U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote to Grant Membership to Palestinia

U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote To Grant Membership To Palestinians | Fox News

Petty, but who cares as long as other countries keep on funding Unesco. It's time to show that the US can't boss us (the world) around any more.

If you want to show the world that what the US does doens't matter, then quit whining about it! :laugh:


And naturally, don't let facts get in the way of your reasoning. From your link above:

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

At least the US has a policy that it states. 52 members abstained from voting on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

U.S. Will Withhold Funds For U.N. Agency After Vote To Grant Membership To Palestinians | Fox News

Petty, but who cares as long as other countries keep on funding Unesco. It's time to show that the US can't boss us (the world) around any more.

---

HOORAY for the red, white and blue... well Obama said he was for change but thank God he knows what not to do if he wants to be re-elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

---

Then why is US policy not consistent? The PLO which is now called Fatah renounced violence at the time of the Oslo peace accords, presided over by the US. The US is happy to negotiate directly with Fatah and provide them weapons and training to form a heavily armed police force. In fact Fatah is the only Palestinian political organisation that the US is happy to deal with and we have had both G W Bush and Obama speak up to support them over Hamas.

When G W Bush and Obama spoke of a two-state solution they talked to Fatah and envisioned them ruling over the Palestinian side.

From the article it says clearly that the US statutes that insist on cutting off funding to any organisation the PLO is involved in dates back to 1990, before the Oslo peace accords and before the PLO renounced violence and recognised Israel's right to exist. Clearly those statutes are now out of date and are out of touch both with the reality on the ground and with US policy in the Middle East as executed by the last two presidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

And naturally, don't let facts get in the way of your reasoning. From your link above:

"Washington is required by law to cut off funding to any U.N. agency if the Palestinian Liberation Organization is granted membership in any group at the international body."

A little research on the matter will also show that the verious UN Resolutions that over the years were veto'd by the US had mostly to do with the same thing... the PLO. It was a long standing US policy that they would not recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government, especially back in those days when they weren't even part of the election process.

---

Hear hear :up:

Seeing as both Hamas and Fatah are both factions of the PLO, the US's policy is entirely consistent. Given that neither Hamas and Fatah recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist, it seems to me that the same courtesy is being extended in the other direction - Hoisted with their own petard as it were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Seeing as both Hamas and Fatah are both factions of the PLO, the US's policy is entirely consistent.

---

Wrong.

The PLO no longer exists in practicality.

The organisation that was the PLO renamed itself Fatah, recognised Israel's right to exist and renounced the use of violence to achieve Israel's destruction. This was part of the Oslo peace accords.

Hamas is an entirely separate organisation from Fatah and has never been part of the PLO or Fatah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Given that neither Hamas and Fatah recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist,

---

As described above, Fatah DOES recognise Israel's right to exist. Please read up on the Oslo peace accords.

Hamas doesn't on paper but in practicality it does recognise Israel as it negotiates directly with them for purchasing utilities such as electrical power and clean water and negotiating services like garbage disposal from the Gaza strip. It is rather difficult to buy things from a country you don't recognise exists.

Please don't confuse fiction with fact, I really don't know where your version of events comes from as it really doesn't bear any resemblance with reality.

Absolutely idiotic. Thank you Obama for turning a fledgling nation against the US (and west by association) by an act of complete insolence.

It is this type of immature thinking that will ensure the Middle East always see he West as an enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

You might want to reconsider who is being idiotic here (hint). As noted above, the US is required by law to respond that way. The correct answer is to change the law and that takes a while in any truly democratic country. Particularly since Jewish interests are well funded and vocal here it won't be an easy sell. It was not a choice by the US government or Obama, the immediate outcome was obvious to anyone who has any understanding of the facts.

---

Maybe it's time to change the law then?

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations. This is why they were forced to vote against.

Other countries such as Canada are currently reviewing their funding policies in light of the recent vote.
Until Palestine has a stable government that is not controlled by a terrorist organization their acceptance into any internationally recognized body will be questioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations.

---

As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

We call them terrorists to differentiate them from the likes of the Contras and KLA. Nuances aren't a strong point in US diplomacy, which is why we need the UK, France, etc to run interference. It generally works pretty well except when some of the more conservative elements here forget how this balance is supposed to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

---

I never said it was. Re-read my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

---

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by Canada. Hence the need to vote against against membership to UNESCO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

As far as I know, Palestine is not a terrorist organization.

---

Palestine is nothing; not country, not a state, not a county, not even a suburb.
HMM, is there a shopping center called Palestine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodasarmpit

Absolutely idiotic. Thank you Obama for turning a fledgling nation against the US (and west by association) by an act of complete insolence.

It is this type of immature thinking that will ensure the Middle East always see he West as an enemy.

---

Right.....The PLO/Fatah/Hamas were all going to be BFF's with the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Palestine is nothing; not country, not a state, not a county, not even a suburb.
HMM, is there a shopping center called Palestine?

---

And you live in the state of Denial.

fckem all fckem all fckem all the short the fat and the tall fckem all
I would suspense any foreign aid until we have zero debt !!

[quote="Roamy"]

Good idea, your buddies israel would collaps in a year, also you will never have zero debt, thats wish thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

Good idea, your buddies israel would collaps in a year, also you will never have zero debt, thats wish thinking.

---

i would make Israel a territory if they want aid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

And you live in the state of Denial.

