Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps the following question should be asked of Biden at the debate:
“Given the alliances being formed between Arab countries and Israel with the Abraham Accord, and the great promise for peace in the Mid-East as a result, do you commit to continuing and building upon President Trump’s new approach, should you be elected? If so, wouldn’t you promise to restore funding to the Hamas-led Palestinians undermine that?”
In a statement released Tuesday, the former vice president praised the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain after they joined with President Trump to sign the historic accords.
“I welcome the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain taking steps to normalize ties with Israel. It is good to see others in the Middle East recognizing Israel and even welcoming it as a partner,” Biden said. The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged that if he is elected, his administration would “build on” the Trump administration’s efforts.
“A Biden-Harris Administration will build on these steps, challenge other nations to keep pace, and work to leverage these growing ties into progress toward a two-state solution and a more stable, peaceful region,” the statement read.
Now to be fair, just because he said he will, it does not follow that he actually will.
In a statement released Tuesday, the former vice president praised the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain after they joined with President Trump to sign the historic accords.
“I welcome the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain taking steps to normalize ties with Israel. It is good to see others in the Middle East recognizing Israel and even welcoming it as a partner,” Biden said. The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged that if he is elected, his administration would “build on” the Trump administration’s efforts.
“A Biden-Harris Administration will build on these steps, challenge other nations to keep pace, and work to leverage these growing ties into progress toward a two-state solution and a more stable, peaceful region,” the statement read.
Now to be fair, just because he said he will, it does not follow that he actually will.
That is indeed good news. I would then inquire as to whether he retracts his promise to restore funding to HAMAS (via the Palestinians), and maintain Trump’s tough stance on Iranian sanctions, so as not to undermine the approach.
It's going to be disputed that the US is still a JCPOA participant when we have already given our notice of exit from the agreement.
The "JCPOA" is a UN Resolution. It is not an agreement between Iran and these countries. It is the terms of capitulation and appeasement that the UN ratified, led at least publicly by Barack Obama.
There is no "agreement" to exit from. The UN resolution remains in effect, as written, until it is overturned by a vote of the UN Security Council, or until the parties to it violate and disregard the resolution to such and extent that it becomes a complete and total joke.
The terms of this resolution allow any of the named "participants" to give notice of Iran's breech of the agreement. That list includes the European Union, which is not a voting member of the UN, and therefore is not strictly an official, authorizing party to this resolution, or "deal". So, obviously being a signatory is not the determining factor.
No, the terms are clear. If a "JCPOA Participant" gives notice to the UN of breach of the agreement by Iran, then the sanctions will "Snap back" into place - by all members of the UN - unless the UN Security Council votes unanimously to veto the implementation of the "Snapback" provisions. Which is not going to happen, because the US is one of the permanent members of the UN Security council and they are the ones giving notice. The US is not going to veto the implementation of the Snapback provisions that Barack Obama crafted into this resolution as the accountability mechanism.
It will severely discredit the authority of the very concept of international law and the United Nations if they disregard the requirements of this resolution - crafted by Barack H. Obama himself - which they unanimously voted in support of. Is there defense of this appeasement plan worth that much to them?
That is indeed good news. I would then inquire as to whether he retracts his promise to restore funding to HAMAS (via the Palestinians), and maintain Trump’s tough stance on Iranian sanctions, so as not to undermine the approach.
I do not expect that we are going to need to worry about it. But we will not know for sure until after the election.
Comedy: US unilaterally reinstates UN Iran sanctions. EVERYBODY else says no. And I mean everybody. Lol.
We are literally the laughing stock of the world right now. A nation so lost that its leader's positions are out of step with just about every else, similar to one of his heroes, Little Rocket Man.
Comedy: US unilaterally reinstates UN Iran sanctions. EVERYBODY else says no. And I mean everybody. Lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atltechdude
We are literally the laughing stock of the world right now. A nation so lost that its leader's positions are out of step with just about every else, similar to one of his heroes, Little Rocket Man.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015
The Security Council,
Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non performance of commitments under the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in the JCPOA;
12. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution under paragraph 11 to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a), then effective midnight Greenwich Mean Time after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security Council described in paragraph 11, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010) that have been terminated pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) shall apply in the same manner as they applied before the adoption of this resolution, and the measures contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 to 20 of this resolution shall be terminated, unless the Security Council decides otherwise;
This is the language of the "Snapback" provisions. As you may recall, Barack Obama was revered for the brilliance of this supposedly incontrovertible mechanism of accountability, which could be triggered by any of the JCPOA participants, unilaterally. Read it for yourselves, directly above. Here is the definition of "Joint Participants," from the same document:
Definition of JCPOA Participants - From JCPOA Annex IV Joint Commission (Page 87): The Joint Commission is comprised of representatives of Iran and the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), together, the JCPOA participants.
The measures that will be terminated by the triggering of the "Snapback" provisions are the termination of the previous UN sanctions and various other measures that had been in place before this resolution. The sanctions "Snap back" to what they were.
Also, as you surely are aware, a decision of the UN Security Council must be unanimous, as every member has a veto. In other words, the Security Council has NOT decided "otherwise".
That is what is legally in effect, if international law is to be respected. Which according to you and anyone else who shares your views, it apparently is not.
Again, we disrespected it first when we pulled out for no reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
