The whole world will be against Israel. Doesn't the UN qualify as the whole world?
Posted on 12/27/2016 5:12:09 AM PST by SJackson
.
UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was passed on Friday and focuses on Israeli settlement activity, is even worse than its critics—who include Democratic lawmakers and the staunchly left-wing Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis (here and here)—have made it out to be.
The resolution—whose passage was made possible by the U.S. abstention ordered by President Obama from Hawaii—is not just shameful, unfair, unbalanced, or destructive. It’s barbaric.
Only in one clause—which is in the preamble, which has less force than the body of the text—does the resolution explicitly call on Palestinians to do anything. The preamble calls on “the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities.”
In contrast, five full clauses in the body of the text portray Israel as a rogue state engaged in endemic criminality.
These clauses call “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem…a flagrant violation under international law” and demand “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”
But if even “East Jerusalem” is off limits to Israeli Jews, then—as pointed out by Alan Dershowitz, who was for years a center-left supporter of Obama:
Under this resolution, the access roads that opened up Hebrew University to Jewish and Arab students and the Hadassah Hospital to Jewish and Arab patients are illegal, as are all the rebuilt synagogues—destroyed by Jordan—in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City.
And even as the diplomatic Chanukah greetings keep rolling in, “illegal,” too, are the Chanukah candle-lighting ceremonies at the Western Wall—another “East Jerusalem” site that Israel has extensively refurbished.
Then comes the “balance.” The sixth clause “Calls…to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror…and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism.”
Terrorism and acts of violence by whom? It doesn’t say. The only reasonable inference is that both sides engage in violence and terror.
In reality, Israel’s security forces report that in 2016 they thwarted 180 Palestinian shooting attacks in the West Bank alone.
The resolution’s seventh clause is more explicit; it “Calls upon both parties…to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.”
To sum up, then, five clauses excoriate Israel as a usurper and land thief; one clause calls for an end to terror without naming anyone as responsible for it, indicating that both sides must be; one clause calls on “both parties” to put an end to incitement.
The resolution, in other words, goes far beyond the longstanding practice of drawing moral equivalence between Palestinian terror and Israeli “settlements.” Apart from one allusion in the preamble, it gingerly sidesteps the issue of Palestinian terror and incitement to terror. It seems not to want to offend the Palestinians. It openly delivers, however, a broadside against Israel for building homes, hospitals, synagogues, schools, and so on in land that the resolution wants to be Judenrein.
Nowhere does the resolution mention that, according to international documents to which the United States is a signatory—including UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo accords—the land in question is designated as disputed land subject to final-status negotiations.
According to the resolution, there would be nothing to negotiate about. It’s all “occupied Palestinian territory”—including Judaism’s most sacred sites.
Such a resolution should have been far below the moral standards of a U.S. administration ostensibly concerned about “peace” and a “solution.” As Dershowitz notes in the same article, “under Security Council rules [an abstention] has the same effect as a vote in favor.” In reality, the Obama administration voted in favor of a barbaric resolution that pussyfoots around terror but assaults Judaism itself by making Jews usurpers even in the heart of Jerusalem.
The resolution should also have been morally repugnant to the other full-fledged democracies that are members of the Security Council—Britain, France, Japan, New Zealand, and Spain.
Instead, New Zealand—after Egypt rescinded its sponsorship—filled in by becoming one of the resolution’s sponsors. The other democracies all joined New Zealand in voting in favor, and when the resolution passed, the chamber erupted in applause.
For Israelis it was a chilling moment. As Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon put it:
We have excellent relations with all these countries—economic, diplomatic, and security ties—but at the moment of truth, not one representative from those countries went along with us, and in the end they even applauded. Watching [the vote] on TV, I couldn’t believe my eyes.
Psychohistorians of the future will have to grapple with the question of how the idea of Israeli “settlements,” even in the democratic world, came to be associated with evil equivalent to—or greater than—terrorism.
Meanwhile Barak Ravid, diplomatic correspondent of Haaretz, reports:
Israel fears that the United States and France want to advance another move on the Israeli-Palestinian issue before the Obama administration wraps up its term.
A senior official in Jerusalem said that during Sunday’s security cabinet meeting, ministers were presented with an assessment that during the international foreign ministers’ meeting scheduled for January 15 in Paris as part of the French peace initiative, a series of decisions on the peace process will be made. These will immediately be brought to the UN Security Council for a vote and will be adopted there before January 20.
… Representatives of the Foreign Ministry, the National Security Council and others who attended the security cabinet meeting presented information indicating that the trend in talks between France, the U.S. and other countries in preparation for the foreign ministers’ meeting tended toward advancing such a move.
If such a Security Council resolution goes through, it will not be favorable to Israel. It’s fully expected that it will dictate terms for a “final settlement” that return Israel to the narrow, fragile, porous 1949 armistice lines—or something very similar to them—that invited the 1967 Six Day War in the first place.
All decent Americans should be repelled by President Obama’s exploitation of the final weeks of his presidency to wage a vindictive war against a democratic ally.
Withdrawal from the UN would fix the entire situation.
Can he be ousted pre-1/20/17?
For the health of the planet?
I never voted for the slug either time, as far as where Israel’s borders should be. Instead of being a little finger nail clipping over there, there are still all the old corners that they own that HE gave them. HE will soon make sure that what HE gave them IS GOING TO BE THEIRS and there is nothing the UN or The Idiot can do anything about it. A reckoning is coming.
A reckoning is coming..............
The UN is nothing more than an attack on U.S. sovereignty. Those who support the UN hate American freedom, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Meanwhile....US out of the UN, UN out of the US!
Anti-semetism rising in NZ for some reason.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841595
Has nothing to do with pleasing a foreign state. It has to do with standing up for what is right. The lefty barnyard bullies have ganged up on the only Democratic country in that part of the world. We must stand with Israel or we are no better than the Commies who infest the UN. Many of the current flea infested dogs in the UN will soon be replaced. Elections are coming.
The whole world will be against Israel. Doesn't the UN qualify as the whole world?
About August of 2008 for me....
And the vast majority of Jew’s still voted for Obama. Twice.
Send the UN to Babylon. It’s now ready for “peaceful” dissidents...or are they freedom fighters now?
Never had any bullies in your life I see.
You better hope that isn't true, kid.
Before the end of next year, and Trump will be blamed for it even though Obama has set the chess pieces up
obama cannot do squat. He is just stirring the pot. He has been a troublemaker for a long time but he is irrelevant now.
Wouldn’t the Jewish settlers be considered “migrants”, and would therefore be allowed to go and put down roots anywhere they choose?
Or does that only apply to Muslims?
What difference would it make to him?
A senior official in Jerusalem said that during Sunday’s security cabinet meeting, ministers were presented with an assessment that during the international foreign ministers’ meeting scheduled for January 15 in Paris as part of the French peace initiative, a series of decisions on the peace process will be made. These will immediately be brought to the UN Security Council for a vote and will be adopted there before January 20.
Representatives of the Foreign Ministry, the National Security Council and others who attended the security cabinet meeting presented information indicating that the trend in talks between France, the U.S. and other countries in preparation for the foreign ministers’ meeting tended toward advancing such a move.
If such a Security Council resolution goes through, it will not be favorable to Israel. It’s fully expected that it will dictate terms for a “final settlement” that return Israel to the narrow, fragile, porous 1949 armistice lines—or something very similar to them—that invited the 1967 Six Day War in the first place.
I heard about this business about a follow-up anti-Israel UN resolution coming up before Obama leaves office on Aaron Klein's radio show Sunday night, and posted it on the Caroline Glick thread on FR yesterday.
Unfortunately, the French are reputed to be partnering with the Obama Administration in this axis of evil. The French regime too is leftist under the socialist Hollande. They tend to pander politically to their ever-increasing Arab Muslim demographic. I am under the impression that the French have a national election coming up in which they have an opportunity to move away from this leftist pro-Arab immigrant mentality. When is that French national election supposed to take place?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.