U.S. Cuts Off UNESCO Funding After Palestine Vote

[B5C]

It's official. The United States will start cutting funding to any organization that gives Palestine Statehood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/us-unesco-funding_n_1067628.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Why should I even vote for Obama next year? Obama is just being a dick and only promoting American power and control over everyone else.

"If you object to us. We will kill you financially." America. Imperialist scum.

I hate the current two party system. I don't want my vote thrown away due as protest unless there IS a good 3rd party leader shows up who can win. (99% chance that is a no).

[maskerade]

this has nothing to do with who is in power, unfortunately. There is an American law which forbids any funding to the PLO or any organisation that in anyway 'supports' it, or something like that.

What America is supporting in Israel is fucking disgusting, and world opinion opposes their actions so greatly that I don't believe they can keep it up for much longer.

[B5C]

this has nothing to do with who is in power, unfortunately. There is an American law which forbids any funding to the PLO or any organisation that in anyway 'supports' it, or something like that.


Still Obama is NOT doing anything to stop this or even opposing this. Note Obama did oppose Palestinian Statehood through the UN.

[rundontwalk]

At least cutting financial aid beats what the US government enjoys doing most when it doesn't get its way 100% of the time. That is - start bombing people.

[RGacky3]

In before comrademan blames the palestinians for this.

[Collectorgeneral]

Well they /are/ bombing people you know, with financial difficulties.

[Judicator]

Well whenever they ask the American people what budget item should be cut first, everyone seems to agree on "foreign aid."

[rebel]

Well whenever they ask the American people what budget item should be cut first, everyone seems to agree on "foreign aid."
You didn't complete the sentence, it's ...Foreign aid to Israel.

[Dean]

this has nothing to do with who is in power, unfortunately. There is an American law which forbids any funding to the PLO or any organisation that in anyway 'supports' it, or something like that.

Not really. Different presidents have had very different attitudes toward the conflict, and the one consistency is that as time has progressed, policies have gotten more pro-Israeli while rhetoric has gone the opposite way in an attempt to mask the change.

Obama is absolutely the most Pro-Israeli president by far. That is not by accident or necessity, but by design - the design of the president who won a marketing award for his 2008 campaign. That is why he is pro-Israeli, and to such an extreme: he is courting the capitalist community with ties to the regime, especially pharmaceutical and semiconductor producers.

[jake williams]

Well whenever they ask the American people what budget item should be cut first, everyone seems to agree on "foreign aid."
In the same polls people assume foreign aid makes up 10-20% of the US federal budget. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52176676/CNN-Poll-Perceptions-of-US-Budget

People are dramatically misinformed.

[ComradeMan]

In before comrademan blames the palestinians for this.

Not blaming them at all. :rolleyes:

This is a US legal problem as far as I can see...as the US already gives aid to the Palestinians anyway...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-10/u-s-gives-palestinian-authority-150-million-in-aid.html

[Dean]

Not blaming them at all. :rolleyes:

This is a US legal problem as far as I can see...as the US already gives aid to the Palestinians anyway...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-10/u-s-gives-palestinian-authority-150-million-in-aid.html

The cost of US/Israeli aggressions against the Palestinians far exceed the USAID supplied. If this wasn't the case, Gaza would have a flourishing economy as it had historically.

[ComradeMan]

The cost of US/Israeli aggressions against the Palestinians far exceed the USAID supplied. If this wasn't the case, Gaza would have a flourishing economy as it had historically.

You missed all the funds that have allegedly been pilfered to pay for big villas and nice cars.... ;) Anyway, that's not the issue- the issue here is the "why" of this move, and I think, as one poster has said, it's a matter of US law.

[Seth]

For someone who loves to hate on "apology" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/thought-experiment-game-t162702/index.html?t=162702) Comrademan is quite the apologist.

[ComradeMan]

For someone who loves to hate on "apology" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/thought-experiment-game-t162702/index.html?t=162702) Comrademan is quite the apologist.

Where's the apology? Analysis of a situation has to take in all the facts, otherwise it's propaganda, i.e. distorted, half-truths or downright lies. Facts of course include the facts that you may not like.

Where did I hate "on" apology in that attempt at a thread that was intended as a thought experiment?

