First of all, we have no idea what influence the President had on that decision. By the accounts I've seen, his Tweeted his nonsense out before the decision was announced, and we can assume that there were private discussions before Trump decided to make his wishes known in the most public way possible.
I agree, it is difficult to know how much influence Trump had on that decision. On the other hand, the American journalists willing to look at the Israeli press in the last several weeks would have known that "two weeks ago, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer announced that Israel would allow the two to enter, in light of the strong messages he received on the subject from senior officials in the Democratic party, of which the two congresswomen are members."
In other words, Congress was already pressuring a foreign government to waive its anti-BDS law for the purposes of influencing their domestic political choices, i.e.; it was "sticking its nose" into their decisions.
While it is unclear when the administration let its own opinion be known to Israel, we do know that at the same time or within a week thereafter the Trump administration expressed its opinion. And rumors a week later emerged that the Israeli government was reconsidering its choice.
...if Trump had pressured Israel to allow entry to any member of Congress, do you really think that would have no impact? ...Instead, the guy in charge of foreign policy, aid decisions, decisions to sell arms and more says, "Jump" and we're all supposed to pretend that when they said "how high" in a decision subsequent that POTUS has no influence.
Yes, it would be naïve to assume he had no impact, just as it would be naïve to assume Democratic Congressional leaders, the one's that vote to fund these aid decisions or sell arms, had no impact. Hence it is entirely reasonable to assume that those impacts off-setting; meaning, if you are going to be damned no matter what then make your choice based on whether the visit itself will help or hurt Israel.
That "we'll never know because the President" and
Congress stuck their "noses into that decision" is as true as it was unseemly. However, given that the tweet was only a 1/2 day ago, it is highly unlikely this, itself, swung any decision.
It's not really true. He (Ben Ari) was denied entry because we believed he belongs or belonged to …
Irrelevant a point made, i.e.; the denial of entry to members of another legislature because of their political views and hostility to the interests of host country didn't start with Omar and Talib, even when that legislator had business with Congress.
Now Israel is doing to the U.S. what they condemned in 2012.
So then, only the side that first played hardball is allowed to do so? Was there a point over your objection to deserved payback?
So, Congressional Democrats demanded that Israel walk the walk they demanded from Obama in 2012 - to allow members of our Congress entry into their country.
With that your answer to my prior question is "YES", Israel can't treat Democrats as Democrats treated them. That is self-evident "fairness" for Democrats, apparently...LOL.
More than anything, what I objected to was the attempt to gaslight the rest of us by insisting we pretend that POTUS ...had no influence on this decision. ... Of course Trump's preferences mattered. If not, then the proper response by the U.S. is to make our preferences matter. They're the ones relying on the United States and if they ignore what we want, let them pay a price for that.
First, the use of the gaslight metaphor has become overused, especially in this forum. Telling a person they are wrong is not gaslighting, convincing a person they are crazy is.
Second, your jingoist and interventionist presumption that the US is compelled to make our preferences matter is a head on collision with your prior complaints about the President of the United States "sticking his nose into it" by expressing his preferences. You can't have it both ways...obviously.
Third, our preferences SHOULD NOT MATTER just because it is our preferences. They should ONLY matter when such preferences are enforced in the interests of US security, property, and trade. As I said, neither the President or Congress should be muscling another state for nothing more than harassment of their political opposition. Making one's preferences known for another countries domestic choices is one thing, doing so with threats of consequences is another and should ONLY be done when legitimate US interests are at stake.