RE: Now Israel is bombing yet another country.
⁜→
Oh, there is really something wrong here.
Funding terrorism in other countries
(a violation of 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) is not related in context to
"US Foreign Aid to Israel Updated August 7, 2019."
The two ideas are not inter-related to political objectives; although some think they sound similar.
◈ The first attending to the concern on providining or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
- ₪₪₪₪ -
This is similar to American Law 18 USC 2332d - Financial transaction and issues of 18 USC 2339A - Providing material support to terrorist to entities attempting to influence the policy of the US government by intimidation or coercion.
◈ The second is an investment in shared strategic goals in the Middle East; a mutual commitment to democratic values; and historical ties dating from the creation of Israel in 1948.
Perhaps, but funding terrorists in other countries? Not nice.
I agree. We should immediately cut off all aid to Israel.
(COMMENT)
This is a two-fold concept you are advocating:
◈ The first is that if the US vetoes the resolution as expected, Abbas will give the green light for "the war of international boycott of Israel" and hold it accountable at the International Criminal Court, Shaath declared. We call this "intimidation and coersion." This is, all by itself, a violation of 18 USC 2332d - and 18 USC 2339A to compel America to bend to the will of the Arab Palestinian to abstain from taking a political stance; and determine which countries the US may be permitted in making an alliance with in the Middle East.
◈ The second is a position of opposition in support of the most successful nation → the most developed nation → and the nation that has given the greatest contributions in health and science from the Middle East. I'm not sure, but by the tone of your comment ("Not nice") I gather this is more of a determination on sympathy, and NOT based on either the need for regional security or economic stability. What you are talking about, practically, is that by reducing US Aid to Israel, you give the Arab League and Persian Influence a better footing by which they can apply a great preassure on Israel to drop its defenses. In so doing, this will whittle down Israel to the status of just another mediocre state in the region.
Now, the purpose of your intention is not quite readable. But the impact is questionable. What makes you think that by putting such pressure on the Israelis that the stakes will not turn 180º out of phase and turn the Israelis into a Jewish Resistance Movement that doing the same thing that you suggest the Arab Palestinians are allowed to do
(aircraft highjackings, suicide bombings, kidnap and murder, machine-gunning women and children on commercial buses, rocket and mortar attacks by the hundreds, etc, etc err etc...). Now, I don't think
(for one moment) that the Israelis would turn on the world at large; but they will not let a second anti-Semitic campaign to emerge in the 21st Century like those of the 20th Century and before.
What is the intention you have in cutting US Aid to Israel?
What are your expectations?
Is your plan to expand the conflict regionally?
Do you want the Fedayeen to have another opportunity to neutralize the Hashemite Kingdom?
Do you want another insurgency in Egypt of Lebanon (or both)?
Like I said, I am not quite reading your intentions.
.......View attachment 275939
Most Respectfully,
R