Skip to main content

View Diary: Lieberman's Israeli Import (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because when a similar bill.. (9+ / 0-)

    ...that proposes expulsion of "Israeli Arabs" from Israel, and stripping them of their citizenship, for "terrorist affiliations" is proposed in the Knesset, there will have already been a measure debated here.  Or I'm assuming that is the reasoning.

    Such a measure may be debated, but of course it is unconstitutional.  The Knesset is not so bound by our cumbersome concept of the rule of law.  

    Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

    by Alec82 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:46:50 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really (5+ / 0-)

      find such a scenario realistic? Will the debate of a measure in Congress really have that effect in Jerusalem?

      •  Just like indefinite detention.. (7+ / 0-)

        ....in Israel has had no impact on the debate in the US?

        There's quite a bit of policy cross-fertilization going on.  I don't think that the proposals in Israel, if they are indeed made, will be based on American debates, but I do think that injecting this idea into the American debate might "soften the blow," so to speak, if such a measure is introduced in the Knesset.  

        That's a qualtitative observation on my part, and I don't think it is really subject to a quantitative analysis.  

        Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

        by Alec82 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:52:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We would have had (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          livosh1, volleyboy1

          indefinite detention here with or without Israel--to pretend otherwise is absurd. "Might 'soften the blow'" is as substantive as a Sarah Palin policy speech. And the idea that Lieberman's motivations were to possibly "soften the blow" on a theoretical measure that could get introduced at some point in the Knesset requires either a downright moronic leap of faith or some dastardly intent.

          •  I think you're taking it too far (4+ / 0-)

            I agree with you that this most probably isn't Lieberman's intent, but you are once again going straight for the insults and insinuation of racism.  

            Please stop.  

            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

            by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:00:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not at all (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              livosh1, volleyboy1

              Alec pushed the idea as a theoretical, he didn't say that was Lieberman's intention, he hypothesized about how such a link could be established. He didn't endorse such a link.

              •  Maybe not directed at Alec (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zannie, capelza

                And the idea that Lieberman's motivations were to possibly "soften the blow" on a theoretical measure that could get introduced at some point in the Knesset requires either a downright moronic leap of faith or some dastardly intent.

                Would certainly apply to the diarist.  

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:04:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And to be perfectly honest (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  leftynyc, zemblan, volleyboy1

                  You have to be bigoted or stupid to believe "that Lieberman's motivations were to possibly 'soften the blow' on a theoretical measure that could get introduced at some point in the Knesset." I realize it's somewhat coarse to point that out, but I'd rather be accurate than sweet.

                  •  Considering that Lieberman, (4+ / 0-)

                    has been the most outspoken supporter of Israel's far right in our Congress, I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this.  No other Jewish MOC has produced something like this.  Not Frank.  Not even Cantor.  Rahm hasn't supported this.  It has nothing to do with religion.  The diarist argument is that it has to do with Lieberman's affinity for the Israeli far right.  

                    Find one place in this diary which is actually racist.  We all know where Lieberman stands on Israel, so why is it racist to make what is a logical (although I think highly unlikely) connection?

                    Just because the Senator is Jewish, doesn't mean you can apply stupidity or racist motives to the diarist.

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:26:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not a logical connection (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      zemblan

                      because there is no logical reason to assume that Sen. Lieberman is motivated by the far-fetched scenario that introduction of legislation in the United States Congress may have an impact on some legislation that may or may not at some point be introduced in the Knesset. So, either

                      1. You're stupid and think this to be the case (maybe even because of "Lieberman's affinity for the Israeli far right," despite your curious absence of other legislators (like Cantor, whom you cited) with an "affinity for the Israeli far right"), or;
                      1. You're indulging in some dual loyalty fun.

                      Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is co-sponsoring Lieberman's legislation, and Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) will be introducing it in the House. You don't find it a little peculiar that we don't hear of an Israel motivation with them? Neither has a voting record that differs from Lieberman when it comes to Israel.

                      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        zannie, Fire bad tree pretty

                        (1) Not all MOCs who introduce a bill have to have the same intent, so I don't see what you point about the cosponsors has to do with anything.  Sen. Kerry has also left the door open to this in today's Globe.  

                        Why is the scenario far fetched?  When such a thing was proposed in Israel, there was a lot of push back from the US and from others around the world.  If we had a similar law, would we be able to push back in the same way?  Would other's pushback be as effective?  So why is this scenario far-fetched?  

                        Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                        by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:20:41 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  aeiou (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          livosh1

                          (1) Not all MOCs who introduce a bill have to have the same intent, so I don't see what you point about the cosponsors has to do with anything.  Sen. Kerry has also left the door open to this in today's Globe.  

                          Do any of the co-sponsors and/or potential supporters of this legislation have substantially less of a pro-Israel voting record than Lieberman? If so, maybe you have a point. Otherwise, what possible reason would you reserve this ascribed motivation for Holy Joe?

                          Why is the scenario far fetched?  When such a thing was proposed in Israel, there was a lot of push back from the US and from others around the world.  If we had a similar law, would we be able to push back in the same way?  Would other's pushback be as effective?  So why is this scenario far-fetched?  

                          Others' pushback isn't likely to be effective in the first place--in case you haven't noticed, international approval isn't high on Jerusalem's priorities list. The scenario requires you to ignore Lieberman's past willingness to forgo civil liberties here at home irrespective of what Israel does. Then, since we've engaged in the fiction that he wouldn't do this for purely domestic reasons, it further requires you to believe that Lieberman would introduce controversial legislation that would be unconstitutional and unlikely to pass in the hopes that maybe then Israel would be unencumbered from the dreaded "pushback" so it could strip all the Arabs of their citizenship.

                          You're smarter than that.

                          •  Thanks for being insulting (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, Alec82, Fire bad tree pretty

                            I appreciate that.

                            (1) I don't know about the voting record, but it's also not just about the voting record. Lierberman has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel's right wing (which I seem to have to repeat in this discussion).  Opinions cannot be fully demonstrated by voting record unless the potential votes run the gamut from far left to far right.

                            (2) Pushback always has an effect.  That's the whole purpose of international law.  We don't promise not to torture people because we are such enlightened people, we do it so that others don't torture our people.  And when we break that promise, look at what happens.  

                            International approval actually is high on Israel's list of priorities.  You're talking about a country that is intent on becoming part of Europe/Western world (EU, OECD, etc).  That ain't gonna happen any time soon because of it's violations of international law.  When other countries also violate those laws, it makes it easier political for nations to ignore Israel's violations.  

                            (3) people can have more than one intention for a single action.  So Lieberman can be doing this as both domestic and international policy.

                            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                            by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:45:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, then (0+ / 0-)

                            First, my apologies for offending your delicate sensibilities.

                            Second, so we acknowledge that none of the other legislators have voted differently on Israel than Lieberman. That's not good enough for you, so let's look at the most recent example of non-voting Israel support: the Hoyer-Cantor House letter championed by AIPAC. Jason Altmire signed this letter--he's the one, as you remember, who will introduce this legislation in the House. In the Senate, let's just say that Kerry (whom you mentioned earlier) has been an unfailingly pro-Israel senator. And yet it's only Lieberman we accuse of doing this for Israel, based on some flimsy and unquantifiable "outspoken support[] of Israel's right wing," as if words matter more than legislation.

                            (2) Pushback always has an effect.  That's the whole purpose of international law.  We don't promise not to torture people because we are such enlightened people, we do it so that others don't torture our people.  And when we break that promise, look at what happens.  

                            You're talking about incentives vis a vis torture. That's wholly inapplicable to the concept that other countries' disapproval necessarily guide a country's domestic policies. I don't suggest that Israel is not susceptible to outside opinions, I do suggest that it's silly to pretend that setting off an unrealistic chain of events was Lieberman's motivation, and I suggest that if Israel wants to strip citizenship of others, they're going to do so irrespective of what U.S. Code states.

                            International approval actually is high on Israel's list of priorities.  You're talking about a country that is intent on becoming part of Europe/Western world (EU, OECD, etc).  That ain't gonna happen any time soon because of it's violations of international law.  When other countries also violate those laws, it makes it easier political for nations to ignore Israel's violations.  

