In a move that showed bipartisan support for Israel, the US House of Representatives voted on Thursday to condemn the UN Security Council resolution that slammed Israel&#39;s illegal settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem.&nbsp;

The congressional measure passed 342 to 80, with broad bipartisan support.&nbsp;

It noted in particular that the US administration&#39;s refusal to veto the controversial Security Council measure &quot;undermined&quot; Washington&#39;s decades-long position of opposing anti-Israel action at the United Nations.

Incensed US lawmakers have assailed Barack Obama&#39;s outgoing administration for abstaining in the December 23 vote instead of vetoing the UN resolution, essentially clearing the way for its passage.

&quot;I am stunned at what happened last month. This government -- our government -- abandoned our ally Israel when she needed us the most,&quot; House Speaker Paul Ryan told the chamber shortly before the House vote.

&quot;It is time to repair the damage done by this misguided hit job at the UN,&quot; he added. &quot;It&#39;s time to rebuild our partnership&quot; with the Jewish state.

White House aides have said that while Obama is a firm supporter of Israel, he felt that after eight years he had simply run out of ways to convince Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel building on Palestinian land is sabotaging hopes for peace.

The House measure, which is non-binding, calls for the UN resolution &quot;to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that... it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel&quot; and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiation.

It also demands that the United States ensures that no action be taken at the Paris Conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict scheduled for January 15, that would impose an agreement on the two sides.

The French-organized talks, to be attended by around 70 countries -- but not by Israeli or Palestinian representatives -- are being held to reiterate international support for a two-state solution to the conflict.

Benjamin Netanyahu had asked his ambassadors to make sure that no further UN resolution that&#39;s critical of Israel&#39;s policies comes up in future especially in the wake of the Paris conference.

(AFP)

The congressional measure passed 342 to 80, with broad bipartisan support.?

In a move that showed bipartisan support for Israel, the US House of Representatives voted on Thursday to condemn the UN Security Council resolution that slammed Israel's illegal settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem. The congressional measure passed 342 to 80, with broad bipartisan support. It noted in particular that the US administration's refusal to veto the controversial Security Council measure "undermined" Washington's decades-long position of opposing anti-Israel action at the United Nations. Incensed US lawmakers have assailed Barack Obama's outgoing administration for abstaining in the December 23 vote instead of vetoing the UN resolution, essentially clearing the way for its passage. "I am stunned at what happened last month. This government -- our government -- abandoned our ally Israel when she needed us the most," House Speaker Paul Ryan told the chamber shortly before the House vote. "It is time to repair the damage done by this misguided hit job at the UN," he added. "It's time to rebuild our partnership" with the Jewish state. White House aides have said that while Obama is a firm supporter of Israel, he felt that after eight years he had simply run out of ways to convince Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel building on Palestinian land is sabotaging hopes for peace. The House measure, which is non-binding, calls for the UN resolution "to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that... it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel" and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiation. It also demands that the United States ensures that no action be taken at the Paris Conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict scheduled for January 15, that would impose an agreement on the two sides. The French-organized talks, to be attended by around 70 countries -- but not by Israeli or Palestinian representatives -- are being held to reiterate international support for a two-state solution to the conflict. Benjamin Netanyahu had asked his ambassadors to make sure that no further UN resolution that's critical of Israel's policies comes up in future especially in the wake of the Paris conference. (AFP)

US House votes to condemn UN resolution against Israel's settlements

The White House said on Monday that US &nbsp;President Barack Obama would veto the bill allowing victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families to sue the Saudi government for damages.&nbsp; 
 
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that the President does intend to veto the legislation. 
 
The bill will allow Americans to file lawsuits against any foreign governments suspected of backing terrorism against America.&nbsp; 
 
The legislation is strongly opposed by Saudi Arabia which is home to 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 terror attacks. 
 
He said the bill could be used as an excuse to haul US diplomats or US service members or even US companies into courts all around the world. 
 
&quot;You could have judges at different levels in different courtrooms, reaching different conclusions about the same country. That is not an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism,&quot; Earnest said. 
 
