Obama’s UN betrayal of Israel is only the tip of the iceberg
President Obama's been exercising a scorched earth policy as he retreats to the public sector. Not just the U.N. vote, but he also banned oil exploration in the Atlantic and Alaskan waters.
U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday banned new oil and gas drilling in federal waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, in a push to leave his stamp on the environment before Republican Donald Trump takes office next month. - Fortune
It is the recent U.N. vote abstention – which has hurt Israel – that has produced the most shock. Unlike Obama's federal shenanigans, which can be undone when Trump comes into power, the damage in the U.N. may be irreversible. Russia and China would surely veto any recision of the resolution.
On Thursday, after Trump and Netanyahu persuaded the Egyptians to shelve their proposal, and had won what turned out to only be a temporary victory, many, including myself, assumed that the crisis was averted. Nor was I the only one.
A Tweet From Trump and Pressure on Egyptians: How Israel Blocked UN Vote on Settlements - Haaretz
After the Israeli victory, one has to assume that many frenzied calls were made from a Hawaiian golf course to revitalize the project. New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal re-introduced the resolution.
So who are the members of the Security Council that voted for this?
With the first (5) being the permanent members with veto power, they are:
Six of those nations are clearly aligned with the West. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, and a quid pro quo could have been communicated to her. Egypt depends on Western subsidies. A bit of backroom dealing should have easily sunk this resolution.
Yet the vote was 14-0-1.
What were France, the U.K., Japan, and Spain thinking?
What possessed New Zealand to reintroduce the resolution?
The problem here is much deeper than Obama. The West has collapsed on this issue. Totally collapsed. France's left is expecting a drubbing soon. Maybe Hollande wanted to cut a swath of destruction, as Obama is doing. But the Conservatives rule Britain now. What were they thinking? New Zealand is run by a center-right coalition, and they spearheaded this folly.
Anyone familiar with U.S. history knows that in 1947, the State Department worked against Truman's recognition of Israel, at one point going so far as to vote opposite to his wishes in the United Nations. Even at that early date, the sludge at the Foggy Bottom swamp was well established. The bureaucrats answer to no one but themselves.
During the Six Day War, Israel fought against the Arab Nations and the State Department. -- Old Joke
The State Department has a long history of this, and not just concerning Israeli issues. We have to assume that these are the same people in charge of Spain, France, the U.K., New Zealand, and Japan. These are the globalists. Nor are they embedded only in Washington.
The West, particularly the entrenched bureaucratic elite, has abandoned Israel, except for the USA, whose vote is not always reliable.
As furious as one may be at Obama, the American vote was the least anti-Israeli of the lot. Nor was its vote the only critical vote. France or Britain could have vetoed the resolution. They are no less culpable.
One also has to assume that Britain and France were not called by Trump. I suspect that Trump could have persuaded one of those two nations' leaders – or if not their leaders, who knows? A few well placed phone calls to Marine Le Pen or Nicolas Sarkozy might have worked wonders.
Nor is Israel totally blameless on this. France's former right-wing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is part-Jewish and still detested Netanyahu.
Journalists covering last week's economic summit overheard French President Nicolas Sarkozy blasting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "liar" during a talk with U.S. President Barack Obama - CNN
Israel is not projecting its point of view well.
If Israel wants to continue to build "settlements" – and I have no problem with that – then Israel has to offer a different vision other than the two-state solution, which the "settlements," undercut. And no amount of saying "settlements are not an obstacle" will fly anymore. Where is Israel's vision?
Certainly Muslim insanity is the biggest obstacle to peace. However, even though "settlements" may not be an obstacle to peace, they are an obstacle to any realistic two-state solution. The "settlements" were intended to be an obstacle.
My many talks with Ariel Sharon -- and my work with Ariel Sharon -- there was a clear understanding, a very clear planning, of spreading the Jewish communities in the way that there will be no option for a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria - Daniella Weiss, prominent Israeli "settler" leader, on Australia's Channel 4
I have no problem with Mrs. Weiss's viewpoint. But if that is what is driving Israel policy, then Israel should admit it, rather than saying the communities are not an obstacle and coming across as dishonest.
Many conservatives would be fine with Israel saying "No!" to a Palestinian state if Israel would only stop with the charade of saying Israel wants a two-state solution. Israel ends up looking as dishonest as the Muslim Arabs. Israel has to finally declare that it will not accept a two-state solution and present a viable alternative. In other words, Israel has to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth. This is Israel's fault, and that cannot be denied.
A classic example of this is Israel's housing policies. Israel wants to evict Jews, which is sheer lunacy. Why? I suspect in order to sustain a precedent to allow Israel to evict Arabs from contested residencies in the eastern side of Jerusalem.
The honest solution is to place a moratorium on all such evictions, no matter which side, retroactively give permits to all, demand payment of taxes, and assert total sovereignty over all areas. But Israel won't make such a declaration of sovereignty. Why? This is weaseling.
This is what is disaffecting some of the West, not just anti-Semitism.
What the West should be doing is telling Israel, if the two-state solution is not acceptable, then what alternative does Israel suggest?
Alternatives could be a one-state solution, with enfranchisement offered to the Judean/Samarian Arabs, as Caroline Glick suggests. If enfranchised Muslims scares Israel too much, then Martin Sherman suggests a buyout and relocation. Others suggest a forced removal, though that would be ethnic cleansing.
- I blame the West, not just Obama, for abandoning Israel.
- I blame the West for insisting on the two-state solution as the only option and pressuring Israel to accept it.
- I blame Israel for not offering that alternative vision. Israel tends to delay too much, in the hope that the no one will notice, and the problem will disappear.
- I blame Israel for using weasel words, pretending to abide by a two-state solution, when clearly Israel works against it. (Note: I do not blame Israel for working against a two-state solution, but only for not admitting it.)
As for the Muslims: One does not blame a lunatic for being crazy. It is futile to reason with them. It was the West that failed this time, not just Obama.
And if Israel wants to build more Jewish communities, then go ahead. Just stop any façade about working within the Oslo two-state framework, and offer an alternative.
In plain terms, if Israel wants Judea and Samaria, then annex them, not just area C. Disband the P.A., and present options that are acceptable to the West. Stop waffling.
The problem is more than Obama.
Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago.