Powered by WebAds

Saturday, January 10, 2009

US abstention a warning to Israel?

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the US abstention - in lieu of a veto - on Thursday night is a warning to Israel.
"The fact that the US didn't veto is a victory, of sorts," said Warren Hoge, a former New York Times UN bureau chief who now works at the International Peace Institute, a think-tank that conducts research on UN affairs and conflict resolution.

The US vetoed an earlier Security Council statement, proposed by Libya, condemning the outbreak of violence in Gaza, objecting to the "unbalanced" equation of Hamas shelling with the Israeli military operation. But Rice arrived in New York apparently committed to seeing through a Security Council measure, despite repeated Israeli insistence that it would not accept any resolution as binding.

"That's the most [the US has] ever done on a resolution the Israelis opposed, which I see as a sign that Israel may have gone too far," said Thomas Weiss, co-director of the UN Intellectual History project and a professor of political science at the City University of New York.

"If you're reading tea leaves, if I were an Israeli diplomat I'd be worried," Weiss told the Post.
I'm worried alright, but not because of this particular vote. In fact, according to London's Weekly Standard, the administration was divided over it (Hat Tip: Hot Air).
A well informed source tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Vice President Cheney had urged a veto of the resolution, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argued the United States should support the resolution. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley suggested a compromise -- abstention -- that was ultimately supported by the President.
London's Daily Independent gives a similar and more detailed account, albeit without the detail about Cheney.

Was it a warning to Israel? I don't think so. Not because there's nothing wrong with the resolution. There's plenty wrong with it. But the Bush administration is on its way out and Condi Clueless won't be Secretary of State in another ten days. This is likely her parting shot at Israel and it's possible that there's a bit of vengeance for the failure of Annapolis and her own non-existent legacy in allowing the resolution to pass.

The bigger issue is what the incoming Obama administration will do. What would have happened if Hillary Clinton were sitting there? That's a real concern.


At 6:21 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 6:22 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Does Israel really care what the Condi The Clueless thinks? She will be out of office in a few days and Israel will still have to figure out to defeat Hamas.

At 8:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is indeed a warning to Israel, one we have received so many times in recent history:

ג אַל-תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים-- בְּבֶן-אָדָם, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְשׁוּעָה.

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

ד תֵּצֵא רוּחוֹ, יָשֻׁב לְאַדְמָתוֹ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, אָבְדוּ עֶשְׁתֹּנֹתָיו.

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his dust; in that very day his thoughts perish.

ה אַשְׁרֵי--שֶׁאֵל יַעֲקֹב בְּעֶזְרוֹ: שִׂבְרוֹ, עַל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו.

Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God....

- Tehimim (Psalms) 146:3-5

At 6:51 PM, Blogger Kajames said...

Condi's action is really alarming. African americans have a tendency to lean on the otherside.


Post a Comment

<< Home