U.S. warns it will stop aid to Palestinians if UN statehood recognition bid proceeds

[News_Editor]

U.S. warns it will stop aid to Palestinians if UN statehood recognition bid proceeds

2011-08-27 12:31:05 GMT+7 (ICT)

RAMALLAH (BNO NEWS) -- The United States will stop all financial aid to the Palestinian authorities if they proceed with plans to ask the United Nations (UN) for recognition of an independent state in the UN Security Council's meeting next month, a U.S. official warned on Friday.

The warning was made by U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Daniel Rubinstein to chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat during a meeting in the West Bank city of Jericho, according to a statement issued by Erekat's office.

According to Erekat, Rubinstein said that the U.S. would veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for recognition of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within the June 4, 1967 borders as well as Palestine's request for UN membership.

"If the Palestinian Authority insists on going to the Security Council, the US will use the veto," Rubinstein reportedly told Erekat. "And in case the Palestinian Authority seeks to upgrade its position at the UN through the General Assembly, the U.S. Congress will take punitive measures against it, including a cut in U.S. aid."

Rubinstein said his country sees the Palestinians' UN bid as "useless" and that it would be better to conclude a peace agreement with Israel through direct negotiations, while Erekat called on the U.S. to reconsider its position on the issue as he believes U.S. support would actually enhance the two-state solution and peace in the Middle East.

Israeli authorities have also rejected the Palestinian solution based on the 1967 borders as that measure would leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria outside Israel's borders.

The chief Palestinian negotiator has also met with the European Union (EU) representative to the Palestinian Authority, Christian Burger, to urge Europe to support Palestinian efforts to get full membership of the UN, according to the German Press Agency DPA. The EU is still undecided on the issue but some member states, such as Spain, have said they would support the Palestinian step.

If the U.S. vetoes the UN Security Council resolution during September's meeting, the Palestinians plan to ask the UN General Assembly to vote on the resolution, which needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

Palestinian authorities are demanding a stop to settlement construction in the disputed East Jerusalem and West Bank area as a key element for continuing peace talks, aimed at reaching a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines.

If the UN Security Council resolution is approved, Palestine would become the 194th member of the United Nations.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-08-27

[geriatrickid]

I don't know why there is even a discussion of statehood as the Palestinians haven't met the basic requirements; There is no viable governing body in place, Despite the Hamas Fatah agreement, they have yet to form a unity government and there hasn't been an election in years. The PLA and Hamas do not even have an economic policy except that of asking for more aid.

[Jingthing]

Dropping terrorist organization Hamas from their government and clearly recognizing the right of Israel to EXIST as a Jewish state within negotiated new borders has to happen if this is to resolved peacefully. Not optimistic.

[Wallaby]

Is asking to be recognized really a reason to stop aid? Who does the US think it is to say the claim is useless. It goes to a UN vote, the US isn't the only vote.

Sorry, now that you want to be a recognised country and we are so put out by having to vote that we won't give any assistance. How odd.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Wallaby

[Steely Dan]

To tie in with another thread there's another $2 billion to save relating to Egyptian aid, not to mention that wasted on Pakistan. I do doubt whether the threat of removing aid to the Palestinian authority will make any difference whatsoever as they already have the world's highest per capita aid levels. I'm also sure that some Arab nations would be more than willing to fill the gap if the U.S withdraws aid, though it would have been unnecessary for them to provide such aid whilst the U.S is daft enough to do so.

[Jingthing]

Is asking to be recognized really a reason to stop aid? Who does the US think it is to say the claim is useless. It goes to a UN vote, the US isn't the only vote.

Sorry, now that you want to be a recognised country and we are so put out by having to vote that we won't give any assistance. How odd.

The US position is that the peace process must happen with direct negotiation between the two parties, Israel and the Palestinians. I am not really sure the US position is the wisest. Both sides do need to give up major things for any peace process to be real.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[Wallaby]

Is asking to be recognized really a reason to stop aid? Who does the US think it is to say the claim is useless. It goes to a UN vote, the US isn't the only vote.

Sorry, now that you want to be a recognised country and we are so put out by having to vote that we won't give any assistance. How odd.

The US position is that the peace process must happen with direct negotiation between the two parties, Israel and the Palestinians.

I understand the US position but it is not their call as to what the UN votes on. Why should a 'country' be penalised by trying to become a country. If the US vetoes it, then it won't be successful, why pressure them putting it to the vote. Maybe it could be that most countries would vote in favour and the US is again looking like a minority.

Perhaps the US could also withdraw aid to Israel because it doesn't allow nuclear weapons inspectors.

But really, threatening aid for Palestine asking to be recognised is more than childish.

[Jingthing]

The US is biased towards Israel. There is no hiding that reality. That doesn't mean US policy is against peace in the region and justice for non-terrorist Palestinians, but that's the way it is. There is a political factor, a brutal US election is coming, as even now as the US economy is melting down, the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side. It is understandable why the Arabs don't trust the US to be an objective broker. The nuke issue is kind of a side thing; the last I heard Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge having them.

[Steely Dan]

Is asking to be recognized really a reason to stop aid? Who does the US think it is to say the claim is useless. It goes to a UN vote, the US isn't the only vote.

Sorry, now that you want to be a recognised country and we are so put out by having to vote that we won't give any assistance. How odd.

Don't be so naive. Even a non binding recognition of a Palestinian state would be used as justification by many Arab states hostile to Israel 'for taking back Palestinian land' without any negotiations and would further be used as a justification to recruit more terrorists and for liberal left wing governments to call for boycotts of Israel. As for aid it is by definition a gift and not a right so the U.S is perfectly at liberty to ask for what it sees fit in return for said aid.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Wallaby]

The US is biased towards Israel. There is no hiding that reality. That doesn't mean US policy is against peace in the region and justice for non-terrorist Palestinians, but that's the way it is. There is a political factor, a brutal US election is coming, as even now as the US economy is melting down, the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side. It is understandable why the Arabs don't trust the US to be an objective broker. The nuke issue is kind of a side thing; the last I heard Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge having them.

Isreal doesn't officially acknowledge having them? Then why not allow inspectors in? Anyone can say they don't have them, but the international community should be allowed to inspect and the US should also be pressuring for that inspection.

But again, what is so bad about Palestine wanting a vote, not a demand, all the US has to do is veto the vote, which it will do. Are the US so afraid of what the vote will be? I doubt it. Just veto it but let it be voted on without threat.

Then again, I'm sure arab countries will step in and take up the slack. But I just think it is petty of the US and seems like they are just looking for any reason at all to stop spending money overseas. Maybe other countries, including Israel should start to worry about US funds being withdrawn.

Maybe the dawn of a new age where the US is starting to fear the loss of control.

PS: JT I do respect your comments, we may not agree but I do respect your view, as opposed to some other posters who have no idea at all.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Wallaby

[Jingthing]

I'm not going to defend the US policy on the UN vote as I am not sure that it makes much difference either way. I want a two state solution with peace and mutual recognition from both sides. I don't see the UN vote as creating peace when the Palestinians won't accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and won't abandon their demand for universal right of return of all Arabs that want to return to Israel, which translated means they want to destroy Israel. That isn't a peace process that I recognize as sincere. States don't normally volunteer to commit state suicide, and I don't understand why most of the world thinks Jewish Israel should do that, when THEY never would!

Edited August 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

The US is biased towards Israel. There is no hiding that reality. That doesn't mean US policy is against peace in the region and justice for non-terrorist Palestinians, but that's the way it is. There is a political factor, a brutal US election is coming, as even now as the US economy is melting down, the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side. It is understandable why the Arabs don't trust the US to be an objective broker. The nuke issue is kind of a side thing; the last I heard Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge having them.

Isreal doesn't officially acknowledge having them? Then why not allow inspectors in? Anyone can say they don't have them, but the international community should be allowed to inspect and the US should also be pressuring for that inspection.

But again, what is so bad about Palestine wanting a vote, not a demand, all the US has to do is veto the vote, which it will do. Are the US so afraid of what the vote will be? I doubt it. Just veto it but let it be voted on without threat.

Then again, I'm sure arab countries will step in and take up the slack. But I just think it is petty of the US and seems like they are just looking for any reason at all to stop spending money overseas. Maybe other countries, including Israel should start to worry about US funds being withdrawn.

Maybe the dawn of a new age where the US is starting to fear the loss of control.

PS: JT I do respect your comments, we may not agree but I do respect your view, as opposed to some other posters who have no idea at all.

Watch the video I posted. Palestinians making a unilateral bid to change the status of either the west bank or Gaza is a clear contravention of not only Oslo, but also the 1920 San Remo convention which explicitly recognized the Jewish historical right to a homeland. Incidentally this reflected the fact that Jews constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem since Ottoman times so Obama supporting a divided Jerusalem would also be a violation of the same agreements, sorry Jing, historically the U.S has sided with Israel until the first post American president came along.

[Wallaby]

I'm not going to defend the US policy on the UN vote as I am not sure that it makes much difference either way. I want a two state solution with peace and mutual recognition from both sides. I don't see the UN vote as creating peace when the Palestinians won't accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and won't abandon their demand for universal right of return of all Arabs that want to return to Israel, which translated means they want to destroy Israel. That isn't a peace process that I recognize as sincere. States don't normally volunteer to commit state suicide, and I don't understand why most of the world thinks Jewish Israel should do that, when THEY never would!

JT it doesn't matter whether the US or the rest of the world agrees with them becoming country, it isn't about the reasons for the US to veto the vote, it isn't about whether this is good for peace. This is about their right to ask for a UN vote to become a country without threats. If a country wants to veto it then that is up to them. But surely they should not be threatened for wanting a vote on it.

[Wallaby]

The US is biased towards Israel. There is no hiding that reality. That doesn't mean US policy is against peace in the region and justice for non-terrorist Palestinians, but that's the way it is. There is a political factor, a brutal US election is coming, as even now as the US economy is melting down, the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side. It is understandable why the Arabs don't trust the US to be an objective broker. The nuke issue is kind of a side thing; the last I heard Israel doesn't even officially acknowledge having them.

Isreal doesn't officially acknowledge having them? Then why not allow inspectors in? Anyone can say they don't have them, but the international community should be allowed to inspect and the US should also be pressuring for that inspection.

But again, what is so bad about Palestine wanting a vote, not a demand, all the US has to do is veto the vote, which it will do. Are the US so afraid of what the vote will be? I doubt it. Just veto it but let it be voted on without threat.

Then again, I'm sure arab countries will step in and take up the slack. But I just think it is petty of the US and seems like they are just looking for any reason at all to stop spending money overseas. Maybe other countries, including Israel should start to worry about US funds being withdrawn.

Maybe the dawn of a new age where the US is starting to fear the loss of control.

PS: JT I do respect your comments, we may not agree but I do respect your view, as opposed to some other posters who have no idea at all.

Watch the video I posted. Palestinians making a unilateral bid to change the status of either the west bank or Gaza is a clear contravention of not only Oslo, but also the 1920 San Remo convention which explicitly recognized the Jewish historical right to a homeland. Incidentally this reflected the fact that Jews constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem since Ottoman times so Obama supporting a divided Jerusalem would also be a violation of the same agreements, sorry Jing, historically the U.S has sided with Israel until the first post American president came along.

What does that have to do with threatening a people for wanting to go to a UN vote?

[Steely Dan]

What does that have to do with threatening a people for wanting to go to a UN vote?

Sigh, Because to do so would blow Oslo out of the water and potentially kill any bilateral negotiations stone dead. As for 'threat' I can only reiterate that aid is a gift not a right so the U.S wants to encourage bilateral negotiations and will use whatever leverage they judge may help. P.S As I stated the point is probably moot as I'm sure Saudi Arabia would step up to the plate if need be.

[Jingthing]

Mr. Rubinstein, if you think its useless then just shut up and let it be.

Who's Mr. Rubinstein? Did I miss something here?

[mohammedaziz]

Mr. Rubinstein, if you think its useless then just shut up and let it be.

Who's Mr. Rubinstein? Did I miss something here?

He is the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem.

Read the first entry.

[Jingthing]

Mr. Rubinstein, if you think its useless then just shut up and let it be.

Who's Mr. Rubinstein? Did I miss something here?

He is the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem.

Read the first entry.

Thanks, sorry. So who are you to tell him to shut up?

[Scott]

I suggest a little bit of diplomacy between posters. It might not be possible between countries, but it is possible here.

[Ulysses G.]

the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side.

Why should American tax dollars be used to support a government with avowed terrorists who will not accept Israel's right to exist running things? Either they make peace or they should not get a dime.

[flying]

the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side.

Why should American tax dollars be used to support a government with avowed terrorists who will not accept Israel's right to exist running things? Either they make peace or they should not get a dime.

Why should American Tax dollars be used to support other governments period?

This foreign policy is killing us quicker than any terrorist could.

First off we are broke...period...nada..zip...We are running on fumes.

Secondly giving aid to both sides has made many Israeli's

think that The US govt is playing both sides of the fence.

I oppose all foreign aid not only because we cannot afford it but also on principle.

It is wrong because it is a transfer of wealth that does not exist, but it is also counterproductive.

Who would be happy that countries like Israel continues to rely on over 2 Billion in US aid every year?

If we did not give (that which we do not have ourselves) Countries like Israel or Palestine would at last be under pressure to adopt a freer economy making it easier for them to become self reliant.

Actually the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem argues that "Foreign aid is the greatest obstacle to economic freedom in Israel".

It is likely the same for all countries we prop up.

But first & foremost charity begins at home. We can no longer burden our future generations with

a bill to prop other countries while our own country spins down the drain into total collapse.

I think folks would be shocked to find that we also give aid to many countries that hold our debt!

How can that be allowed? Why is it not instead subtracted from that debt?

The system is beautifully broken & we better wake up.

[JemJem]

For <deleted>'s sake, enough is enough with this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, man. Huge amounts of resources have been wasted so far to achieve some sort of peace there. The two sides have proved out to be not-so-willing to achieve some kind of normality so far.

Thr West should clear its hands off this conflict. Aid should NOT go to either side. Millions of people are dying of starvation in Africa ; AIDS continues to kill a large number of people there. Aid should go there instead.

Jem

[Wallaby]

What does that have to do with threatening a people for wanting to go to a UN vote?

Sigh, Because to do so would blow Oslo out of the water and potentially kill any bilateral negotiations stone dead. As for 'threat' I can only reiterate that aid is a gift not a right so the U.S wants to encourage bilateral negotiations and will use whatever leverage they judge may help. P.S As I stated the point is probably moot as I'm sure Saudi Arabia would step up to the plate if need be.

Sigh indeed. You have given reasons to veto a UN vote. You have not given a reason why the US is threatening to withdraw aid by Palestine asking for a vote. By threatening Palestine because it wants a UN vote indicates the US doesn't really agree with democracy.

If the US doesn't want a Palestine country for any reason then veto the vote. But it's very undemocratic of the US to not allow the vote.

I guess you just agree with Obama, I don't.

[Wallaby]

the vast majority of American voters prefer the Israeli side to the Palestinian side.

Why should American tax dollars be used to support a government with avowed terrorists who will not accept Israel's right to exist running things? Either they make peace or they should not get a dime.

True, Israel should make peace or not get a dime. But that is not the topic.

[Ulysses G.]

Huh? What nonsense.

Israel accepted the UN peace deal in 1948 and has offered to make peace over and over again since then - including trading land for peace and they made good on the bargain. The Palestinian Arabs have always refused.

"If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons there would be no more Israel."

-Golda Meir

Edited August 27, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Wallaby]

Huh? What nonsense.

Israel accepted the UN peace deal in 1948 and has offered to make peace over and over again since then - including trading land for peace and they made good on the bargain. The Palestinian Arabs have always refused.

"If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons there would be no more Israel."

-Golda Meir

No need to turn this into your own personal nonsense rant again. This thread is about the US threatening Palestine for wanting a vote put the UN. You obviously think Obama is doing the right thing, I don't.

[Ulysses G.]

Obama is doing the right thing this time.

The Palestinians' ultimate goal is not the establishment of a state in the 1967 borders. If it were, they would not have washed away Ehud Barak's Camp David offer and Yossi Beilin's subsequent "amendments" at Taba in a sea of blood and fire. If Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were truly different from Yasser Arafat, as his Israeli fans like to claim, he would have seized on Ehud Olmert's map like a treasure.

But Abbas' goal, and that of the Palestinians in general, is to cause Israel to disappear.http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/palestinians-ultimate-goal-is-to-make-israel-disappear-1.379241

Edited August 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Huh? What nonsense.

Israel accepted the UN peace deal in 1948 and has offered to make peace over and over again since then - including trading land for peace and they made good on the bargain. The Palestinian Arabs have always refused.

"If the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons there would be no more Israel."

-Golda Meir

No need to turn this into your own personal nonsense rant again. This thread is about the US threatening Palestine for wanting a vote put the UN. You obviously think Obama is doing the right thing, I don't.

You would have thought Obama would be more grateful to his Palestinian campaign donors wouldn't you?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

[Wallaby]

Facts are facts.

The Palestinians' ultimate goal is not the establishment of a state in the 1967 borders. If it were, they would not have washed away Ehud Barak's Camp David offer and Yossi Beilin's subsequent "amendments" at Taba in a sea of blood and fire. If Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were truly different from Yasser Arafat, as his Israeli fans like to claim, he would have seized on Ehud Olmert's map like a treasure.

But Abbas' goal, and that of the Palestinians in general, is to cause Israel to disappear.http://www.haaretz.c...appear-1.379241

Again, your nonsense rant is off topic. You agree that Obama is doing the right thing. I don't.

Some countries will vote for a Palestine state, some won't. That is up to each country to decide. The US is not the only country that votes in the UN and should not be using threats to determine what the UN votes on.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

The U.S. can spend its money the way that it wishes.