Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site