Lawmakers signal Palestinian action could threaten funding

[okaawhatever]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers said on Wednesday they were unhappy about the Palestinian leadership's decision to sign more than a dozen international conventions, and warned it could trigger a cutoff of U.S. aid.

"It was extremely disappointing to me that (President Mahmoud Abbas) chose to take this action at the U.N. It is counterproductive and doesn't move them closer to any final resolution," New York Representative Nita Lowey, the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, said at a House hearing.

Abbas had pledged not to seek to join world bodies during U.S. brokered peace negotiations that are scheduled to run until the end of April. But he made a surprise announcement on Tuesday that he had signed the conventions, citing anger at Israel's delay of a prisoner release.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately announced that he was cancelling a trip to the region.

SNIP

They discussed whether it would trigger a U.S. law that Palestinian membership in international agencies could prompt a withdrawal of financial aid to the Palestinian authority and closure of their mission in Washington.

Power said it was too soon to determine what response would be appropriate. "We will need to see what it is they have submitted," she said.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/us-palestian-israel-usa-idUSBREA311QZ20140402

[JDPriestly]

1. Palestinian "leadership" harming Palestinians again.

They get money from us but say they hate us. Maybe we should take them off our list of nations we support right now.

[Scootaloo]

2. The Palestinians are very much in support of Abbas on this.

[azurnoir]

3. the talks are failing because Israel reneged on it's end of the deal period

The Palestinian have not said "they hate the US" and have said that they would continue the so called talks while they go to the UN

[Deny and Shred]

4. Nice of you to call them a nation

but they are not. That is why they are taking these steps. They want US approval, but want nationhood more.

The US gives Israel WAY more money, yet Bibi and friends habitually criticize President Obama. Maybe we question that support as well?

[JDPriestly]

5. Definitions:

Palestine is a "a large area of land that is controlled by its own government."

the nation : the people who live in a nation

Nation : a tribe of Native Americans or a group of Native American tribes that share the same history, traditions, or language

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation?ref=dictionary&word=nation#

The question is what are its boundaries. That is where the problem lies.

Palestinians hold elections, and other nations respect the outcomes of those elections. The problem lies in defining the area of land that the government(s) govern. That is why just recognizing Palestine won't solve the problem. Negotiations are needed to determine the boundaries of the nation.

[Elgato]

6. Palestine.

Obviously,you drank the cool- aid,or you've been living under a rock.Keep on trolling.

[Deny and Shred]

7. Sort of

I see how you are using it, but if they are a nation, why not recognize them as a nation in the UN? Does Israeli settlement building on their land count as an invasion of a soverign nation, thus an act of war?

I recall the elections in 2006. The US and Israel certainly didn't respect that outcome.

I agree about defined boundaries. There are people in both 'nations' upsetting the peace process, not just Palestinian leaders. Avignor Lieberman is a huge barrier to the process. You asserted the US should reconsider its aid. I asked about Israel. You didn't respond. Does Israel get a complete pass?

[happyslug]

9. The UN only recognizes "STATES".

We in the US tend to use Nation and Country when we mean State, for a State is a legal entity that exists independent of any other entity. Thus each of the 50 States are "States" for while they are members of a Federation, that Federation has no control over the borders and make up of those States.

The Federal Government is also a "State" in that it is a legal entity, in this case created by other legal entities (the States) but exists independent of those entities that created it.

A nation, on the other hand is a group of people who think of themselves as one people. The Germans thinks of themselves as one people, and thus are a "Nation". The Sioux think of themselves as one people and thus are a "Nation". We Americans view ourselves as one people, thus we are one Nation. The Palestinians think of themselves as one people, and thus are a Nation.

Geographical entities are called "Countries". India, before the British Conquest, was referred to as the Country of "India" even through it was made up of various legal states. China is a Country. North America is a Country, through you can point out it is made up of two "States", i.e. Canada and the United States (Mexico is sometimes included in the term "North America" for it is in the continent of North America, but it is viewed as a separate country from the Country to its North (that includes BOTH the United States and Canada).

We do have overlap in the above terms. French Canadians tend to view themselves as one nation, that like the Native American Tribes, are a subject nation to a legal state. English Speaking Canadians, know they are Canadian Citizens (Citizenship is something granted by a "STATE&quot , but culturally are more like Americans then French Canadians (and Americans out side of the American South, tend to view themselves as "Americans" while people living in the American South, tend to view themselves as "Southerns". Thus you can call Southerns a separate "Nation" then the rest of us, but they are also in the same country and same State and share the same citizenship.

