U.S. gov't cuts funding to UNESCO over Palestine vote

[Pakboong]

here is another point of view

" Today, pro-Palestine activists reacted angrily, saying that the U.S. did “punish” the agency. “It's a sign of institutionalized U.S. hatred, hostility and racism toward Palestinians that [the] U.S. opposes even membership of UNESCO,” wrote Ali Abunimah a Palestinian-American journalist and co-founder of the pro-Palestine online publication the Electronic Intifada.

“Congress should cut funding (our tax dollars) to Israel so long as it violates international law, not UNESCO, education, and arts. #corruption,”wrote Ahmed Rehab, an Egyptian American activist and executive director of CAIR-Chicago, an organization that works for the civil rights of Muslims. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/unescovotes-to-admit-palestine-reaction-to-us-funding-cut/2011/10/31/gIQAAXw2ZM_blog.html

under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act, and also under the Glenn act, it is illegal for the US Government to send your tax dollars to any nation in possession of nuclear weapons technology that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or does not allow IAEA inspections

Seems we can get around these silly rules when we want to.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Pakboong

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic of UNESCO.

[Wallaby]

I think the US is shooting itself in the foot with this. They go all gung ho on these things and Palestine still gets voted in. Then by their own law they have to cut off funding.

If they don't pay the UN they will lose their voting power and that will have major repercussions for big brother Israel.

[Wallaby]

And Israel's response to the vote is to expedite the building of more settlements and say that they cannot be part of any future peace agreement.

"All of the mentioned areas are ones that would remain in Israeli control under any future peace agreement," Netanyahu's office said in a statement.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-expedite-settlement-construction-in-response-to-palestinian-unesco-membership-1.393191

So now we see why Israel is really that angry. They were happy to keep the Palestinian's at bay and stealing whatever land they wanted whenever they wanted. But now that the world sees through this and the number of countries acknowledging Palestine is growing and growing the Israeli govt is making a rush for as much as they can get.

Compounding the irony, Israel itself has so far not indicated it is pulling out of Unesco, nor indeed any other UN agency. On the contrary, WikiLeaks recently revealed that Israel was angling for a major position in Unesco.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/01/obama-palestine-unesco-membership?newsfeed=true

[Ulysses G.]

And Israel's response to the vote is to expedite the building of more settlements and say that they cannot be part of any future peace agreement.

Why not? The Palestinian Arabs have violated a number of treaties that they have signed and also brought a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel into their government. Why be part of any more agreements that the Palestinians have proved that they will not honor anyway?

[Ulysses G.]

The truth is that UNESCO is not very important to US interests. Withdrawing funding hurts UNESCO much more than the US.

America is much more concerned about a Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian Arabs as it violates a number of treaties that they have signed, but the U.S. has veto power over that.

[Wallaby]

The truth is that UNESCO is not very important to US interests. Withdrawing funding hurts UNESCO much more than the US.

America is much more concerned about a Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian Arabs as it violates a number of treaties that they have signed, but the U.S. has veto power over that.

Is that why Hilary Clinton said this..

"I am proud to be the first secretary of state from the United States ever to come to Unesco, and I come because I believe strongly in your mission."

You obviously have trouble understanding the ramifications as stated in the links I provided. By pulling out of UNESCO and any other organisation that admits Palestine then the US is sidelining itself and it's vote is weekened. Therefore any withdrawal is actually detrimental to the US goals.

[Wallaby]

And Israel's response to the vote is to expedite the building of more settlements and say that they cannot be part of any future peace agreement.

Why not? The Palestinian Arabs have violated a number of treaties that they have signed and also brought a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel into their government. Why be part of any more agreements that the Palestinians have proved that they will not honor anyway?

Because it is illegal.

It is also off topic but I do agree with you...Israel is as bad as the terrorist organisation in the way it acts.

[Scott]

The topic concerning the issue of settlements is here:

[chuckd]

The truth is that UNESCO is not very important to US interests. Withdrawing funding hurts UNESCO much more than the US.

America is much more concerned about a Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian Arabs as it violates a number of treaties that they have signed, but the U.S. has veto power over that.

Is that why Hilary Clinton said this..

