Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site