Now, the UN while it calls itself a Untied Nations, is a creation of States by States. Like a Federation, the UN is also a "State" in that it is a legal entity independent of its members. On the other hand it is a very weak State, having no power to tax and with the five most powerful members have a veto over anything it can do.

AS to the Palestinians, they are clearly a people, and thus a NATION. The West Bank and Gaza are clearly geographical areas and thus can be viewed as a "Country". The issue is thus is the Palestinian Government a "State", in that it exists independent of any other entity?

Thus the issue is the issue of State hood for Palestine. Israel is refusing to permit the creation of such a legal entity. Israel can NOT forbid the creation of the Nation of Palestine (Which is something done by people themselves) or the Country of Palestine (a product of Geography), but Israel can prohibit the existence of a legal entity known as Palestine, but the simple act that the Israel Military can destroy such a legal entity at any time. It is very hard, almost impossible to destroy something that is a product of Geography (i.e. a Country) and genocide is what you do when you eliminate a "Nation". Israel is not capable of doing either at the present time, thus Israel's only power is its ability to prevent a Palestinian State by being able to destroy such a Legal Entity.

[Deny and Shred]

10. I believe we are in agreement

You laid it out far more thoroughly than I. Palestinians have been systematically denied a 'country' I've watched Israel subvert the 'talks', the 'process' my whole life. They get the Western microphone, blame the A - rabs , and continue to occupy more and more of previously agreed-upon Palestinian territory.

I posted to ask if Israel deserves scrutiny. No answer.

Allow me - they do. The fervent DU Obama suppoters ought to side against Israel. The Israeli hard-liners are as bad if not worse than any domestic criticism of the US President.

[happyslug]

11. I have to learn to read, you wrote "Scrutiny" and I read "Security".

And I then wrote the following, for I wanted to go into details that Israel's "Security" has NOTHING to do with its narrowest, but who is living in that narrow area of land: On the other hand it does show that any
"Scrutiny" on Isreal's plans for the West Bank, quickly shows what are Isreal's read "security" concerns in regards to the West Bank.

I once read a book by two Israeli Generals about the battles in the bible. Reading that book, you can see it was written by authors who were looking at the military objective AND also the geography of "Palestine" (The name they used to include modern Israel, Gaza and the West Bank).

The book started out with a brief explanation of the Geography of Palestine. First, the roads. The main road in Palestine is along the coast and is called the Via Maris, or way of the sea) it is the main road from Tel Megiddo (Armageddon) to Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Maris

Tel Megiddo (Armageddon) is an important point in Palestine, it is right after the Via Maris splits into two branches, one going north to modern Turkey, the other to modern Iraq. It has always been a point of contention, for any invading army heading north, has to worry about an attack from the East, and any invading Army headed east, has to worry about an attack from the North (And the same for an army marching SOUTH or an Army marching from the East). Thus it has been the sight of many battles over the year, in fact the earliest battle we have written reports about is around Megiddo (and why it was believed the final battle in the book of Revelations report the battle to be at that location, it is a perfect area to attack an enemy that has divided his forces to guard BOTH roads).

The other important point of geography is the rain line, the point where rain from the Mediterranean drops off so much that farming is no longer possible. That is roughly ancient Philadelphia (modern Amman Jordan). East of Amman, you can not farm, you may do some grazing, but no farming, it is to dry. West of Amman you can do farming and thus support a much larger population then further east.

I bring this up, for Israel have a narrow waistline is unimportant, given Jordan is the country to Israel's east and being more desert then anything else, can NOT be a threat to Israel. Palestine had been raided from that side, but not invaded, the area is to dry to support an army of any size. Jordan has participated in attacks on Israel, but only in conjunction with Egypt and Syria (1948 and 1967, but NOT 1973).

Thus the only important part of that part of the world is the part between the Mediterranean and Amman, and most of that is in what we call the West Bank.

The third fact the authors point out is the West Bank is an area of Hills that provide plenty of opportunities for ambushes. This is the area the Ancient Israeli Tribes moved into when they invaded Ancient Canaan. It was the area where Deborah lead the Israeli Army to one of its greatest victories over its enemies during the times of Judges. This is where David killed Goliath and the Israeli's destroyed Goliath's army right afterward. It is where David retreated to when facing Saul and later the Philistines. it is where the Maccabees retreated to in their war of independence. It is where the Jews retreated to when facing Roman Armies in the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD and 135 AD. It is the area the Romans removed the Jews from after 135 AD. It was the strategic fall back position of ancient Israel and ancient Judea. The Crusaders held on to it the longest of any people after the Roman Empire, but once it was lost the rest of the Crusading states where quickly destroyed.

The West Bank, from a geographical point of view is a series of hills and valleys perfect for ambushes. It is an area where an invading Army must move carefully (and that means slowly). The Authors even cited Napoleon during his Campaign from Egypt to Syria, that he was going to stay on the "Via Maris" the road between Damascus and Egypt, rather then marching on Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Via Maris goes through Gaza and modern Coastal Israel BUT NOT Jerusalem. In a march on Jerusalem would be risky and slow do to the risks. Napoleon could move quickly to Damascus on the Via Maris and if he ever wanted Jerusalem, he could take it later when all his other enemies were destroyed, thus Napoleon avoided Jerusalem and the West Bank.

That is the Geography of Palestine (again as Palestine was defined by those Generals who wrote the book, which includes modern Gaza, Israel and the West Bank).

Reading that book, I quickly saw that the writers had a underlying fear, a fear that came out as I read the book. I suspect that fear is shared by ALL of the top generals of Israel and the top politicians of both main parties in Israel. The fear starts with the concept that modern Israel has NO strategic fall back position. The Via Maris could be marched through in a day if Israel was no longer the top power in the region. These generals all wanted a safety net, a strategic fall back position just like ancient Israel, ancient Judea and the Crusading states had. That fall back position can NOT be on the Via Maris for that is an easy road for conquering armies, the Strategic fall back position must be Jerusalem and the West Bank.

This geographic and military fact is in many ways the driving force behind the position of Israel and the PLO. Israel was willing to give up Gaza, for the simple reason if things went bad, it would be the first thing lost to any invading enemy force. The same statement can be made as to Tel Aviv and the rest of coastal Israel (Ancient Judea tried to stop an invading Egyptian army once, and was destroyed, but Judea survived by retreating back into the West Bank). The Strategic fall back position of ancient Israel had been Jerusalem and the West Bank (and the failure of the Crusaders to hold Jerusalem and West Bank, is why the Crusaders could NOT hold Palestine during the Crusades).

Thus the problem is the Israel Government wants the West Bank to be a strategic reserve position of Israel and to be that the West Bank has to be almost 100% Jewish. Thus Israel gladly gave up its settlements in Gaza, but has continued to expand them in the West Bank.

You will NOT find this written down anywhere, for prior to 1967 the West Bank was in Jordan's hands and they was nothing Israel could do about it. After the 1967 war, Israel had to handle international pressure to treat conquered people "fairly", and not willing to risk US support by being overt, thus Israel kept they month's shut but proceeded to act like an occupying power driving out native people.

Remember, Israel knows it is the greatest power in the Middle East for the US supports it. If that support disappears, Israel is no longer the #1 power in the Middle East. The Generals, have to plan for such a contingency and I fully believe they have and the plan is to make the West Bank Israel's fall back position. The problem, for the West Bank to be such a strategic fall back position the West Bank must be almost 100% Jewish.

On the other hand, those same Generals know do to international concerns. such a change in the make up of the people of the West Bank can not be an out and out expulsion of Palestinians. Remember Israel is dependent on the US and as such can NOT afford to offend the US. The US would get offended if Israel did actual MASS expulsions of Palestinians (and that would NOT work well in Arab Capitals whose people would demand another oil embargo, something Israel knows the US will do anything to avoid, including cutting aid to Israel). Minor expulsions if individuals and families can be explained away (and have been), but you can NOT do that to whole villages.

Thus, you will find no talks or papers on expelling the Palestinians. Israelis no longer even talk about the refugees in Lebanon, when they did, it was to say the Arab States should take in those Refugees, not that they should return to where they came from, i.e. Israel (Thus showing the touchiness the whole issue of the Palestinians have in Israel and that Israel will NOT permit them to return to Palestine, not even to the Gaza Strip let alone the West Bank).

Sorry, the narrowness of Israel is NOT a problem, for it is narrow between the Sea and the Desert. The issue is who shall people the West Bank, and right now Israel wants that to be people of Jewish extraction, while the Palestinians think it should be them, for they have lived in the West Bank for Hundreds of years. That is the issue of "Security" not the narrowness of the the actual State of Israel.

That is the "Security" concern, who lives in the West Bank, not the narrowness of the distance between Amman and the Sea.

[Ash_F]

12. Were any of those conventions that they signed hate letters?

Tell us more.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Palestine signed international agreements? Those bastards! We must punish them because....

...uh, I don't know why, really. Seems pretty fucking stupid and craven of us.