U.S. Senate passes pro-Israel bill, measure also rebukes Trump

[webfact]

U.S. Senate passes pro-Israel bill, measure also rebukes Trump

By Patricia Zengerle

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a news conference to mark six months since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in the White House East Room in Washington, U.S., June 29, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate passed a Mideast policy bill on Tuesday including a measure that would allow states to penalise businesses that take part in boycotts of Israel and an amendment that breaks with President Donald Trump by opposing any plans for an abrupt withdrawal of troops from Syria.

 

The Senate backed the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act by a lopsided 77-23 on Tuesday, hours before Trump was to deliver his annual State of the Union speech discussing his policies for the year.

 

Trump is expected to discuss foreign policy in the address to a joint session of Congress, including declaring the Islamic State militant group all but defeated.

 

Many members of Congress, including several fellow Republicans, strongly disagree with a plan Trump announced in December to withdraw 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria on the grounds that the militant group no longer posed a threat.

 

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely breaks from Trump, introduced the non-binding amendment passed on Tuesday. It acknowledged progress against Islamic State and al Qaeda in Syria and Afghanistan but warned that "a precipitous withdrawal" could destabilise the region and create a vacuum that could be filled by Iran or Russia.

 

The amendment called on the Trump administration to certify conditions had been met for the groups' "enduring defeat" before any significant withdrawal from Syria or Afghanistan.

 

The amendment also includes provisions supported by both Republicans and Democrats to impose new sanctions on Syria and guarantee security assistance to Israel and Jordan. Those are seen as efforts to reassure allies worried about shifts in U.S. policy, including Trump's Syria plan.

 

To become law, however, the bill would need to pass the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, where it is unlikely to move without significant changes because of concerns about the provision addressing the "Boycott, Divest and Sanction" movement targeted at Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

 

Opponents of that provision argue that Americans' participation in boycotts is protected by the constitutional right to free speech.

 

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-06

[car720]

I dislike Trump immensely but one must ask is the President running the country or is Israel.

[keemapoot]

As mentioned in the article "Trump is expected to discuss foreign policy in the address to a joint session of Congress, including declaring the Islamic State militant group all but defeated."

 

Meanwhile, PRESIDENT Trump continues to show his mastery of geography, history, and foreign policy as is expected in someone in such an esteemed position as POTUS:

 

Quote

President Donald Trump mispronounced Nepal and Bhutan as “Nipple” and “Button” in a White House meeting with intelligence officials — and noted incorrectly that they’re both part of India,...

????????

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-called-bhutan-nepal-button-nipple-john-walcott_us_5c58c7b0e4b00187b5544631

[sirineou]

57 minutes ago, webfact said:

The U.S. Senate passed a Mideast policy bill on Tuesday including a measure that would allow states to penalise businesses that take part in boycotts of Israel

Wow!!

[Tug]

It’s good Congress is finally standing up for our best interests when Donald does something ill advised stop him he may wine and have a tantrum threaten to ruin your life unless you do as he says so stand up and kick his miserable ass!

[Chomper Higgot]

“The U.S. Senate passed a Mideast policy bill on Tuesday including a measure that would allow states to penalise businesses that take part in boycotts of Israel”

 

This will be struck down under the first amendment.

 

But in the meantime one has to wonder who’s running the US Government.

[Lungstib]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

a measure that would allow states to penalise businesses that take part in boycotts of Israel

A Palestinian born, U.S. citizen recently lost her job because she would not sign a form saying she would never join a group boycotting Israel. Think about that; In the USA she was being told she couldn't disagree with Israeli policy. She wasn't, however, asked to sign a form suggesting she would never disagree or actively denounce American policy. Now that's crazy, and probably against the constitution. I see courts taking this on.

[malibukid]

1 hour ago, car720 said:

I dislike Trump immensely but one must ask is the President running the country or is Israel.

the pro-israel lobby runs American policy.  there will never be peace in the Middle East.  sad. 

[stevenl]

This bill is bad, if only because it connects 2 topics that should not be connected.

[Sir Swagman]

2 hours ago, car720 said:

I dislike Trump immensely but one must ask is the President running the country or is Israel.

Think it is more Putin

[jingjai9]

This article begs the question: Does this lopsided vote of (77-23) for strengthing America's mideast secutiy verify that Congress is bought and paid for?

