Funding the enemy

September 20, 2011

Like quiting smoking. You know it is bad for you, but you can’t stop spending money on it There is a lot of social pressure to keep your former lethal habit going and you may not survive kicking the vice. I have a lot of empathy. I’d like to go to Israel, but I’m afraid I’m not ready… and I’m not sure Israel is ready to protect me either… or if I could protect myself from some of the leftist Israelis that I met in NYC or online.Sorry to make this personal.

PA militias.jpg (Caroline Glick) Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a true friend of Israel. Her bill calling for a cutoff of US aid to the PA and a massive decrease of US aid to the UN in the event the UN upgrades the Palestinians’ diplomatic status is one of the most important pieces of pro-Israel legislation to be introduced in the US Congress in a generation. By announcing it opposes an aid cutoff, Israel undermined Ros-Lehtinen’s position. It betrayed its good friend. No doubt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman were under great pressure from the IDF and from the Obama administration to call for continued international funding of the PA. But the public didn’t elect them with the expectation that they would abandon Israel’s national interest and harm its friends just because they feel the heat. (MORE)

Threatening the UN financially won’t work if Obama and Clinton think the Jews will vote for them anyway.

August 29, 2011
Bush Sr. was no friend of Israel, and neither is Obama. In fact it was Bush’s secretary of state Baker who said, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway”…and actually was kind of correct because the American Jews were for a welfare state for the most part. Little has changed now that the welfare state has cannibalized the Jewish community. Baker despite bigot barking then passed a financial bill that spooked the UN into turning down Palestine. The GOP didn’t do it because they wanted to… the GOP looked a little like a Ron Paul party back then. The GOP did it because in the end they were worried that while the Jewish community was lost to the left, the Christian Zionist community would of been disenfranchised.

…And then there was Secretary of State James Baker’s infamous “fuck the Jews” remark. In a private conversation with a colleague about Israel, Baker reportedly uttered the vulgarity, noting that Jews “didn’t vote for us anyway.” This was more or less true—Bush got 27 percent of the Jewish vote, compared with 73 percent for Dukakis, in 1988. And thanks in part to Baker, it was even truer in 1992, when Bill Clinton got 78 percent of the Jewish vote and Bush got only 15 percent—the poorest showing by a Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964. via slate.com

Baker’s hand was forced… it wasn’t like he actually wanted to do what he did… but it remains to be seen if Obama’s hand can be forced… because unlike Baker… Obama thinks the Jews will vote for him rain or shine… and sadly Obama would be right on that analysis. The Jewish community really is ill from centuries of abuse and can not seem to let go of government mechanisms. Can anyone really see Obama NOT vetoing this bill? I suppose Congress can refuse to fund UN activities, but I doubt that will stop Obama and Clinton from continuing to do so .

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen knows just how to deal with the ‘Palestinian’ bid for ‘statehood’ at the United Nations: Threaten their funding. In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks. This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works. With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void. I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which will reflect the executive branch’s previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective. It is time to use all our leverage to stop this unilateral Palestinian scheme — for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security, and for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles.

Money talks – even at the UN – Carl

Sadly it remains to be seen if the Democrats have any incentive to do the right thing. Sometimes being on the other side is the best leverage an interested party can have.

Clinton wants Obama to veto foreign aid bill

August 29, 2011
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked President Obama to veto the foreign aid bill voted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee if it reaches him. In particular, she mentioned provisions cutting aid to the United Nations, and restricting aid to the ‘Palestinians,’ Egypt and Pakistan.

Clinton said in a letter Tuesday that she would urge President Barack Obama to veto the bill if it passes in both houses of Congress because the measure “would be debilitating to my efforts to carry out a considered foreign policy and diplomacy, and to use foreign assistance strategically to that end,” The Washington Post reported.

The bill cleared the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week in an effort to cut $6.4 billion from the president’s request for $51 billion in foreign aid for 2012. While it has the potential to pass the GOP-controlled House, it’s seen as unable to get through the Democrat-led Senate.

The bill would impose “onerous restrictions” on State Department operations and foreign aid, Clinton wrote, and the “severe curtailing” of dues payments to international groups including the UN and the Organization of American States would be damaging.

The legislation’s proposal to block funding to countries that don’t meet corruption standards “has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients,” as do proposals to restrict aid to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the Palestinian Authority. The bill would only allow the flow of money to those countries if the Obama administration was able to certify that no members of terror groups or their sympathizers were serving in their governments.

Brad Goehner, a spokesman for Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the House committee, told the Post that the letter was “disappointing, particularly given the current debt crisis, that the Obama administration is fighting to keep sending taxpayer money to foreign organizations and governments that undermine U.S. interests.”

More here.


America uses veto power to thwart anti-settlement resolution at UN

February 19, 2011
amid harsh Palestinian criticism of US;
PA slams American ‘bias,’
Ramallah protestors hold racist anti-US rally,
refer to Obama by skin color

WASHINGTON – The United States vetoed the Palestinian proposal to condemn settlement construction by Israel at the United Nations Security Council Friday. The other 14 Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the US, as one of the five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, voted against it and struck it down….

 Phewf.

…. Meanwhile, the Fatah movement organized a rally in Ramallah to support the Palestinian anti-settlement push and slam the US. The demonstration features racist elements, as protestors carried signs referring to Obama by his skin color, reading “Washington – the black hands support occupation and colonial thinking.”
The protestors lauded President Mahmoud Abbas for ignoring US pressure to withdraw the UN proposal.

Methinks perchance the Pals are  Toast .

Happy Good Shabbes … with seven minutes to spare!


