspoken in their criticism of Russia's annexation of Crimea and have called for sanctions on Moscow over the construction of an offshore pipeline to counter Russia's efforts to consolidate its position in the natural gas market in Eastern Europe.

The Russian embassy has indicated that both Johnson and Murphy have acted in ways that could be considered "Russophobic".

Sound familiar?

Strange we have heard nothing out of the White House given the Fearless Leader's great relationship with Puty. Maybe he's too busy taking off his cheerleading outfit after being the head cheerleader for Russia's readmission to the G8 or was busy selling his Doral club as the greatest location in the history of mankind to hold a gathering for world leaders for the next G7 meeting so he can then invite Puty to as a special guest?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/politics/russia-senators-ron-johnson-chris-murphy.html

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

Considering the U.S. still has a Russian problem...FCCK 'em.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

---

Lets say you are a U.S. Congressman sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee and in keeping with the goals of the U.S. Ambassador, Military, and President, you are trying to prevent the threat of terrorist in a country with a large population that lives in poverty and is ripe for indoctrination of a radical ideology, you may want to visit that country to have an understanding of the government, the military, talk to civilian groups, and get an idea of where they need help, all before voting to give them billions of dollars. You do this so next time you come up for election a challenger doesn't get to use your vote against you as a supporter of the next Hitler.

You could use the trip to seek out additional markets for you constituents who are comprised of farmers, manufacturers, or tech companies, because if you are successful you may see increases in employment and GDP with regard to your state.

Some of these Congressional junkets allow the U.S. to use soft diplomacy and spread the gospel of democracy rather than having to buy bullets, other military hardware, and mobilizing hundreds of thousand men and women to fight a war that doesn't end for decades.

If you are a country that receives millions or billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid or a civilian group pushing for democracy, talking to U.S. Congresspersons could benefit your country or your movement.

BearNIt said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

---

Lets say you are a U.S. Congressman sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee and in keeping with the goals of the U.S. Ambassador, Military, and President, you are trying to prevent the threat of terrorist in a country with a large population that lives in poverty and is ripe for indoctrination of a radical ideology, you may want to visit that country to have an understanding of the government, the military, talk to civilian groups, and get an idea of where they need help, all before voting to give them billions of dollars. You do this so next time you come up for election a challenger doesn't get to use your vote against you as a supporter of the next Hitler.

You could use the trip to seek out additional markets for you constituents who are comprised of farmers, manufacturers, or tech companies, because if you are successful you may see increases in employment and GDP with regard to your state.

Some of these Congressional junkets allow the U.S. to use soft diplomacy and spread the gospel of democracy rather than having to buy bullets, other military hardware, and mobilizing hundreds of thousand men and women to fight a war that doesn't end for decades.

If you are a country that receives millions or billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid or a civilian group pushing for democracy, talking to U.S. Congresspersons could benefit your country or your movement.

---

So you really didn't read the article.

All those guys and gals with the 30 plus trips - only one of them on the foreign relations committee. How many the top 20 of trip takers... the same one guy. And in terms of the 600 junkets paid for by taxpayers, these 20 have most of them. And a good portion of those trips are to places we want to tourists want to visit. Seeing many terrorist threats from the UK or Canada? Essentially all the visited countries are democracies, and really don't need soft selling, or even a hard sell unless you are trying to get rid of the Windsors. If this was aimed at the Ruskies, you realize there was only 1 trip in 6 years. You see of those really desperate, poor countries on that list of most visited? All aboard to Burundi, Niger, Liberia... I don't think so. Maybe you justify something on improving trade, but we are talking Congress people with little impact the truth be told (maybe senior congressional leaders do, but most of them stay home and work).

