• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.S.: We will stop aid to Palestinians if UN bid proceeds

SandEagle

SandEagle

Lifer
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...d-to-palestinians-if-un-bid-proceeds-1.380901

The United States will stop all financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if they proceed with plans to ask the United Nations for recognition of an independent state in September, a U.S. official warned Friday.

U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubinstein, told chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in the name of the Obama administration, that the U.S. would veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for recognition of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within the June 4, 1967 borders and for UN membership.
Click to expand...



lol. Rubinstein. gee, i wonder why he's against Palestinian statehood? we need a non-jewish US consul general who is not biased.

with people like this in power, there is no hope for Palestein. :\


"Just because Israel became a state by saying ' Taa daa; we're a state' doesn't mean you @#%ing Arabs get to do the same thing! Who do you think you are? WE are God's chosen people, not you losers!". :sneaky:
 
If they are recognized as a state; they no longer need all the assistance. They will also have broken their Oslo agreement.

Let the other countries of the world provide the handouts.
 
EagleKeeper said:
If they are recognized as a state; they no longer need all the assistance. They will also have broken their Oslo agreement.

Let the other countries of the world provide the handouts.
Click to expand...

i am sure they will be fine withou US assistance. we give them $3 dollars or $3 billion every year in aid? i forget
 
Last I checked we have supported a two state solution at least since Bush was president. Now we threaten to veto and stop aid. You know who also opposes this? Hamas.

And it's not exactly furthering peace in Israel/Palestine when we send a guy named Rubinstein with our hypocritical message of anti-self-determination.
 
The best part is that the US can stop the bid for statehood in the UN AND still cut off the aid. All the palestinians have to do is ask and their aid goes away.

Rubinstein says "suck it." 😀
 
Nebor said:
The best part is that the US can stop the bid for statehood in the UN AND still cut off the aid. All the palestinians have to do is ask and their aid goes away.

Rubinstein says "suck it." 😀
Click to expand...

yes, and the result is yet more pretty fireworks in that part of the world
 
Use mass transit, walk, bike, stop wasting oil in your gas guzzler, pump at gas stations that don't buy from the middle east. Make that part of the world mostly irrelevant.

Before 1967 those borders were not viable, defendable, and you had snipers shooting each in divided Jerusalem. Clearly that's not the borders we want anyways. Just because they were stupid back then and made ridiculous borders doesn't mean we should make the same mistake today. Two state solution makes sense but they should use their brains when they draw a new map.
 
tommo123 said:
yes, and the result is yet more pretty fireworks in that part of the world
Click to expand...

Which I think is incredibly brave of Rubinstein considering he lives and works in that part of the world. He's jeopardizing his own safety in the name of doing what's right. He's an American Hero. :thumbsup:
 
Let me get this straight...

People who depend on our aid are upset that we are going to take it away if they do something we oppose...

And you have a problem with that??


It is our money and we can attach any strings we won't. We ought to attach more strings as it is.
 
Meh, I don't see a two-state solution as workable anymore considering what happened in Gaza. A three-state solution would be more feasible now.
 
Jhhnn said:
Obama caves again. Who'da thunk it?
Click to expand...

He's a predictable Republican. No hope, no change for Palestinians, 2012 is coming.

It's pretty nasty, keep the Palestinians in bad poverty under occupation, it's a sort of economic terrorism to use 'aid' for political pressure in that situation.

It doesn't matter that the guy is Jewish; he's not the one making the policy.
 
Craig234 said:
He's a predictable Republican. No hope, no change for Palestinians, 2012 is coming.

It's pretty nasty, keep the Palestinians in bad poverty under occupation, it's a sort of economic terrorism to use 'aid' for political pressure in that situation.

It doesn't matter that the guy is Jewish; he's not the one making the policy.
Click to expand...

Except Obama is one of your precious Democrats. OOPS!
 
Craig234 said:
It's pretty nasty, keep the Palestinians in bad poverty under occupation, it's a sort of economic terrorism to use 'aid' for political pressure in that situation.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians keep themselves in poverty through their poor leadership and choices.
 
None of you have it right in terms of what US ambassador Rubenstien said to EarKat.

Because what Rubenstien said or implied is that a Vengeful US congress would force cutting all US aid to the PA, if the PA asked for Statehood on 9/20/2011.

In the short term, that may be a blackmail threat to the PA, but still most of the downside risks are on the part of the USA and our congress. Its just tiny pocket change for nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and others in the oil rich mid-east to more than make up the US shortfall. And if the Palestinians win their State in the general assembly after a US veto, its going to leave both Israel and the US horribly isolated as they also win the monicker as mean spirited. Not to mention the fact that Israel will no longer have a any right to collect Palestinian taxes and then use it as a weapon against Palestinians.

And if the US congress wants to be Aholes and discriminate against Arabs and Palestinians, they can go to the American people and explain why their policies resulted in an Arab oil embargo against the United States.

