Rashida Tlaib (left) and Ilhan Omar (right), freshman
Democratic lawmakers, at a news conference in July
Source: Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
Democratic lawmakers, at a news conference in July
Source: Scott Applewhite/Associated Press
Following pressure from President Trump, Israel has barred Muslim American representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from entering the country on their planned trip*, citing both their history of support for anti-Israel boycotts as well as the intended itenerary's heavy focus on Palestine as reasons. This comes just one month after a statement by the Israeli Ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, that no member of Congress would be denied entry to the country out of respect for the institution, leading some to claim that Netanyahu's government is a complacent puppet of the Trump administration. The move has mostly drawn criticism from Democrats, but a few top Republicans such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio have also spoken out against it. Ever since the 1970s, the US has maintained close ties to Israel, but the need for such a relationship has evolved from defense against Soviet influence to the fight against jihad and the control of anti-US popular sentiments in the Middle East.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you believe Israel is justified in barring Tlaib and Omar from entering the country? Why or why not?
2. The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the tensest conflicts in the world today. Do you believe the US should help in resolving or ameliorating the conflict in any way? If so, what solutions do you propose, and if not, why not?
Sources: New York Times, The Intercept, Vox
*Note: Tlaib was granted access on Friday to visit her 90-year-old grandmother in the West Bank, but declined on the grounds that agreeing to Israel's demands of refraining from politics during her stay would humiliate her and her grandmother.
1. Yes, I believe that Israel is justified in barring Omar and Tlaib access to Israel. Given their support of divisive political views (at least from the Israeli perspective), and also given the boon to Trump-Israeli relations by aligning with the US government's wishes, it is entirely in their benefit to do so. Despite this potentially drawing furor from critics seeing this as a foreign government bowing to the will of the Trump administration, it is important from the Israeli perspective that they show dominance within their own country by not allowing potentially subversive people to come and make a statement.
ReplyDelete2. If it is in the United States' political and economic interest to do so, they should interfere; however, this is not necessarily advantageous. Given the current US government's pro-Israel stance, any peace deal brokered by us would most likely leave the Palestinians shafted, which could incite further violence. While not an exact parallel, consider the recent violence in Iraq over the past few years. Additionally, brokering this peace deal could inflame already tense interactions with countries like Iran; if it appears that the US is "interfering" in Middle Eastern politics, this could be used to stoke further anti-US sentiment and ultimately backfire. As for whether we "should" from a moral sense, in my personal opinion it is not our responsibility to interfere in a conflict where the results for us and involved parties could be disastrous. We are already considered controversial enough on the world stage for crediting Israel with control of the Golan Heights (reference this story: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciagbarnes/2019/06/03/jared-kushner-and-merit-selection/#6952880a1d87 . While not entirely focused on this specific incident, it provides a good outline of adjacent issues), further attempts to "help" would do more harm than good.
1. A counter to your argument would be that Israel, as one of the only relatively democratic countries in the Middle East to feature, should set an example for other countries in the region by respecting minority rights of Palestinian Arabs. In barring outspoken BDS supporters from entering the country, Israel sends a strong signal that advocacy for minority rights is not tolerated and that the Jewish majority runs the agenda.
Delete2. I agree that the US should generally steer clear of Middle Eastern politics given the strong sentiment against us (and for good reason given the history), but checking Israel on their infringement of Palestinian rights and territories could be a good way forward in restoring amends with the rest of the Arab nations in the area. Of course, supporting Palestine brings huge complications into the US-Israeli relationship, but I don't see another way forward towards cooperation rather than further deterioration in relations with the Middle East.
To respond to your counter-argument, some would see that exact concept you argue as being a negative (the perception that advocacy for minority rights is not tolerated and that the Jewish majority runs the agenda) as a positive, if we are working under the realist assumption that countries want to protect and maintain their power. Any obligation to "set an example" is exclusively from our perspective, one that in the grand scheme of things may be correct if we are to be the peacekeepers of the world, but it is still imposing our morality in a case where it is not universally agreed upon. While I understand your perspective, it is limited under the assumption that Israel would not want to go along with the "strongman rhetoric" currently being espoused by our government; it is still in their advantage to do so, "minority rights" be damned.
ReplyDelete2. Given that our two main concerns in the Middle East right now, if they can be classified as concerns, are Saudi Arabia, a country which Israel has generally positive relations with (and who we also trade good with), and Iran, a mutual enemy of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and to a lesser degree ourselves, we are still on the right side of the equation here. What incentive do we have to woo Palestine when tensions are sometimes frayed between Abbas and the Saudi government? While Al Jazeera is sometimes an unreliable source for Saudi Arabian information, this article is fairly recent: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/palestinians-drive-saudi-al-aqsa-mosque-mosque-compound-190723074457195.html. I admit it is a bit cynical of a perspective to maintain, but if we are structuring our actions to maintain favorable relations with our allies, who happen to be quite influential countries in the area, maintaining our current course is justifiable.
I have to agree with Ryan here, it does seem like Israel would rather antagonize the Middle Eastern countries surrounding it than potentially sour the relation with one of its biggest supporters, the US. Even if President Trump does not get re-elected, there is still around a year left of his presidency, in which some new development could occur. It would be in Israel's best interest here to listen to Trump's wishes. However, on the concept of the US intervening I think Kevin is right here. Further angering Middle Eastern countries is definitely not a good move, especially something as petty as refusing entry of two members of Congress. The US should either attempt to improve their relations with other countries, or not interfere at all. The concept of the US as the world's police has become stale and meaningless, and to me it seems like it has done more harm than good.
DeleteI agree with Ryan in that Israel is justified for denying Omar and Tlaib access to Israel. Not only does it benefit their relationship with Trump, but going against what he wants them to do would hurt their relationship. However, I do think that Trump is not justified in pressuring Israel to deny them access. I think Victor made a really good point about US international relationships doing more harm than good now. I feel like in the last decade or so, other countries have gotten really tired of the US interfering in their politics and we just seen to create more problems for ourselves. Rather than interfering with other countries politics, I think Americans need to focus on domestic issues such as gun control and healthcare.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should definitely try to assist in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as it is a human rights issue and it is our obligation to help out. I personally tend to believe that in general the US should take a more isolationist attitude, but this situation is unique and long-standing. The US has already proven that they have some capabilities in resolving issues involving Israel as seen by the Camp David Accords. However, a main failing of the Accords was the lack of involvement of Palestinians within them, and the US must resolve this issue. As I see it, the only proper ways to deal with the conflict are by either separating Israel and Palestine into separate states, and giving Palestinians more of their land back, or by giving Palestinians equal rights. Restricting the freedoms of Palestinians, taking their land, and not allowing them to govern themselves is not acceptable. With the recent election in Israel, perhaps this presents a new opportunity to meet with Palestinian leaders and develop a new policy in the future, but this is still doubtful.
ReplyDeleteDespite congresswoman Talib being provided the option to visit her grandmother on the grounds of not engaging in politics, she declined. In my opinion it is the sovereign right of a nation to be able to regulate who enters their country, especially those that pose potential political instability and risk. At the end of the day she was granted an option of admission into the country, but decided against taking it. Secondly, in my opinion, the U.S. should not necessarily be responsible for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather instead act as a mediator and facilitator of peace talks and negotiations.
ReplyDelete