 

One member in this forum opined that this measure would be struck down by the 1st ammendment of the US constitution. This begs question number 2: With the current make-up of the Supreme court, could this measure be deemed consitutional?

 

As the process to challenge the constitutionality of boycotting Israel plays out, it could very well serve as an "acid test" to learn whether or not The US still has any democratic instituions to protect its populace.

 

I hope I am wrong. I am simply articulating my fears.

[Galactus]

US should keep its hands off from Middle east and forever.

and wonder how they will punish countries, organizations and people supporting BDS movement!

so lets say you are an US citizen and criticise Israel and support BDSM, will they arrest you? or is it just freedom of speech?

or when you criticize Israel, it doesnt count as freedom of speech then?

double standards and suppression of freedom of speech at its best., of course this is what you expect from a fascist leader.

[bristolboy]

Just a note to the anti-semites out there. All the votes against except Rand Paul's were from Democrats which is the party Jews overwhelmingly favor in elections.  And at least 3 of those votes came from Jewish senators.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

This will be struck down under the first amendment.

Already a precedent by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[joecoolfrog]

It is absurd to legislate protection of another nation , ones hands are tied in the future. An awful example of a powerfull lobby dictating policy , draining the swamp....my arse!

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Lungstib said:

A Palestinian born, U.S. citizen recently lost her job because she would not sign a form saying she would never join a group boycotting Israel. Think about that; In the USA she was being told she couldn't disagree with Israeli policy. She wasn't, however, asked to sign a form suggesting she would never disagree or actively denounce American policy. Now that's crazy, and probably against the constitution. I see courts taking this on.

 

Could be wrong, but I don't think that case was about "never join" - more like during the term of employment. Some difference there, although it doesn't salvage the legislation or makes it much more palatable.

 

Another such point would be regarding "couldn't agree with Israeli policy" - she could, just not through the framework offered by BDS organizations. Criticizing Israeli policy doesn't automatically imply supporting the BDS efforts.

 

Its a bad piece of legislation, and it shouldn't be able to survive future legal challenges, though who knows. As it stands, I doubt that the outcome actually supports tagging the bill as pro-Israel, more likely to cause backlash.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Galactus said:

US should keep its hands off from Middle east and forever.

and wonder how they will punish countries, organizations and people supporting BDS movement!

so lets say you are an US citizen and criticise Israel and support BDSM, will they arrest you? or is it just freedom of speech?

or when you criticize Israel, it doesnt count as freedom of speech then?

double standards and suppression of freedom of speech at its best., of course this is what you expect from a fascist leader.

 

Some US states and counties have weird laws about sexual practices and preferences, don't know if BDSM is outlawed, though. Trying to imagine engaging in such while hotly criticizing Israel isn't much of a turn on, though.

 

 

[bristolboy]

Since no one who has referred to powerful forces behind this bill has exactly identified who they might be, I can't be sure that I'm addressing their suspicions. Although given the history of this kind of rhetoric I have a pretty good idea. That said, the most powerful force backing Israel in the USA is the evangelicals. Remember that they believe that Israel must exist as a Jewish nation in order to serve as the landing strip for Jesus when he returns.  No Israel, no Apocalypse. 

[JAG]

Whilst I am supportive of Israel right to exist, and generally consider that it's inhabitants, Jewish and Arab, probably have better lifes and more opportunities than the inhabitants of it's neighbours, I sometimes wonder whether they realise that their undue influence upon American politics is probably counterproductive? 

[geriatrickid]

I see that the usual jew haters are out in full force. Did any of you vile bigots bother to read the bill? You see a biased piece from Reuters, and take it as the gospel.

 

Much of the Bill relates to the support of Arab countries and protection of Arab lives, but no mention of that.

If anyone had bothered to read the Bill they would see  that;

 

1. It reauthorizes a cooperation agreement the U.S. struck with Jordan in 2015: a three-year deal to streamline defense sales, secure the country’s borders with Iraq and Syria, and fight ISIS.

 

2. Authorizes sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria unless political prisoners are released and  civilian populations are no longer targeted for carpet or barrel bombing, including the use of chemical poisons.

