Rep. Joe Walsh’s Resolution Would Recognize Israel’s Right to Annex West Bank

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.

30 cosponsors already, wouldn't doubt it if they ended up with a couple hundred. After all, what does justice or rule of law matter when kissing the rear of Israel is perceived as the surefire way to re-election.

So the US is proposing that Israel just flat-out seize all of Palestine. Just seize it. What would we call it then? Nakba 2.0 or Nakba The Final Chapter or what? Right to annex? Right to annex? I guess that will be the defining step in U.S.A. going down the road of theocracy; rejection of all international treaties, all international law, because hey, they're only human laws and aren't "god's" laws greater? Didn't 'god' give that land.....

So once this theocratic axis of evil is complete (Israel-US) then what? Start purging all the unbelievers in the Old Testament so-called 'god'. Believe or die? That's what Torah demands in the very same chapters in which this so-called land grant was made. So aren't the death penalties for pagans just as valid as the land-grant?

Here's something I find rather odd. The originating sources for these stories about US Congressional actions almost always come from Israel newspapers. Why is that? So US papers end up quoting Israel papers as sources, what's up with that?

Pure idolatry of the highest order. I am disgusted. They will all be lining up so they can get their support for reelection. I think my plan is to not re elect my congressman. If I ask him to pull out of Afghanistan, he says it is national security.
I was watching the US Open for tennis and turned my TV on and here was this message that the most important concern is energy security. I thought, "And the stupid regular TV watchers buy this?" I suppose we are supposed to think if Palestine gets a UN seat we will not be able to buy gas for our cars.

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.

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.

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.

Will the House even get this past the Senate? If Obama and the Democrats accept Palestinian statehood (which, if it goes to a vote in the G.A., is a sure thing) then would they try to block this resolution? Or will it be left to Obama to veto it, or will the Democrats stand up to it at all?

Really the issue that I see here is the power politics in Washington. This can and will be used as another wedge issue to try and unseat Obama, but is it popular enough to trump the President and the UN? Is it possible to drum up massive popular support for Israeli annexation of Palestine without resorting to calling it a nation of terrorists? I think that if it came down to that, the only real way to rouse the conservative public against a legal (versus religious, emotional) issue would bring out the absolute worst in Islamophobic racism that America has to offer. What will happen to American society if the House passes this resolution?

reply to post by pthena

Idiot. Is he going to sing the same song if Mexico wants Texas back?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

will the Democrats stand up to it at all?

I'll try to get updates on this. So far the whole US Government apparatus is in favor of veto Palestine statehood. No wedge there. I can see the Dems may be split on outright annexation. But the GOP will do the reverse psychology bit by accusing Dems of "not supporting Israel". So then, of course, the Dems will take the bait and support annexation as a way to prove how much they love, adore, and worship Israel.

That's a pretty sick scenario I just laid out. But it has certainly worked in the past. Currently, GOP is accusing Obama of not supporting Israel enough, so he's bending over backwards to prove it.

The result for America is another big step down the road of 'rogue state' status by violating International treaties such as UN Charter and Human Rights treaties. Plus the US will be affirming once again that it is ruled over by Israel.

Walsh, himself got his marching orders from Danny Danon, a deputy speaker of the Knesset and Likud Party member known for extreme pro-settler position, while Walsh was in Israel in August along with 79 other US lawmakers on a free all expenses paid vacation in Israel.

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?"

I'd wager that every one of those co sponsors is receiving "support" from AIPAC.

Traitors should be hung in this country.

The scenario could change if the resolution passes in the UN. If Palestinian statehood is accepted by the General Assembly, doesn't the 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. Obama could maintain his image as a politician friendly to Israel in the public's eye. 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.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Executive Branch have control over whether or not the USA exercises its veto?

The Executive branch has control of veto in UN Security Council, Obama has already sold his soul to veto that. General Council vote grants a lesser than complete statehood.

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.

Obama already says he's in favor of two states 'publicly', but on Israel's terms in actuality. He says he's against settlement expansion, but vetoed the UN Security Council resolution condemning settlement expansion

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.

It's difficult to separate out which Jews would favor it and which don't. The groups favoring it have the bigger megaphone. Same with Christian groups. The propaganda ever since 1970s has been so bad in the U.S. that a large portion of Americans actually believe that Palestinians have been stealing Israel land. The horrendous crime is not just against Israel and Palestine, but against all people everywhere.

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?"

I know...but I didn't want to give them any ideas. Winter's coming and them hills get darn frosty.

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.

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.

