Israel Matzav

Calling the UN's double standards

Following Friday's vote in the UN Security Council, the Emergency Committee for Israel issued a statement calling on the Obama administration to 'encourage' the UN to deal with more urgent matters than Israeli housing construction.

President Obama has claimed that greater American engagement with the UN can make it a useful organization. Yet so far, engagement has provided almost nothing in the way of serious change. The events of this week give President Obama an opportunity to demand that the UN address real problems, not fashionable obsessions. So, in addition to vetoing the anti-Israel resolution in the Security Council, why shouldn’t the Obama administration convene the Security Council to deal with a genuine and urgent problem – the murder of protesters by dictatorial regimes in the Middle East? And if that’s impossible, why are we paying any attention, and offering any support, to the UN at all?

Good question, but don't expect the Obama administration to ask or answer it. After all, Hillary Clinton told ABC's Christiane Amanpour on Friday in an interview to be aired later Sunday

I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians.

If the Obama administration's 'continuing goal' and 'highest priority' is a 'two-state solution,' why would it call for the the murder of a few protesters in Arab autocracies to take priority at the UN?

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, UN Security Council, US veto

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:55 PM