It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The most extreme response yet to the PA bid at the UN is not without support
U.S. Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL), introduced on Monday a resolution to support Israel’s right to annex the West Bank in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to push for a vote for its statehood at the United Nations. The resolution has 30 co-sponsors.
So, the House needs to make this statement, if the [Palestinian Authority] continues down this road of trying to get recognition of statehood, the U.S. will not stand for it. And we will respect Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria.”
Neither Walsh, nor his co-sponsors, have made any comment as to where this “right to annex” comes from, although invocations of religious sanction are perhaps the only imaginable source of explanation.
JStreet emailed me an alert about that and I signed onto a letter to my congressman to not cut funding of the Palestinian Authority. My congressman is a chicken hawk and will do whatever the war mongers ask.
Originally posted by AgentX09
U.S.has already declrared the ceasing of all U.S.financial aid if palistine vote takes place.I bwleive in Israels right to exist but dont like Netanyahu policies.Annex the west bank?More fuel for the coming fire when UN vote takes place i fear.
will the Democrats stand up to it at all?
Executive Branch have control over whether or not the USA exercises its veto?
I don't see why they can't affirm the existence of both states, as Jimmy Carter, President Bush (in the end) and the original UN partition plan, approved by the US, wanted for the region.
U.S. vetoes U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in West Bank
The Obama administration exercises its first U.N. Security Council veto to kill an Arab-backed resolution calling West Bank settlements 'illegal.' The vote was seen by both Israelis and Palestinians as a crucial test of U.S. loyalty.
February 18, 2011
By Edmund Sanders and Brian Bennett, Los Angeles TimesReporting from Jerusalem and Washington —
The Obama administration, opposing 14 other United Nations Security Council members, exercised its veto power for the first time Friday to kill a resolution calling for Israeli settlements to be condemned as illegal and seeking to halt construction.
Though the resolution largely echoed long-standing criticism by the U.S. and international leaders about Israel's construction on land seized during the 1967 Middle East War, the Obama administration rejected the proposal, saying the U.N. is not the proper forum and the dispute should be handled during peace talks.
It's really only conservative Jews and Christians that care otherwise, and I don't know how much power they and their propaganda allies have to convince moderates and liberals that this is a horrendous crime against Israel.
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Idiot. Is he going to sing the same song if Mexico wants Texas back?
The proper analogy would be: "Will he also support a band of rogue Tennesseeans who want to take the rest of Mexico as part of Texas?"
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
If I remember correctly, the War of 1812 started when some U.S.A. fellows figured they'd just go ahead and annex Canada, or part anyway. The U.S. ended up loosing the White House.
Joe Walsh, who has made more TV appearances than any other freshman in the House, is running late. It is not his fault. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress ran long—something to do with the 29 standing ovations he got—and as soon as it ends, Walsh bolts out the doors for his scheduled appearance at a Heritage Foundation luncheon.
"Woo!" says Walsh, slapping his hands together and hot-footing it to his seat. His own energy level is at least 100 volts higher than the rest of the room. "It was a masterful speech! He taught us all a history lesson, like he taught the president last week. And is so refreshing to hear a leader"—he pounds the table—"a giant, in that room." He gives the crowd a preview of a column he's just written about how President Obama is "not Israel's friend"—that's its headline when it is published the next day—with some eye-popping words about why American Jews are so liberal. It's sensational and it gets plenty of attention.
Netanyahu: Palestinian Statehood Bid 'Doomed'
(excerpt from The Derailing of Balfour Declaration)
What is suggested in Balfour is really quite reasonable: "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Yet, the actual facts on the ground indicate that the aims of Balfour were completely derailed.
1) The Nakba of 1948 was an extreme prejudice against the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, including the forced eviction of 800,000 Palestinians.
2) The Current Israel Right of Return which states that any Jew anywhere in the world can be regarded as a citizen of Israel, completely jeopardizes the clause: "or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". In the same way that Jews anywhere have the potential of being citizens of Israel, so also any Jew has the potential of being a citizen of a hostile nation within another nation, acting as a fifth column, if you will. This can cause great prejudice against Jews.
The case of number 2) above, is quite evident in the United States, wherein perfectly decent American Jews are pressured into supporting the Zionist regime of Israel even at the cost of not supporting the best national interest of their native United States in which they were born.
So the World stands at the crossroads. Should we strive to live up to the highest justice that humans can achieve, or shall we be dictated to by facts on the ground.