Slashdot Mirror


US Defunds UNESCO After Palestine Vote

gzipped_tar writes "The U.S. withdrew funding after the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's Palestine membership vote yesterday. The decision was triggered by a 1994 US law that requires financial ties to be cut with any UN agency that accords the Palestinians full membership. As Palestine actively pursues entrance to other UN agencies, the defunding list could grow. Interestingly, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) could also be among Palestine's next target, and U.S. is the big supporter of WIPO. A much more disturbing scenario is Palestine joining the International Atomic Energy Agency, cutting American funding to the organization that monitors nuclear proliferation in states like Iran."

32 of 735 comments (clear)

  1. USA against the World? by Calibax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UNESCO is one of the most highly regarded and wide-spread agencies for cultural preservation in the World. There is a fundamental flaw in a law predicating U.S. contributions to the United Nations and U.N. affiliates on their members voting a certain way. UNESCO does not control its members and how they vote.

    The fact that a majority of UNESCO members want to grant admission to a Palestinian state is no reason for the U.S. to "pick up its marbles and go home." UNESCO would be better with U.S. participation. The U.S. would be better off by participating in UNESCO.

    This law should be repealed before the US has removed itself from every UN organization in the world.

    1. Re:USA against the World? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pft.
      The palestians have and regularly trashed historical artifacts belonging to other cultures in the region, they should have never been invited to join it. Canada is looking to defund from it as well, and with good cause.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:USA against the World? by nharmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you think this is exactly the purpose they had in mind when they passed this law? To make it as costly as possible to do something the United States does not want them to do?

      And since this is blocking future funding and not current funding, this is less like picking up your marbles and going home and more like simply refusing to come to any more marble games.

    3. Re:USA against the World? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So has Israel, and they were even ejected from UNESCO over it for awhile. Either way, this article isn't about Palestine (or Israel, or anyone else in the middle east) it's about the US having a law that prevents funding for scientific and cultural pursuits for political reasons. Regardless of who the parties are, there's no good reason for such inane laws.

    4. Re:USA against the World? by Elbart · · Score: 4, Informative

      The area, on which the UN HQ is located, may be surrounded by NYC, but it is not _IN_ NYC, or the USA for that matter.. The more you know.

    5. Re:USA against the World? by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless, of course, you are running a democracy, and want your tax money spent in accordance with the people's wishes.
      But you know, ignoring that reason there's no good reason.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:USA against the World? by sangreal66 · · Score: 3

      It seems UNESCO and the US can get along fine without each other, as they did during the 20 years between Reagan's withdrawal from the group and Bush Jr.'s re-entry.

      It will be interesting to see what happens with the WHO/WIPO/WTO/IAEA, etc. but Congress can make exceptions if they feel like it.

    7. Re:USA against the World? by mmcuh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the current Congress can do anything at all. Certainly not in any issue that has even the slightest chance of being kidnapped by demagogues.

    8. Re:USA against the World? by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "tax money spent in accordance with the people's wishes"

      Wow, has that happened anywhere in this country? For example, a large majority of Americans want us out of Afganistan, but don't let that bother you, just keep imagining that in this country we only spend money the people want spent.

    9. Re:USA against the World? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So has Israel, and they were even ejected from UNESCO over it for awhile. Either way, this article isn't about Palestine (or Israel, or anyone else in the middle east) it's about the US having a law that prevents funding for scientific and cultural pursuits for political reasons. Regardless of who the parties are, there's no good reason for such inane laws.

      You do realize that the US government "funding" is nothing more then money taken from its legal citizens that lawfully pay taxes (and don't get it all returned at the end of the tax year). I personally have a problem in spending any sort of money on this extra-curricular activity while in a national debt and especially while people in our own country are in crisis financially. However, I adamantly object to spending for any sort of endeavor where a terrorist lead disputed territory gets a vote on how some non-US entity gets to spend US dollars taken from the hands of US taxpayers.

      It's not "inane" ... it's common freaking sense. You don't go out to movies every night (regardless of how educational in nature they are) when you can't pay the mortgage ... and you CERTAINLY don't let your wife's druggy brother get a vote on what you should spend your money on.

