HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » Israel/Palestine (Group) » US Senate unanimous in ‘v...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:39 PM

US Senate unanimous in ‘vigorous support and unwavering commitment’ for Israel

The United States Senate sent a message of solidarity to Israel on Thursday by unanimously passing a resolution that expressed firm support for Israel’s right to protect its people from terrorism on the second day of Pillar of Defense.

Introduced by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), Senate Resolution 599 expressed ”vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizing and strongly supporting its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism.”

Sixty-two Senators joined the bipartisan resolution as co-sponsors.

Also on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked to Minister of Defense Ehud Barak and told him Jerusalem has a right to defend its citizens. A US official confirmed the two leaders’ conversation to CNN. The spokesperson said they discussed Pillar of Defense and the “unacceptable attacks” used by Hamas and other groups in Gaza, and that Panetta reiterated the American position — that Israel has a right to protect itself.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-senate-unanimously-passes-resolution-supporting-israels-right-to-defend-itself/

35 replies, 3097 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply US Senate unanimous in ‘vigorous support and unwavering commitment’ for Israel (Original post)
Mosby Nov 2012 OP
vilify Nov 2012 #1
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #2
King_David Nov 2012 #4
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #5
leveymg Nov 2012 #3
azurnoir Nov 2012 #6
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #14
shira Nov 2012 #22
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #24
shira Nov 2012 #28
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #33
shira Nov 2012 #34
Purveyor Nov 2012 #7
King_David Nov 2012 #8
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #9
King_David Nov 2012 #12
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #15
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #25
MisterScruffles Nov 2012 #10
holdencaufield Nov 2012 #11
MisterScruffles Nov 2012 #13
holdencaufield Nov 2012 #16
shira Nov 2012 #17
cali Nov 2012 #18
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #20
Behind the Aegis Nov 2012 #21
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #23
Behind the Aegis Nov 2012 #26
shaayecanaan Nov 2012 #30
Behind the Aegis Nov 2012 #31
cali Nov 2012 #19
Mosby Nov 2012 #29
Jester Messiah Nov 2012 #27
moobu2 Nov 2012 #32
Jester Messiah Nov 2012 #35

Response to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:44 PM

1. bull crap imo

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:53 PM

2. Double plus good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:40 PM

4. Good on them..

Democratic majority .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:46 PM

5. Tell us all why Israel allows its citizens to set up and live on illegal settlements


unless it has no intention of giving the land back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:02 PM

3. Reads like a headline out of Pravda, circa 1937.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:25 PM

6. How can the Senate support secure borders for Israel

when Israel refuses to say what those borders are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:55 AM

14. The US regards Palestinians the same way it used to* regard Native Americans

Non-people, unfortunately-placed obstacles in the landscape, and impediments to "progress."

(* - I use 'used to' with the caveat that the US government still isn't particularly interested in Indians, but at least recognizes them as persons and citizens these days)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:09 PM

22. All Senate Dems are just too rightwing for you, huh? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #22)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:46 AM

24. There's only one officially Progressive senator...

that would be Bernie Sanders (who isnt even a Democrat). The remainder of the members of the Progressive caucus are in the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:15 AM

28. So other than Sanders (who is pro-Israel BTW) you think all Dems are right-wingers? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shira (Reply #28)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:42 PM

33. I don't know of many Dem senators that would self-identify

as left wing. I think most of the current crop of Democratic senators tend towards being centrist.

Most of the old guard Left senators are either gone (eg Kennedy, Dorgan, Sarbanes) or no longer left of centre (eg Dodd).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:52 AM

34. You think it's better calling them liberals rather than left-wingers? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:34 PM

7. Only '62'? Well at least that is some progress. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:17 AM

8. Nope was unanimous ,

'Sixty-two Senators joined the bipartisan resolution as co-sponsors'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:23 AM

9. "A Jewish and Democratic State"

Well, which is it going to be?

Israel is a multiethnic / multireligious nation, as are the majority of nations on earth. You cannot place one ethnic / religious group at the head of the table and say "we're a democracy," without making a mockery of the word democracy. Pluralism is an integral part of the concept.

