So? “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
I could see picking up one of Icke’s books, just for shits and giggles. But you can’t possibly believe this guy. Lizard people? Anti-semitism? Holocaust denial?
The Illuminati? Oh, and in case I forgot to mention it…
LIZARD PEOPLE!!!
Think about it. The man is not a credible source. If he told me the sky was blue, I’d probably ask for a second opinion!
That’s my point, X.
Yes, that occurred to me too. But if you look at the numbers, and, more importantly, the results, it does not make much practical difference whether the Arabs in Israel can vote or not. If the Palestinians in the Territories were allowed to vote, that would make a difference, an enormous difference. If they were granted independence, that would make a difference too. But so long as the status quo continues, Israel rules – rules with great harshness and brutality – over millions of people who have no voice in its government. This is democracy?
David Icke? The same David Icke who claims to have watched William Buckley metamorphose into a humanoid reptile?
I recall there being some legislation or a determination that the US will not give aid to countries that engage in nuclear proliferation. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Didn’t take long, what kept the rest of you?
The site has an obvious agenda. It’s simply the first relevant one I found using “nuclear proliferation US aid” on google. However the bias is irrelevant to the factual claim of the FA Act and the Proxmire amendment. Those facts are true or they aren’t.
sevastopol, I googled up that quote earlier, but what I found interesting was that nearly all the pages returned had a variation on the very same quote, and none that I could find actually cited the U.S. code containing said Proxmire amendment. The Foreign Assistance Act mentioned is Title 22, and the word “nuclear” does not appear, as best I can tell, in the Act or any amendments to it.
Right, but BG afaik the Palastinians don’t WANT to join Israel and become citizens…and they never have wanted too. Has there ever been a movement by the Palistinians to fully join with Israel, to become full citizens, etc? Its a two way street with neither side interested in compromise. Or is this not the case?
Israel rules with ‘great harshness and brutality’ because Palistine is now and has always been a war zone…its been a constant fight since Israel declared independence. I’m not going to appologize for Israel or say they are faultless, as clearly they have a lot of things they are to blame for, but it goes both ways BG…BOTH sides are at fault for the way things are today. They share equally in the blame. Again, you’d have a case if the Palistinians were actively TRYING to become full citizens of Israel, if they were actively trying to GET annexed, if they wanted to become a full member…but they aren’t and never have been. Then don’t WANT to be voting citizens of Israel, at least the majority don’t want that. Again, if I’m wrong here, I’m willing to learn about it. I’m not an expert on Israel by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m willing to be proved wrong on this.
-XT
Okay, got it. The original appearance of this quote seems to be from Left Turn Magazine. Just to establish context, the web site for the magazine says
Given the lack of supporting citations, and the fact that the other sites repeat text from this article verbatim, and the very left-wing origin of the source, I’d say that there is no evidence that any laws are being broken by continued U.S. aid to Israel.
That being said, I know that there has been a good deal of speculation that one of the reasons Israel has never publicly admitted to their nuclear arsenal is that it might complicate the politics of U.S. military aid to the country. For example, this column about Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu appeared in The Washington Post:
Thanks JohnM the Washington Post article seems a good lead. I’ve found a number of similar cites, including an arms proliferation act with similar provisions.
On reflection I’ve heard many stories making the link between the Vanunu revelations and the legal consequences for US military aid.
I’m prepared to accept that as true so far. Maybe I’ll look up a little.
An aside. ‘We ally ourselves with Israel because they are an ally.’ :rolleyes:
Well what do you know, military aid to Israel illegal.
except via presidential waivers
True, but none issued regarding Israel.
Maybe we participate in the elegant fiction that since Israel’s not a declared nuclear power, we can pretend that they don’t really have any?
Maybe we just asked 'em and they said, “Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons… nuclear weapons. Now, don’t you think that if we had nukes we’d tell you?”
I thought that I should cross link to this tangentially related thread-
Do Israel’s Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons)
My take on it is that since we don’t officially know that Israel has nukes, then the Symmington Amendment is not in force, and thus there is no violation of the law. If we were ever forced to officially recognize that Israel is a nuclear power, then we would make an exemption to Symmington (which is explicitly allowed for in the amendment itself), which would reflect poorly on our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation but would really have no effect on our continued aid to and support of Israel.
So why is Israel the only democracy “over there”?
He was drunk.
But seriously, Dave claims one can chage into a BUS if they really try.
and I am not making this up.
No, because as you can see by looking at the code:
(bolding mine)
As Israel received it’s nuclear enrichment materials from France in the 1950s and '60s, the Symington Amendment wouldn’t apply.
We believe you. So why are you actually taking ANYTHING he says seriously? The guy’s a fruitcake, 'nilla.
You may be reading the Act too narrowly. By comparision Pakistan appears to have offended by autonomously producing a reactor, not through import activities.
Also are you assuming a fact not in evidence concerning dates? It seems to me unlikely that the US is making a determination on that basis while still officially ambiguous on the existence of said weapons.
I note that my earlier reference is to section 101. Is the section you quote the same one under a different heading?