In short, Obama and the US won some hearts and minds in the mid-east after his Cairo speech, but if the USA fails to make the words into reality, its the USA and not the Palestinians who will be in the bigger heap of trouble all over the planet. As Ambassador Rubenstien is running out of options for the US to avoid major world embarrassment. Its already a slam dunk that well over 2/3'rd of UN member states will vote to approve a Palestinian State. Maybe the US can prevent a Palestinian State in 2011, but its not going to be cost free for the USA.
 
MovingTarget said:
Meh, I don't see a two-state solution as workable anymore considering what happened in Gaza. A three-state solution would be more feasible now.
Click to expand...
It's still frustrating to see the US threaten to veto any two-state solution proposed to the UN. I'm not entirely convinced that it would work either, but it has to be better than the status quo.
 
Assuming it leads to a lasting peace (this premise is obviously debatable), both sides. Israel would no longer be able to illegally settle on Palestinian lands, but they wouldn't have to worry about rockets being lobbed at them either, so I'd say it's a net positive for them.
 
Lemon law said:
None of you have it right in terms of what US ambassador Rubenstien said to EarKat.

Because what Rubenstien said or implied is that a Vengeful US congress would force cutting all US aid to the PA, if the PA asked for Statehood on 9/20/2011.

In the short term, that may be a blackmail threat to the PA, but still most of the downside risks are on the part of the USA and our congress. Its just tiny pocket change for nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and others in the oil rich mid-east to more than make up the US shortfall. And if the Palestinians win their State in the general assembly after a US veto, its going to leave both Israel and the US horribly isolated as they also win the monicker as mean spirited. Not to mention the fact that Israel will no longer have a any right to collect Palestinian taxes and then use it as a weapon against Palestinians.

And if the US congress wants to be Aholes and discriminate against Arabs and Palestinians, they can go to the American people and explain why their policies resulted in an Arab oil embargo against the United States.

In short, Obama and the US won some hearts and minds in the mid-east after his Cairo speech, but if the USA fails to make the words into reality, its the USA and not the Palestinians who will be in the bigger heap of trouble all over the planet. As Ambassador Rubenstien is running out of options for the US to avoid major world embarrassment. Its already a slam dunk that well over 2/3'rd of UN member states will vote to approve a Palestinian State. Maybe the US can prevent a Palestinian State in 2011, but its not going to be cost free for the USA.
Click to expand...

You are completely delusional.
 
I'm confused as to when Obama stated he would accept a Palestinian state that was not the result of a negotiated settlement with Israel. What is he supposed to be "caving" on?
 
frostedflakes said:
Assuming it leads to a lasting peace (this premise is obviously debatable), both sides. Israel would no longer be able to illegally settle on Palestinian lands, but they wouldn't have to worry about rockets being lobbed at them either, so I'd say it's a net positive for them.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the world has been asking for the two adversaries to workup a solution and then come to the UN for a blessing.

Some guidelines have been provided in terms of what the Palestinian proposed state should and should not do.

The Palestinians have ignored that advice and forged ahead thinking that they can force pressure of acceptance.

w/ respect to aid being picked up by the Arab states that is lost from the US, the Arab states provide lip service to the Palestinians only. They have used them as pawns for their own ego since the beginning. When offered a Palestinian state in '48, they refused it.

Look at Egypt keeping Gaza sealed off from the Sinai for the past 40+ years.
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
None of you have it right in terms of what US ambassador Rubenstien said to EarKat.

Because what Rubenstien said or implied is that a Vengeful US congress would force cutting all US aid to the PA, if the PA asked for Statehood on 9/20/2011.

In the short term, that may be a blackmail threat to the PA, but still most of the downside risks are on the part of the USA and our congress. Its just tiny pocket change for naaactions like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and others in the oil rich mid-east to more than make up the US shortfall. And if the Palestinians win their State in the general assembly after a US veto, its going to leave both Israel and the US horribly isolated as they also win the monicker as mean spirited. Not to mention the fact that Israel will no longer have a any right to collect Palestinian taxes and then use it as a weapon against Palestinians.

And if the US congress wants to be Aholes and discriminate against Arabs and Palestinians, they can go to the American people and explain why their policies resulted in an Arab oil embargo against the United States.

In short, Obama and the US won some hearts and minds in the mid-east after his Cairo speech, but if the USA fails to make the words into reality, its the USA and not the Palestinians who will be in the bigger heap of trouble all over the planet. As Ambassador Rubenstien is running out of options for the US to avoid major world embarrassment. Its already a slam dunk that well over 2/3'rd of UN member states will vote to approve a Palestinian State. Maybe the US can prevent a Palestinian State in 2011, but its not going to be cost free for the USA.
Click to expand...
What will be the cost and who is going to install / enforce it.

An oil embargo; enough other countries pump oil to fill in the slack.
Base restrictions?
Free passage through the Suez or Panama canals - violates international law; that triggered a war between Egypt and Israel over such
Dump US currency? - someone has to purchase what is being sold.
Embargo US goods. - Good luck on that.
Loss of support. Possible; however, when the world needs US military assistance or aid; they coming a knocking awfully fast. Look at Burma;

The Palestinians are popular politically as the red headed step child; no one is going to jeopardize their future over them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top