                            The open borders policies of the EU makes it somewhat curious to suggest membership as an Israeli aim. It was floated back in 2002, and shot down in large part because of the requirement to drop their Law of Return. Israel has long acted in what it believes to be its best interest without holding back for fear of international rebuke. Look at Lebanon and Gaza for example. Your assertion just isn't based in fact.

                          •  What the hell is wrong with you?? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, capelza, Fire bad tree pretty

                            Following one insult with another thinly veiled insult about "delicate sensibilities"?  Why are you being an ass?  

                            (1) I never acknowledged that the other MOCs haven't voted differently than Lieberman, I said I don't know what their voting records are.  And one letter does not set the standard.  There is an entire history of Lieberman being an unabashed supporter of Israel's right wing, more so than most if not all of Congress.

                            (2) I only used torture as an example.  The same principle applies to all international law.  It's one of the first things you learn when you study international relations or international law (both of which I have studied).  Without the reaction of the international community, there is no incentive to adhere to a law.

                            I do suggest that it's silly to pretend that setting off an unrealistic chain of events was Lieberman's motivation

                            which means that it's not "silly".  This is the basis of nation's relations with one another.  

                            (3) Not joining the EU as an official member, but maintaining and strengthening economic ties with what is an economic entity.  

                            (4)

                            Israel has long acted in what it believes to be its best interest

                            Obviously.  But that's what every country does, act in it's own best interest.  There are lot of considerations that go into the calculation of what lies in a nation's best interest.  One of those considerations is the reaction of the international community because that determines trade policies.  If you view of this were correct, Israel would be an isolationist nation along the lines of N Korea.  Obviously it isn't  Obviously it wants to maintain good relations with its trading partners, particularly in Europe.  Passing bad laws would hurt those relations.  Having the US pass similar laws would provide political cover for the.  

                            Yes, my assertion is based in fact, you've just got blinders on to how international relations work.  The world is not one dimensional, decision making isn't like flipping a coin, Israel's interests go far beyond internal security considerations.  

                            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                            by Dexter on Fri May 07, 2010 at 10:30:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You just seemed (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1

                            to be awfully sensitive to have considered anything in the comment made two posts prior to be an insult. "[D]elicate sensibilities" was a little too hostile-sounding in retrospect, so my apologies.

                            (1) I never acknowledged that the other MOCs haven't voted differently than Lieberman, I said I don't know what their voting records are.  And one letter does not set the standard.  There is an entire history of Lieberman being an unabashed supporter of Israel's right wing, more so than most if not all of Congress.

                            So letters don't matter, campaign platforms don't matter, and votes don't matter. OK, then. Please let me know what metric you used to conclude that Lieberman is more of "an unabashed supporter of Israel's right wing...than most if not all of Congress."

                            (2) I only used torture as an example.  The same principle applies to all international law.  It's one of the first things you learn when you study international relations or international law (both of which I have studied).  Without the reaction of the international community, there is no incentive to adhere to a law.

                            Well, I studied both in undergrad and law school, but I think we both know that "reaction" means a lot of different things. In the case of torture, you're right that one of the major reasons we don't want to engage in it is the "reaction" of other nations when they have American prisoners of war. That is completely irrelevant when considering a policy of expatriation of a country's own citizens. First, the retaliatory issue in torture isn't a factor here, so the only the only issue would be some form of financial penalty, through trade, aid, etc. Now, you would have to assume that Israel expects other countries would care enough to sanction her for stripping citizenship from people. Not bloody likely, and even if it was, Israel would then have to do its own cost-benefit analysis. There's no evidence that Jerusalem determined the cost to outweigh the benefit.

                            Not joining the EU as an official member, but maintaining and strengthening economic ties with what is an economic entity.  

                            Funny that the first sentence in your link read that "[r]elations between Israel and the European Union are generally positive." If the settlements and military actions didn't make that sentence a lie, why would you expect Israel to assume that a citizenship issue would?

                            One of those considerations is the reaction of the international community because that determines trade policies.

                            But you've demonstrated nothing to show that Sen. Lieberman would have reasonably believed Israel's trade to be adversely affected without U.S. legislation to that effect, or that the Israeli government believed it to be such. Further, without any evidence that they would, in fact be hurt in trade, there's nothing to support the diarist's assertion.

                            Yes, my assertion is based in fact

                            No, I'm afraid not.

                •  introduced? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  capelza

                  the knesset already accommodates expulsions.

          •  On this site people make reference... (7+ / 0-)

            ...to the Overton Window quite often.  Whether or not we would have tried indefinite, or "administrative" detention, with or without Israel is besides the point.  Israel offered a model for using indefinite or 'administrative' detention in the context of anti-terrorism policy.  Among supporters of indefinite detention, references to Israeli experience are quite explicit.  

            I think that Senator Lieberman would have proposed this regardless, because he's a chicken hawk on these matters.  Intent is really immaterial; once the measure is debated here, any proposal made in another country will not seem to be beyond the pale.  

            Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

            by Alec82 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:05:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Intent is not at all immaterial (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dexter

              It's the basis of the diary.

              •  As you can see.. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zannie, capelza, Fire bad tree pretty

                ....I'm not endorisng this diary, for a variety of reasons.  This is my own take on how these debates impact counterterrorism, citizenship and security policy.  

                Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                by Alec82 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:17:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know you're not endorsing it (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JNEREBEL, Terra Mystica

                  But the point of the diary was Lieberman's intent. That policy debates can somehow have an impact on other countries is not really in dispute, since you can't very well keep people from other countries from learning about what you do domestically. There's no more evidence that Lieberman is doing what the diarists suggests than there exists evidence that Israeli legislators seek to influence U.S. health care policy through the universal health coverage their country provides.

                  •  i see your point (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Terra Mystica

                    it is speculative assuming he was doing it for the purpose of cushioning israel. but it does cushion the racist policy. it would have been better if the diariest had stated But I believe that Leiberman's second agenda is to shore up support for racist, punitive, and antidemocratic policies, by building a base of support in the US.

                    mentioning that those policies were being practiced by our special ally and how that does not bode well for other democracies would have been enough. but i didn't read lieberman's intent as the basis of the diary. i read this:

                    I make the subject of this diary:  the notion of revoking citizenship of people you don't like.  The notion of a state in which holding a dissenting belief, or having a different ethnic or religious background, becomes a basis for expropriation and expulsion.

                    This is an idea that is gaining traction on the right in Israel.  Holy Joe is bringing it home.

          •  we are part of the global community (3+ / 0-)

            do we accept israel as a democracy? if we do then do those policies and practices are become acceptable in our definition of democratic? the idea of having different standards of citizenship based on ethnicity is not democratic and imho it is unacceptable.

            maybe i need to learn more about this proposal but it is fair to ask if it presents the opportunity to treat offenders equally. if i was in anyway affiliated w/a foreign terrorist organization what would happen to me if my citizenship was revoked? where would they send me back to? once a person is an american citizen if they commit a crime they should be treated like any other ameerican suspect and be subject to the same standard of punishment, as an american.

            this israeli concept of revoking citizenship is horrid. what other democratic country does this? i will blast them too. i don't care if it is germany or france or england.

            •  proofreading/should read (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fire bad tree pretty

              if we do then do those policies and practices become acceptable in our definition of democratic?

            •  Why do you insist (0+ / 0-)

              on authoring non-sequiturial replies to my comments? This is the second time in this diary alone?

              •  i'm not insisting (0+ / 0-)

                furthermore i would not define my comment as 'it does not follow'

                We would have had (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                   volleyboy1

                indefinite detention here with or without Israel--to pretend otherwise is absurd.

                suspending habeas corpus is considered rather draconian. the policy of administrative detention as it is applied w/regularity by our special friend totally waters down the precedence democracies are supposed to represent. i don't think you can state equivocally  what is or is not absurd wrt how one countries laws impact anothers especially when that other country is such a close ally and has such a powerful lobby in washington.

                i think you are wrong to categorize the speculative aspects how members close to that lobby might seek to influence our laws as a "moronic leap of faith". and i think you're wrong about my reply being non-sequiturial in nature. i think you should answer my questions instead of questioning why i ask them.

          •  really? (0+ / 0-)

            We would have had indefinite detention here with or without Israel

            because so many other western democracies already do it?

