Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Obama's got the UN's back

President Obama promised that he has Israel's back, but the truth is that it's the United Nations that he's defending. Anne Bayefsky reviews some of the absurdities coming out of the White House in light of the appointment of the 'fact-finding' mission on Israeli 'settlements.'
So where was the Obama administration? Its UN Geneva Ambassador Eileen Donahoe ducked out, and a political counselor and a first secretary were sent in to cast and explain America’s vote against the slew of new anti-Israel resolutions.

Team Obama decided to use this moment to criticize Israel – “we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” – and to reinforce the Council’s bona fides by depicting Americans as a member of a like-minded club. “As members of the Human Rights Council, we all share a responsibility to promote and protect human rights.”

Everyone listening understood the code language. President Obama cares more about propping up the credibility of the Council than he does about protecting Israel from UN-driven harm.

In case anyone missed it, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked at a Friday briefing: “the council keeps doing these things that you say are unwise and biased and one-sided. Why are you a member?” Her response: “the Human Rights Council…generally provides a good moral bellwether.”

Billions of real human rights victims the world over would beg to disagree, as would the Jewish minority now learning the back of the bus is an acceptable value to an American president.

To be clear, Nuland was not speaking out of turn. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a Congressional sub-committee on March 20: “Let me start by underscoring the importance of the United Nations to…upholding the universal values we hold dear.” She then argued for a reversal of Congressional restrictions on funding UNESCO despite the organization circumventing a negotiated solution and embracing Palestine the state.
And by the way, I don't know whether the mission's itinerary (which is going to cost the US about $60,000) was set before or after Israel announced that it would not cooperate, but one cannot help but wonder how the mission could 'investigate' what's going on in Judea and Samaria solely by going to Geneva, Cairo and Lebanon.

What could go wrong?

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , , , ,


At 8:56 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

In his Rosh Hashanah message in 2010, President Obama only once referred to "Jews"; made no reference at all to "Judaism'; promoted the creation of a Palestinian state; and never mentioned the monumental contributions Jews had made to the United States.

By contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to "Muslims" six times and to "Islam" twice; he stated that “American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country”; and he praised “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings … a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.” Moreover, the President made no reference to what Muslims might need to do differently in order to achieve peace with Israel.

As i said before, i wouldn't believe him if he said the Sun will rise tomorrow.

At 10:42 PM, Blogger Max Coutinho said...

Hi Carl,

"Team Obama decided to use this moment to criticize Israel – “we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” –"

You mean to say that the Obama team decided to repeat the mantra "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." (New Beginning Speech, Cairo; June 4 2009).

I presently have no respect for the UNRHC since they had the nerve to want to host a Hamas official, in Geneva, on the same day 3 Jewish children and a Rabbi were killed in Toulouse (Israel had to present her arguments first and then the UNRHC cancelled the visit: where's the courtesy, diplomacy and good sense?).

Another thing, the US (not only President Obama's administration but other administrations as well) needs to stop delegitimising Israel with its wording and concepts: "occupation" instead of "disputed territories"; and "settlement building" when it knows very well why settlements are being built. Making use of such expressions to pander the Arabs should no longer be acceptable...and there is where the Jewish Right Wing must step in and work the scene.



Post a Comment

<< Home