Earnest added that the bill endangers the concept of sovereign immunity that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world.&nbsp; 
 
Earnest anticipated a wider international reaction to the bill. He said, &quot;So the President feels quite strongly about this. Our concern is not limited to the impact it could have on a relationship with one country, but rather it could have an impact on our relationship with every country around the world in a way that has negative consequences for the US, for our national security, and for our men and women in uniform.&quot; 
 
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was passed in the House of Representatives by a voice vote on Friday,&nbsp; 
 
It had earlier found unanimous approval in the Senate in May. The Senate sent the bill for President&#39;s approval on Monday night, giving him a 10-day window to veto the decision.&nbsp; 
 
But even if Obama vetos the bill, Congressional aides said the measure appeared to have enough support to override his decision.&nbsp; 
 
A two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House is required for lawmakers to override an Obama veto for the first time since he took office in January 2009. 
 
Under the Constitution, Obama could also opt for a &quot;pocket veto,&quot; in which the president can defeat a bill just by holding onto it until Congress is out of session. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The White House said the bill is a forceful way to respond to terrorism and could have a far-reaching impact

The White House said on Monday that US President Barack Obama would veto the bill allowing victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families to sue the Saudi government for damages. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that the President does intend to veto the legislation. The bill will allow Americans to file lawsuits against any foreign governments suspected of backing terrorism against America. The legislation is strongly opposed by Saudi Arabia which is home to 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 terror attacks. He said the bill could be used as an excuse to haul US diplomats or US service members or even US companies into courts all around the world. "You could have judges at different levels in different courtrooms, reaching different conclusions about the same country. That is not an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism," Earnest said. Earnest added that the bill endangers the concept of sovereign immunity that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world. Earnest anticipated a wider international reaction to the bill. He said, "So the President feels quite strongly about this. Our concern is not limited to the impact it could have on a relationship with one country, but rather it could have an impact on our relationship with every country around the world in a way that has negative consequences for the US, for our national security, and for our men and women in uniform." The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was passed in the House of Representatives by a voice vote on Friday, It had earlier found unanimous approval in the Senate in May. The Senate sent the bill for President's approval on Monday night, giving him a 10-day window to veto the decision. But even if Obama vetos the bill, Congressional aides said the measure appeared to have enough support to override his decision. A two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House is required for lawmakers to override an Obama veto for the first time since he took office in January 2009. Under the Constitution, Obama could also opt for a "pocket veto," in which the president can defeat a bill just by holding onto it until Congress is out of session. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Obama will veto bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia: White House

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said on Tuesday it had turned over to the US Congress a number of documents related to its probe into Hillary Clinton&#39;s use of a private email server while she was the secretary of state. 
 
The Democratic presidential nominee has for over a year been dogged by questions about her use of a private email account while she was the nation&#39;s top diplomat. 
 
Republicans have repeatedly hammered Clinton over the issue, helping to drive opinion poll results showing that many US voters doubt her trustworthiness. 
 
The FBI said it had provided &quot;relevant materials&quot; to congressional committees looking into the matter. 
 
&quot;The material contains classified and other sensitive information and is being provided with the expectation it will not be disseminated or disclosed without FBI concurrence,&quot; the agency said in a statement. 
 
The Clinton campaign criticised the delivery of the documents. 
 
&quot;This is an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI,&quot; Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;We believe that if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks.&quot; 
 
A spokeswoman for the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee said in an email that staff for the panel was reviewing the information classified as &quot;secret.&quot; 
 
&quot;There are no further details at this time,&quot; the aide said. 
 
Senate judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican, said in a statement that an initial review of the material showed most of it was marked unclassified, and urged the FBI to make as much of it public as possible. 
 
FBI Director James Comey told Congress last month that Clinton`s handling of classified information while using private email servers was &quot;extremely careless.&quot; But he said he would not recommend criminal charges be brought against her. 
 
Comey&#39;s statement lifted a cloud of uncertainty from Clinton`s White House campaign. But his strong criticism of her judgment ignited a new attack on her by Republicans, including Donald Trump, her Republican opponent in the Nov. 8 election. 
 
`Not clear evidence&#39;&nbsp; 
 
The Oversight committee, chaired by Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, had asked the FBI for the complete investigative file from its review of Clinton`s use of a private email server. 
 
The FBI has also provided documents from its investigation to the House Judiciary Committee, an aide said. 
 
Chaffetz and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, also a Republican, last month urged federal prosecutors to investigate whether Clinton had committed perjury. 
 
They said some FBI findings about her email servers were at odds with her previous testimony to Congress about the matter, for example, her statement she had not sent or received information designated as classified. 
 
But the FBI, in a letter sent to the committee on Tuesday, said the fact that the agency had uncovered three instances in which Clinton had received emails containing &quot;(C)&quot; markings, which denote &quot;confidential&quot; information, was &quot;not clear evidence of knowledge or intent&quot; to mishandle such material. 
 
The letter, which accompanied the FBI`s investigative documents, noted relevant emails had been forwarded to Clinton by staff, lacked &quot;header and footer markings&quot; indicating the presence of classified information, and only one email was later determined by the State Department to contain classified information. 
 
Clinton`s fellow Democrats were scornful that Republicans were refusing to let the matter drop. 
 
&quot;The FBI already determined unanimously that there is insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing,&quot; said Representative Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee. &quot;Republicans are now investigating the investigator in a desperate attempt to resuscitate this issue, keep it in the headlines, and distract from Donald Trump`s sagging poll numbers.&quot;&nbsp; 
 
(Reuters)&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

For over a year been, Clinton has been dogged by questions about her use of a private email account while she was the nation's top diplomat

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said on Tuesday it had turned over to the US Congress a number of documents related to its probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was the secretary of state. The Democratic presidential nominee has for over a year been dogged by questions about her use of a private email account while she was the nation's top diplomat. Republicans have repeatedly hammered Clinton over the issue, helping to drive opinion poll results showing that many US voters doubt her trustworthiness. The FBI said it had provided "relevant materials" to congressional committees looking into the matter. "The material contains classified and other sensitive information and is being provided with the expectation it will not be disseminated or disclosed without FBI concurrence," the agency said in a statement. The Clinton campaign criticised the delivery of the documents. "This is an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI," Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. "We believe that if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks." A spokeswoman for the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee said in an email that staff for the panel was reviewing the information classified as "secret." "There are no further details at this time," the aide said. Senate judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican, said in a statement that an initial review of the material showed most of it was marked unclassified, and urged the FBI to make as much of it public as possible. FBI Director James Comey told Congress last month that Clinton`s handling of classified information while using private email servers was "extremely careless." But he said he would not recommend criminal charges be brought against her. Comey's statement lifted a cloud of uncertainty from Clinton`s White House campaign. But his strong criticism of her judgment ignited a new attack on her by Republicans, including Donald Trump, her Republican opponent in the Nov. 8 election. `Not clear evidence' The Oversight committee, chaired by Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, had asked the FBI for the complete investigative file from its review of Clinton`s use of a private email server. The FBI has also provided documents from its investigation to the House Judiciary Committee, an aide said. Chaffetz and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, also a Republican, last month urged federal prosecutors to investigate whether Clinton had committed perjury. They said some FBI findings about her email servers were at odds with her previous testimony to Congress about the matter, for example, her statement she had not sent or received information designated as classified. But the FBI, in a letter sent to the committee on Tuesday, said the fact that the agency had uncovered three instances in which Clinton had received emails containing "(C)" markings, which denote "confidential" information, was "not clear evidence of knowledge or intent" to mishandle such material. The letter, which accompanied the FBI`s investigative documents, noted relevant emails had been forwarded to Clinton by staff, lacked "header and footer markings" indicating the presence of classified information, and only one email was later determined by the State Department to contain classified information. Clinton`s fellow Democrats were scornful that Republicans were refusing to let the matter drop. "The FBI already determined unanimously that there is insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing," said Representative Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight committee. "Republicans are now investigating the investigator in a desperate attempt to resuscitate this issue, keep it in the headlines, and distract from Donald Trump`s sagging poll numbers." (Reuters)

FBI submits Hillary Clinton's email notes to Congress

Pakistan&rsquo;s foreign affairs adviser Sartaj Aziz has said that the decision of a US Congressional panel to cut aid to the country is inspired by &#39;baseless concerns&#39; of &#39;a section of US lawmakers&#39;.&nbsp; 
 
Last week, a US Congressional panel met to hold discussions regarding foreign aid provided to Pakistan. Congressman Matthew Salmon, during the meet, gave opening statements against giving further aid to &lsquo;terrorism abetting&rsquo; Pakistan. &nbsp; 
 
Salmon further added that Pakistan was holding Dr Shakil Afridi in jail for helping the US capture and kill Osama Bin Laden in 2011 and that this kind of relation is not acceptable to the US.&nbsp; 
 
&ldquo;This country (Pakistan) poses challenges that has plagued the United States for decades,&rdquo; he added. 
 