[Seth]

Facts, like the fact that Zionism was rightfully recognized as a form of bigotry by the UN before that was revoked for purely geopolitical reasons? The fact that Palestinians are second class citizens in occupied Palestine?

Or how about this, the only way to end the conflict is to wipe the Zionist regime off the map. The Zionists weren't satisfied with their original borders, so they took more, and more, and more, and even now they're in the process of destroying Palestinian homes to replace them with their settlements. The ultimate goal is simply a logical extension of the ideology - Palestine belongs to Jews, and only Jews. That's why "Israel" does what it does.

[Seth]

I bet his next move is to call me an anti-semite.

[ComradeMan]

Interesting facts...


Facts, like the fact that Zionism was rightfully recognized as a form of bigotry by the UN before that was revoked for purely geopolitical reasons? The fact that Palestinians are second class citizens in occupied Palestine?

UN resolutions do not make international law ffs! When will people learn here that anyone can sponsor a UN resolution and it gets voted on? The 1975 resolution was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.:rolleyes:

72 yes votes (minus the 25 sponsoring that equals 47), 35 no votes and 32 abstaining. Among the yes votes were Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea and Iran.:rolleyes:


Or how about this, the only way to end the conflict is to wipe the Zionist regime off the map. The Zionists weren't satisfied with their original borders, so they took more, and more, and more,

Sorry, Israel accepted the UN partition plan, the Arab nations didn't and attacked Israel, they lost and the rest is history.


and even now they're in the process of destroying Palestinian homes to replace them with their settlements. The ultimate goal is simply a logical extension of the ideology - Palestine belongs to Jews, and only Jews. That's why "Israel" does what it does.

So what about all those non-Jews in Israel who serve in the IDF, the government and so on?

You see whilst I sympathise very much for ordinary Palestinian people, like I always sympathise with any ordinary people on the ground regardlessly, your kind of shitty, one-sided, propaganda bullshit analysis is exactly the last thing that will actually help those people.

[Ocean Seal]

Not blaming them at all. :rolleyes:

This is a US legal problem as far as I can see...as the US already gives aid to the Palestinians anyway...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-10/u-s-gives-palestinian-authority-150-million-in-aid.html

Defending US-AID now? How is that a socialist analysis? And yes, the United States gave Palestine 150 million in aid, they also gave Israel 30 billion in aid. Suppose that we were to simulate the following
Man A gets 30 billion to destroy a city
Man B gets 150 million to rebuild it
Does Man B have enough money?

And no this isn't even the issue. The issue is that the US cut funding because of what it merely a symbolic gesture to Palestine. And how boorish their foreign policy is.

[Judicator]

In the same polls people assume foreign aid makes up 10-20% of the US federal budget. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52176676/CNN-Poll-Perceptions-of-US-Budget

People are dramatically misinformed.

Yup. And you socialists would have them making capital allocation decisions and operating factories.

[WeAreReborn]

Yup. And you socialists would have them making capital allocation decisions and operating factories.
Misinformed people aren't eternally condemned to ignorance. If class consciousness raises enough for a revolution they would be informed enough to know its worth overthrowing anyways.

[~Spectre]

Sorry, Israel accepted the UN partition plan

No they didn't. Israel accepted statehood, but they never accepted the plan. The Israeli government from its foundation to the present has been very clear that Israel is to expand to occupy the whole of Palestine, as a Jewish state.


David Ben-Gurion stated, ‘The Arabs will have to go.’

Ben-Gurion had stated "Only a state with at least 80% Jews is a viable and stable state"[24] and that Palestinians ‘can either be mass arrested or expelled; it is better to expel them.

Plan D (Plan Dalet) was adopted on March 10, 1948.[18] It called for, amongst many things, the initial uprooting of 250,000 Palestinians. This initial uprooting represented the beginning of the actual execution of Plan Dalet.

[Seth]

UN resolutions do not make international law ffs! When will people learn here that anyone can sponsor a UN resolution and it gets voted on? The 1975 resolution was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.

Your point?



Sorry, Israel accepted the UN partition plan, the Arab nations didn't and attacked Israel, they lost and the rest is history.The first part is simply incorrect. Plus what that have to do with the Zionists taking more Palestinian land?