 

3. Extends an existing loan guarantee program with Israel through 2023 it attaches the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Combating BDS Act. This protects  state and local governments against frivolous expensive litigation when they refuse to withdraw investments, or not purchase from Israeli companies. This is of particular importance because there is a need for some Israeli agricultural and scientific R&D and products. It also protects these governments when they choose not to transact with  companies who engage in a boycott, because the boycott is in itself discriminatory.

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The U.S. Senate passed a Mideast policy bill on Tuesday including a measure that would allow states to penalise businesses that take part in boycotts of Israel”

This will be struck down under the first amendment.

But in the meantime one has to wonder who’s running the US Government.

The Bill was passed by people who  do not support discriminatory practices and who saw the need to protect state and local governments from expensive litigation  brought by political interest groups.  

 

5 hours ago, Lungstib said:

A Palestinian born, U.S. citizen recently lost her job because she would not sign a form saying she would never join a group boycotting Israel. Think about that; In the USA she was being told she couldn't disagree with Israeli policy. She wasn't, however, asked to sign a form suggesting she would never disagree or actively denounce American policy. Now that's crazy, and probably against the constitution. I see courts taking this on.

Really. Who was this? Can you  cite the case?

 

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

This bill is bad, if only because it connects 2 topics that should not be connected.

The bill was intended to address a discriminatory process that circumvented existing US law that prohibited discrimination. This is why the bill was supported by an odd coalition of groups.

 

This forum drips with ignorance.

 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

I see that the usual jew haters are out in full force. Did any of you vile bigots bother to read the bill? You see a biased piece from Reuters, and take it as the gospel.

 

Much of the Bill relates to the support of Arab countries and protection of Arab lives, but no mention of that.

If anyone had bothered to read the Bill they would see  that;

 

1. It reauthorizes a cooperation agreement the U.S. struck with Jordan in 2015: a three-year deal to streamline defense sales, secure the country’s borders with Iraq and Syria, and fight ISIS.

 

2. Authorizes sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria unless political prisoners are released and  civilian populations are no longer targeted for carpet or barrel bombing, including the use of chemical poisons.

 

3. Extends an existing loan guarantee program with Israel through 2023 it attaches the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Combating BDS Act. This protects  state and local governments against frivolous expensive litigation when they refuse to withdraw investments, or not purchase from Israeli companies. This is of particular importance because there is a need for some Israeli agricultural and scientific R&D and products. It also protects these governments when they choose not to transact with  companies who engage in a boycott, because the boycott is in itself discriminatory.

 

The Bill was passed by people who  do not support discriminatory practices and who saw the need to protect state and local governments from expensive litigation  brought by political interest groups.  

 

Really. Who was this? Can you  cite the case?

 

The bill was intended to address a discriminatory process that circumvented existing US law that prohibited discrimination. This is why the bill was supported by an odd coalition of groups.

 

This forum drips with ignorance.

 

As usual not addressing the issues raised, just vile posting.

[IAMHERE]

4 hours ago, Sir Swagman said:

6 hours ago, car720 said:

I dislike Trump immensely but one must ask is the President running the country or is Israel.

Think it is more Putin

Yes, but it was Congress that passed the bill not POTUS.

[Cereal]

7 hours ago, malibukid said:

the pro-israel lobby runs American policy.  there will never be peace in the Middle East.  sad. 

Very true, on both accounts. Neither Israel nor the USA want peace in the M.E. War makes money!

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Cereal said:

Very true, on both accounts. Neither Israel nor the USA want peace in the M.E. War makes money!

 

Whereas other involved parties are all into peace efforts. Oh...wait.

Nah, better just engage in pointless generalizations, eh?

 

[Harveyg]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just a note to the anti-semites out there. All the votes against except Rand Paul's were from Democrats which is the party Jews overwhelmingly favor in elections.  And at least 3 of those votes came from Jewish senators.

Although I appreciate the information the damage is already, and has repeatedly been, done.  And although I much dislike jumping to labels such as bigot, racist, macho, or anti-Semite  I cannot help but agree that anti Israel often = anti Jewish sentiments.