Another Congressman, Bill Keating, argued during the meet held on July 12 that Pakistan supports the Taliban, Haqqani network and other terrorist organisations, and that &ldquo;these things undermine critical US national security interests.&rdquo; &nbsp; 
 
This discussion paved the way for some of the strongest remarks to come out of US Congress on Pakistan in recent years. Pertinently, earlier this year, the sale of F-16 fighter jets was blocked by the US government for fear of Pakistan misusing them for terrorism-related activities.&nbsp; 
 
The panel also proposed that Pakistan be added to a list of countries that are &lsquo;state sponsors of terrorism&rsquo;.&nbsp; 
 
It may be recalled, however, that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Barack Obama have previously vowed to work together to step up &#39;fight against terrorism&#39;.&nbsp; 
 
Also, Operation Zarb-e-Azb, carried out by the Pakistani military has so far killed more than 2,500 militants across 9,000 intelligence operations in various parts of Pakistan.&nbsp; 
 
Titled &#39;Pakistan: Friend or Foe&#39;, the discussion was mostly against further financial support of Pakistan due to the various terrorist havens that the Congress believes are untouched by the Pakistani military.&nbsp; 
 
What remains to be seen is if the US Congress would pass such a move in near future.&nbsp;

The US Congressional panel also suggested last week that Pakistan be added to a list of countries that are ?state sponsors of terrorism?

Pakistan’s foreign affairs adviser Sartaj Aziz has said that the decision of a US Congressional panel to cut aid to the country is inspired by 'baseless concerns' of 'a section of US lawmakers'. Last week, a US Congressional panel met to hold discussions regarding foreign aid provided to Pakistan. Congressman Matthew Salmon, during the meet, gave opening statements against giving further aid to ‘terrorism abetting’ Pakistan. Salmon further added that Pakistan was holding Dr Shakil Afridi in jail for helping the US capture and kill Osama Bin Laden in 2011 and that this kind of relation is not acceptable to the US. “This country (Pakistan) poses challenges that has plagued the United States for decades,” he added. Another Congressman, Bill Keating, argued during the meet held on July 12 that Pakistan supports the Taliban, Haqqani network and other terrorist organisations, and that “these things undermine critical US national security interests.” This discussion paved the way for some of the strongest remarks to come out of US Congress on Pakistan in recent years. Pertinently, earlier this year, the sale of F-16 fighter jets was blocked by the US government for fear of Pakistan misusing them for terrorism-related activities. The panel also proposed that Pakistan be added to a list of countries that are ‘state sponsors of terrorism’. It may be recalled, however, that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Barack Obama have previously vowed to work together to step up 'fight against terrorism'. Also, Operation Zarb-e-Azb, carried out by the Pakistani military has so far killed more than 2,500 militants across 9,000 intelligence operations in various parts of Pakistan. Titled 'Pakistan: Friend or Foe', the discussion was mostly against further financial support of Pakistan due to the various terrorist havens that the Congress believes are untouched by the Pakistani military. What remains to be seen is if the US Congress would pass such a move in near future.

US lawmakers' plan to cut aid for Pakistan inspired by baseless concerns: Aziz

Pakistan is considering buying used F-16 fighter jets from Jordan, media reported today, after a plan to buy eight of the aircraft from the United States fell through because of the refusal of the US Congress to finance the deal. 
 
Some of Pakistan&#39;s fleet of F-16 jets are due to be decommissioned in the next few years and the government says it needs the aircraft to fight Islamist militants in remote mountains near Afghanistan. 
 
The military also sees the aircraft as vital in case of war against old rival India. The nuclear-armed neighbours have fought three wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. 
 
&quot;We are now going for a third-party transfer of F-16s and have an offer from Jordan,&quot; defence secretary Alam Khattak told a joint sitting of the senate defence and foreign affairs committees on Monday, newspapers reported. 
 
An air force spokesman declined to say how many F-16s Pakistan has but the number of the aircraft in service is believed to be about 70. 
 
Jordan had offered to sell Pakistan 16 used F-16s of the Block-30 variant, an older version than the Block-52s that Pakistan would have obtained from the United States, the Dawn newspaper reported. 
 
The US deal, valued at $699 million, came unstuck after the US Congress refused to authorise the use of government funds to pay for the aircraft under the foreign military financing (FMF) programme. 
 
Members of the US Congress, led by Republican Chairman of the senate foreign relations committee Bob Corker, demanded that Pakistan stop harbouring militant groups like the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network, which are leading an insurgency against a US-backed government in Kabul. 
 
Pakistan says it is acting against the militants, citing military operations in lawless ethnic Pashtun lands that border Afghanistan. 
 
Pakistan says the F-16s, with their precision strike ability and night-flying capability, are essential for that fight. 
 
The difficulty over the F-16 deal was the latest sign of increasingly frayed ties between Pakistan and the United States. 
 
Last month, a US drone killed Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the then chief of the Afghan Taliban, on Pakistani soil. 
 
Pakistan condemned the strike as a violation of its sovereignty, and as not being conducive towards encouraging the Taliban to enter talks with the Afghan government. 
 
Pakistan has bought Jordanian F-16s before, procuring 13 of them in 2014, Dawn reported. The current batch on offer were manufactured between 1988 and 1990, and were upgraded in 2001/02, Dawn said.

You'll get the jets when you stop harbouring militant groups like the Afghan Taliban, said the US

Pakistan is considering buying used F-16 fighter jets from Jordan, media reported today, after a plan to buy eight of the aircraft from the United States fell through because of the refusal of the US Congress to finance the deal. Some of Pakistan's fleet of F-16 jets are due to be decommissioned in the next few years and the government says it needs the aircraft to fight Islamist militants in remote mountains near Afghanistan. The military also sees the aircraft as vital in case of war against old rival India. The nuclear-armed neighbours have fought three wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. "We are now going for a third-party transfer of F-16s and have an offer from Jordan," defence secretary Alam Khattak told a joint sitting of the senate defence and foreign affairs committees on Monday, newspapers reported. An air force spokesman declined to say how many F-16s Pakistan has but the number of the aircraft in service is believed to be about 70. Jordan had offered to sell Pakistan 16 used F-16s of the Block-30 variant, an older version than the Block-52s that Pakistan would have obtained from the United States, the Dawn newspaper reported. The US deal, valued at $699 million, came unstuck after the US Congress refused to authorise the use of government funds to pay for the aircraft under the foreign military financing (FMF) programme. Members of the US Congress, led by Republican Chairman of the senate foreign relations committee Bob Corker, demanded that Pakistan stop harbouring militant groups like the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network, which are leading an insurgency against a US-backed government in Kabul. Pakistan says it is acting against the militants, citing military operations in lawless ethnic Pashtun lands that border Afghanistan. Pakistan says the F-16s, with their precision strike ability and night-flying capability, are essential for that fight. The difficulty over the F-16 deal was the latest sign of increasingly frayed ties between Pakistan and the United States. Last month, a US drone killed Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the then chief of the Afghan Taliban, on Pakistani soil. Pakistan condemned the strike as a violation of its sovereignty, and as not being conducive towards encouraging the Taliban to enter talks with the Afghan government. Pakistan has bought Jordanian F-16s before, procuring 13 of them in 2014, Dawn reported. The current batch on offer were manufactured between 1988 and 1990, and were upgraded in 2001/02, Dawn said.

After America says no, Pakistan mulls buying used F-16s from Jordan

us-congress

Us Congress, News on Us Congress, stories on Us Congress, articles on Us Congress, Us Congress stories at Wion, Us Congress news, Us Congress latest news

us congress

US House votes to condemn UN resolution against Israel's settlements

Obama will veto bill allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia: White House

FBI submits Hillary Clinton's email notes to Congress

US lawmakers' plan to cut aid for Pakistan inspired by baseless concerns: Aziz

After America says no, Pakistan mulls buying used F-16s from Jordan