[Newsbot]

Title: Graham: Defund UN after Israeli settlement vote
Category: Political
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2016-12-28 11:14:53

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm kind of curious if the left is hearing as much of this send the UN packing talk as we on the right are. It seems to have started when Obama thought it would be clever to sabotage Israel in the UN as he walked out the White house doors, or something.

BTW somebody needs to hide that Churchill bust before leaving day.

[Zipperfish]

First off, the US abstained, so really he should take it up with the US ambassador to the UN. Secondly, the US hasn't paid since 2013 anyways. They are in arrears.

[Thanos]

Ronald Reagan abstained multiple times on security council votes against Israel. Obama abstained once. This is funny as fuck because this was the best way possible for Obama to get back at that back-stabbing shit-weasel Netanyahu for fucking Obama up over the last eight years, even after Obama poured more money and weapons into Israel than any other US president since Israel was founded. Fuck Netanyahu, fuck Likud, fuck the American evangelical Christian Zionists praying for Armageddon to occur, and especially fuck the GOP for turning Israel into another Republican constituency.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

First off, the US abstained, so really he should take it up with the US ambassador to the UN. Secondly, the US hasn't paid since 2013 anyways. They are in arrears.

Fact check.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ed_Nations

[Thanos]

Yeah, and this is from an anti-foreign aid conservative site that doesn't see why American taxpayers (and military personnel too) should be forever obligated to prop up "tiny helpless Israel (with their 200+ nuclear weapons)":

http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/27/us-ha ... ng-israel/

$1:

.....other American administrations regularly have abstained or supported U.N. resolutions critical of Israeli policy.

Indeed, until this latest resolution adopted Friday, Obama had been the only president not to let a resolution critical of Israeli policy be adopted by in the Security Council.

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the U.N. has a “disproportionate” volume of resolutions against Israel, which he believes has “foiled the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively.”

According to research compiled by Seth J. Frantzman, the op-ed editor for The Jerusalem Post, 226 U.N. Security Council resolutions relating to Israel have surfaced since 1948.

Americans for Peace Now, which advocates a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, found that during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency, the Security Council adopted at least seven resolutions critical of Israel—with the U.S. allowing the measures to be adopted either by abstaining or voting for them.

During Richard M. Nixon’s presidency, there were at least 15 such resolutions, Americans for Peace Now reported. The number peaked at 21 under President Ronald Reagan, when the United States voted in 1981 to condemn Israel’s air attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor.

In 1987, meanwhile, the Reagan administration abstained and allowed adoption of a resolution that condemned Israel for killing Palestinian students and included Jerusalem as part of the “Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.”

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. in 2003 voted for a resolution endorsing the Roadmap for Peace—an attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that called for a freeze of Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for Palestinian leaders to curb terrorism.

Pressman says the strong reaction to the Obama administration’s abstaining vote in the Security Council likely had to do with its timing—just before the inauguration of Donald Trump, who has vowed a different approach to Israel.

Not that this, or any other actual provable historical fact will have any effect on the permanent-rabies crowd with their fake news. "That didn't happens! Pizzagate is real and Trump actually beat Clinton by eleventy kajillion votes like Infowars and Bob's YouTube channel said!". They're determined to have another anti-Obama shit-their-pants moment before he leaves office and this issue is apparently it. Fucking assholes.

[N_Fiddledog]

Ah, I see so your media hasn't been keeping you up on the blowback then, but you know a little bit now after reading the Politico article about Senator Graham's response.

OK, well here's a little bit from your side's Washington Post then you can at least see how it all began.

$1:

Even before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, Congress is planning to escalate the clash over the U.N. Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution into a full-on conflict between the United States and the United Nations. If Trump embraces the strategy — and all signals indicate he will — the battle could become the Trump administration’s first confrontation with a major international organization, with consequential but largely unpredictable results.

Immediately after the Obama administration abstained Friday from a vote to condemn Israeli settlements as illegal, which passed the Security Council by a vote of 14 to zero, Republicans and Democrats alike criticized both the United Nations and the U.S. government for allowing what Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) called “a one-sided, biased resolution.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, pledged to lead an effort to withhold the U.S. funding that makes up 22 percent of the U.N.’s annual operating budget.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... d-nations/

So you see it wasn't just something from Obama's appointee to the UN - the dhimmi dingbat, Jew hating useful idiot of Islam - Samantha Power. It was handed down by the Obama administration.

