IMRA: How much of a majority is required for a new member to be accepted into the kibbutz?
Barkai: Under our bylaws a regular majority is required for accepting a new member. A special two thirds majority is required for decisions that affect the way of life on the kibbutz. In fact, for matters of principle that affect the way of life on the kibbutz a 75% majority is required.
IMRA: For example, the decision to have the children sleep at home?
Barkai: Yes. And if there would be a proposal to switch over to differential pay it would also require at least a 75% majority.
| February 24, 2000 |
Thank you for sharing your concerns and opinions with me regarding the presence of American troops on the Golan Heights. I appreciate the further information provided by your organization in this matter.
I support the positive and cooperative relationship between Israel and the United States. However, I have concerns about the U.S. military as a "peacekeeping force" in this region. I question the peaceful intent of the current resolution between Israel and Syria, as well as the justification for putting U.S. military personnel in the middle of this volatile situation. Our American troops are already overextended, and the cost of such involvement would further drain our limited defense budget.
Thank you again for the time and insights
expressed by Americans For a Safe Israel. I look
forward to hearing from you in the future.
|
With best regards, Sincerely, Randy "Duke" Cunningham Member of Congress |
| February 8, 2000 |
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to United States involvement in a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. I agree with your concerns that the United States would not only sacrifice hard-earned American tax dollars, but also could potentially sacrifice our American troops. (...)
In the President's proposal, the U.S. would foot the bill for establishing a security zone in the Golan Heights, relocating more than 10,000 Israeli settlers and providing economic aid to Syria. Additionally, the United States would have to contribute to a sizable international peacekeeping force. Personally, I believe it is absolutely unacceptable to send American tax dollars and American troops to the Middle East, particularly when the U.S. is faced with problems at home and an already overextended military. It's not the role of the President of the United States to act as Chief negotiator in the Middle East peace talks, nor is it in the best interest of Americans to send U.S. troops to the Middle East to promote peace.
Thank you for bringing your thoughts on this issue to my attention.
|
Sincerely, Bob Stump Member of Congress |
Outpost - 8 - March 2000