Obama administration's puzzling vote in the Security Council

For more than a half century the United States has steadfastly supported Israel in the U.N. Security Council. Repeatedly for over 60 years that body has attempted to pass resolutions condemning Israel for a variety of charges. For over 60 years the United States has stood by Israel with its veto.

That all changed Friday. For reasons no one can completely understand, the United States abstained in the vote for a resolution that condemned Israel for its settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The resolution easily passed with a vote of 14 to 0, and rescinding the the resolution will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, with Russia and China ready to veto any such proposal.

In other words, the damage is done and it can't be undone. Why? The Obama administration's attempts to explain itself are weak, if not outright misrepresentations of the truth. The American United Nations ambassador Samantha Powers said, "The settlement problem has gotten so much worse. Our vote today does not diminish the country’s steadfast commitment to Israel." Well, yes, it certainly does. Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said the continued expansion of Israeli settlements gave the U.S. little choice. Well, yes, we did have a choice. We could have supported Israel just as we have done for the past half century.

SecState John Kerry made it only worse today with his lame excuses for the vote. Many Democrats urged him not to speak. He did anyway and said that the American vote in the United Nations last week was driven by an effort to save Israel from “the most extreme elements” in its own government. Put another way, Kerry said the United States had the utterly pretentious motive for said vote insisting it had to protect Israel from itself. That is absurd.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has insisted that the West Bank is historically Jewish land, and Israel has been planting settlements there since the Six-Day War in 1967. Although the U.S. is not particularly happy with the settlements because they are a roadblock to a permanent solution, the U.S. has supported the settlements and Israel in the U.N. for fifty years. Kerry spoke with clear frustration about Mr. Netanyahu’s continued support of settlements “strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible.” In other words, with 20 plus days left as SecState, Kerry suddenly decides to make the settlements an issue after nearly fifty years of accepting the Jewish building habits. That is equally absurd.

Kerry said at one point, "In fact, this administration has been Israel's greatest friend and supporter." Oh, really, that is one hell of a way to show it.

The animosity between Obama and Netanyahu began during the 2008 election. The two had very different views regarding Iran and the Israeli prime minister made it no secret that he wanted McCain to win. In addition, Netanyahu bitterly fought the Iranian nuclear deal and had a few choice words when it became a reality. Throughout Obama's Presidency the animosity grew and festered. Perhaps this is Obama's version of a last parting shot. No other explanation seems plausible. Pretty stupid, really. Instead of attention on Trump's questionable choices for advisors, his incessant childish tweets, his self-serving dismantling of the Trump Foundation with tragic results for terminally ill kids, the media attention is on the U.S. abandonment of an extremely important ally.

I invite readers to provide a better explanation for Obama's behavior in this matter. I would dearly love to know.

 

Sigh. This IS the Barack Obama that the Right has been telling the Left about from day one and this is based on his background; the background that his supporters ignored. Instead of shrieking that all his critics were racist simply because Political Correctness allowed them to get away with it they should have been LISTENING instead. Barack Obama was mentored by a host of radical nation-haters and he's one as well.

We now return leftists to their regularly scheduled WORSHIP of Barack Obama and to their current bafflement. Seriously, this was just Obama being the real Obama rather than the person that his supporters have fantasized about for the last eight years.

 

Photo-shopped ?



The real Image ?




Where does the TRUTH start and the Lies end ????????

 

It's not the first time the US has abstained from anti-Israel resolutions, but the US basically stabbed Israel in the back on this one.

 

Remember, this is the idiot that calls Spain "Andalusia" in his memoirs.

 

President Obama has always seemed to be more worried about what happens to those in Syria or Iran or the West Bank than he does about what happens to those in the United States or Israel. So this is merely the logical extension of his mode of operation. The question of how much damage Obama can do between November 8th and January 20th is in the process of being answered...

Yes. This one is bad. Very, very bad.

 

Well, that is one explanation, I suppose. I was hoping for something a little less provocative.

 

I disagree with you. It is the first time. Can you substantiate what you said?

 

Do try to stay on topic.

 

I don't think it is a matter of Obama being concerned about the peoples living in Syria, Iran, and the West Bank. It was more a matter of his attempting to negotiate with the leaders of these regions to bring about peace without using America's vast military. Remember, he inherited two wars, one of which he considered a serious mistake, Iraq. He preferred not making that mistake on his watch.