"I am proud to be the first secretary of state from the United States ever to come to Unesco, and I come because I believe strongly in your mission."

You obviously have trouble understanding the ramifications as stated in the links I provided. By pulling out of UNESCO and any other organisation that admits Palestine then the US is sidelining itself and it's vote is weekened. Therefore any withdrawal is actually detrimental to the US goals.

Wallaby:

I think you would find a large percentage of US citizens would be in favor of the US pulling out of the UN completely. Let the remaining members do the heavy lifting.

I also don't know many US types that really pay much attention to what Hillary says.

Perhaps it is time for the US to practice some isolationism for a change.

[Wallaby]

The truth is that UNESCO is not very important to US interests. Withdrawing funding hurts UNESCO much more than the US.

America is much more concerned about a Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian Arabs as it violates a number of treaties that they have signed, but the U.S. has veto power over that.

Is that why Hilary Clinton said this..

"I am proud to be the first secretary of state from the United States ever to come to Unesco, and I come because I believe strongly in your mission."

You obviously have trouble understanding the ramifications as stated in the links I provided. By pulling out of UNESCO and any other organisation that admits Palestine then the US is sidelining itself and it's vote is weekened. Therefore any withdrawal is actually detrimental to the US goals.

Wallaby:

I think you would find a large percentage of US citizens would be in favor of the US pulling out of the UN completely. Let the remaining members do the heavy lifting.

I also don't know many US types that really pay much attention to what Hillary says.

Perhaps it is time for the US to practice some isolationism for a change.

I do think the US should actually think of itself for a while at least. Sod the rest. The economy isn't real flash so would stand to reason to cut off all aid (except for humanitarian reasons). Let the rest of the world sink or swim by itself for a while.

US types aren't the only ones that don't pay much attention to Hilary.

[luckizuchinni]

UNESCO is hardly a court.

Yes it is not....Sorry I meant to put another slash between courts & agencies

( will edit it )

It is an Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

All the more shameful to give ...donations/support? with such conditions/threats attached.

Good riddance to handouts given with such motives

I am pretty confused here. So you are saying that a nation should continue to give donations to an organization which expressly goes against the donor nation's wishes? That seems a pretty strange position to take for me.

If I am donating to any organization, and that organization takes steps with which I cannot agree, I think I would stop making donations. In this case, the law was written so as to take this specific action should UNESCO admit Palestine. UNESCO was well aware of this, yet a majority of members chose to admit Palestine. So what is the issue with the US stopping payments?

It is easy for you to say good riddance to the money, but I would imagine that you are not tasked with providing the services that UNESCO now has 22% less money with which to provide them.

[Scott]

The OP is a little confusing. The money paid is likely not a donation. The phrase that may be key is this:

"Under UNESCO's constitution, a member state will have no vote in the general conference if it gets more than two years in arrears in its contribution."

The OP talks about contributions, but I am wondering if it is the membership dues/fees, otherwise how could they force a donation?

Does anyone know the level of 'contributions' necessary to be a voting member?

[GentlemanJim]

Lucky

I guess you should re read the post by Pakboong below. Israel twist the US around their finger to either implement or not implement laws as it requires.

here is another point of view

" Today, pro-Palestine activists reacted angrily, saying that the U.S. did “punish” the agency. “It's a sign of institutionalized U.S. hatred, hostility and racism toward Palestinians that [the] U.S. opposes even membership of UNESCO,” wrote Ali Abunimah a Palestinian-American journalist and co-founder of the pro-Palestine online publication the Electronic Intifada.

“Congress should cut funding (our tax dollars) to Israel so long as it violates international law, not UNESCO, education, and arts. #corruption,”wrote Ahmed Rehab, an Egyptian American activist and executive director of CAIR-Chicago, an organization that works for the civil rights of Muslims. "

http://www.washingto...Xw2ZM_blog.html

under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act, and also under the Glenn act, it is illegal for the US Government to send your tax dollars to any nation in possession of nuclear weapons technology that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or does not allow IAEA inspections

Seems we can get around these silly rules when we want to.

[flying]

I am pretty confused here. So you are saying that a nation should continue to give donations to an organization which expressly goes against the donor nation's wishes? That seems a pretty strange position to take for me.

