164 HYPOCRITICAL HOUSE REPUBLICANS OPPOSE $2.4 BILLION AID TO ISRAEL

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON – In a stunning act of political hypocrisy, 164 House Republicans – at the urging of their party leadership – voted against the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill early this morning, traditionally a top priority of the pro-Israel community. The legislation, which passed by a margin of 241-178, contained $2.4 billion in aid to Israel. Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) strongly condemned the House Republican leadership for urging Republicans to oppose the bill.

In a letter sent by the Republican leadership to their Members, Republicans were told: “Please advise your boss that Leadership will be voting NO on final passage of the Democrats' State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, and strongly encourage Republican Members to do the same.”

“After all their rhetoric about supporting Israel, Republicans yesterday placed politics above the U.S.-Israel relationship. By claiming to support Israel from one corner of their mouths, while telling Members to vote against billions in aid from the other corner, the Republican leaders have engaged in a sad, cynical act of political hypocrisy,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. “For years, support for the foreign aid bill has been a top priority of the pro-Israel community. This vote was a real blow to the bipartisan consensus that we’ve worked so hard to develop on Israel.”

http://www.njdc.org/search/detail.php?id=713

[barb162]

1. Looks like an Anti-Democrat vote

versus an anti-Israel vote. I hope.

"...voting NO on final passage of the Democrats' State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill...."

[ShortnFiery]

2. No, it was bi-partisan. Why is this opposition a big deal? Must it be universal? n/t

[barb162]

4. It was very highly partisan. nays: GOP 164, Democrats 14.

[ShortnFiery]

5. But it was NOT universally Republican. Believe it or not, there are Democrats who

oppose MILITARY AID to Israel. I believe it's time to "jerk the chain" on our out-of-control Pentagon. We spend far too much money on "killing machines" and armaments when we should be working toward more *hands on* diplomacy and integration (= understanding) of HUMANITY.

It's easy to beat the living shit out of a peoples and/or kill them. It takes truly gifted and compassionate LEADERS to help peoples understand one an other, INTEGRATE, and live in peace together.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are going anywhere - it's time to integrate into a purely secular state LEST you kill each other from now until the end of time. :shrug:

Whatever you choose, IMO the USA should not be a part of the blood letting on either side. :thumbsdown:

[barb162]

6. Purely secular state ?

What just happened in Gaza? Calls for a purely secular state don't have too much basis in reality.

[ShortnFiery]

7. You folks really don't even wish to try - everything is "blame the other side." tragic. n/t

[barb162]

8. Oh, cool it. Who just took over Gaza? Secularists?

Did you ever hear the name Zahar?

[barb162]

9. 'We Will Try to Form an Islamic Society'

June 22, 2007
INTERVIEW WITH HAMAS CO-FOUNDER MAHMOUD ZAHAR
'We Will Try to Form an Islamic Society'
Mahmoud Zahar -- a founder of Hamas, and one of its most militant hardliners -- has called for an Islamic state in the Gaza Strip. After the Hamas takeover of the territory last week, he's also threatened Fatah with more violence in the West Bank.
snip
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,490160,00.html

[ShortnFiery]

10. You're absolutely right ... I don't know why I've tried and I won't again.

I've learned my lesson ... the arguments always reach a DEAD END.

All I can do is wish for the best ... may peace be with you. :-) :hi:

[barb162]

12. Go ahead and "talk"

I'd like to read what you have to say.

[ShortnFiery]

14. No, I'll leave further discussion to others more knowledgeable than myself n/t

[LeftishBrit]

11. How are Palestine and Israel going to 'integrate into a purely secular state'?

Israel is secular anyway. So is Fatah. Hamas, admittedly, is Islamic.

It would at the moment be awfully nice if just PALESTINE could integrate as a single state. If it could also be purely secular, that would be a bonus IMO; but right at the moment, it would be great if they could end the internecine violence.

And integration between Israel and Palestine is not likely to happen mainly for territorial reasons. *Peace* between Israel and Palestine, with an end to both the occupation and the Hamas attacks on Israel, would be wonderful, and within the hoping-range at least of a rosy-spectacled idealist like me. But integration? On the whole, countries don't integrate readily (as opposed to forming loose federations with continued national sovereignty, such as the EU). The Northern Ireland situation has finally been peacefully resolved to a large extent - one of the inspirations for my hopes for the I/P situation; but the UK and the Republic of Ireland are not going to merge within one country; and religion is only a small part of the reason. How about the Americans and Mexicans solving the illegal-immigration issue at one fell swoop by integrating the USA and Mexico into one 'purely secular state'? Not a practical idea? Neither is Israel-Palestine integration, IMO.

[endarkenment]

3. I am against all military aid.

That would include Israel. It is time to just stop.

[Phx_Dem]

13. Haaretz article

The Israeli cent and the African womb


WASHINGTON - In January 2002, a short while after he settled into the Oval Office, President George W. Bush announced the revival of the "Mexico City policy." This conservative policy that annoys many people was established by Ronald Reagan in 1984, canceled by Bill Clinton in 1993, and returned with Bush. Under this policy, not a single cent of foreign aid can be given to an organization or institution that works for abortions. Not in Africa, not in Asia, and not in the Middle East. The American taxpayer does not fund things like that.

Last week this policy was brought up, surprisingly, in the discussion of aid to Israel, even though there is no connection between it and Israel.

Just as every political choice inevitably reflects an order of priorities, it is possible to argue today - with a certain amount of justice - that the Republican Party prefers to prevent the distribution of condoms in third-world countries over supporting defense aid to Israel. All the rest is excuses.


Israel is the biggest beneficiary of American foreign aid, $2.4 billion a year. This is what the administration has requested, and this is what the House of Representatives intends to approve. But the Republicans have decided to object to this aid. That is to say, not only to aid to Israel, but to all foreign aid. And not, perish the thought, because of Israel, but because of a small provision introduced by Representative Nita Lowey, Democrat of New York, chair of the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, that makes the Mexico City Policy a bit more flexible, and allows for the purchase of contraceptives even for organizations that support abortion. The Republicans did not agree to vote for this provision, even if it means voting against all of the rest of the provisions for foreign aid, including aid to Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/875458.html