If - when - the demographics of Israel change, one of these two concepts is going to have to fall away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:44 AM

12. yep If - when nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_David (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:58 AM

15. I'm not sure I follow your point. Could you elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:47 AM

25. That day, that worry, I presume (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:30 AM

10. ‘vigorous support and unwavering commitment’

 

Ooh, so they're going to give Israel verbal support. Are they actually going to do anything? Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterScruffles (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:40 AM

11. What does Israel need them to do?

 

Israel has been fighting (and winning) her own battles for 70 years. US support comes in the form of a confirmation (as if any was needed) that a state attacked has the right to defend itself against that attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:48 AM

13. Nothing, really.

 

It's just that the US Senate doesn't need to make yet another God, Motherhood, and Apple Pie statement. If the president says something, it carries much more weight in the international arena- the presidents approval can amount to telling another nation to fuck off, or to keep doing what they are doing. The Senate, though, is just generating more wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterScruffles (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:13 AM

16. Actually the opposite ...

 

... any thing the US President would say (pro or against) any country (including Israel) has the value of a Hallmark card.

Congress controls the foreign policy purse strings, congress has to ratify any treaty and even though the President could commit US Forces to an action, that commitment could be countermanded by Congress.

That is why this year's election debate about which candidate supported Israel was meaningless -- it's not Presidential support a country requires, it's Congressional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 06:21 AM

17. I see heads are exploding. Good! Nice work, senate critters! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 06:48 AM

18. huh? How is 62 unanimous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:31 AM

20. Because Simple Resolutions are always "unanimous"...

Two other resolutions were trotted out in the same morning. The first one was "A resolution to permit the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings." The second one was "A resolution commending and congratulating the San Francisco Giants for winning the 2012 World Series."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/d?d112:100:./list/bss/d112SE.lst:]&items=100&

The resolution in question was a simple resolution, which has no legal effect, as compared with joint or concurrent resolutions that do. Typically, on a slow morning, these resolutions (generally condolence motions, gratuitous backslapping motions and motions meant to stroke the egos of pet constituencies) are read out to a nearly empty chamber and passed by voice vote. If no one objects (and typically no one bothers) the resolution is regarded as having passed unanimously, meaning that individual senators do not voice their opinions on them one way or the other, except to the extent that they may co-sponsor the resolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:28 PM

21. It isn't. But 100 out of 100 is!

From the article: ...on Thursday by unanimously passing a resolution that expressed firm support for Israel’s right to protect its people...

"63" is the number of co-sponors to the resolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:44 AM

23. read the above post -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:48 AM

26. Doesn't change a thing I said to Cali.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:40 AM

30. Then you need to read it again...

if there are only 5 senators in the chamber, and none of them object, then that is unanimous. But it is not 100 out of 100. It is only 5 out of 5.

You can watch the resolution being read to the chamber at c-span:-

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?id=210943

The relevant passage is at 8:57:55 (hours, minutes, seconds)

There were about a dozen senators in the chamber earlier in the day for consideration of the Sportsmans Bill, but by the end of the session that had probably dwindled to a handful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shaayecanaan (Reply #30)


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:00 AM

19. I find the blind support for Israel that one finds in Congress, disturbing

I'm glad that my Senator has a more nuanced view- although he's taken a fair amount of shit from some for it:

<snip>

Last year's war in Gaza and the conflict in 2007 between Israel and Lebanon underscored, once again, the urgent need for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Senator Leahy knows that Israel faces grave challenges from its neighbors in the Middle East, particularly Iran, and the United States has been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter and ally of Israel. Senator Leahy has always strongly supported Israel's right to self-defense and condemned Hamas' indiscriminate rocket attacks. However, he also disagrees with the economic blockade of Gaza as it amounts to collective punishment, with Israel's use of excessive force in Gaza which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, and the continuation of settlement construction in the West Bank. Like President Obama, Senator Leahy believes that the dire situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable and contributes to Israel's insecurity. He has long maintained that the Palestinians' fundamental rights must be respected and that they need a state of their own.

<snip>

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/policies-by-region

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:38 AM

29. I think many senators have a more nuanced view of the conflict

But at times like this people circle the wagons so to speak and nuance goes out the window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:44 AM

27. Meh, whatever.

Why are we even involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:42 AM

32. We're paying for most of it.

The United States is providing Israel with special funding, beyond its regular annual $3 billion in military assistance, to deploy the batteries. According to estimates, the cost of each battery - including its radar system and interceptor missiles - is $60 million to $80 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moobu2 (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:50 PM

35. Well that's just great.

Sorry kids, your meal allowance has been slashed. Gotta pay for those Israeli missile batteries! Out on the street with you, grandma! We've got foreign soldiers to fund!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread