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

[flying]

This thread is about the US threatening Palestine for wanting a vote put the UN.

In that regard the US would do well to follow their founding fathers advice on foreign intervention.

Even folks like John Quincy Adams once said .....

(bolding added by myself)

If the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

Adams then described the Foreign Policy of the American Republic

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[geriatrickid]

How about we look at the criteria for joining the UN?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Look at Chapter I of the UN Charter;

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (The right to self-defense is reaffirmed in Article 51, which states, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . ."

Due to the ongoing attacks, particularly the rocket attacks from Gaza and the recent incursion in the Sinai, can anyone honestly claim that the arabs have respected the ihe intent of the UN charter?

I don't know why EU countries would be in a rush to recognize another arab country as the prospective nation does not accept international law (As per the Hamas declaration that Islamic laws prevail). I draw your attention to the following European criteria;

The country must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, therule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

The country must have afunctioning market economy and must be capable of withstanding the pressure ofcompetition and market forces in the European Union

In consideration of the current state of affairs, the arabs are a long way away from being able to declare themselves a country let alone function as a cohesive nation.

[flying]

How about we look at the criteria for joining the UN?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Due to the ongoing attacks, particularly the rocket attacks from Gaza and the recent incursion in the Sinai, can anyone honestly claim that the arabs have respected the intent of the UN charter?

You know based on that which you quote do you feel all that are Members should be allowed to remain?

All a bit hypocritical for one member to make threats before a democratic vote can be taken by the whole.

As for ongoing attacks...........Yes a bad thing to be sure. Yet I am sure many innocent Pakistani's feel the same way no?

It is funny that so often we hear folks claim one thing is all right & condoned yet the other is not.

Never once does motive enter the picture.

If it is so much as mentioned then the usual suspects will cry out.... Oh Your Making Excuses for the Terrorist!!! ....Terrorist Apologist!!!

Yet neither could be further from the truth.If one does wrong then of course there are consequences.

If there is a murder the police go after & punish the murderer.

Yet the first act by the detectives is always an investigation as to motive.

Yet none call the detective a murder apologist.

These claims around the world need to include motive as to why things are happening.

Or they shall never stop nor be righted.

Edited August 28, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I don't know why EU countries would be in a rush to recognize another arab country

It is no secret, Arab Oil and Arab Oil money.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies quoting them have been deleted.

Stay on the topic.

[Scott]

Another post has been removed. Off-topic bickering is not permitted.

The topic is about Palestine and US Aid. Israel is not the primary subject of the thread.

[flying]

Michael Scheuer was the chief of the CIA in the late 90's

In charge of the Bin Laden division. He has always refused to buy the usual line

that the attacks on Americans have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world.

In fact he says,those attacks have everything to do with what we do.

Some people will not listen to his argument or will pretend to misunderstand it.

Or trivialize it much in the same way we see here.

His point is very simple... It is unreasonable not to expect people to grow resentful & want revenge

when your government bombs them, supports a police state in their countries and imposes sanctions against them.

That is motive

Obviously there is blame resting on those who do acts of terror regardless of their motives.

But the question is also not who is morally responsible for the act. Only a fool would place that blame on anyone but the

terrorist themselves.

The question which is more serious....given the hyperinterventionist foreign policies is the cause & likely leading to more

Are we sure we want this type of foreign policy? Is it worth it? Now that we face financial bankruptcy & possible default in the near future maybe costing us

the worlds reserve currency status....Was it worth it? Was it what the founding fathers taught?

Our governments foreign policies has put the American People in greater danger & made us much much more vulnerable both physically & financially.

This is In keeping with the main topic...The US should mind their own business regarding Palestines right to be recognized.

The US has a vote & they are free to cast it. But by making threats before the vote they do themselves (us) a dis-service.

The Palestinians may have a motive for what they do. It is not the USA's place to figure that one out. It is who they fight with's job to figure it out.

Edited August 28, 2011 by flying

[Credo]

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. The US federal government withholds aid for political purposes. This scenario plays out all the time between the federal government and the states. States are offered funds for implementing programs that the federal government wants to see in place. States opt out--they lose funding. Up to them.

When the 55 MPH speed limit was implemented by the federal government years ago, many of the Western states did not comply. If they didn't, they lost federal highway funds. A big chunk-of-change so states complied. Some states got even with very lax enforcement.

The withholding of US aid probably makes little difference in the situation. It might encourage them to start to approach the problem of statehood in a positive and adult manner. There are plenty of others that will help them.

Let's remember, after the coup in Thailand, military funds were withheld. It was an expression of displeasure with little consequences for Thailand.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

The withholding of US aid probably makes little difference in the situation. It might encourage them to start to approach the problem of statehood in a positive and adult manner.

The Palestinian Arabs should sign a peace treaty for a start.

[Ulysses G.]

This is In keeping with the main topic...The US should mind their own business

They ARE minding their own business. They do not want tax dollars propping up a government that is recognized as a terrorist entity and they will withhold aid until Hamas agrees to make peace. It is up to the Arabs to accept or refuse.

[Credo]

"This is In keeping with the main topic...The US should mind their own business regarding Palestines right to be recognized.

The US has a vote & they are free to cast it. But by making threats before the vote they do themselves (us) a dis-service.

The Palestinians may have a motive for what they do. It is not the USA's place to figure that one out. It is who they fight with's job to figure it out. "

Your point is taken, Flying, but I think the big dis-service would be for the US not to express it's dismay ahead of time. The Palestinians know the US position and can deal with it accordingly. To spring something on them at the last minute is a knife in the back.

[flying]

The withholding of US aid probably makes little difference in the situation. It might encourage them to start of approach the problem of statehood in a positive and adult manner.

The Palestinian Arabs should sign a peace treaty for a start.

Well again none of it is the business of the US & using tactics such as these it is

in as much saying to sign a treaty that they have no say in making.

Form the original article...

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.

So why not? It is not like the Palistinians are asking for anything unreasonable.

It is not like they are asking for a return to the UN Partition Plan of 1947. (See attached Map)

Comments are often bandied about citing one group wanting to push the other into the sea.

But the facts tend to suggest otherwise. Motive for problems at hand?

Sticking with the original post...It is not the USA's place to pressure things that do not concern them.

Lead by example not by meddling & making threats that others should vote this way or that.

That would never be tolerated in the USA why does the government think it will be tolerated elsewhere?

[flying]

Your point is taken, Flying, but I think the big dis-service would be for the US not to express it's dismay ahead of time. The Palestinians know the US position and can deal with it accordingly. To spring something on them at the last minute is a knife in the back.

Yes to express dismay is fine & well. But to make threats is a horse of a different color.

If any vote in a free country were threatened it would not be tolerated.

As per my previous posts I feel ALL foreign aid should be cut. But not just to Palestine

Of course humanitarian aid is not included in that statement.

[chuckd]

Perhaps those who are most vociferous in their denunciations of the US for withholding foreign aid could petition their own governments to do the humanitarian thing and take our place in the handout line.

I suggest we let somebody else handle supporting Palestine for a few years.

[flying]

Perhaps those who are most vociferous in their denunciations of the US for withholding foreign aid could petition their own governments to do the humanitarian thing and take our place in the handout line.

I suggest we let somebody else handle supporting Palestine for a few years.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

From fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/68794.pdf

plugin-68794.pdf

Edited August 28, 2011 by flying

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Steely Dan]

Michael Scheuer was the chief of the CIA in the late 90's

In charge of the Bin Laden division. He has always refused to buy the usual line

that the attacks on Americans have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world.

In fact he says,those attacks have everything to do with what we do.

I think this is confusing cause and effect. The left first argued that deprivation caused radicalism, but other poor non-Muslim populations don't act in the same violent manner. Then we had the intervention causes violence argument, which again doesn't stand up to scrutiny as victims of Islamic violence with no link whatsoever to America could tell you. The fact is Islam is totalitarian and will not compromise so talk of a two state solution with one state being Islamic is delusional.

It seems clear to me that the intention to go to the U.N is a device intended precisely to rule out bilateral negotiations and instead keep a war of attrition going indefinitely.

[flying]

I think this is confusing cause and effect. The left first argued that

You will not find a more Right Wing person than Michael Scheuer

[Steely Dan]

I think this is confusing cause and effect. The left first argued that

You will not find a more Right Wing person than Michael Scheuer

I could re-phrase my statement to read 'predominantly left wing' instead of 'left wing' and my point still rests. The violence in Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand to name three have nothing to do with outside intervention yet Islamic violence is the common denominator. Gaza has the highest levels of external aid in the world to the extent they have an obesity problem and are now awash with luxury cars shipped from Libya. The Hamas leaders (as did Fatah before them) live in luxury fortified residences yet still the missiles rain down on Israel and a constant stream of young and vulnerable are indoctrinated and coerced into becoming suicide bombers.

The aid should have stopped ages ago dependency does not a viable state make.

[flying]

The fact is Islam is totalitarian and will not compromise so talk of a two state solution with one state being Islamic is delusional.

Actually that was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini's way & he tried in vain for many many years to instigate a anti-western jihad exactly on that basis.....It never went anywhere.

But now folks like Bin Laden have a message that differs

It is attractive to so many there because if is defensive. Scheuer said OBL has spurned the Ayatollahs wholesale condemnation of western society

instead he or folks like him now focus on specific issues which have widespread support among Muslims.

[flying]

The aid should have stopped ages ago dependency does not a viable state make.

Agree 101% but as I said previously not to just the one but all.

Especially military aid

Again I do not consider humanitarian aid in times of crisis to be included in the above statement.

That is the crux of my postings here today.

I know we could go round & round on it but I have said

from the start the same.

Edited August 28, 2011 by flying

[Naam]

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.

the decision is not yours but with the United Nations. period!

[Naam]

does the recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN kill, maim or hurt anybody? stopping aid "if" is just more evidence what kind of power the zionist blackmailers in the Greatest Nation on Earth™and its 51st state Eretz Yisrael wield in Washington.

[Credo]

"...Again I do not consider humanitarian aid in times of crisis to be included in the above statement."

The problem is that in that part of the world, they are always in crisis!

[Steely Dan]

The fact is Islam is totalitarian and will not compromise so talk of a two state solution with one state being Islamic is delusional.

Actually that was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini's way & he tried in vain for many many years to instigate a anti-western jihad exactly on that basis.....It never went anywhere.

But now folks like Bin Laden have a message that differs

It is attractive to so many there because if is defensive. Scheuer said OBL has spurned the Ayatollahs wholesale condemnation of western society

instead he or folks like him now focus on specific issues which have widespread support among Muslims.

Glad you mentioned this. In the absence of a Caliph of all Islam only 'defensive' jihads can be called for, hence all Islamic violence needs a pretext. The work round is the pretext is ever changing, for example pretext, Israeli's illegally occupying Gaza results in call to violence. The Israelis withdraw and in maintaining their own secure borders the pretext mutates to Gaza being blockaded.

To return to the U.N, even a non-binding vote will be used as yet more pretext for defensive Jihad.

P.S Jihad is not only overt terrorism, fire crews and Ambulances won't go into Muslim enclaves in many European cities without a police escort as Muslims attack then (in a defensive manner) for entering 'their' territory. The U.S will get the same if Obama gets a second term.

[flying]

Glad you mentioned this. In the absence of a Caliph of all Islam only 'defensive' jihads can be called for, hence all Islamic violence needs a pretext. The work round is the pretext is ever changing, for example pretext, Israeli's illegally occupying Gaza results in call to violence. The Israelis withdraw and in maintaining their own secure borders the pretext mutates to Gaza being blockaded.

To return to the U.N, even a non-binding vote will be used as yet more pretext for defensive Jihad.

As I said we could go round & round & it would lead us far from the original topic.

I did inject the thought of motives & that was in reference to being possibly a reason as to why no

peace treaty has been signed. What one calls terrorism others like Michael Scheuer call blowback.

I maintain my original comments..

It is wrong of the US to use aid as leverage when another country is asking for a vote.

Secondly I feel the US especially now in its own time of crisis should in fact stop all NON humanitarian aid to

ALL countries.

I think I have said all I will on this subject as anything further will just be off topic.

Thanks

Edited August 28, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

The US Embassy has denied the statement was made as quoted. This is likely much ado about nothing. Now it is 'he said...she said'.

_______________________________________________________

Report: U.S. warns Palestinians it will halt aid

Saeb Erekat is the Chief Palestinian negotiator.

By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 8/26/11 12:34 PM EDT Updated: 8/26/11 1:40 PM EDT

American officials are dismissing a top Palestinian leader’s claims on Friday that the U.S. warned it will take “punitive measures” and cutoff aid if the Palestinians move forward on their statehood bid.

The article goes on to say...

The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem released a statement in response on Friday, saying that the quotes attributed to Rubinstein were not accurate.

“While we cannot get into private diplomatic discussions, this report is not an accurate portrayal of the U.S position, nor did Consul-General Rubinstein make the comments reported in the media,” the statement said.

The consulate did not offer any additional details on Erekat’s claims.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62138.html#ixzz1WI7eyHYQ

Edited August 28, 2011 by chuckd

[Pakboong]

It is a US election year, and I highly doubt the Palestinians either at home or abroad, will be provided any campaign contributions.

[Wallaby]

The US Embassy has denied the statement was made as quoted. This is likely much ado about nothing. Now it is 'he said...she said'.

_______________________________________________________

Report: U.S. warns Palestinians it will halt aid

Saeb Erekat is the Chief Palestinian negotiator.

By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 8/26/11 12:34 PM EDT Updated: 8/26/11 1:40 PM EDT

American officials are dismissing a top Palestinian leader’s claims on Friday that the U.S. warned it will take “punitive measures” and cutoff aid if the Palestinians move forward on their statehood bid.

The article goes on to say...

The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem released a statement in response on Friday, saying that the quotes attributed to Rubinstein were not accurate.

“While we cannot get into private diplomatic discussions, this report is not an accurate portrayal of the U.S position, nor did Consul-General Rubinstein make the comments reported in the media,” the statement said.

The consulate did not offer any additional details on Erekat’s claims.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1WI7eyHYQ

Stopping aid is one thing, using it as a threat to try and stop a UN vote is another.

Good to see the US is NOT wanting the latter.

[ravip]

A Donor/Receiver relationship is = Rich/Poor relationship.Hence the receiver must unconditionally satisfy the Donor to 'receive'.Right or wrong are just mere words in this transaction.Humanitarian Aid is another subject which is steeped in grey areas. If investigated deeply, one is tend to puke uncontrollably to realize how the ‘powers that be’ enjoy what is meant for the distressed – a fact no one wants to admit.