U.S. Senate passes resolution threatening to suspend aid to Palestinians

[bemildred]

The United States Senate has passed a resolution threatening to suspend financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority if its leaders "persist in efforts to circumvent direct negotiations by turning to the United Nations or other international bodies,” and called on U.S. President Barack Obama to veto a UN vote on unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.

“Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid,” the resolution declares.
Capitol hill

Senator Ben Cardin, who initiated the resolution along with Senator Susan Collins, said after the vote late Tuesday that “The Senate has delivered a clear message to the international community that United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state at this time does not further the peace process.”

Resolution 185, co-sponsored by 87 Senator, states the two-state solution as the official U.S. policy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also calls for a review of the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-senate-passes-resolution-threatening-to-suspend-aid-to-palestinians-1.370341

[atreides1]

1. Can he do this?

"...and called on U.S. President Barack Obama to veto a UN vote on unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state."

I have always been under the impression that recognition as a state by the UN is done by the General Assembly, and I don't remember one country having veto powers over the General Assembly?

[bemildred]

2. As I understand it, he can. But it's a messy issue. nt

[aquart]

3. Don't they need borders in order to recognize a state?

Good luck with that.

[azurnoir]

4. Israel whom we are told has never had legal borders doesn't seem to have much problem

but that's different right?

[Rageneau]

7. Israel has never had legal borders?

I don't get that. When I look at a map (unless it is an Arab one which ignores Israel's existence), I see the boundaries of Israel clearly marked. Are these not their legal borders? And if not, who is it who SAYS that these borders are not legal? Certainly not Israel.

I know that some parties in the conflict disagree as to whether Israel OUGHT to have certain legal borders, but how can they dispute that these borders exist and that they -- to Israelis at least -- are considered factual and established?

[Shaktimaan]

10. nope

It has Armistice Lines that were determined in the War of 48 that serve as temporary boundaries. But they are not legal borders. Hence the flap over settlements and Palestinian vs. disputed territories, etc.

Israel is very much in agreement with this. It's not one of the issues that's being disputed.

[Fozzledick]

5. The General Assembly can only vote on it if the Security Counsel approves it first

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I'm pretty sure recognition of a new state doesn't involve the SC at all...

Where did you get that information from? My understanding is that the only thing the Security Council has any control over is whether or not to admit a new state as a member of the UN. Recognition of statehood is a critical mass thing, something the US and its very abused power of veto has no control over...

[azurnoir]

6. from the OP"AIPAC, which lobbied for the passage of the resolution, welcomed the vote's result. "

sad to have a government so beholden to a lobby that it will IMO vote against Americas interests in the ME

[shaayecanaan]

8. You can find a list of the senators that signed on here:-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdrmf3:@@@P|/home/LegislativeData.php|

Essentially, the Senators that *didnt* vote for the resolution (its easier that way) were:-

Bernie Sanders
Tom Harkin (don't know why, he's usually hawkish on Israel)
Rand Paul
Ben Cardin (a mystery to me again, usually hawkish)
John Kerry
Herb Kohl - outgoing
Harry Reid
Bingaman (R) - he didnt sign on to AIPAC's last letter either. Outgoing.
Patrick Leahy - generally refuses to sign on to AIPAC initiatives. Has said previously that as an Irishman he sympathises with the Palestinians.
Jim Webb
Jay Rockefeller

[oberliner]

9. Ben Cardin sponsored the resolution

Not sure why he is on your list.

Also, none of the people you listed voted against the resolution. They just weren't co-sponsors.

The resolution was agreed to by unanimous consent.

[shaayecanaan]

11. There was no roll call vote

so presumably the resolution passed with just a voice vote, in which case there would be no way to know who voted for it. That is generally the case where an overwhelming majority of senators co-sponsor a resolution.

But you are correct, the list is of senators who did not co-sponsor the resolution. I also accept that Harkin and Cardin are probably mistakes.

[oberliner]

12. There was no voice vote either

First of all, Cardin is listed in the OP as the sponsor of the resolution.

Not sure where your list comes from - but in the article in the OP as well as on the thomas.loc.gov site, Cardin is clearly identified as the resolution's sponsor.

And, to reiterate, the resolution was accepted by unanimous consent. There was no voice vote.

Senator Reid asked if there was any objection to agreeing to the resolution by unanimous consent and no objection was raised, so the resolution was agreed to.

Thus, no one voted against it.

[azurnoir]

13. I see 87 out of 100 is unanimous how creative n/t

[oberliner]

14. There were 87 co-sponsors of the resolution

Presumably you are aware that a Senator does not need to be a co-sponsor of a resolution to be in favor of it.

In fact, some Senate resolutions only have a handful of co-sponsors.

In any case, this particular resolution has 87 co-sponsors and passed by unanimous consent.

Feel free to consult the Congressional record for confirmation of this if you are still confused.

[azurnoir]

15. I am not confused were all 100 Senators present? n/t

[oberliner]

17. No idea

Do you know what unanimous consent is?

You seem to think that it means that every Senator votes yes. It doesn't.

It means that no Senator objects to agreeing to (in this case) the resolution without a vote.

This may help:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

In the case of this resolution, no Senator voted against it. It was accepted by unanimous consent. There was neither a roll call nor a voice vote. Also, 2 Senator sponsored it and a further 87 co-sponsored it.

[azurnoir]

18. so it was unanimous among the Senators who were present right?

which is different than it unanimous among all 100 senators

[oberliner]

21. No, it was unanimous among all 100 senators

If any senator wanted to object to unanimous consent, they could have done so.

As none did, the record now shows that this resolution was agreed to unanimously, by the entire Senate.

[azurnoir]

22. lol even the ones that were not there n/t

[shaayecanaan]

19. I got my list my list from Thomas

I just went through and ticked off those ones that did not appear in the list of sponsors. I probably made a mistake in the event of Cardin.

Quite happy to concede the point that there was no vote, indeed it seems as though the resolution was adopted by consent.

[Jefferson23]

16. Another great move forward for peace.. hoo-ah! n/t