I’m not talking the merits or constitutionality of the law.  I’m reacting to the way comments are made.  The level of inuendo is all that varies.  I work with a guy who just alluded yo a sneaky New York Jew in a conversation we were having.  I don’t think he knows about me.  He’s a great guy, but I don’t trust him to support Israel’s right to exist.  And I don’t wait for you guys either.  If Israel didn’t provide a Middle East ally for the USA the USA wouldn’t give 2 sh#%s what happened to it.  Hardly ever in these comments does someone offer a balanced view.  Rarely do I hear of any rebuke of iran’s denial of Israel’s right to exist.  Nor that of Hamas. Two Thai women last year told me that Jewish money runs the world.   Need I say more?  

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

I see that the usual jew haters are out in full force. Did any of you vile bigots bother to read the bill? You see a biased piece from Reuters, and take it as the gospel.

 

Much of the Bill relates to the support of Arab countries and protection of Arab lives, but no mention of that.

If anyone had bothered to read the Bill they would see  that;

 

1. It reauthorizes a cooperation agreement the U.S. struck with Jordan in 2015: a three-year deal to streamline defense sales, secure the country’s borders with Iraq and Syria, and fight ISIS.

 

2. Authorizes sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria unless political prisoners are released and  civilian populations are no longer targeted for carpet or barrel bombing, including the use of chemical poisons.

 

3. Extends an existing loan guarantee program with Israel through 2023 it attaches the Israel Anti-Boycott Act and the Combating BDS Act. This protects  state and local governments against frivolous expensive litigation when they refuse to withdraw investments, or not purchase from Israeli companies. This is of particular importance because there is a need for some Israeli agricultural and scientific R&D and products. It also protects these governments when they choose not to transact with  companies who engage in a boycott, because the boycott is in itself discriminatory.

 

The Bill was passed by people who  do not support discriminatory practices and who saw the need to protect state and local governments from expensive litigation  brought by political interest groups.  

 

Really. Who was this? Can you  cite the case?

 

The bill was intended to address a discriminatory process that circumvented existing US law that prohibited discrimination. This is why the bill was supported by an odd coalition of groups.

 

This forum drips with ignorance.

 

‘Jew hater’ you say.

 

Wind your neck in, you’re dribbling on your keyboard.

[Harveyg]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

As usual not addressing the issues raised, just vile posting.

As usual an unbalanced approach.  

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, Harveyg said:

Although I appreciate the information the damage is already, and has repeatedly been, done.  And although I much dislike jumping to labels such as bigot, racist, macho, or anti-Semite  I cannot help but agree that anti Israel often = anti Jewish sentiments.

I’m not talking the merits or constitutionality of the law.  I’m reacting to the way comments are made.  The level of inuendo is all that varies.  I work with a guy who just alluded yo a sneaky New York Jew in a conversation we were having.  I don’t think he knows about me.  He’s a great guy, but I don’t trust him to support Israel’s right to exist.  And I don’t wait for you guys either.  If Israel didn’t provide a Middle East ally for the USA the USA wouldn’t give 2 sh#%s what happened to it.  Hardly ever in these comments does someone offer a balanced view.  Rarely do I hear of any rebuke of iran’s denial of Israel’s right to exist.  Nor that of Hamas. Two Thai women last year told me that Jewish money runs the world.   Need I say more?  

Putting aside Israel’s right to exist, which I don’t believe anyone here is questioning.

 

The first amendment guarantees the rights to freedom of speech.

 

The defense of Israel against threats, laudable as that is, may not be based upon overriding the first amendment.

 

It also guarantees the right to question who is driving government policies that are in direct contravention of the Constitution. 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside Israel’s right to exist, which I don’t believe anyone here is questioning.

 

The first amendment guarantees the rights to freedom of speech.

 

The defense of Israel against threats, laudable as that is, may not be based upon overriding the first amendment.

 

It also guarantees the right to question who is driving government policies that are in direct contravention of the Construction.

 

"Putting aside Israel’s right to exist, which I don’t believe anyone here is questioning."

 

 

 

 

[Harveyg]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside Israel’s right to exist, which I don’t believe anyone here is questioning.

 

The first amendment guarantees the rights to freedom of speech.

 

The defense of Israel against threats, laudable as that is, may not be based upon overriding the first amendment.

 

It also guarantees the right to question who is driving government policies that are in direct contravention of the Construction.

I agree with you.  If you reread my post you’ll see I wasn’t discussing the merits of the law.  I was discussing that group of posters who sought to broaden their comments in a way that reveals deeper emotional feelings or perhaps ignorance.