In fact some of the media from my side is suggesting Obama did more than just tell Samantha to abstain, he set the whole deal up in the background.

[Thanos]

I could care less what Israel does to the Palestinians. Just don't attempt to sell me your usual shit and try to say it's sugar, not when for eight years Israel had the best friend for a POTUS they've ever had in Obama. I don't give a damn about your party-HQ instructions to turn this, and practically everything else you post, inside-out and upside-down.

[N_Fiddledog]

What's interesting to me is how Obama seems to have kicked the wrong ankles on his way out the door.

The right is pissed, and we never did like the UN.

How much can be done? Who knows? But if I was advising Obama I'd be saying "Careful what you wish for."

Huckabee wants to put the building up on blocks and push it into the East River.

I'll show you what I mean by just giving you the headlines over the last couple of days from one of the Political Right's most respected blogs.

$1:

WaPo: Obama’s abstention at UN was “a dangerous parting shot” at Israel

Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz: Defund the UN unless it repeals its anti-Israel vote

Israeli spokesman: We have ‘ironclad information’ the Obama administration pushed the UN resolution Update: Info will be presented to Trump admin.

John Kerry finally gets to deliver that anti-Israel speech he’s been practicing in the mirror all these years

Report: U.S. collaborated with Palestinians on anti-Israel resolution

Hoyer to Kerry: Shut up; Update: Russia says nyet?

“Deep disappointment”: Netanyahu hits back at Kerry, accuses U.S. of orchestrating UN resolution

http://hotair.com/

As to your theory the US isn't actually contributing anything to the UN Zip, that's news to us over on the right. They tell us lists of bill payments aren't updated for the public yet, but they will be soon.

Trump's OMB Must Report on Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars for the U.N.


Gotta link to what your guys are telling you?

Oh and Thanos...you're nuts. And I mean that in the sweetest possible way.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

I could care less what Israel does to the Palestinians. Just don't attempt to sell me your usual shit and try to say it's sugar, not when for eight years Israel had the best friend for a POTUS they've ever had in Obama. I don't give a damn about your party-HQ instructions to turn this, and practically everything else you post, inside-out and upside-down.

This. The alt-right and has been yelling "whiners" at the left since the election. Now a UN vote goes the wrong way,. and look at them: "I'm taking my ball and going home."

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't know what the alt-right is doing, but what the actual right is doing is they're getting ready to take action against the UN, and it won't be the newly voted in Right wing American administration that goes home.

Here's a quote from that Washington Post article I showed you.

$1:

There are several options under consideration, two senior Senate aides working on the issue told me. Some are considered “micro” options, such as passing a resolution that would bar any funding that might go to implementing the anti-settlement resolution. Other options include withdrawing the United States from U.N. organizations such as UNESCO or passing legislation to protect settlers who are American citizens and might be vulnerable to consequences of the resolution…

Senators are also looking at ways to withhold U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority or perhaps punish the Palestine Liberation Organization representative office in Washington. Republicans in the Senate don’t plan to wait until Trump is actually in office; aides said to expect action as soon as senators return to Washington next week…

Danielle Pletka, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff under [Jesse] Helms, said … taking on the United Nations can be done, but not without costs and the risk of retaliation. The United Nations could stop doing things that the United States sees as important. Allied countries that value U.N. operations will be upset if those programs are affected. Also, the dues don’t go just go away.

BTW you did know the "Alt-Right" hates Jews, didn't you? They'd be more on the side of the Alt-left on this one.

[N_Fiddledog]

This isn't about anything Israel might "do" to what is being called "the Palestinians."

It's about what Obama wants to see done to Israel.

Let's let Neti tell you.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know what the alt-right is doing, but what the actual right is doing is they're getting ready to take action against the UN, and it won't be the newly voted in Right wing American administration that goes home.

Here's a quote from that Washington Post article I showed you.

$1:

There are several options under consideration, two senior Senate aides working on the issue told me. Some are considered “micro” options, such as passing a resolution that would bar any funding that might go to implementing the anti-settlement resolution. Other options include withdrawing the United States from U.N. organizations such as UNESCO or passing legislation to protect settlers who are American citizens and might be vulnerable to consequences of the resolution…

Senators are also looking at ways to withhold U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority or perhaps punish the Palestine Liberation Organization representative office in Washington. Republicans in the Senate don’t plan to wait until Trump is actually in office; aides said to expect action as soon as senators return to Washington next week…

Danielle Pletka, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff under [Jesse] Helms, said … taking on the United Nations can be done, but not without costs and the risk of retaliation. The United Nations could stop doing things that the United States sees as important. Allied countries that value U.N. operations will be upset if those programs are affected. Also, the dues don’t go just go away.

BTW you did know the "Alt-Right" hates Jews, didn't you? They'd be more on the side of the Alt-left on this one.

Well, my inclination would be "Why don't you guys go sort it out? For fifty years it's been the same song and dance from both of you Israel: You can't expect to live in peace when you are slowly pushing an entire population into the sea. Palestine: You can't attack a vastly superior opponent and expect not to get fucking hammered. Both of you: If you put half as much effort into learning to live together as you did into whining to everybody else about it, this thing would have been licked years ago."

[N_Fiddledog]

Apparently there's some conference in Paris Jan. 15 they're calling a "Peace Conference". Sounds like it's going to be more one of those bash Israel conferences. Bend and accept the leash and collar. Get weak to make the coming jihad easier. John Kerry is rubbing his hands together at the chance to lead it.

$1:

Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that world powers may also use the conference to ready a plethora of vehemently anti-Israel motions in the U.N. Security Council, and utilize Obama’s last days to push them through.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Tuesday that he’s encouraged by the coming conference. He hopes that the conference mandates an end to Israeli housing construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Abbas presides over a government in the city of Ramallah that pays the families of terrorists who kill Israeli Jews.

Last week, the Obama administration abstained on a U.N. resolution condemning Israel. The resolution targeted Israeli “settlements” in disputed lands and announced that two of the holiest sites in Judaism — the Western Wall and the Temple Mount — and the entirety of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, were all “Palestinian” lands.

As Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz has explained, the resolution defies international law. Israel has the right to build in the disputed territories, and this right has been recognized by previous U.S. administrations.

The U.S. government, which has veto power over Security Council resolutions, could have voted no and blocked the measure. Instead, Team Obama chose to abstain, reportedly under the direct orders from the president himself, letting the resolution through.

The move has provided tremendous encouragement for Israel’s enemies, including the terror groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They celebrated the Obama measure, declaring that it will lead to Israel’s “isolation” and “boycott.”

Israel has responded to the U.N. ruling with decisive ferocity. It has decided to cut funding from United Nations programs and recall ambassadors from countries that sponsored the resolution. Republicans in Congress have suggested that the U.S. should follow suit and slash funding to the U.N. as well. The U.S. contributes approximately $8 billion a year to the international body.

Unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state would cement President Obama as the most anti-Israel president since its founding. Will he betray the American people’s firm support for the Jewish state, and take his administration down the path of demonization and hate?

https://www.conservativereview.com/comm ... his-sleeve

BTW "pushing the Palestinians into the sea?". Was that serious? Which sea?

I think you have your sides mixed up, don't you?

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

I could care less what Israel does to the Palestinians. Just don't attempt to sell me your usual shit and try to say it's sugar, not when for eight years Israel had the best friend for a POTUS they've ever had in Obama. I don't give a damn about your party-HQ instructions to turn this, and practically everything else you post, inside-out and upside-down.

This. The alt-right and has been yelling "whiners" at the left since the election. Now a UN vote goes the wrong way,. and look at them: "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I fully and unreservedly support Israel's right to defend themselves in the manner that they see fit. I don't live there so I won't condemn them for how they choose to respond to mortal enemies. That being said:

a) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the entire world is permanently held hostage to what goes on in that miserable region
b) the Israelis (or more accurately the assholes in Likud) have no right to treat the United States as a junior entity that must respond when Israel demands it
c) Israeli democracy is turning more and more into a farce as Likud enters into coalition after coalition with increasingly radical Jewish religious parties that are as demented as some of the ones the Muslims produce

I didn't like it when Harper became more and more pro-Israel because too much of that emboldened Netanyahu too much, both in his personal war against Obama and in his hysterics against Iran. As such I respect Trudeau a bit more for pulling Canada back to the neutral ground. We have zero national interest there. If the Americans under Trump want to wreck their ship of state over there for the sake of a bunch of rabid pro-settlement religious fundamentalist cretins then they're free to do so. We are under ZERO obligation to follow them into this or any other disaster they choose to create. The more we and other nations separate ourselves fully from this idiocy the better.