So what about all those non-Jews in Israel who serve in the IDF, the government and so on?
http://www.dixiepride.com/black-guard.jpg

[B5C]

Democracy in action:
B-B61_g8QkQ

[ComradeMan]

No they didn't. Israel accepted statehood, but they never accepted the plan. The Israeli government from its foundation to the present has been very clear that Israel is to expand to occupy the whole of Palestine, as a Jewish state.

"The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine) in 1947 to divide United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) controlled Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) into "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations). It was adopted by the UN General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly) on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Jewish _reaction

"The majority of the Jewish groups, and the Jewish Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Agency) subsequently announced their acceptance of the proposed Jewish State, and by implication the proposed international zone, and Arab State. However, it had been stipulated that the implementation of the plan did not make the establishment of one state or territory dependent on the establishment of the others."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Jewish _reaction

See this article too entitled; "Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan, Abbas says"
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=1627
also
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=433281

Also see this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySFu5HRLq8&feature=related

and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHbCGC6amdk

[RGacky3]

Anyway, that's not the issue- the issue here is the "why" of this move, and I think, as one poster has said, it's a matter of US law.
__________________


So the Americans would LOOOVEEE to help the palestinians have statehood, but its juts some pesky law stopping them, oh my goodness comrademan, your apologism knows no bounds.

[Bud Struggle]

So the Americans would LOOOVEEE to help the palestinians have statehood, but its juts some pesky law stopping them, oh my goodness comrademan, your apologism knows no bounds.

The problem is that such things go against US plans for the region. What needs to happen is for the US to push Israel to start negotiations. The US isn't doing its job in that respect.

Israel and Palestinians need to sit down and negotiate some sort of peace here. The US is the only country that could get Israel and Palestine to sit down together but it but it clearly is occupied elsewhere.

[RGacky3]

The problem is that such things go against US plans for the region.

Exactly.


What needs to happen is for the US to push Israel to start negotiations. The US isn't doing its job in that respect.


Why would they want to do that? Since when does the United States want Israel to negotiate, if they did they would be supporting palestinian statehood, i.e. making some reason to force Israel to negotiate.

Why would Israel negotiate now? They are the agressoor and the oppresssor and the oppressed don't have a weapon.


Israel and Palestinians need to sit down and negotiate some sort of peace here. The US is the only country that could get Israel and Palestine to sit down together but it but it clearly is occupied elsewhere.

Israel has no intention of negotiating, what Israel wants (based on all its actions) is ALL of palestine, and the United States is absolutely fine with that.

The begining of any negotiation is Palestinian statehood.

The US does'nt need to get involved at all, all it needs to do is stop shipping over missles and it will all be over, but they'll never do that.

[ComradeMan]

So the Americans would LOOOVEEE to help the palestinians have statehood, but its juts some pesky law stopping them, oh my goodness comrademan, your apologism knows no bounds.

Another strawman. All I said, quoting another poster here, was that it appears to be a US legal issue. Is it not a US legal issue? Is there no law? Perhaps you could be so good as to find out and provide a source/link....

[RGacky3]

So I have to find out what the law is that may or may not exist?

How about you show me the law, since thats what is being asserted.

[ComradeMan]

So I have to find out what the law is that may or may not exist?

How about you show me the law, since thats what is being asserted.

I wasn't the one who made the assertion, but anyway- I think it might be the law that Bush suspended for 6 months
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-17/politics/bush.plo.waiver_1_palestinian-authority-plo-direct-aid?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Which is, I think, 22 USC 287e as amended PL 101-246, as described here
http://fiercereason.com/2011/10/lara-friedman-unesco-congress-u-s-law-and-the-palestinians-the-facts/

[RGacky3]

I wasn't the one who made the assertion, but anyway- I think it might be the law that Bush suspended for 6 months
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-17/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS (http://www.anonym.to/?http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-17/politics/bush.plo.waiver_1_palestinian-authority-plo-direct-aid?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)


The PLO is not UNESCO, and that can be waived, basically at anytime (and consistantly has).


Which is, I think, 22 USC 287e as amended PL 101-246, as described here
http://fiercereason.com/2011/10/lara...ans-the-facts/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://fiercereason.com/2011/10/lara-friedman-unesco-congress-u-s-law-and-the-palestinians-the-facts/)

That law would be nulified if the palestine was granted statehood.

So there is no legal problem with this, its simple whats going on, niether Israel nor the United States want peace with palestine.

[ComradeMan]

....

So you admit that basically there is such a law and that it is a potential US legal dispute...:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Yes, I'm saying there is no law that forcing the US to cut funds to UNESCO or palestine if palestine gains statehood recognition ...

[ComradeMan]

Yes, I'm saying there is no law that forcing the US to cut funds to UNESCO or palestine if palestine gains statehood recognition ...
:rolleyes:
So you obviously didn't bother to read the second link/article. This is why it is a complete waste of time "discussing" anything with you.

[RGacky3]

So you obviously didn't bother to read the second link/article. This is why it is a complete waste of time "discussing" anything with you.

Yes I did ... and as I said, that law has been waived consistantly from the time it was passed till now, and that the law would actually be nullified if palestine recieved statehood.

[Dean]

Another strawman. All I said, quoting another poster here, was that it appears to be a US legal issue. Is it not a US legal issue? Is there no law? Perhaps you could be so good as to find out and provide a source/link....

By your own admission, the law has been suspended in the past - presumably for diplomatic / political means. This means that the arrangements governing the execution of the law are political and diplomatic rather than legal.

If it were a legal issue, we would be hearing judges and lawyers debating the topic primarily. But they are neither in the forefront, nor are they suspending the law.

It is the administration which is suspending the law (when it sees fit). It is not a legal issue, since legal arguments are not at the forefront of the debate or the question of suspension / execution of the law.

[Iron Felix]

Interesting facts...



UN resolutions do not make international law ffs! When will people learn here that anyone can sponsor a UN resolution and it gets voted on? The 1975 resolution was sponsored by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.:rolleyes:

72 yes votes (minus the 25 sponsoring that equals 47), 35 no votes and 32 abstaining. Among the yes votes were Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea and Iran.:rolleyes:



Sorry, Israel accepted the UN partition plan, the Arab nations didn't and attacked Israel, they lost and the rest is history.



So what about all those non-Jews in Israel who serve in the IDF, the government and so on?

You see whilst I sympathise very much for ordinary Palestinian people, like I always sympathise with any ordinary people on the ground regardlessly, your kind of shitty, one-sided, propaganda bullshit analysis is exactly the last thing that will actually help those people.


Who attacked who? The partition plan gave Israel more than half of Palestine, while the indegenous Arab population was twice that of the Jewish. Let's not forget that the part given to Israel was almost equally Jewish and Palestinian, Jews just barely had a demographic majority in the portion allocated to Israel. The partition plan was unacceptable, as was the genocide committed by the Jews during the 48 war. Over 500 Palestinian villages burned, 500 more captured, 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes and forced to live in camps for generations, and let's not forget the Palestinianians that refused to leave their homes and were massacred.

[danyboy27]

The canadian governement jumped in the defunding bandwagon has well.

fuck i hate john baird.

[danyboy27]

Somalia is a member of UNESCO and it can barely be considered a country anymore.

what are youy guys so affraid? that better education and NGO of the unesco are gonna create the new generation of Hamas militant hellbent on destroying israel?

[ComradeMan]

By your own admission, the law has been suspended in the past - presumably for diplomatic / political means. This means that the arrangements governing the execution of the law are political and diplomatic rather than legal.

If it were a legal issue, we would be hearing judges and lawyers debating the topic primarily. But they are neither in the forefront, nor are they suspending the law.

It is the administration which is suspending the law (when it sees fit). It is not a legal issue, since legal arguments are not at the forefront of the debate or the question of suspension / execution of the law.

Dean, I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of this and whether Congress can and/or will amend that rule- all I was saying was that there is a rule as such and that may be at the bottom of the issue- as a presumably US member here pointed out.

But quite frankly I am beyond caring... fuck all of these debates... no one wants to discuss, it's just propaganda and lies versus propaganda and lies and the truth is always the victim.

[Dean]

Dean, I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of this and whether Congress can and/or will amend that rule- all I was saying was that there is a rule as such and that may be at the bottom of the issue- as a presumably US member here pointed out.

But quite frankly I am beyond caring... fuck all of these debates... no one wants to discuss, it's just propaganda and lies versus propaganda and lies and the truth is always the victim.


Oh, bullshit. I am pointing out the background power plays - that is the international imperial and diplomatic struggles that lay at the root of all of the childish "moral crusades" in the UN, and in the mainstream narrative of all the nations involved. And for the record this includes the very quaint calls to describe Zionism as racist by nations which refuse to give decent conditions to the refugees of the nationalist zionist movement. That's why you don't see me quoting from UN resolutions or other mouthpieces of the very power structures being criticized.

Highly partisan sources (such as the IMF) occasionally have valuable analysis, and you can usually tell that it is valuable because when it is, it is lacking in much political charge.


The truth is only the victim at the hands of people like you, who are obsessed with choosing a narrative that plays into the quixotic worldview of morality plays and righteous state actors. This is why you stumble over yourself to prove how great Israel is when we both know that the regime was built on the expulsion of natives and the creation of a ethnographic regime (usually you're defending against the charge of racism, hilariously).


The fact is that in this particular case, the root power exchange is incredibly obvious. I would normally tentatively argue the point that the law may be ignored in favor of diplomatic or geopolitical strategic goals, but in this case I don't have to be tentative in pointing out that the mere case of this being a "law" means jack shit: the previous president already circumvented it when it was convenient. I'm not aware of any legal scholars or judges concerning themselves with what the correct choice to make here is - only the administration. And when it is based on an executive choice about the fulfillment of a law which is distinctly a diplomatic/geopolitical mandate, it is obvious where the chips lay, the side that the bread is buttered on, etc. etc.

Really, I'm a bit surprised at you. This is one of those cases that isn't even a charge against Israel (well not directly, anyhow). It's a charge against a president who uses domestic civil rights causes at home to draw focus away from his policy abandonment of the working class and his expansion of imperialist aggression compared to his "right wing" predecessor.

Does it just hurt that much to see that your "truth" is so clearly a part of the mainstream fiction?

[Seth]

But quite frankly I am beyond caring... fuck all of these debates... no one wants to discuss, it's just propaganda and lies versus propaganda and lies and the truth is always the victim.

No, you want someone to take a virtuous "middle ground" to accommodate and give weight to your apologism.

You can't accept that of all the scum sucking American puppets in the world from Colombia to Uzbekistan, the zionists are likely the worst, and the most arrogant.

[ComradeMan]

...

So there isn't a US law and it has no effect upon the issue? :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

So there isn't a US law and it has no effect upon the issue? http://www.revleft.com/vb/u-s-cuts-t163574/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

It has NO EFFECT IN THE ISSUE, its been around since 2002 and it had no effect back then at all, and still has no effect.


But quite frankly I am beyond caring... fuck all of these debates... no one wants to discuss, it's just propaganda and lies versus propaganda and lies and the truth is always the victim.

You know what, if you would for once admit that the underlying basic problem of the conflict is the occupation, the blockaid and the settlements, and admit that it is Israel that is disspossessing Palestine, and that is the source of the imperialism then we can have a discussion, but your refusal to admit that, ever, and your constant shifting of attention, makes people (rightfully) think your biased and only out to shift blame.

[Iron Felix]

So there isn't a US law and it has no effect upon the issue? :rolleyes:

When you're talking about the USA and Israel, international and national laws have absolutely no effect on the issue. Never has the US and Israel, ever, had a problem with violating international laws. It wouldn't be unfair to assume that the 2 countries are the main violators of international laws in history. On the question of national laws, well, these are routinely violated by both states as well. So yeah, US law doesn't mean jackshit.

[W1N5T0N]

why should the US support supporters of Palestine when they themselves dont support palestine as they support Israel who doesnt support Palestine?
I wouldnt support anybody who supported the Tea party either.
My point isnt to compare Palestine to the Tea party, im just saying: its "their money" or at least this is how the ruling party of america decides the money will be spent, or not spent in this case.
i mean, what did you expect?
"okay palestine and amigos, lets be buddies?"

[~Spectre]

blah

What an odd response^.

The Zionists accepted statehood, but never once planned on leaving in Arab Israelis, or on not expanding. As even Israeli scholarship admits, and as those direct quotes from Ben-Gurion indicate.

It's literally like "accepting" a judgment that you won't follow, don't want to follow, never intended on following, and will never follow.