US Senate expresses firm support of Israel

[oberliner]

Source: YNet

WASHINGTON - The United States Senate sent an overwhelming message of solidarity with Israel on Thursday with the passage by unanimous consent of a resolution introduced by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Mark Kirk.

The bipartisan resolution, with 62 Senators as co-sponsors joining the two, expressed firm support for Israel’s “inherent right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism.”

"As a bipartisan group of Senators committed to Israel's security, we express our solidarity with Israel during this deeply challenging period and denounce the reprehensible and indiscriminate rocket attacks launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad against innocent Israeli citizens," the senators said in a joint statement.

"These statements demonstrate that America continues to firmly stand with Israel and her right to defend herself," it said. "No nation can tolerate constant barrages of rockets against its civilian population."

Read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4306433,00.html

[merrily]

1. IMO, both houses of Congress should leave all aspects of foreign relations to the President.

The Constitution of the U.S. did.

[MisterScruffles]

2. A glorified piece of toilet paper these days

Would you think the US senate would care about the constitution?

[oberliner]

3. Advise and consent?

Doesn't the US Congress have "advise and consent" responsibilities with respect to foreign relations?

[MyNameGoesHere]

6. Advise and consent, of course.

Cheer leading, not so much. I find it dubious that there is only one country in the whole world that they need to highlight what is obvious.

[merrily]

28. This is not a matter for advice and consent under the Constitution.

[merrily]

27. No. The Senate--and only the Senate--gets to advise and consent

on written treaties that the President wants to sign on behalf of the U.S. and on appointment of ambassadors.

And, of course, both houses get to vote on declaring war (though I believe Libya is still being litigated in court and the whole war powers issue is complex, to say the least).

Day to day foreign policy decisions, however, such as whether the U.S. will support or condemn the particular action of a particular nation, is not subject to any "advise and consent" power under the Constitution. Congress has taken this on themselves many times, even though a nonbinding vote is the best it can do. However, even a nonbinding vote by Congress can create a foreign relations disaster.

[Alamuti Lotus]

4. I'm shocked to see a rubber-stamp defense of Israeli aggression from the US Gov't!

Actually the only surprising thing is that it took so long for this bill to pop up--for some reason, they waited until the 8th Palestinian kid was incenerated before voicing their glowing approval.

I did, however, read a scathing critique of the Israeli air raids in the New York Times: over there, they are concerned that killing people in Gaza will distract attention away from the propaganda offensive against Iran.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Meh.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. It's nice to see that both sides can come together to cheer on the murder of children. nt

[Fumesucker]

8. There's bipartisanship on the really important stuff n/t

[Daniel537]

36. I've said it before and i'll say it again

Bipartisanship usually means poor people somewhere are going to get screwed. Its disgraceful how we show sympathy for the victims of violence on one side, and dismiss as "collateral damage" the victims on the other side, who coincidentally enough are usually people with darker skin color.

[oberliner]

15. That's not what is happening

No one is "cheering on the murder of children".

[coalition_unwilling]

30. They're cheering on the murder of 'terrorists disguised as children' - n/t

[oberliner]

31. There are no "terrorists disguised as children"

It's horrific that so many children have been killed. There is no one here who thinks otherwise.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Bullshit. I even had a couple DUers insinuate that the Palestinian parents

actually caused their kids' deaths by firing rockets at Israel. They were blithely reveling in their fucking blood lust. Absolutely disgusting.

I can't give you the links, b/c I immediately put those assholes on Ignore, so lost the threads.

[oberliner]

33. That's not "cheering on the deaths of children"

That's blaming Hamas for the deaths of children.

I cannot imagine a person with any humanity actually "cheering on" the killing of children by anyone.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Sorry, I no longer have the offending posts, but I assure you

they went way beyond 'blaming Hamas for the deaths of children.'

At a minimum, the posts implied that the parents were actually shooting rockets at Israel, so their kids deserved to die. Not quite blatant enough to justify an alert but close to the line.

Ironic, because Jews have been victims of 'collective punishment' down through history but here were DUers cheering on collective punishment for those Palestinian parents and their children.

[Andy Stanton]

9. Hundreds of rockets fired on Israel

I think that's sufficient justification for an armed response.

[John2]

12. You

are right but the President and the United States should be the driver of this bus. I'll give you a good reason if that is your next question. Israel's security depends on the United States period and not just on Netanyahu. The reason they can't survive is because we fund their military defenses period, right on down to letting them get a nuclear capability to defend themselves. It is equal with our funding of the Eygyptian Government as well as the Palestinian Authorities. That is why the U.S. should drive this bus!

Hundreds of neantherthal rockets does not equal a modern military capability, which the U.S. has provided to Israel. This is like Alabama versus Elon on the football field. Israel's response need to be measured because innocent citizens are also involved on the other side. Their lives are no less than the innocent lives in Israel.

[oberliner]

20. What would be an example of a measured response?

What do you think would be appropriate?

[John2]

10. I

would agree the Senate should not usurp the President's ability to make Foreign Policy decisions in solving these problems. I think the President should be advising the Senate and gaining their consent not the other way around. If the Senate's position is to give Israel and Netanyahu a blank check, then it reduces the President's ability to drive the car. Maybe the Senate should be the President too?

[Blue_Tires]

11. whatever...just leave us out of it...

[John2]

13. I

agree with you essentially. The Senate needs to step back and let the President run Foreign Policy just like they did with other Presidents, including George W. Bush to send Netanyahu a message of who is in charge. Israel can't fight this on their own with Netanyahu's chest beating. What is their population now, to support their military? You figure it out and it should be evident for their survival.

[FreeBC]

14. Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic Party...

I don't expect to agree with everything my party does, I just wish we had the same position on the murder and abuse of innocent civilians.

Why is it that libertarians, who most here would consider to be fringe lunatics, have more intelligent and moral positions on things like unmanned drones, foreign intervention, the militarization of our police and the drug war?

[oberliner]

16. This has nothing do with "the murder and abuse innocent civilians"

Seriously, come on.

[FreeBC]

21. Israel is about to invade Gaza... how is it not?

[cali]

23. Positions like this:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-senator-seeks-to-cut-aid-to-elite-idf-units-operating-in-west-bank-and-gaza-1.378800

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/177199-hold-israel-accountable-with-leahy-law

Senator Leahy is a Democrat.

[Daniel537]

37. Good for him.

We should cease all foreign military aid. But unfortunately Mr. Leahy is in the minority in his Party. Very few voices dare to actually speak up on this issue.

[glacierbay]

17. Good. nt.

[harun]

18. Why is Israel a "she"? Propaganda whores.

[hughee99]

19. Later on if they have to "sell" a war, a war on Israel will be a "war on women". n/t

[dawn frenzy adams]

22. God help us.

At some point, very soon I hope, the American people will have to decide, if supporting Israel unquestionably, is good for America. It appears it is not, and has never been.

[glacierbay]

24. Not going to happen

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/Americans-Maintain-Broad-Support-Israel.aspx

And I would resist the notion of abandoning Israel, our support has always been a good thing.

[Daniel537]

35. "Abandoning" Israel?

Is Israel a US protectorate now? What exactly do you consider to be "abandoning" them? Not giving them anymore free weaponry?

[rollin74]

25. Good. I support the Senate resolution

[Andy Stanton]

26. Hamas is no friend of the Palestinians

They constantly attack Israel knowing that it will prompt an armed response, leading to widespread destruction and death, mostly on the part of the people living in Gaza. Can someone tell me how this helps the Palestinian cause?

[Daniel537]

38. And neither is the US Senate for that matter. n/t

[Kablooie]

29. Weren't the Palestinians the aggressors by sending missiles into Israel first?

If they shot first it would seem to be a case of justified retaliatory defense on Israel's part.

[Daniel537]

39. Hamas, not "the Palestinians", fired the rockets into Israel.

And yes, every country has a right to defend itself, but when you move from striking specific military targets, to targeting homes, yeah that's not so much "justified retaliatory defense" in my opinion. There's no such thing as collateral damage to me.