If I am donating to any organization, and that organization takes steps with which I cannot agree, I think I would stop making donations. In this case, the law was written so as to take this specific action should UNESCO admit Palestine. UNESCO was well aware of this, yet a majority of members chose to admit Palestine. So what is the issue with the US stopping payments?

It is easy for you to say good riddance to the money, but I would imagine that you are not tasked with providing the services that UNESCO now has 22% less money with which to provide them.

Donation/fees etc call it what you will.

The point is this.......

UNESO = Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

The money from the US was withdrawn based on this...

Two U.S. laws passed in the 1990s ban Washington from financing any United Nations agency which admits Palestine as a full member

If you do not see a conflict then I cannot help.

As for your comment about it being easy to say good riddance.....providing conditional money is of no help what so ever to an organization such as this....It is quite the opposite

Folks can spin this anyway they want but in the end the world has spoken.

They decided to stand against moral relativism

Try to understand that actions do not become moral just because *your* government performs them

Edited November 2, 2011 by flying

[luckizuchinni]

Lucky

I guess you should re read the post by Pakboong below. Israel twist the US around their finger to either implement or not implement laws as it requires.

here is another point of view

" Today, pro-Palestine activists reacted angrily, saying that the U.S. did "punish" the agency. "It's a sign of institutionalized U.S. hatred, hostility and racism toward Palestinians that [the] U.S. opposes even membership of UNESCO," wrote Ali Abunimah a Palestinian-American journalist and co-founder of the pro-Palestine online publication the Electronic Intifada.

"Congress should cut funding (our tax dollars) to Israel so long as it violates international law, not UNESCO, education, and arts. #corruption,"wrote Ahmed Rehab, an Egyptian American activist and executive director of CAIR-Chicago, an organization that works for the civil rights of Muslims. "

http://www.washingto...Xw2ZM_blog.html

under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act, and also under the Glenn act, it is illegal for the US Government to send your tax dollars to any nation in possession of nuclear weapons technology that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or does not allow IAEA inspections

Seems we can get around these silly rules when we want to.

Regardless of other issues, and those are not subject to this thread, the fact is that the US explicitly told the members that they would cut off funding if the vote regarding Palestine went through. The vote went through, the US will cut off funding. Why does that surprise anyone?

[luckizuchinni]

I am pretty confused here. So you are saying that a nation should continue to give donations to an organization which expressly goes against the donor nation's wishes? That seems a pretty strange position to take for me.

If I am donating to any organization, and that organization takes steps with which I cannot agree, I think I would stop making donations. In this case, the law was written so as to take this specific action should UNESCO admit Palestine. UNESCO was well aware of this, yet a majority of members chose to admit Palestine. So what is the issue with the US stopping payments?

It is easy for you to say good riddance to the money, but I would imagine that you are not tasked with providing the services that UNESCO now has 22% less money with which to provide them.

Donation/fees etc call it what you will.

The point is this.......

UNESO = Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

The money from the US was withdrawn based on this...

Two U.S. laws passed in the 1990s ban Washington from financing any United Nations agency which admits Palestine as a full member

If you do not see a conflict then I cannot help.

As for your comment about it being easy to say good riddance.....providing conditional money is of no help what so ever to an organization such as this....It is quite the opposite

Folks can spin this anyway they want but in the end the world has spoken.

They decided to stand against moral relativism

Try to understand that actions do not become moral just because *your* government performs them

You are missing the point. And your take on the "morality" on this is really misplaced, in my opinion. What is immoral about withholding funding, when that withholding was explicitly warned before the vote?

This is a simple matter of politics. It has no great "moral" consequences. And I think it is the choice of the US government to donate or not as they deem fit.

I am hardly pro-Israeli. I am certainly more pro-Palestine excepting for the continual rocket attacks. I have lived in Palestine for a short period and seen the world from their side of things. However, to cry out and gnash our teeth because the US followed through on its promise is really a waste of effort, in my opinion.

And providing "conditional" money? How is that "quite the opposite?" The US merely said it cannot contribute anymore when the receiving organization acts in ways detrimental to the US' own interests.

The history of your posts in Thaivisa is extremely anti-US. No problem with that. But this is a case where your vitriol is misplaced, in my opinion. This is a logical and rational act by the US given their stated goals. There is no "morality" to it.

[Wallaby]

Lucky

I guess you should re read the post by Pakboong below. Israel twist the US around their finger to either implement or not implement laws as it requires.

here is another point of view

" Today, pro-Palestine activists reacted angrily, saying that the U.S. did "punish" the agency. "It's a sign of institutionalized U.S. hatred, hostility and racism toward Palestinians that [the] U.S. opposes even membership of UNESCO," wrote Ali Abunimah a Palestinian-American journalist and co-founder of the pro-Palestine online publication the Electronic Intifada.

"Congress should cut funding (our tax dollars) to Israel so long as it violates international law, not UNESCO, education, and arts. #corruption,"wrote Ahmed Rehab, an Egyptian American activist and executive director of CAIR-Chicago, an organization that works for the civil rights of Muslims. "

http://www.washingto...Xw2ZM_blog.html

under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act, and also under the Glenn act, it is illegal for the US Government to send your tax dollars to any nation in possession of nuclear weapons technology that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or does not allow IAEA inspections

Seems we can get around these silly rules when we want to.

Regardless of other issues, and those are not subject to this thread, the fact is that the US explicitly told the members that they would cut off funding if the vote regarding Palestine went through. The vote went through, the US will cut off funding. Why does that surprise anyone?

It surprises me that basically the US is withdrawing because of Palestine but Israel is not. Yet a weakening US vote in the UN can have serious repercussions for Israel. Surely Israel need the US in the UN if only for it's veto.

[flying]

You are missing the point. And your take on the "morality" on this is really misplaced, in my opinion. What is immoral about withholding funding, when that withholding was explicitly warned before the vote?

This is a simple matter of politics. It has no great "moral" consequences. And I think it is the choice of the US government to donate or not as they deem fit.

I am hardly pro-Israeli. I am certainly more pro-Palestine excepting for the continual rocket attacks. I have lived in Palestine for a short period and seen the world from their side of things. However, to cry out and gnash our teeth because the US followed through on its promise is really a waste of effort, in my opinion.

And providing "conditional" money? How is that "quite the opposite?" The US merely said it cannot contribute anymore when the receiving organization acts in ways detrimental to the US' own interests.

The history of your posts in Thaivisa is extremely anti-US. No problem with that. But this is a case where your vitriol is misplaced, in my opinion. This is a logical and rational act by the US given their stated goals. There is no "morality" to it.

Sorry if you have misunderstood my posting history.

I live in the US not Thailand.

If I were anti-US I would leave. Instead I stay & speak up when our country acts out of line with the Constitution it is sworn to uphold. (I am not bringing the Constitution up as a point in this topic)

I say immorally & opposite because if one gives money to any organization that is based on...

universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

Then later withdraws it based on a bought law that at once is opposite to what I just pointed out...Then how is that moral? How is it even logical? It was not a decision made by a small faction of the UN it was a vote.

Perhaps childish would be a better term then? Take their marbles & go because they could not buy the vote?

Lastly where do you suppose the law that the US claims reason for withdrawing the money came from?

Not We The People I can guarantee you that much. That law was bought & paid for by lobbyist as it serves no good to the American citizens.

[luckizuchinni]

Lucky

I guess you should re read the post by Pakboong below. Israel twist the US around their finger to either implement or not implement laws as it requires.

under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Act, and also under the Glenn act, it is illegal for the US Government to send your tax dollars to any nation in possession of nuclear weapons technology that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or does not allow IAEA inspections

Seems we can get around these silly rules when we want to.

Regardless of other issues, and those are not subject to this thread, the fact is that the US explicitly told the members that they would cut off funding if the vote regarding Palestine went through. The vote went through, the US will cut off funding. Why does that surprise anyone?

It surprises me that basically the US is withdrawing because of Palestine but Israel is not. Yet a weakening US vote in the UN can have serious repercussions for Israel. Surely Israel need the US in the UN if only for it's veto.

In two years, it will weaken its vote in UNESCO, but with its seat on the Security Council, I would hardly think the US' UN vote is "weakened."