---

Which is better than Never Land you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Unadulterated BS. Any group which actively supports and conducts bombing, etc. directed at civilian targets is, by definition, a terrorist organization. Please note that that is as opposed to collateral damage to civilians where the intended targets are military or terrorists.

---

You mean like governments who drop atom bombs on Japanese cities or carpet bomb German cities? Or are you saying they just aimed military targets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

As you know, that condition is a declared state of war between nations. Not the same thing at all.

---

Very convenient. The US tries to stop Palestine from becoming a nation, so that they can keep calling them "terrorists". Palestine can't in your eyes declare a war against Israel as long as it isn't a nation, so they must continue as "terrorists". That's a leak proof plan, I must say.

Eki, no one is calling Palestinians terrorists, and no one is trying to block an independent state for Palestine. Just the opposite, in fact.

However, I can't speak for the U.S. but the government of Canada has a difficult time justifying recognition of an independent state whose leadership is, or actively supports, a known terrorist organization.

Also, Palestine is not at war with Israel, although their current leaders actively support unprovoked hostilities :mark: .

^^ Excellent. 100% agree ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I wouldn't say that activities against Israel are unprovoked. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

I am no supporter of Israel. While at one time they were the victims of aggression by their neighbors, they have become an occupying force, aggressively taking and annexing land that does not belong to them. I cut them no slack what so ever. Further, I encourage my representatives in the US Congress to de fund all aid to Israel. The point I made in my original post was that the US is constrained by our law to act the way it did. That does not mean that the law cannot be changed.

---

All of that, I agree with very much indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Eki, as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He just throws post bombs around to provoke controversy and start arguments. Either the US government acts illegally, as he suggests in many threads, or it doesn't. In this case, I pointed out the the US position was fully within the existing law. Now he seems to want us to act outside that law. Make up your mind Eki, your vehement anti US bias is showing here. Should the US act legally or illegally? Or is it just that no matter what we ever do it's wrong in your eyes?

---

As for this, I suppose it depends on whether you feel the US is acting consistently in deciding to remain within the letter of international law on this occasion. On that there are differing perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

As for this, I suppose it depends on whether you feel the US is acting consistently in deciding to remain within the letter of international law on this occasion. On that there are differing perspectives.

---

International Law only applies when it serves a nations own self interests. Bar that they aren't worth the paper they are written on!
Did Gaddafi follow international law? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot?..........The list is endless.

Further to my earlier post, I'd like to apologise for the tone of the comments.
It does , however, dishearten me to observe that at each turn there appears to be attempts to make difficult the transition from state to fully fledged country.
Rather than impeding their, legitimate, right to self governance and entry into the International community - we should be be doing everything possible to ensure a seamless transition.
Yes, things have been difficult in the past, and are still to some degree in Gaza, however sticking with the status quo mentality won't allow for progression.

It is time for a different way of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Did Gaddafi follow international law? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot?..........The list is endless.

---

By that reasoning, not following international law means one lines oneself up with all of those individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Not even PLO was a terrorist organization, it was a liberation organization, just like the name said. Fatah and Hamas are political parties.

---

So you believed the German Democratic Republic to be truly democratic, did you?

I find your reasoning here charmingly simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

No Eki, it is not petty. Canada has legislation similar to the U.S. where it is illegal to support known terrorist organizations.

---

This I find very difficult, for definitions of 'terrorist' have always been so blurred. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. And now we have anti-terrorism legislation being used in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Furthermore, it must be mentioned that financial backing from the US was long instrumental in keeping the IRA in guns and bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So you believed the German Democratic Republic to be truly democratic, did you?

I find your reasoning here charmingly simplistic.

---

Are you saying their goal wasn't an independent Palestinian nation state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Eki, as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. He just throws post bombs around to provoke controversy and start arguments. Either the US government acts illegally, as he suggests in many threads, or it doesn't. In this case, I pointed out the the US position was fully within the existing law. Now he seems to want us to act outside that law. Make up your mind Eki, your vehement anti US bias is showing here. Should the US act legally or illegally? Or is it just that no matter what we ever do it's wrong in your eyes?

---

So as long as it's legal it's OK? Did Gaddafi follow his national laws? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Yes they did, but many seemed to have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This I find very difficult, for definitions of 'terrorist' have always been so blurred. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. And now we have anti-terrorism legislation being used in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with terrorism. ...

---

Yes, agreed. I can only assume that the government of Canada has drafted some official definition of "terrorist organization" the parameters of which apply to Hamas :mark: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Are you saying their goal wasn't an independent Palestinian nation state?

---

With respect — and I do respect your views — you are avoiding the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

By that reasoning, not following international law means one lines oneself up with all of those individuals.

---

By your reasoning....Not by any rational person. Does Romania or Poland still have to abide by the rules of the Warsaw Pact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

So as long as it's legal it's OK? Did Gaddafi follow his national laws? Mubarak? Saddam? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Yes they did, but many seemed to have a problem with it.

---

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

By your reasoning....Not by any rational person. Does Romania or Poland still have to abide by the rules of the Warsaw Pact?

---

I have lost what you are on about. Your view is that international law is worthless; then you went on to list a load of dictators whose actions have gone against international law, as though this somehow backs up your stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Neither did the Finns who allied themselves with Hitler until the USSR kicked their ass.....Then they became Stalin's Brown Nose Buddies!

---

Great topical satire (albeit 70 years too late).

To answer your question: No, I don't think the German Democratic Republic was that democratic. But I do think that the United Kingdom is definitely a kingdom, and also united, so what's wrong with thinking that the Palestine Liberation Organization was about liberating Palestine?