But none of this speaks to the really big problem. Private funded trips. The most visited countries by far are Israel and Turkey. Is it because of all those wonderful tourist sites that make them among the popular destinations in the world? Maybe. But "with nearly 1,400 visits from 2011 to 2016, Israel easily led the way and accounted for nearly a third of all of the 4,400 trips that occurred within the reporting period. Turkey was also quite high with roughly 750 visits, but other countries trailed far behind." The article that shows you the agencies these counties have to fund congressional trips. Any would they do that? "...[L]egislators and staff are more likely to return to the United States with greater sympathy for the policies advanced by the governments of host countries. The implication is that many members of Congress may now be particularly knowledgeable about and sympathetic toward Israel and Turkey, not necessarily because of constituent preferences or abstract ideas about the importance of U.S. relations with those countries, but at least partly because of the travel itself, which has placed members and staff in close contact with government officials, the public, and economic and political conditions in Israel and Turkey."

So yes, this is one big PR show with benefits to congress who visit a lot of nice bucket list locations. But you knew that, since as you put it: "If you are a country that receives millions or billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid [sorry, I deleted the democracy stuff since as not reflected in the numbers] talking to U.S. Congresspersons could benefit your country." Oh f@ck yes, it sure does. So tell me why this is in the taxpayer's or our country's interest again?

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

---

Lets say you are a U.S. Congressman sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee and in keeping with the goals of the U.S. Ambassador, Military, and President, you are trying to prevent the threat of terrorist in a country with a large population that lives in poverty and is ripe for indoctrination of a radical ideology, you may want to visit that country to have an understanding of the government, the military, talk to civilian groups, and get an idea of where they need help, all before voting to give them billions of dollars. You do this so next time you come up for election a challenger doesn't get to use your vote against you as a supporter of the next Hitler.

You could use the trip to seek out additional markets for you constituents who are comprised of farmers, manufacturers, or tech companies, because if you are successful you may see increases in employment and GDP with regard to your state.

Some of these Congressional junkets allow the U.S. to use soft diplomacy and spread the gospel of democracy rather than having to buy bullets, other military hardware, and mobilizing hundreds of thousand men and women to fight a war that doesn't end for decades.

If you are a country that receives millions or billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid or a civilian group pushing for democracy, talking to U.S. Congresspersons could benefit your country or your movement.

---

So you really didn't read the article.

All those guys and gals with the 30 plus trips - only one of them on the foreign relations committee. How many the top 20 of trip takers... the same one guy. And in terms of the 600 junkets paid for by taxpayers, these 20 have most of them. And a good portion of those trips are to places we want to tourists want to visit. Seeing many terrorist threats from the UK or Canada? Essentially all the visited countries are democracies, and really don't need soft selling, or even a hard sell unless you are trying to get rid of the Windsors. If this was aimed at the Ruskies, you realize there was only 1 trip in 6 years. You see of those really desperate, poor countries on that list of most visited? All aboard to Burundi, Niger, Liberia... I don't think so. Maybe you justify something on improving trade, but we are talking Congress people with little impact the truth be told (maybe senior congressional leaders do, but most of them stay home and work).

But none of this speaks to the really big problem. Private funded trips. The most visited countries by far are Israel and Turkey. Is it because of all those wonderful tourist sites that make them among the popular destinations in the world? Maybe. But "with nearly 1,400 visits from 2011 to 2016, Israel easily led the way and accounted for nearly a third of all of the 4,400 trips that occurred within the reporting period. Turkey was also quite high with roughly 750 visits, but other countries trailed far behind." The article that shows you the agencies these counties have to fund congressional trips. Any would they do that? "...[L]egislators and staff are more likely to return to the United States with greater sympathy for the policies advanced by the governments of host countries. The implication is that many members of Congress may now be particularly knowledgeable about and sympathetic toward Israel and Turkey, not necessarily because of constituent preferences or abstract ideas about the importance of U.S. relations with those countries, but at least partly because of the travel itself, which has placed members and staff in close contact with government officials, the public, and economic and political conditions in Israel and Turkey."

So yes, this is one big PR show with benefits to congress who visit a lot of nice bucket list locations. But you knew that, since as you put it: "If you are a country that receives millions or billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid [sorry, I deleted the democracy stuff since as not reflected in the numbers] talking to U.S. Congresspersons could benefit your country." Oh f@ck yes, it sure does. So tell me why this is in the taxpayer's or our country's interest again?

---

Access to markets that weren't tapped or to maintain those markets?

The U.S. goods exports to Turkey in 2018 were $10.2 billion, up 4.6% ($453 million) from 2017 and up 2.4% from 2008.


The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: aircraft ($2.1 billion), mineral fuels ($1.2 billion), iron and steel ($1.1 billion), machinery ($753 million), and cotton ($685 million).

The U.S. total exports of agricultural products to Turkey totaled $1.4 billion in 2018. Leading domestic export categories include: cotton ($682 million), tree nuts ($279 million), distillers grains ($191 million), soybeans ($79 million), and poultry meat & prods. (ex. eggs) ($43 million).


In 2018, U.S. exports were over $13.7 billion, causing Israel to be the 22nd largest export destination. Main U.S. exports to Israel include miscellaneous manufactured commodities, transportation equipment , computer and electronic products and non-electrical machinery.

Israel California Trade
In 2018, California exported $1.7 billion to Israel, making it the state's 18th largest export destination. Miscellaneous manufactured commodities is the largest export category for California, with over $773 million, representing 44.5 percent of all exports to Israel.
Other major export categories to Israel include computer and electronic products, machinery (except electrical), and agricultural products, totaling 19, 11.8, and 5.5 percent of all export commodities respectively.

If the California delegation were able to secure or maintain relationships that foster the export or California goods at $1.7 billion then they should go visit Israeli or Europe. That money generates jobs and taxes that are collected.
If they don't go then maybe another country or state gets that $1.7 billion. Rather have it in California.

The U.S. goods exports to Liberia in 2018 were $217 million, up 56.9% ($79 million) from 2017 and up 38.6% from 2008.

The U.S. goods trade surplus with Liberia was $156 million in 2018, a 229.8% increase ($108 million) over 2017.

The U.S. goods exports to Niger in 2018 were $62 million, up 40.0% ($18 million) from 2017 and up 23.4% from 2008.

The top export categories for Niger in 2018 were: aircraft ($36 million), electrical machinery ($8 million), machinery ($6 million), plastics ($3 million), and vehicles ($2 million).

Those increases didn't magically happen, relationships had to be establish and that entails a face to face visit in most cases. May not seem like a lot, but in a state or community where a business is laying off people, a contract secured with the help of a Congressional rep would be important and could be a lifeline to a manufacturer, the state, and the community.

Visits also allow the U.S. to establish and maintain relationships that could be of use in the future as the U.S. tries to accomplish its goals throughout the world. Specifically the U.S. is concerned about China in Africa and their extraction of raw material needed for technology. Having relationships with various countries allows the U.S. to exert some influence when China seeks to engage those countries for extraction of their raw materials. This is the practice of soft diplomacy.

Also, look at U.S. FDI.

All the above benefits the U.S., states, and communities economically when Congressional Reps visit other countries even if some are tourist destinations, and that's why trips are taken, even those paid for by private entities and by the taxpayer. Like everything some will abuse this and should be called out. Those that bring home contracts and benefits to the U.S. should be acknowledged.

Some of the places visited even hold a strategic importance.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

---

I think you have valid points, but I think they are the wrong points to focus on for this story. It is an internal matter whether we spend money on congressional junkets. That is our business. Countries that purport to be our friends should be freely allowing our government officials to visit. The view of our government and particularly our president should be that members of our congress get to visit other countries or those countries should be told to get their people the eff out of ours, and there will be significant diplomatic consequences. When the president not only accepts, but virtually instructs a foreign government to deny members of the opposition party entry for political purposes he loses all leverage for persuasion when another government wants to deny a member of his party entry. Whether you think we should pay for it or not, or whether the foreign government should grant entry or not, strategically having our officials having access is a good thing. Of course Russia doesn't want to give access to those that criticize them. This just gave them an excuse. This was an easily foreseeable result of the issue with Israel. Another example of playing Candyland while others play chess.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Let the indignation just roll... Why should any country allow any Congress people in unless it is good for PR purposes?

And what value do all these Congressional junkets really provide?A Closer Look at Congressional Foreign Travel http://www.lawfareblog.com/closer-look-congressional-foreign-travel

---

I think you have valid points, but I think they are the wrong points to focus on for this story. It is an internal matter whether we spend money on congressional junkets. That is our business. Countries that purport to be our friends should be freely allowing our government officials to visit. The view of our government and particularly our president should be that members of our congress get to visit other countries or those countries should be told to get their people the eff out of ours, and there will be significant diplomatic consequences. When the president not only accepts, but virtually instructs a foreign government to deny members of the opposition party entry for political purposes he loses all leverage for persuasion when another government wants to deny a member of his party entry. Whether you think we should pay for it or not, or whether the foreign government should grant entry or not, strategically having our officials having access is a good thing. Of course Russia doesn't want to give access to those that criticize them. This just gave them an excuse. This was an easily foreseeable result of the issue with Israel. Another example of playing Candyland while others play chess.

---

Well I think we both hav valid points and are a little off the main topic.

I have problems with most congressional travel, particularly with Israel and Turkey since I think they buy influence with the trips.. Perhaps that was a discussion for another day, and not related to the Russian trips, as these two congressmen clearly were going for fact finding purposes.


I don't see the Israel/Trump being the same as th Russia thing either. I agree Trump basically forced Israel into that position. And one Branch of government should not be dictating where members of the other beaches should travel. I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS.


I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let her in, until Trump got involved. As far as I can tell, this is not the case with Russia. They just don't want to let these guys in to give them a platform to criticize the Russian government. That is there prerogative as a country. If Russia doesn't what our guys in, they can vote against Russian interests in matters that come before Congress.

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

---

sorry, I'd haver to convert. You on the other hand sound like a nationalist. Since when do our politicians get to do whatever they want in another country? Not to mention you have a reading disorder (Trump doesn't get to tell other branches of government what to do).

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

---

sorry, I'd haver to convert. You on the other hand sound like a nationalist. Since when do our politicians get to do whatever they want in another country? Not to mention you have a reading disorder (Trump doesn't get to tell other branches of government what to do).

---

A nationalist because I believe congressional reps should do their job? Look if the U.S. gives Israel aid and cover, then they should comply with letting U.S. official visit, for whatever reason...or risk not getting funding.

I'm quite serious...if you want peace in the Middle East fast...defund Israel and they will do a 180 and negotiate in good faith, unlike now. Right now they're running an enthno-religious apartheid system, and not a democracy. Funny how the U.S. looks the other way on Israeli authoritarianism because it's a geopolitical benefit.

p.s. you don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist or support it. Progressives make the distinction between anti-zionism and anti-semitic. You can be opposed to an ethno-religious apartheid state and not be anti-semitic.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

---

sorry, I'd haver to convert. You on the other hand sound like a nationalist. Since when do our politicians get to do whatever they want in another country? Not to mention you have a reading disorder (Trump doesn't get to tell other branches of government what to do).

---

I don't want to get into the name calling part of this debate. But I do want to address the greater point.

Of course countries have a right to decide for themselves who they allow in. And they should weigh all of the consequences of those decisions. And as the UNITED States of America, the consequence of dealing with a great democracy is that many view points are represented. However we may debate INTERNALLY, we are united in supporting each other as it relates to foreign powers. We don't take the stance that you can shyte all over members of the opposition party. No one else has done that. These countries can make whatever decision they want. And the US can make whatever decision it wants relating to aid to those countries, diplomatic communications, and members of that country being allowed in the US. If the countries want the benefit of the relationship, they need to take the things they don't like so much.

I don't think Russia acts as they do if Israel didn't just get away with that maneuver. It is a detriment to the US that countries don't see refusing to allow our government officials entry as a deeply problematic gambit. The bottom line is that Trump is more concerned with vanquishing internal political opponents than representing America overseas.

It is very simple. You may fight with your family. You may fight with your friends. But you treat them better than strangers and enemies. Americans of all political persuasion are our family. Our traditional allies are our friends. Trump is taking the reverse position. Support our enemies, dump on our allies, and attack Americans. It is a bizarre policy stemming from ego driven behavior.

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

---

sorry, I'd haver to convert. You on the other hand sound like a nationalist. Since when do our politicians get to do whatever they want in another country? Not to mention you have a reading disorder (Trump doesn't get to tell other branches of government what to do).

---

A nationalist because I believe congressional reps should do their job? Look if the U.S. gives Israel aid and cover, then they should comply with letting U.S. official visit, for whatever reason...or risk not getting funding.

I'm quite serious...if you want peace in the Middle East fast...defund Israel and they will do a 180 and negotiate in good faith, unlike now. Right now they're running an enthno-religious apartheid system, and not a democracy. Funny how the U.S. looks the other way on Israeli authoritarianism because it's a geopolitical benefit.

---

The only way peace is coming to the Middle East at the moment is if Israel decides to militarily wipe out its opposition which is about as likely an outcome of defunding them as that they will do a 180 on negotiation (neither is likely).

If you think Israel's behavior is the only massive roadblock to Middle East peace, you are deluding yourself. I don't like a lot of Israel's policy, but the other side isn't exactly a rational actor either. Negotiating peace with Israel has tended to be a risky proposition for a politician who doesn't want to die of severe and sudden lead contamination. I'm not sure there is a position many on the other side will accept other than for Israel to GTFO

To me, the dumbest part of Israel's strategy is that if they bent over backwards to behave reasonably, it would be impossible to ignore the craziness on the other side.

Neither side is ready for peace. Which is why at this point I don't give a rat's bottom. Just don't kill the rest of us in the process.

There are issues on both sides but one side is under repressive imperial or colonial rule, living in an apartheid system. My take is the Palestinian have lived how many generations under these condition...gets you a iron clad resistance. Being treated like shtt for generations will do that. No their reaction isn't conducive to peace but they're not the aggressors.

My point is this: level out funding for Israel is likely the only way to get them to acknowledge anything or budge on anything. They hold all the cards.

Another Bear said:

---

There are issues on both sides but one side is under repressive imperial or colonial rule, living in an apartheid system. My take is the Palestinian have lived how many generations under these condition...gets you a iron clad resistance. Being treated like shtt for generations will do that. No their reaction isn't conducive to peace but they're not the aggressors.

My point is this: level out funding for Israel is likely the only way to get them to acknowledge anything or budge on anything. They hold all the cards.

---

My point is that the funding more likely stops Israel from taking a more militaristic stance. I think rather than getting them to budge on anything, cutting the funding is more likely to reduce their caring about international opinion and employ options that they do not want to employ now because the international cost is too high.

But let's just say that we can magically make Israel and western powers acknowledge all wrongs as Palestinians see them and be entirely reasonable in their offers. What is the reasonable offer you see coming from the other side? Let's just assume they are justified in every bit of their anger or response. From a practical point of view, what reasonable offer do you see the Palestinians accepting? Fixing Israel is not going to lead to peace. If anything the number one issue you need to deal with is the very real threat to the physical safety of any Palestinian leader who even considers a peace deal with Israel. The primary reason no talks can occur is there is no Palestinian authority that can guarantee peace from their side. Honestly, I think a "peace" deal is more likely to usher in a new era of increased terrorism from those who don't like the deal.

You may have a point describing it as repressive imperial or colonial rule. While some may *******ize the term, Apartheid is a South African word for a system in South Africa. I do not compare things to the holocaust. I do not compare things to slavery. And I'm not going to compare Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to what happened in South Africa.

Also, I don't that Israel's actions have justified the terrorism that has far too often been the strategy of Palestinians. (nor do I think the terrorism excuses all of Israel's actions.

Bottom line. Israel is not going anywhere. There is no sign that the Palestinians will be happy unless they flat out leave.

Personally, I think there is a lot of wrong to go around on both sides of this and I question anyone who takes sides.

The Holocaust happens and it's a low point in human history...but it doesn't give Israel carde blanche to repress others. Like I said upthread: anti semitism is different from anti Zionism.

But yes, just sit back and don't take a position or stand...life is so much easier that way.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a moment that Omar had any other interest in going than to try to embarrass Israel and further her boycott agenda, and that the grandma thing was pure BS. And candidly, I don't see why a country should be forced to admit people when its not in their interest. The post with Omar was that Israel was going to let

---

Omar doesn't have a grandmother in Palestine. You're thinking of Tlaib.

I know those brown squad members all look alike.

In any case, as members of Congress, which funds Israel, they have every right to go there. Trump was playing politics to his base of xenophobia white folk and it seems you bit.

---

Congress has no right to go any other country, nor does any member of the government. We allow other countries to make those decisions since on one appointed us God. And in fact, we don't let people from some other countries into this country. Maybe those other countries do so at their peril, but they have the right to refuse anyone they want into their borders.

---

Frankly you sound like a Zionist.

---

sorry, I'd haver to convert. You on the other hand sound like a nationalist. Since when do our politicians get to do whatever they want in another country? Not to mention you have a reading disorder (Trump doesn't get to tell other branches of government what to do).

---

I don't want to get into the name calling part of this debate. But I do want to address the greater point.

Of course countries have a right to decide for themselves who they allow in. And they should weigh all of the consequences of those decisions. And as the UNITED States of America, the consequence of dealing with a great democracy is that many view points are represented. However we may debate INTERNALLY, we are united in supporting each other as it relates to foreign powers. We don't take the stance that you can shyte all over members of the opposition party. No one else has done that. These countries can make whatever decision they want. And the US can make whatever decision it wants relating to aid to those countries, diplomatic communications, and members of that country being allowed in the US. If the countries want the benefit of the relationship, they need to take the things they don't like so much.

I don't think Russia acts as they do if Israel didn't just get away with that maneuver. It is a detriment to the US that countries don't see refusing to allow our government officials entry as a deeply problematic gambit. The bottom line is that Trump is more concerned with vanquishing internal political opponents than representing America overseas.

It is very simple. You may fight with your family. You may fight with your friends. But you treat them better than strangers and enemies. Americans of all political persuasion are our family. Our traditional allies are our friends. Trump is taking the reverse position. Support our enemies, dump on our allies, and attack Americans. It is a bizarre policy stemming from ego driven behavior.

---

I was with you until the Russia paragraph. Clearly, we don't allow politicians from certain countries into our boundaries (note the UN is not the USA, but legally international territory) and other countries don't allow our politicians in their country at their own peril. I think I said that already, and while your first two paragraphs are more nuanced, my read is said that generally you followed my comments.

To think Russia cares about Congressional reactions or what Israel did with some first terml congresswoman really goes against the grain of recent Russia policy and actions. Russia's contemporary activist foreign policy was, in fact, launched by Yevgeny Primakov, in what became known as the Primakov Doctrine, that is followed to a tee by one Primakov's understudies, Putin. Russia will no longer follow the lead of Western powers, especially the United States, but would instead position itself as an independent center of power on the world stage, contributing to the development of a multipolar world as an alternative to the U.S. led unipolar order. As such, the Russian government has kicked American and western officials, media, and citizens out of the country with impunity, barred anyone with a seemingly activist agenda from entering (government official, the media, NGO personnel, you name it), actively resisted a Western initiatives, such as baring scientists that advocate against global warming, gay advocates, and on and on. And then there is the often documented use of third parties to intimidate those from western cultures who chose to disrupt Russian interests. And I don't see any gambit if I understand your comment. Russia has proved again and again it will not be deterred or constrained by economic difficulties from sanctions imposed by Congress, the US, or for that matter any Western government. The Russian economy has performed poorly hampered by sanctions upon sanctions, and excessive dependence on exporting hydrocarbons and other raw materials. But economic difficulties have not put a brake on Russian activism abroad. To the contrary, the Kremlin's ability to withstand both domestic economic difficulties and Western sanctions without changing course is a sign of Moscow's commitment to its current policies. Trump, Israel, Congress, or anyone else be damned.

My condemnation of Trump aside, the concept that the political parties debate foreign affairs and then take the same position as one family to the world may have once been the norm and desirable, but that cozy vision if it ever existed died with Vietnam. There have been very conflicting partisan priorities for US foreign policy and those divisions have been used for partisan gain constantly, and use of foreign influence. Think what Republicans did to Obama when he tried to take a tougher stand against Israel by inviting Israel's PM to speak before Congress and parading him around the country. The Democrats are just as guilty. Even the first term congresswoman banned from Israel wanted to advocate positions that are contra to existing US policy and has been voted down by a huge majority of her own Congress. And the reality of conflict has even filtered down to the voters. With only a handful of exceptions, there are sizable differences between Republicans and Democrats on the 26 foreign policy goals in a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Another Bear said:

---

The Holocaust happens and it's a low point in human history...but it doesn't give Israel carde blanche to repress others. Like I said upthread: anti semitism is different from anti Zionism.

But yes, just sit back and don't take a position or stand...life is so much easier that way.

---

I think you know full well that I did not mention the Holocaust to excuse any Israeli behavior. I mentioned it along side slavery as a thing you don't lightly compare any other thing to. Treatment of the Palestinians is bad, but it is not akin to Apartheid which was a very specific policy in South Africa and deserves to be set on its own pedestal of horror. It should not be minimized by comparing other situations to it.

Taking a position does not mean taking a side. If two drug gangs or mafia families decide to shoot each other up over "territory" my position is neither deserves my support. Taking sides in that case is stupid.

To be clear, I am not saying you are stupid for taking sides, but I disagree with your position. You say the Holocaust doesn't give Israel carte blanche to repress others, but you are essentially arguing that Israeli repression gives carte blanche to Palestinians. I don't know how old you are, but I have lived through a lot of Muslim terrorism directed at Israel and at killing random people on the street. There is no justification for that. It is not even strategic as there is no goal it can achieve but revenge. One would be hard pressed to claim that Palestinians have ever come to the bargaining table with anything remotely close to a reasonable position. Pretending that if Israel acted differently there would be peace is just flat out inaccurate. Neither side is ready for peace or remotely doing anything to bring it about.

I am no Israel apologist, especially not for the current regime. I would say over my life I have been more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians than to Israel as I think they have essentially had their land taken from them. On the flip side, Israel is there, and you can't expect them to respond to acts of terror and to rockets and bombs hitting them from surrounding territories with "well, I guess they have a point" any more than the US would accept Native Americans bombing innocent people to express their anger or to launch rockets at people from their reservations. They have a duty to their people to protect them. Yes, I think they go to far. Yes, settlement policy is outrageous. But acting like they are the only bad actor in this situation is just not the truth.

Which is why I TAKE THE POSITION, that neither side is acting honorably and neither side is ready for peace. I think the world has tried to jam peace down their throats for 50 years and it is time to step back and wait for them to be ready. I am certainly glad to take a position on specific actions by both sides and condemn them as I see appropriate. I do not see that either side is worth of my overall support, though, nor do I see that either side is UNWORTHY of my support. If I thought there was a position that would solve the issue that both sides would accept, I would advocate it. I think the current situation is bad for both. I do not think there is such a position or the potential for such a position right now.

I do know this, picking sides isn't going to lead to peace. Peace will come when both are tired of the violence, not as a result of people jumping in to both sides in some sort of fight for justice.