            •  No, because we already (0+ / 0-)

              do it in the criminal court system through something known as civil detention, and we had an administration in power when such a policy came about that had little regard for civil liberties. What, you think one day someone said, "Hey, Israel does this!"?

              •  I don't think you can compare.. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zannie, Fire bad tree pretty

                ...our civil commitment procedures for the mentally ill and sex offenders, complete with their fairly rigid due process requirements, to the lax detention policies proposed for "terrorists."  To suggest that Israel's experience had no impact on our attempt to adopt a similar administrative detention is pushing it.  

                Policy, Peace and Progress Before Party

                by Alec82 on Fri May 07, 2010 at 09:37:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You really don't see (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  livosh1

                  acceptance of one as evidence of a predisposition to accept the other?

                  To suggest that Israel's experience had no impact on our attempt to adopt a similar administrative detention is pushing it.

                  "No impact" is impossible to quantify. Do you really think the Bush administration would have avoided indefinite detentions had Israel not employed them first?

                  •  no space between (0+ / 0-)

                    Do you really think the Bush administration would have avoided indefinite detentions had Israel not employed them first?

                    would have avoided? i think we have avoided habeas corpus quite well in the past as a matter of fact. let's ask if it would have occurred to them had our special friend (and very much a special friend of members of the cabinet) not already been applying this method in their democracy.

                  •  let's pretend the domino effect (0+ / 0-)

                    doesn't apply to democracies.

              •  no that is not what i said (0+ / 0-)

                i thought the patriot act or the military commissions act codified these kinds of draconian laws after 9/11 during the neocon cheney administration. and yes i do think that administration was very much in harmony with israel so i don't think it is that far fetched to wonder how much of a crossover there was in terms of influence wrt the war on terror and how we treat terror suspects. i also recall how policies were changed in secret prior to them being approved by congress. i also think there is a fair amount of evidence there were racist sweeps and profiling.

                i approach the idea of a 'special friend' the same whether it is a country or a person. does my special friend influence me? yes. does congress have a record of frequently passing measures influenced by our special friend? kinda. do people lobby congress for the benefit of our special friend. yes. do i have certainty this is one of those times? no.

              •  "Hey, Israel does this!" (0+ / 0-)

                doesn't israel trump it's security bonafides w/regularity? aren't they the go-to country if you want to consult the terror experts? it is unreasonable one might imagine that expertise doesn't end with how to catch 'em and how to protect your country?

                is it reasonable to assume terror experts might trump the idea of global reforms to deal with terrorism and terrorists and those measures might extend to domestic laws? like the kind the experts use? like israel?

      •  it is an unhealthy concept (4+ / 0-)


        Israeli repression wave continues – Palestinian leader in Haifa detained; case placed under gag order

        Makhoul's case is only one example amidst a recent escalated campaign by Israeli authorities against Palestinian human rights defense and civil resistance. In addition to arbitrary arrest and detention, Israeli authorities have met Palestinian human rights activism in recent months with a variety of measures, including raids, deportations, travel bans, visa denials and media attacks against nongovernmental organizations. Moreover, Palestinian communities involved in grassroots human rights defense efforts are frequently levied with collective punishment measures in the form of curfews, sieges and destruction of property, threats to individuals and the community as a whole, beatings, the use of lethal and "non-lethal" ammunition, including 40mm high velocity tear gas canisters, denial of permits, tear-gassing, army incursions and intentional injury and killings.

        could this person have his citizenship revoked? if not today tomorrow?

        the idea of revoking citizenship for a crime is repulsive to me.  these draconian policies could spread like a virus to other countries. it is simply not acceptable and the idea it has been accepted in israel only allows for it to solidify and spread.

        thinking about it makes me sick to my stomach.

        •  I'm not disagreeing with you (0+ / 0-)

          about the concept. What does that have to do with Lieberman's intent for U.S. legislation, or with the impact that a U.S. law would have on a theoretical Israeli bill?

          •  i just addressed (0+ / 0-)

            the impact that a U.S. law would have on a theoretical Israeli bill? here.

            my posts didn't address speculating Lieberman's intent nor was it in your parent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site