US will probably veto UN resolution – we should do more then that… we should be outraged by it

February 16, 2011

good to know there are some good guys in our government… or enough good people in the system to stop some insanity

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

of course Foreign Policy said that the U.S. did break precedent and still offered to kind of condemn Israeli continued Israeli settlement activity,,, but I’m not sure who to believe.
 

In sharp reversal, U.S. agrees to rebuke Israel in Security Council

The
U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N.
Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does
not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,”
a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger
Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.
But
the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late
Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for
a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with
the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the
prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto
in the U.N. Security Council.
Still,
the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of
the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and
joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key
ally to stop its construction of new settlements. The Palestinian
delegation, along with Lebanon, the Security Council’s only Arab
member state, have asked the council’s president this evening to
schedule a meeting for Friday. But it remained unclear whether the
Palestinian move today to reject the U.S. offer is simply a
negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from
Washington.
Susan
E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new
U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a
bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In
exchange for scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States
would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N.
Security Council visit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and
commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel’s settlement
policies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet.
The
U.S.-backed draft statement — which was first reported by Al
Hurra

— was obtained by Turtle
Bay
.
In it, the Security Council “expresses its strong opposition to
any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the
outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the
international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a
serious obstacle to the peace process.” The statement also
condemns “all forms of violence, including rocket fire from
Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples.”
U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council
diplomats confirmed the proposal. The Arab Group was scheduled to
meet this afternoon to formulate a formal response to the American
offer. Council diplomats said that the discussions were fluid and
that there was still the possibility that the U.S. draft would be
subject to further negotiations. They said it was also not yet
certain that the U.S. offer would satisfy the Arab Group, and that
the U.S. may be forced to veto the Palestinian resolution.
U.S. officials argue that the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict
is through direct negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians.
For weeks, the Obama administration has refused to negotiate with the
Palestinians on a resolution condemning the settlements as illegal,
signaling that they would likely veto it if it were put to a vote.
The Palestinians were planning to put the resolution to a vote later
this week. But Security Council statements of the sort currently
under consideration are voted on the bases of consensus in the
15-nation council.
The United States has, however, been isolated in the 15-nation council.
Virtually all 14 other member states are prepared to support the
Palestinian resolution, according to council diplomats. A U.N.
Security Council resolution generally carries greater political and
legal force than a statement from the council’s president.
The U.S. concession comes as the Middle East is facing a massive wave of
popular demonstrations that have brought down the leaders of Tunisia
and Egypt and are posing a challenge to governments in Algeria,
Bahrain, and Iran.

Leave a Comment » | Abu Mazen, House Foreign Affairs Committee, James Steinberg, Judea and Samaria, U.N. Security Council, UN Security Council | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


US accelerates funding to PA with $150 million transfer – Ileana Ros-Lehtinen fights the tyranny!

November 14, 2010

capitancubamerica.jpgif Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen gets her way, the ‘Palestinians’ won’t get that $150 million. And they won’t get any other American aid money either until they clean up their act and start fighting terror and corruption.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican who stands to take over [the Chairmanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee] in January after her party won the House of Representatives, said she was deeply concerned over what she called the bailout of the Palestinian leadership, which she claims has failed to live up to its commitment to dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructure, eradicate corruption and recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

“This figure underscores strong determination of American people and this administration to stand with our Palestinian friends,” Clinton says.

wrong!  and the people decided that in an election that Clinton ignores because she desperately wants money going to terrorists.

again? why are we rewarding them for walking away from Piece Talks?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous
image via borev.net 

Leave a Comment » | AID, Hillary Clinton, Hitlery, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Israeli AID, Judea and Samaria, Palestinian Authority, Ros-Lehtinen | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Iran Liberation Act?

November 10, 2010

In 1998, Republicans pushed a bill through Congress called the Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq. The bill was even signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. It took five years after that for the US invasion of Iraq under the Bush administration. Now, the ‘progressives’ fear that Republicans will employ the same treatment for Iran.

Supporters of the Obama administration’s diplomatic approach say that advocates of an Iran invasion are pursuing the same long-term strategy now.:By putting the issue on the table right now, Iran hawks are hoping to limit the president’s room to maneuver, and make it easier for a future president to launch a military strike. “Iraq didn’t happen in two months,” Rubin told The Upshot, noting that it took five years from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 until the 2003 invasion. “So this is the playbook.”

Indeed, Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy magazine wrote recently that he’s anticipating “some kind of Iran Liberation Act on the horizon” from the GOP Congress.

Duss agreed. “You see them running a very similar game as they ran in the ’90s,” he said. During that period, Republicans and their allies frustrated many of Clinton’s political goals, “then offered [the Iraq Liberation Act] as a way to be bipartisan.”

And last week’s election results give the hawks more leverage. “After the election, they feel the broader Obama agenda has been rejected,” Rubin said. “There’s a feeling they may have Obama a bit more on the ropes.” And that, in turn, may make the president more willing to move toward the GOP on Iran policy, observers say. “Graham is saying: If [Obama] wants Republican support and bipartisanship, being tougher on Iran would work,” according to Rubin.

Starting in January, advocates of a tougher line on Iran will have powerful allies in Congress who could help advance that plan. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) [pictured. CiJ], a veteran Iran hawk who has downplayed the effectiveness of sanctions, will take over as chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I hope the next country we involve ourselves with will allow us to wise up and use less ground troops for occupation and more target bombing. There are ways to run these wars with less American casualties. We need to stop blaming ourselves and protect ourselves from these suicidal cultures. no more occupation thinking. this time we don’t fix what we break.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

image via lynch.foreignpolicy.com 

Leave a Comment » | Bomb Iran, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Iran, Iran's Sanctions, Ros-Lehtinen | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon