On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
By the same token, Israel is against the United Nations acknowledging Palestine as a Nation-State....Uhm....The same mechanism that Israel was acknowledged.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:18 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
So much for republicans being the Zionistas, eh? Maybe Rahm should
have been a clue.
"Palestine", wants to be recognized as a state, while refusing to
recognize Israel as a state. Okey dokey.
Bravo Mr President
> ...
On Sep 24, 5:51 am, Moe <coates...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The biggest threat is the undermining of the representatives in the
> Congress when it comes to decisions that affect the policies of the
> United States. I was surprised to see a clip with Wolf Blitzer and
> Netanyahu discussing the fact that during the speech of Netanyahu
> before the Congress various Israeli politicians were sitting together
> with American representatives to influence their voting. Blitzer asked
> Netanyahu if this was correct and how would an Israeli react if Joe
> Walsh sat in the parliament of Israel to assure that Israel walk the
> line to American interest. Netanyahu said in a joking manner that he
> has no control over the politicians in Israel. Netanyahu has gone so
> far as to threaten various politicians about their re-election if they
> did not pull the Israeli line. It is clear to everyone who can think,
> Israel can do what it wants to disrupt the balance in the region. For
> any mistake made then the USA will be called to bail Israel out. This
> means US Taxpayers and members of the US Armed Forces will pay the
> bill. This payment will be in the form of taxpayer's money and lives.
> United States pays Israel 3.5 Billion Dollars per year in support.
> They pay Palestine 500 million dollars a year. America does not have
> this money. We should be investing in the USA. Look at the increased
> costs due to securing the American interests on a worldwide basis.
> American taxpayers cover the increased costs and the host countries
> pay their part. After Obama took office, USA has reduced threats. Due
> to recent actions by Israel, the threat level has increased for all of
> America´s allies in addition to that of the US.
>
> Israel is looking at Iran. Israel might take action to destroy these
> plants. They have asked or oppressed the US for F-18s and the armament
> to destroy the nuclear plants in Iran. Israel has received addition
> armaments and cooperation from the United States to the level where
> the interest of the United States are in question. Look at the case of
> F-15 plans that Israel received from the United States. After USA
> terminated the project, Israel then sold the plans to China. China
> then had a great technological leap forward with their efforts to gain
> American military expertise. Look at the spying cases of Jewish
> Americans and the attempts to free the convicted individuals by
> putting pressure on Congress members.
> If you look at the Israeli population in Israel, 800.000 of their
> register citizens are living in the United States. How many of
> Israel's citizens are living else where due to the daily risk. The
> amount of money made is tremendous for selling homes to Israelis in
> who have USA, as their first address. Another case is the cheaper
> access to the American market for medical devices and software
> products. This costs the average American not only his job but also
> increase taxes for services he is not getting. What is it costing us
> for a government that has more interest in appeasing Israel and not
> supporting the infrastructure of the United States? How many American
> lives will be spend for any of the foolish steps that Israel might
> take in the region? What are the additional costs to Europe and the
> United States due to the Israeli failed action with the Turkish aid
> ships? What is the cost of an American Congress that is more
> interested in supporting Israel's follies than that of support the
> interests of the American people?
>
> On Sep 23, 2:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Biggest Losers in Palestine Veto? The American PeoplebyPhilip Giraldi, September 22, 2011
> > If the Palestinian application for United Nations full membership actually takes place Friday and the United States uses its Security Council veto to stop the process, it will be the final step in a predictable and preventable tragedy playing out. Some are arguing that Washington might actually abstain, thereby gaining considerable favorable sentiment from much of the world and also sending a signal to Israel that there are limits to the bilateral relationship. But it is far more likely that President Barack Obama, who has stated over and over that he will protect Israel in international forums, will not flinch when he calls on Susan Rice to cast the fatal vote. Any expectation that the president might hesitate either because it is the right thing to do or because it benefits the United States is fanciful, particularly with a presidential election looming in 2012.