    10. Re:USA against the World? by Calibax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So if certain countries want to have the U.S. removed from certain U.N. affliates, all they have to do is vote the Palestinians as members and the U.S. will defund their contributions. Consequently the U.S will have no vote, and no influence as it's no longer providing any funding.

      Thus the U.S. has given countries who don't like the U.S. some power over the U.S. ability to influence U.N. organizations. The law of unintended consequences.

    11. Re:USA against the World? by Xenkar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is as hilarious as illegal settlements.

      Now for just a moment, imagine this:
      - China has created a settlement near your town/city and has claimed all of the fertile land as its own.
      - In order to provide security for their settlement, they routinely patrol your town in military vehicles and set up checkpoints.
      - They build fences around their settlements and the local water supply. The water pipes that used to go from said water supply to your house have been destroyed.
      - Some gun nut in your region shoots off a mortar at this Chinese settlement.
      - Nothing was damaged but that mortar gave the Chinese quite a fright!
      - The Chinese settlement responds with an invasion of troops and they destroy buildings and vital infrastructure.
      - While you evacuated, they entered your home and decorated the walls with literal bags of human feces even though your toilet works just fine.
      - New settlements are created in order to provide security for the old settlement.
      - Rinse and repeat this same damned pattern over 50 years.

      Now tell me, which do you sympathize with? The Chinese who are protecting their illegal settlements, or your fellow countrymen who have to deal with bullshit?

      Right now we, the citizens of the United States of America, are paying aid to Israel while they continue their occupation of Palestinian lands. The amount varies from year to year but right now it is basically eight defaulted Solyndra loans, four days of our military actions against nations that couldn't even harm us if they wanted to, or 20% of NASA's yearly budget. All so Israeli can use their armored bulldozers to knock down houses of people who couldn't get building permits from the Israeli government.

      In a time where politicians are calling for austerity measures, we should fix the budget with the knowledge that even if the Palestinians will still be screwed over by the Israelis, we won't be going further into debt with China because of it.

    12. Re:USA against the World? by Yakasha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So has Israel, and they were even ejected from UNESCO over it for awhile.

      So have the Palestinians, but UNESCO didn't get involved... Do they not care about Jewish artifacts?

      Either way, this article isn't about Palestine (or Israel, or anyone else in the middle east) it's about the US having a law that prevents funding for scientific and cultural pursuits for political reasons.

      Funny. I see it as the Palestinians using a scientific & cultural organization (UNESCO) to obtain political gains (recognized statehood), bringing about political ramifications (de-funding of UNESCO).

      a law that prevents funding for scientific and cultural pursuits for political reasons. Regardless of who the parties are, there's no good reason for such inane laws.

      So, we shouldn't care that the Japanese were using POWs as guinea pigs to further their scientific research? We should just fund them and say "morals be damned."

    13. Re:USA against the World? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The United Nations is not an organization that has the best interests of the United States at its core.

      And nor should it be, it should have the best interests of all it's members at it's core, which means that it is inevitable no member will get all their own way all the time, regardless of the size of their dick or their wallet.

      It includes many members would would love to damage the USA in anyway possible.

      It also includes many members that the USA has, or would like to, damage. That's the whole point; "war is the failure of politics", the cold war shows that it is essential to keep talking to your political enemies, even if it is through gritted teeth with nukes pointed at each others heads.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:USA against the World? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you sure that most Americans actually support that 1994 law? How many even know that it exists?

      Personally, it sounds like an extremely silly law to me. I understand why U.S. would oppose recognition of specific Palestinian organizations that are terrorist in nature, like HAMAS. But why the mere recognition of Palestine as a separate and distinct entity from Israel (which it defacto is) such a big issue in U.S. politics, other than the major Israeli political lobby that it has?

    15. Re:USA against the World? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with "borders" is entirely Israel. The more I have looked at the history of the region, the more Israel is dead wrong and should not be supported. The Palistinians are the NATIVE residents of the region, with a claim in the real world that goes back just as far as the Jewish Bible.

      What's going on is just like Apartid in South Africa or the white takeover PC Native Americans or Saddam Hussain gassing Kurds and has no place in modern society. Palistinians are native inhabitants of the land the Jews want. Many were displaced by Jewish militants, guilty of nothing more than the color of their skin and wanting to run from a war, and have been refused return to their rightful family homes. They are not part of some other Arab nation, they are residents of the political borders of Israel removed from their RIGHTFUL PROPERTY because of their race...

      Just like the "Indian wars" in the USA, Settlers from Israel are building homesteads and businesses on land already under international treaty to Palistinians, then claim "terrorism" when that land is contested back. The gig is up if Palistine gets declared a "State" because then Israel gets properly accused of "invasion" rather than just run of the mill domestic oppression.

    16. Re:USA against the World? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except it isn't. Would you like the UN meddling in US internal affairs? What if they 'recognized Puerto Rico as a full member? Not that we wouldn't kick em loose if they ever actually voted for independence but you see the point? The Territories are part of Israel and the UN has been hell bent on this project of erecting a new nation state inside their borders for decades now.

      It's "meddling in internal affairs" if UN issues a demand to US to do something about Puerto Rico; but recognizing it? Besides, UNESCO recognition is not at all the same as UN recognition - in particular, not all UNESCO members are independent states.

      I can understand the opposition to UN membership for Palestine, especially considering the extremist forces currently in power there. At least a vote in UN General Assembly bears some political weight. But UNESCO? It's an organization dedicated to education and culture. If Palestine as a member can do something useful there, why not let them in? It does not give them any real political weight where it matters.

      And yes, they are part of Israel. They were ATTACKED and they won that territory fair and square in war from their enemies who had to accept that in the cease fire agreements they all signed onto and in the cases of Egypt and Jordan they have actually signed full peace treaties and ended the war on those borders. If they eventually get a deal both sides would actually live with they, and they alone, have the power to grant the territories independence. Not anyone else. Of course just today the so called 'moderate' terrorist Abbas redeclared his only acceptable borders to be the entirety of Israel so even he doesn't want to see a new nation state created as anything other than a very temporary political gambit.

      Acquiring territory by conquering it has not been considered legitimate in world politics for a long time. After all, by the same token, you could claim that e.g. France was legitimately won by Nazi Germany, or that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia was legitimately won by USSR. But U.S. has never recognized either case as legit, and for a good reason. There's this thing called "self-determination", and especially in the case where territory in question was forcibly incorporated into the state it is currently in, it is considered a good enough reason for a nation to seek independent statehood (see also: Kosovo).

      Palestinians for whom the only solution is no Israel are a different story, but that is not the only faction there, and there is a far stretch from recognizing that they deserve a right to their own nation-state on at least some of their historical lands (like those where they are the majority today and have been for the last millenia or so), to "wipe Israel off the map". You - and many other Americans who are similarly radical on this matter - are doing everyone a great disservice by conflating these two points. It only serves to "prove" to less radical Palestinians that there's absolutely no hope for a peaceful resolution that can work for both sides, swinging their votes towards radicals.

    17. Re:USA against the World? by chris+mazuc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except it isn't. Would you like the UN meddling in US internal affairs? What if they 'recognized Puerto Rico as a full member? Not that we wouldn't kick em loose if they ever actually voted for independence but you see the point? The Territories are part of Israel and the UN has been hell bent on this project of erecting a new nation state inside their borders for decades now.

      So the Palestinians are Israeli nationals then? You can't make an entire population stateless at the same time you control their territory. If they aren't Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian. or Palestinian, what right of citizenship do they have? It is interesting that you picked Puerto Rico because they have been given many chances to vote on their status. You can bet that if the Puerto Ricans wanted their own country, they would have it.

      And yes, they are part of Israel. They were ATTACKED and they won that territory fair and square in war from their enemies who had to accept that in the cease fire agreements they all signed onto and in the cases of Egypt and Jordan they have actually signed full peace treaties and ended the war on those borders.

      So now we have the following situation:

      1) Israel controls territory it can't legally annex (for several reasons, all of which are complicated), and won't annex (for reasons which are equally complicated, one of which is mentioned below)
      2) Regardless of their original status, Jordan and Egypt have renounced claims to the territory
      3) Every people has the right to self-determination

      I take it you would prefer to see the West Bank and Gaza simply annexed into Israel proper and their residents given full Israeli citizenship? The Fourth Geneva convention places strict limits on what rights can be denied to people living in annexed territory. Israel has no incentive to take an action which would instantly make the Jews into a political and demographic minority.

      These are the two arguments I continually hear from Israel supporters and I don't think either stands to scrutiny. I'd really like a rational response to this because every time I bring this up with someone who supports Israel as much as you obviously do all I get is vitriolic and inane responses. I look forward to your reply.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    18. Re:USA against the World? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >There's no apartheid beyond what the media is telling you there is.

      So there is apartheid, and only what the media is telling us? There isn't any further apartheid than what the media has already exposed?

      Apartheid, according to the Rome statute is

      inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

      While Palestinians have done nasty things to the Israelis just like Africans did to the Boers, that doesn't negate the fact that there is indeed a legal and institutional mechanism to keep Palestinians apart from Israelis.

      The differentiation is entirely based on race, not on other factors like education, income, etc.
      A Palestinian cannot buy into an Israeli (Jewish) area even if he had the money to.

      There are separate roads for Jews vs. aboriginals. There are separate residential colonies for Jews, no aboriginals allowed.

      Much land in Israel is owned by the Jewish National Fund, which, after acquiring land by one means or another, leases it back to only Jews:

      The Jewish National Fund (JNF) is a multi-national corporation with offices in about dozen countries world-wide. It receives millions of dollars from wealthy and ordinary Jews around the world and other donors, most of which are tax-exempt contributions. JNF aim is to acquire and develop lands exclusively for the benefit of Jews residing in Israel.

      The fact is that JNF, in its operations in Israel, had expropriated illegally most of the land of 372 Palestinian villages which had been ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces in 1948. The owners of this land are over half the UN registered Palestinian refugees. JNF had actively participated in the physical destruction of many villages, in evacuating these villages of their inhabitants and in military operations to conquer these villages. Today JNF controls over 2500 sq. km of Palestinian land which it leases to Jews only. It also planted 100 parks on Palestinian land.

      The government of Israel wants to make the citizenship of Arab Israelis dependent upon loyalty oaths to the "Jewish character" of Israel. What would people say about asking Africans to take an oath to the "Boer character of South Africa"? Or the "white character of Alabama"?

      Similar to the way the Ku Klux Klan operated as a quasi-citizens council, the Rabbinical councils pass decrees about not renting to aboriginals, which are enforced through threats of violence.

      If the state has no intention of discriminating on the basis of race, why do Israeli ID cards note race?

      Infrastructure (water, roads, etc.) is allocated on a preferential basis to Jewish settlements. The wall (which exceeds the limits of the 1968 line) cuts aboriginals off from their farmlands and orchards. In order to go from one place to another, they must travel a circuitous network of paths, often by foot. Humans who differ from the aboriginals by accident of birth can travel on wide, new highways.

  2. Re:We don't support terror organizations by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's because you're using the wrong definition of "terror organizations". You're probably thinking it means "people who target and kill large numbers of civilians, typically in order to push a geopolitical agenda".

    But the definition of "terror organizations" used by major news outlets, including the New York Times, is "People who use violence to oppose the United States and/or Israel". That, by definition, means the US can't support terror organizations. Also, note that the same organization that were "freedom fighters" becomes a "terror organization" as soon as they switch from fighting the USSR to fighting the US.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. Excellent news for Unesco by Coeurderoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an excellent news for Unesco, It did leave it alone from 1984 till 2002/3 and this was mutch better than the years between 2003 and Now.

    First it will remove a large cadre of US employees from Unesco staff, and since there is a total disconnect between the US point of view on education and culture and the rest of the world it will enable the Unesco to work more efficiently without having to focus on making large american corporations and large US private universities happy.

    It also shows how spitefull the current administration is (well the other party would probably do the same), influence at the unesco is largelly dependent on the size of each state contribution, so the US with 22% would have buried the palestinian, in practice maybe one or two managers and at most half a dozen palestinian employees will be hired, and probably mostly active in some cultural history preservation task in the middle east.

    The US could have said publicly that the vote of Unesco is not binding for them, and that the officially "protest" the cooptation of a non state as a full member, but that they would go on working with Unesco to further cultural, etc....

    But no, they have to "punish" the UN, well certainly there are a lot of undemocratic and unsavory regime who have influence there, but remember many are "allies" of the US, and there is no easy way to get people of the world represented.
    To those who think that the US should "remove itself from the UN", just remember that this would in practice mean that "big countries" would unilaterally govern by "divide and conquer", so in the "best (from US point of view) case" you would have an "imperial republic" leading the world by having a small minority (only about 5% of the world population are US citizens) vote for everybody else, in the more likely case you would have the Communist Party of China ruling the world... (US waste of money in the financial system created the crisis which now pushes the European to borrow money from the PRC, how long do you think it will take till you have to pay the interests ?).

    So meanwhile thank you very much leaving the Unesco alone...

  4. How about not admitting terrorist groups by CapitalOrange · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its funny how there is so much concern for the lack of funding that may result from this. But there is 0 concern that the Palestinian organization/ terrorist groups (aka Hamas) that make up their government are not forced to comply with the standards established by the organization. It supposed to support peace, freedom right and understanding. I didn't know supporting suicide bombings was a plus on the application. The bottom line is just a couple of weeks ago the Palestinians cheered many returned from jail for committing unspeakable acts of murder on civilians and the UN member countries (most of which are run by thuggish dictators) looked the other way. The UN has a long history of antisemitism, from the Durban conference to multiple other examples. The US foots far too much of the bill for these organizations as it is. If they want to continue in their racist ways, it shouldn't be on our dime. PS this isn't just for new projects, UNSECO won't get another dime going forward. Other agencies should keep this in mind before supporting a group on multiple terrorist list (Hamas) with a full membership in a international body.

    1. Re:How about not admitting terrorist groups by rbrander · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's an argument to be made for creating an organization with high moral standards that does not let those with low standards in. I've heard of the "League of Democracies" and so forth for decades.

      The United Nations, however, is NOT such an organization. Membership does not recognize that you are moral or democratic, or anything else. It recognizes that certain entities must be dealt with as the government of a certain area/people because the only other way to deal with that area/people is to have a war with said "government" that would be able to muster a fair number of those people to come out and fight you. (Iraq simultaneously was this horrible dictatorship AND had "the worlds fourth-largest army") And the U.N. was chartered to avoid war itself.

      It's not so much a "club" you pass a test to join, it's a meeting ground where you go to meet with people you have to meet with, however many showers you want to take afterwards. The only sense it's a "club" is they exclude organizations (insurgents in the hills, typically) that may call themselves the "government in exile", but have no real power to control an area/people. We don't like the antidemocratic government of China that bumps off far more human beings every year than Palestinian fighters could dream of doing to Israel, but we gotta.

      So don't take this as an affront; it's merely an acknowledgment that Palestinians elected them, that they have vastly more control over Palestinian behaviour and opinion and organization than Israel does, and that the opinions and needs of a couple of million people are - to put it mildly - not, in their own opinion, represented well at the UN by the Israeli delegation.

  5. Please by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please grant Palestine full membership in WIPO, preferably yesterday.

  6. Re:Yee Hah! by spidercoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thinking Israel is no better than all the other fuckers over there in the armpit of the world is hardly antisemitism.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  7. Re:Yee Hah! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The one thing that pisses me off more than Jew haters are the people who consistently play the antisemitism card.
    If I don't agree with one bonehead decision from Israel, it's because it's a bonehead decision.
    If I think Avigdor Lieberman is an asshole, it really is because he's an asshole.
    I couldn't care less about religion.

  8. Re:Discrimination is good for the peace process by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AFAICT, the peace process is the least of the issues involved here. UNESCO handles world heritage sites - y'know, like Pompeii which suffered two major collapses in the last week or so due to incompetent maintenance and a lack of funds. The money the Palestinians want is, according to them, going to go to a 5th century church (which is properly World Heritage) that is suffering from horrific maintenance issues and may well collapse without proper backing.

    From the NERD perspective, 30% loss of money = 30% loss of World Heritage. That's a damn lot of history that had been, well, damned.

    What happens between Israel and the Palestinians is, in historical terms and geographical terms, insignificant. Even if you consider the entire history of the entire region plus the rest of the Fertile Crescent, it is a pathetic 3,500 years and a trivial geographical space. It's NOTHING. The US' action has put into danger historical sites that are 70,000 years old - 20 TIMES as old as the entire recorded history for the Middle East - across an entire planet!

    If you want to talk peace processes, then the Irish "Troubles" are recorded as having spanned 5,000 years and involved much of Europe and the US - twice the time the Middle East has even had issues and again many times the area. That was NOT solved by defunding the UN but WAS solved by all parties accepting that peaceful settlements were the way to go. The Basque issue, a mere 30 times older than modern Israel though younger than there have been conflicts in the region, was ALSO recently solved by an increase in mutual understanding and mutual efforts to end the futility cycle. Do you seriously think that either would have be settled today if there had been a blockade on assistance or tolerance of any kind? ESPECIALLY if that blockade had been on people completely unrelated to the parties involved?

    (Would the IRA really have stopped shooting if Britain had decided to bomb the Colosseum in Rome in retaliation for the US sending a senator to Ireland? No? That's the practical upshot of what is taking place, so if the logic of such a move is inherently flawed then substituting in the current participants won't make the logic any better.)

    Look, I fully understand Israel's insecurity and fears, and I respect that it has those for good reason, but nowhere in the history of humanity has anyone solved such issues by taking revenge on innocent third parties. I can't even recall any time in the history of humanity where anyone has solved such issued by taking revenge on those actually involved. If you want peace, you are going to have to do something that works. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. Insanity won't help Israel be safer.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Re:Why are the Palenstines bad again? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about 8,000 rockets launched into Israel in the last 10 years?

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

    Or blowing up a school bus full of kids:

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

    Or hundreds of other attacks on unarmed civilians.

    I'm not trying to establish moral equivalence or paint them as the sole bad guys or any other kind of oversimplification. I'm just trying to point out that if you're not aware of why the Palestinians are regarded with deep suspicion, then you really don't know anything at all about the nature of the conflict.

  10. Sound strategy by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Palestinians are hoisting the U.S by it's own petard. The U.S. government passed the 1994 law as a "do what we say or else" measure, under the false belief that this would force the UN to follow U.S. policy. Instead, the Palestinians are being admitted to UN agencies anway, and we're cutting our own throat automatically.

    It's not the Palestinians who should be worried.

  11. It's Illegal to Give Aide to Israel Too by Maltheus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Under the Symington Amendment, we're not allowed to give aide to nuclear nations who won't sign onto the NTP. They get around the legality of it, with a don't ask, don't tell policy. But everyone knows Israel has nukes, so it really is a flagrant violation of US law.

  12. Re:Let's pull all foriegn aid.. by mangamuscle · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... and exactly who is pointing a gun at your goverment head to make it waste all those billions in defense? The american military industry, that is who; now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

  13. Re:It's the Palestinians who have the Nazi connect by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually spent several summers working in Israel, and regularly visited the West Bank. Couldn't get access to Gaza though.

    As for your questions: The West Bank and (especially) Gaza are effectively light-duty concentration camps. (Not dedicated, but high-density with low access to food, water, sanitation, or jobs.) Mass graves tend to draw attention. (And direct killing isn't the system being used here.) The ~10% of the Knesset (none of whom are Palestinian: they have to be Israeli) aren't a major political force of their own. And the random police checks, and the requirement that every Palestinian who wants to enter Israel (which means any of them who want to leave their home town for any reason...) register for travel papers, in person, every year, would be similar in effect.

    Of course, a closer parallel would be with aparthied-era South Africa.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.