That said, he failed miserably for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that being a community organizer and a half-term Senator did not prepare him for such negotiations. Moreover, he had a pie-in-the-sky approach to some pretty hefty problems and severely underestimated his adversaries. Indeed, his attempts to reach out to his adversaries like the ruling elite in Iran was regarded by that elite as a sign of weakness. The same could be said for Putin. He forsook the speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick approach and it cost him dearly. Justifiably, he is regarded by friend and foe alike as a weak President.

No where is that more true than his relationship with Netanyahu. Perhaps, he is finally recognizing his own weaknesses and he is lashing out not only at Netanyahu but Russia and Putin as well. His moronic comment that he would have beaten Trump in a hypothetical election is a manifestation of he finally recognizing his own weaknesses. That, the S.C. vote, and sanctions against Russia for interfering in our elections are the vain attempts of a weak President trying to leave some kind of a legacy knowing that his successor is likely to undo much of what he accomplished.

 

After eight straight years of leftists in general calling any and all critics of Barack Obama racist, you expected something a little less provocative? I expected leftists to wise up about Barack Obama prior to this event. I guess that neither of us got what we hoped for.

 

Just answer these:
Is peace between Israel and Palestinians the goal, or is elimination of Palestinians the goal?

If your answer is "elimination of Palestinians is the goal" then welcome to racist tyranny (according to anti-Zionist Jews in Israel) and don't bother reading any further.

If your answer is "peace between Israel and Palestinians is the goal" then tell me whether peace is more likely if Palestinians were to have an autonomous Palestinian state to build and thrive in, or whether peace is more likely if Israel continues to build illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and to continue their practice of oppressing Palestinians with a "one state solution".

 

Oh, I'm on topic. Obama, by referring to Spain by it's name when it was Dar al-Islam is very telling. This is the same mindset that views Israel and Syria as the Levant. Obama the knucklehead soon to be departing always makes it a point to refer to ISIS as ISIL

 

Peace is most likely at the moment with Arab emirates where the tribal leaders of each area control the area. This is often what happens in the West Bank anyways. Once there is peace most Israeli would support a Palestinian state. There is no country in the world which would give up its center to a group of people whose sole reason for existing according to their own leaders and founding documents was the destruction of another nation. PLO

There is no Palestinian territory. Could you tell me a legal border with a legal document showing how? nor illegal. Even an occupation is not illegal most settlements are not illegal. Only those build on private Arab land are.
Green line is the armistice line not a legal border. Read the UN documents.

 

Most of the nations of the world recognize Palestinians as a people and recognize the State of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Get used to this cause its not going to change.

 

You got that right. As far as Presidents go, it has been a rough ride since 2000. That rough ride will likely continue for another four years.

Sure hope I'm wrong about that.

 

So you support a world where narrative is more important than facts. Majority opinion is more important that anything else. Sad world

Most of the nations of the world oppress their own people. The reason why nations exist and why Israel was created was to defend itself.

My point is not that I am against two states but the legal case is on Israels side and noone seems to be able to refute that accept screaming Geneva Convention again and again.

Even Rabin said he did not support a palestinian state, nor splitting Jerusalem, Jordan Valley or Gush.
The plan as during the Mandate was local civil autonomy.

 

The Mandate guarunteed full civil rights for all citizens of Palestine, regardless of ethnicity.

get used to it.

 

The answer is a two-state solution, but after that it gets complicated. When Israel gave up the Sinai and withdrew all settlements in the Gaza Strip, those were attempts to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table to work out a two-state solution. Trouble is, as far Gaza is concerned, the Israelis were rewarded with rockets into Israel from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Israelis remember that and there are serious doubts the Palestinians want a two-state solution. They want Israel to disappear. Also, it can be argued the West Bank is Jewish land acquired in the Six-Day War when Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel. Jewish roots on the West Bank goes back to biblical times.

So, like I said, it gets complicated.

 

There is genocide going on all over the world ... children are being burned alive in Syria, massive butcherings in Africa, etc. And the U.N. spends 60% of its time passing resolutions against a tiny nation (the world's only Jewish state) for building apartment buildings.

 

I love how little Israel always plays the victim.

even though Iran, Iraq and North Korea have faced very strong economic sanctions by the UN, and the UN approved military force against Iraq.

but its Israel who is being picked on.

LOL!!!!

 

Yes it is clearly different from the other Mandates that it doesnt grant voting rights but gives them autonomy.
It is the only Mandate with different language implying no national rights for the local population unlike the other ones.
so it didnt grant full rights.

 

the right to vote is included in civil rights.

if you think the Mandate meant to strip Arabs living in the Jewish state of the right to vote, you MUST be joking.

 

Why not move Israel out of the middle of all their enemies?
That would make the most sense.