Well...we kissed and made up and are darn good neighbours (even though you guys spell it wrong). And frankly, that should be the example for the rest of the world...set aside centuries-old disputes, embrace your similarities rather than your differences and just damn-well get along for a change.

Nice to see Rep. Joe Walsh living up to the tea party agenda that got him elected. Smaller government? Less spending? Jobs? Nah, let's push for more pro-Israel legislation and more spending.

Walsh is one of the prime examples why the tea party movement is such a crock.

Telling the Palestinians to stop their bid for statehood or Israel will annex the West Bank is nothing short of extortion. Like the AIPAC official Steven Rosen who claimed he could get "signatures of seventy senators on this napkin" in 24 hours, this shows what sell-outs these "American" politicians are.

Joe Walsh To Palestinians: Stop Statehood Bid Or Israel Will Annex West Bank

Where are the jobs, Joe?
Why aren't you paying your child support, Joe?

Why is a freshman congressman with no foreign experience suddenly pushing this Israel-Palestine legislation on us? Is this what Illinois voters elected you to office for?

Joe Walsh Among Congress's 'Most Corrupt' Members In New Report
Rep. Joe Walsh, Deadbeat Dad
“Fiscal Responsibility” Rep. Joe Walsh Owes Over $100K in Child Support



Why is Walsh trying to push pro-Israel legislation? Could it be his connection to the right-wing Heritage Foundation and their Israel support?

What Did He Just Say? Meet Rep. Joe Walsh, the biggest media hound in the freshman class.

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.

This whole situation is silly. America insists, and Israel demands, that Palestine only get a state if they negotiate with Israel, one on one. But, that's like the Jews asking the Nazis for a state, or the Stalinists. It's not gonna happen. The oppressor doesn't want the oppressed to exist at all, except maybe as cannon fodder or bogeymen. It's actually more like a battered wife asking her husband "please, can I be allowed to live with my sister until you stop beating me?"

The craziest thing is that the media in the West acts like this is totally unremarkable. There are no real comments or counterpoints in the newspapers in my country. They state matter-of-factly that Netanyahu wants Palestine to get a state only if they go through Israeli channels. They don't mention anything like, oh, say...

Israel only exists because the UN approved it by a vote.

Or, if you want to deny that, little Zionist, and insist that Israel won its independence by fighting and issuing a Declaration of Independence, then you can undermine the UN argument. But then you leave yourself wide open to the "Palestinians can unilaterally declare independence" argument. If Israel can do it, why can't Palestine?

Note that NEITHER COUNTRY announced their borders when they declared independence. This is the strongest argument against a Palestinian state that I have heard from pro-Israel sources on this matter. "Palestine hasn't announced its borders, it plainly wants to exterminate Israel!!" But, Israel didn't announce its borders when it declared independence in 1948, either. Hypocrisy, says I.

The demand that Palestine only get a state by asking Israel for one is a demand that a stateless people politely ask their owners for something that their owners will never, ever give them. Championing the bilateral negotiations between the two polities is effectively saying that Israel owns Palestine and that the Palestinian people have no natural right to that land. The Israeli and US position here is frankly anti-UN, anti-human.

I have heard countless times from Zionists that Israel has offered a state to Palestine (Judea and Samaria, plus Gaza) and that Palestine always refuses. They frame this as an example of the endless benevolence of Israel and the infinite anti-semitic malevolence of Palestine. "Israel is stooping so low as to offer a part of their homeland to the Palestinians... why do they spit in the face of Israel's charity? Because they want another Holocaust!!!" Nevermind that it is the Palestinian homeland too... nevermind that it is a pittance offered to the natives by the gangster-state that robbed them decades ago. THEY JUST HATE JEWS

But now that Palestine is taking up the offer to have their own state in Judea and Samaria, what happens? Israel cries NO!! They show their true face; they never ever meant to give anything to the Palestinians, they only allowed moderate politicians and moderate policies to negotiate with the Arabs because they wanted to appear benevolent to the UN and the world.

The real enemies of the Palestinian and Israeli people, the right-wing militarist gangsters, have always intended to take the whole of the land, and more, for themselves. They are not interested in living in peace with Arabs. They lie to their own people and to their neighbours in order to get what they want and to bide their time.

If the US vetoes this, it will be an absolute outrage to the General Assembly.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
I'll take this opportunity to cross link to the thread I started before this one, which for some reason ended up in WW Three.

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.

And it isn't only American Jews under this extreme pressure (the pressure is only evident to those who resist) to believe and act as if the U.S. and Israel actually are the same country.