[chuckd]

You are missing the point. And your take on the "morality" on this is really misplaced, in my opinion. What is immoral about withholding funding, when that withholding was explicitly warned before the vote?

This is a simple matter of politics. It has no great "moral" consequences. And I think it is the choice of the US government to donate or not as they deem fit.

I am hardly pro-Israeli. I am certainly more pro-Palestine excepting for the continual rocket attacks. I have lived in Palestine for a short period and seen the world from their side of things. However, to cry out and gnash our teeth because the US followed through on its promise is really a waste of effort, in my opinion.

And providing "conditional" money? How is that "quite the opposite?" The US merely said it cannot contribute anymore when the receiving organization acts in ways detrimental to the US' own interests.

The history of your posts in Thaivisa is extremely anti-US. No problem with that. But this is a case where your vitriol is misplaced, in my opinion. This is a logical and rational act by the US given their stated goals. There is no "morality" to it.

Sorry if you have misunderstood my posting history.

I live in the US not Thailand.

If I were anti-US I would leave. Instead I stay & speak up when our country acts out of line with the Constitution it is sworn to uphold. (I am not bringing the Constitution up as a point in this topic)

I say immorally & opposite because if one gives money to any organization that is based on...

universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

Then later withdraws it based on a bought law that at once is opposite to what I just pointed out...Then how is that moral? How is it even logical? It was not a decision made by a small faction of the UN it was a vote.

Perhaps childish would be a better term then? Take their marbles & go because they could not buy the vote?

Lastly where do you suppose the law that the US claims reason for withdrawing the money came from?

Not We The People I can guarantee you that much. That law was bought & paid for by lobbyist as it serves no good to the American citizens.

Mr. Flying:

Virtually every law is bought and paid for by some constituency that wants to see a special interest law enacted. To single this one out is somewhat off target.

Surprisingly, the current administration decided to enforce this particular law. They have a habit of choosing which laws they will enforce and those they will ignore.

Just for the record, this is not the first time the US has had problems with UNESCO. We dropped out in 1994 objecting to the manner in which UNESCO operated. Since we will no longer be funding 22% of the organization, now would be a good time to drop out again.

______________________________________________________________

Posted on Fri Sep 13 2002 07:26:43 GMT+0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) by niki

U.S. rejoins UNESCO 18 years after withdrawal Thu Sep 12, 6:19 PM ET

By SAM F. GHATTAS, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - U.S. President George W. Bush ( news - web sites) announced Thursday that the United States is rejoining the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization "to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning."

The United States withdrew from the Paris-based organization 18 years ago to protest its alleged mismanagement and overly political policies.

"This organization has been reformed, and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning," Bush said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/749689/posts

______________________________________________________________

[luckizuchinni]

You are missing the point. And your take on the "morality" on this is really misplaced, in my opinion. What is immoral about withholding funding, when that withholding was explicitly warned before the vote?

This is a simple matter of politics. It has no great "moral" consequences. And I think it is the choice of the US government to donate or not as they deem fit.

I am hardly pro-Israeli. I am certainly more pro-Palestine excepting for the continual rocket attacks. I have lived in Palestine for a short period and seen the world from their side of things. However, to cry out and gnash our teeth because the US followed through on its promise is really a waste of effort, in my opinion.

And providing "conditional" money? How is that "quite the opposite?" The US merely said it cannot contribute anymore when the receiving organization acts in ways detrimental to the US' own interests.

The history of your posts in Thaivisa is extremely anti-US. No problem with that. But this is a case where your vitriol is misplaced, in my opinion. This is a logical and rational act by the US given their stated goals. There is no "morality" to it.

Sorry if you have misunderstood my posting history.

I live in the US not Thailand.

If I were anti-US I would leave. Instead I stay & speak up when our country acts out of line with the Constitution it is sworn to uphold. (I am not bringing the Constitution up as a point in this topic)

I say immorally & opposite because if one gives money to any organization that is based on...

universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

Then later withdraws it based on a bought law that at once is opposite to what I just pointed out...Then how is that moral? How is it even logical? It was not a decision made by a small faction of the UN it was a vote.