> > Washington's attempts to "mediate" the situation have really been limited to pressuring the Palestinians to back off. Sending National Security Council officialDennis Ross, "Israel's lawyer," to Ramallah to talk around the Palestinian leadership should, if anything, indicate to the Palestinians that Washington is, as it always has been, firmly in the Israeli corner. So let us assume that Palestine will feel compelled to seek full U.N. membership as the world's 194th nation and that Washington will then veto the application. The first question then has to be whether the entire process had any meaning at all or it was just kabuki, a stylized show played out to an appreciative audience with a predictable ending. The short answer is that the Palestinians will certainly be on the losing end as they have been for more than 60 years but the real losers will be the United States and Israel.
> > The mainstream media has echoed Israeli and American arguments that Palestinian statehood is meaningless without a negotiated settlement of issues on the ground. But Israel has made it clear that it has no desire to negotiate anything while it continues to occupy the West Bank, so the Palestinian choice is to accept the status quo, in which it is powerless and voiceless, or attempt to line up the international community more solidly behind it and shift the playing field.
> > Israel has been working hard to stop the process, or, at worst, to mitigate its impact by having a number of important nations, mostly in Europe, either abstain on the vote or vote no. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a glad-handtourof European capitals earlier this year with that express purpose, and he received positive signals from the Italians, the Dutch, the Poles, and the Germans, though it is by no means clear how they will vote. It was for Israel a top national priority, which it has conveyed clearly to its friends in the United States.
> > Washington, at the urging of Israel, also joined in the effort, starting withwarningslate last year to Latin American nations that recognizing Palestine as a state would be "unacceptable." More recently, the State Department and the White House have repeatedly expressed their desire that the Palestinians shelve their plans to seek a U.N. seat, and they have been assiduously working both in front of the TV cameras in New York and Washington and behind the scenes to convince the Palestinian leadership to cease and desist. The dialogue has been given some teeth by Congress, which is determined tocut all aidto Palestine if the U.N. action goes through. One congressmen, Joe Walsh of Illinois, is preparing amotionthat will provide congressional support for an Israeli annexation of much of the West Bank if the Palestinians proceed. Walsh describes Palestinian statehood as "absolutely outrageous."
> > So Israel sees the Palestinian plan as a major threat and the United States appears to be on board, but many would reasonably observe that Israel often cries wolf and greatly exaggerates what it perceives as threats against it. Is that true in this case, making it just another instance where Tel Aviv is adopting an extreme position in hopes that Washington will deliver the goods? It may not be. Israel sees danger precisely because the Palestinian bid will do a couple of things that call into question some significant aspects of the status quo. First of all, since it will certainly pass with a huge majority in the General Assembly if the Palestinians opt to go that route, it will provide overwhelming international confirmation of Palestinian rights with the U.S. and Israel standing on the wrong side on the issue. It will also severely undermine Israel's moral position, such as it is, and emphasize the illegality of the Israeli occupation of parts of the West Bank. The process is already illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world, including the United States, but it will be even less tenable if a convincing majority of the world's countries recognize Palestine as a state with defined borders and a national identity.
> > Second, recognition of statehood carries with it recognition that the state exists within defined space, in this case the 1967 borders. This has enormous significance because those borders include many areas being colonized by the Israelis, as well as East Jerusalem. It means that any Israeli settlement that is on the other side of that border is considered completely illegal and that Israel is therefore a rogue state that is occupying and settling lands belonging to a neighboring state 44 years after the cessation of hostilities. Even theNew York Timesin anarticleon Sept. 10 regarding the recent unrest in Egypt, noting that Islamic groups were not involved, conceded that criticism of Israel has a basis in the widespread popular perception that "Muslims, Arabs, and indeed many around the globe believe Israel is unjustly occupying Palestinian territories, and they are furious at Israel for it." The rejection of Palestinian statehood and the debate surrounding it will only heighten that sentiment.
> > If the Palestinians are in the United Nations as a full member or even with limited rights, they will have access to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where they can take legal steps against Israel and against individual Israelis. Even though Israel doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court, when it reaches the point where no senior Israeli government official, present or
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment