Israel has just formally banned two Democratic U.S. Congresswomen from entering their country, and in a stunning admission its former Ambassador to the U.S. says they are doing so because the President of the United States told them to.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday morning blocked U.S. Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) from crossing into Israel during a trip planned to the country slated for Sunday, The Washington Post reported.
Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon, immediately took to Twitter to announce Israel has every right to block anyone they want – but then admitted the Israeli government did so on Trump’s “recommendation.”
Trump’s “recommendation,” at least in public, came in the form of a devastating tweet, bullying Israel by saying if they did not ban the two Democrats they would appear weak.
It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2019
“The move followed an unusual intervention by President Trump and immediately opened up a new battle between Netanyahu and Democrats, who had privately warned that such a decision would be unprecedented and inconsistent with Israel’s claims of tolerance and openness,” The Washington Post reported.
The lawmakers have repeatedly denied harboring any animus toward Jews or Israelis and have said their criticisms of the Israeli government are based on policy differences.
The two Democrats “were scheduled to meet during their stay with Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups, humanitarian workers and young people and see one of the East Jerusalem hospitals affected by recent cuts in U.S. aid to the Palestinians,” according to the Post, which noted Rep. Tlaib had “hoped to stay some extra days to see her grandmother, who lives in a West Bank village.”
This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.
House Democrats investigating Trump receiving ‘illegal payments’ separate from impeachment proceedings
According to a report from Politico, some House Democrats are disappointed that Donald Trump's violations of the emoluments clause does not appear to have a future as part of the articles of impeachment against the president, so they are continuing on with their own ongoing investigation with the hope it may be added at a later time.
North Korea threatens to resume referring to Trump as a ‘dotard’
North Korea has threatened to resume referring to US president Donald Trump as a "dotard", raising the prospect of a return to a war of words with a negotiating deadline approaching.
Pyongyang has set Washington an end-of-year time limit to offer it new concessions in deadlocked nuclear negotiations, and has said it will adopt an unspecified "new way" if nothing acceptable is forthcoming.
Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un -- whose countries and their allies fought each other to a standstill in the 1950-53 Korean War -- engaged in mutual insults and threats of devastation in 2017, sending tensions soaring before a diplomatic rapprochement the following year.
What would the GOP do if Trump actually shot someone? A former government ethics chief explains
President Donald Trump infamously said in 2016 that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any support.
Walter Shaub, who served as chief of the Government Ethics Office under former President Barack Obama, hilariously imagined how elected Republicans would react if Trump actually did shoot someone on 5th Avenue.
"It was indecorous of the president to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue," Shaub said, imagining a scripted GOP response. "I would have preferred he not do that. In the strongest possible terms, I add that I find it to be generally inconsistent with the higher aims of responsible governance. And you can quote me on that."