Perhaps childish would be a better term then? Take their marbles & go because they could not buy the vote?

Lastly where do you suppose the law that the US claims reason for withdrawing the money came from?

Not We The People I can guarantee you that much. That law was bought & paid for by lobbyist as it serves no good to the American citizens.

I know full well that you live in the US. And I can recall perhaps one post you made which supported anything US, other than your posts in which you state you are taking an anti-US stand because you are pro-US.

Bought law or not, it is law. If you personally don't agree with it, then write your congressman. I am not so sure I agree with it either, but then there are many laws in the US with which I don't agree.

Your point about a vote vice a "small faction" is irrelevant. The US acts to its own interests, not that of anyone else. Just because a majority of the votes supported this measure does not mean it is a good thing for the US. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But that is a decision for Americans to make, for good or bad.

I am not a fan of the history of US policy in the Middle East. I think there is much to criticize. But it is beyond me how this crosses the line into morality. Despite UNESCO's charter, it is merely an organization with the inherent politics found in any such organization. And historically, it has been used as a tool for various political causes, just as the World Bank and other organizations have been used.

I am not so sure the US should have drawn the line in the sand as it did. But it did, and I don't have a problem with their reaction once the vote was made. Whether that was a smart move to make or not can be debated, but your contention that this is an immoral act is beyond the pale, in my humble opinion.

[flying]

Mr. Flying:

Virtually every law is bought and paid for by some constituency that wants to see a special interest law enacted. To single this one out is somewhat off target.

Yes I agree & never would say otherwise as to where most laws come from.

As for singling it out???

No such thing occurred....It is called staying on topic... so on target not off.

This law was cited as the reason to pick up the marbles. I pointed out it has 0 benefit to the US citizens & it is obvious who bought it into existence.

Cut & dried

[chuckd]

Mr. Flying:

Virtually every law is bought and paid for by some constituency that wants to see a special interest law enacted. To single this one out is somewhat off target.

Yes I agree & never would say otherwise as to where most laws come from.

As for singling it out???

No such thing occurred....It is called staying on topic... so on target not off.

This law was cited as the reason to pick up the marbles. I pointed out it has 0 benefit to the US citizens & it is obvious who bought it into existence.

Cut & dried

I can think of 80 million reasons annually that it will benefit US citizens.

[flying]

I know full well that you live in the US. And I can recall perhaps one post you made which supported anything US, other than your posts in which you state you are taking an anti-US stand because you are pro-US.

I am not the subject of this topic so let me be brief in my reply.

Do not confuse patriotism with approval/disapproval of the governments actions.

Yes the US has drawn another pro-Israel but short on common sense line in the sand.

Let us now see what it brings & while we are at it lets see the US governments official response to Israel's renewed interest

in continuing to build illegal settlements on lands that do not belong to them.

Goodnight late here in America

[luckizuchinni]

I know full well that you live in the US. And I can recall perhaps one post you made which supported anything US, other than your posts in which you state you are taking an anti-US stand because you are pro-US.

I am not the subject of this topic so let me be brief in my reply.

Do not confuse patriotism with approval/disapproval of the governments actions.

Yes the US has drawn another pro-Israel but short on common sense line in the sand.

Let us now see what it brings & while we are at it lets see the US governments official response to Israel's renewed interest

in continuing to build illegal settlements on lands that do not belong to them.

Goodnight late here in America

Not to belabor a point, but I am not questioning your personal patriotism. I have no knowledge of that one way or the other. I merely mentioned that given your posting history, this is an issue in which I think your moral outrage is misplaced. Even when I don't agree with you in other threads, your points hold more water there, in my opinion.

I would also like to see more action by the US on the illegal settlements. And that is a whole other issue. For this issue, though, on the US withdrawing its donations to UNESCO, I think this is all "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Edited November 2, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[midas]

For gods sake Palestine did nothing wrong by applying for membership. surely it is their democratic right

but now this latest move sickens me.I can't see any excuse for them to be treated like this

they haven't done anything wrong?

Israel punishes Palestinians for Unesco membership: Withholding tax revenues

http://www.lostrepublic.us/archives/7137

Edited November 2, 2011 by midas

[cdnvic]

Let's keep this in one thread: