Rashida Tlaib decides not to go to Israel even after their Interior Minister granted last minute permission to visit her sick grandmother. Why? More political fodder in not going than going. And maybe they didn’t want people to see who was backing their trip in the first place: a group tied to terrorism.
Tlaib and Omar referred to Israel as “Palestine” never once using the name Israel. They were sponsored on the trip by Miftah, a group that has glorified terrorism, and promoted what is known as “blood libel.”
THAT is the reason they were denied entry to Israel, not because of ‘racism’ or ‘anti-muslim’ sentiments. But because of their itinerary and plans.
However, the itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.
In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.
Therefore, the minister of interior has decided not to allow their visit, and I, as prime minister, support his decision.
Nonetheless, if Congresswoman Tlaib submits a humanitarian request to visit her relatives, the minister of interior has announced that he will consider her request on the condition that she pledges not to act to promote boycotts against Israel during her visit.Benjamin Netanyahu on Twitter
The Interior Minister granted her permission to enter the country to visit her “sick grandmother.” But Tlaib decides not to go to Israel in a huff because she refuses the conditions.
Silencing me & treating me like a criminal is not what she wants for me. It would kill a piece of me. I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in–fighting against racism, oppression & injustice. https://t.co/z5t5j3qk4H— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) August 16, 2019
Why were they banned? Here it is:
Tell me: Why aren’t Western news outlets reporting that U.S. lawmakers were attending a trip sponsored by an organization that claims Jews “use the blood of Christians”? Or that they’re meeting w groups that have ties to the PFLP, a U.S.-designated terror group. ..
Question for reporters covering @IlhanMN@RashidaTlaib trip to “Palestine”–as their itinerary refers to all of Israel–have u noted that the organization sponsoring the trip, Miftah, has claimed that “Jews use the blood of Christians in Jewish passover”?
Per the itinerary, both lawmakers were also going to meet with an NGO, DCI-P, which has links to terrorist organizations. On what basis is it a good idea–either for Israel or the U.S.–to allow lawmakers to meet w a group that has ties to PFLP?Sean Durns on Twitter
PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) is a designated terror organization. Why should ANY US lawmaker be allowed to meet with anyone allied with this group?
The NGO monitor stated:
MIFTAH’s website also includes the glorification of terrorism in an article by Johorah Baker titled “Palestinian Women and the Intifada” (July 5, 2006). Under the sub-heading “Fighting Back,” Baker describes how Palestinian women “also decided to join the ranks of the resistance movement.” The article cites suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” Idrees detonated herself on January 27, 2002, killing 81 year-old Pinhas Takatli and wounding another 150 Israeli civilians. The article also highlights Hanadi Jaradat who murdered 21 people, including four children, when she exploded herself on October 4, 2003 in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa.NGO-Monitor
Tlaib decides not to go because it’s politically beneficial to their narrative. But Prime Minister Netanyahu’s last tweet was virtually ignored by the media AND the two Congresswomen. The media is blaming Trump for the whole situation. But the date on Trump’s tweet was Aug 15, the day Israel announced their decision. His influence likely had nothing whatever to do with their ruling. But the itinerary and rhetoric of the two woman was at the forefront of it.