Obama's quagmire: Israel and the U.N.

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference at the White House in Washington, DC, February 15, 2011.

/ JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

UNITED NATIONS - The U.S. was the sole veto of a U.N. Security Council Resolution, condemning Israel's settlement activities in the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem - a Resolution calling the settlements illegal and a major obstacle to peace. The vote of at the U.N. was 14 - 1 with the U.S. exercising its first veto since President Obama came to office -- and the only negative vote at the Security Council - after President Obama failed to win over the Arab nations and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to pass a diluted Presidential statement, which has no enforcement authority, contrasting a U.N. Resolution.

The backdrop was the revolutionary change in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Negotiations were so tense at the U.N. Security Council on Friday to consider the draft Resolution that the meeting started one full hour late. There has been days of backroom negotiating and talks at the highest levels. President Obama tried to stave off the vote, personally calling Abbas, to no avail.

The statement, which the U.S. was proposing, would have said that the Council, including the U.S., does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity - a weaker statement but widely criticized by both Democrats & Republicans in advance of the vote.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said that the U.S., regrettably, had to veto the Resolution. With the breakdown of peace talks several months ago, the Palestinian Authority has sought to unilaterally garner support at the U.N. for a declaration of a Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders, a move opposed by both the U.S. and Israel.

Abbas made it clear in a statement issued by his office, that he would rather have the U.S. veto the Resolution, drawing the U.S. into the uncomfortable position of standing alone against the entire Council, including Britain: "There is no change in the Palestinian and Arab position about the proposal presented to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement on Palestinian land."

And, in the end, the U.S. stood alone.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Ambassador of the U.K. to the U.N., delivered his statement on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, saying that all three countries are seriously concerned about the current stalemate in talks: "We each voted in favor of the draft Security Council Resolution because our views on settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are clear: they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and constitute a threat to a two-state solution. All settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, should cease immediately."

Although Obama's Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, vetoed the Resolution, she made very clear that the Obama administration was distressed about its minority position on the Council, about vetoing a Resolution sponsored by 123 nations, and about the settlement activity, saying, "Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. . .Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace."

The U.S. position - clearly upset with Israel and made to underscore the point -- was stated in the final explanation of the vote by Ambassador Rice, "While we agree with our fellow Council members--and indeed, with the wider world--about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution."

But even before the statement by the U.S. at the Council, the new Chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla) had criticized the earlier proposal for a watered-down statement, saying: "Support for this anti-Israel statement is a major concession to enemies of the Jewish State and other free democracies," and added, "Offering to criticize our closest ally at the U.N. isn't leadership, it's unacceptable."

With Israel inhabiting a dangerous new neighborhood, and uncertainty in the region, particularly with regard to a future Egypt's commitment to the Camp David accords, negotiations of the Quartet (the U.S., Russia, E.U and U.N.) are going to be watched closely, as is the Obama administration's relationship with Israel.

[Ambroise555]

Imagine in the current time if France would want to create its own state in Michigan and separate it from the U.S. French are a minority in Michigan so democratic vote on the separation would not work because they would be outvoted by the rest of the Americans living in Michigan. So imagine if they had a historic opportunity when the U.S. is at its weakest and militarily occupy a part of Michigan and impose a regime where only French can vote and all the others who lived there cannot. Furthermore, the occupiers rename the occupied part of Michigan as the "French State" where not only that Americans are not welcome, but they are systematically expelled over time creating huge refugee camps in nearby states of Indiana and Ohio. Imagine then that at that point in history the artificial organization called the United Nations is full of French supporters and somehow that makes the occupation "legal" and Americans who fight for their homes in the occupied part of Michigan are labeled as terrorists. The occupation is a part of a careful log-term plan (i.e. Zionism) of acquiring land by French, so literally days after the occupation is implemented (what a coordinated plan!) the occupiers import millions of other French from all over the world to increase their population in Michigan from around 100,000 to over 5 Million in a short period. Then Americans resist and fight to regain the occupied part of Michigan, but Russia steps in, sends weapons, cash, and everything else the occupiers need to sustain the occupation.

What do you think all of us Americans would feel? We would hate French first, and then all of their supporters (Russia in this analogy) that make the occupation of our land possible. Still questioning yourself why people in the Middle East and other parts of the world do not like us? Because our Zionist controlled government, not the people, supported the very exact scenario as described above against our will and with our tax money making us accomplices in this unspeakable crime. The scenario that would outrage all of us Americans and make us fight against it if it happened in Michigan or anywhere else in the U.S.

This comment is not intended to make derogatory remarks about France and Russia. It is merely used as an example of how Americans would be outraged and fight back in the same situation as the forced establishment of the Zionist regime and its occupation of Palestine.

Urge your state representatives and senators to immediately stop any remaining support for the Zionist regime. Much of the support already stopped because of the increasing pressure on this issue, but we Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime and start actively opposing it.

It appears that sharing and reposting others' comments is becoming a trend. You can definitely copy, repost, or email mine to anyone including lobbying senators, state representatives and any other public officials who shape our country's foreign policies.

[BorderOne]

All who wish to reproduce my comment on mailing lists, repost on other blogs, or send to congress, senators and state representatives, or use for lobbying are welcome to do so. Let justice be served:

The only solution for a lasting piece is absolute democratic process (that we Americans cherish so passionately) for the entire territory in question, otherwise, the peace will not last. All people who lived there without regard to religion, race, etc. should vote on how they would like their one country to be run. I favor one state solution because two states would only attempt to "legalize" Zionist occupation that will be remembered in history until it is corrected by future large scale conflicts, so no lasting peace will result.

The only issue with the fair democratic process is what to do with all manipulated Jewish people who the Zionist regime imported for decades to increase the Jewish population from around 100,000 to over 5 Million since the start of the occupation. This is obviously an attempt to unjustly manipulate any future democratic process by forcefully increasing the occupier's population at the expense of others. Any compromise other than the absolute fair democratic process with no manipulated population will be temporary with terrible conflicts looming to correct it in the future.

The truth is that the Zionist regime will not accept any democratic process even if the manipulated Jewish population is included because it cannot exist as a democratic country as Zionists will be outvoted by all others who live there (Zionists were in an infinite minority before the occupation). The Zionist regime can only temporarily exist through the force of its arms as a one people country where only select ones can vote and where different laws apply to different people.

The world must stand up against the Zionist regime by cutting all diplomatic and economic relations with it. Many countries have already stopped all relations with the Zionist regime and others are in the process of doing the same. We Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime through urging our state representatives and senators to do what the rest of the world is doing.

[creative012]

You're either with us or against us

[creative012]

Anything New?

[Bulls42]

We Americans speak of freedoms, tolerance, and diversity, yet our government makes the Zionist occupation possible against our will, with our tax money, and making us accomplices in constant murders that the Zionist regime is committing including murders of our own American citizens (search on youtube for "Rachel Corrie" video of Zionist bulldozer crushing her to death). I am ashamed as an American that our politicians are controlled by the Zionist regime to such a terrifying extent. Tens of senators, state representatives, and ambassadors to foreign countries are Jewish. While I recognize that many are honest and against the Zionist regime, I am concerned about the fair representation of our will at the highest levels of our government. Just look on Wikipedia for "List of Jewish American politicians," and visit prince.org/msg/105/271100 to discover that all five Federal Reserve chairmen/chairwomen are Jewish, and almost all (9 out of 12) regional Fed chairmen/chairwomen are also Jewish. I never like to generalize, but Jews comprise only 2% of our population and they have so much power in the government and almost absolute power over our money supply and economic polices. I am just not comfortable that all Americans are being represented properly especially not on the Palestine occupation issue that I know most people do not support judging by the comments against the Zionist regime I hear everywhere.

Urge your state representatives and senators to immediately stop any remaining support for the Zionist regime. Much of the support already stopped because of the increasing pressure on this issue, but we Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime and stop being accomplices in its murders! The world is also reacting. Who would want to be remembered in history as an accomplice to ruthless occupation? Many countries, companies, and countless moral individuals have already successfully implemented no relations with the Zionist government and others are implementing the same policy as we speak. Not travel there, not buy anything from it, not trade with it, not communicate with it, etc. Also do the same with any country that supports it because the Zionist government only survives because of its external supporters.

The only way to oppose the Zionist controlled media and Zionist paid bloggers is to take each other's comments and copy, repost, email, and otherwise distribute them to other blogs, newspaper websites, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites, and send/lobby to senators, state representatives and other public officials. Please do so with this comment for justice to prevail.

[Larry155]

The root cause of the conflict is the constant refusal by the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize that the Jewish people have any historical connection at all to any part of the land of Israel. They therefore deny that the Jewish people have any rights or legitimate claims to ANY parts of the land. This is the reason they rejected the 2-state-for-2-people solution proposed in 1936 by the Peel commission and later in 1947 by the Partition Plan. This is why they attacked the newborn Jewish state in 1948. This is why they never attempted to create a Palestinian state from 1948-1967 when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. This is why they continue to this day to reject every offer of a Palestinian State that doesn't result in the complete destruction of Israel.

They rejected PM Barak's offer to create a state in 2000 and instead embarked on their wave of suicide bombing attacks. They rejected PM Olmert's generous offer of 100% of the West Bank (including some land swaps) as recently as 2008.

President Obama's statements and actions have yielded nothing but a hardening of the Arab side intransigence. Though PA leader Abbas rejected Olmert's offer, at least he was negotiating with Olmert despite the continued natural growth of settlements. Now that Obama, with his mantra regarding settlements, has put Abbas up a tree that he can't get down from, the Palestinians are totally refusing to talk peace.

[creative012]

Of course, it would be hypocritical since they took what wasn't theirs and settled the Indians territory long, long ago. And on the other hand, I have heard how many Americans wondered why the UN didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan and police the world, now we know why. And now, we have it all over again "Or you are with us or you are against us" And then they wondering why is so much hate coming from that part of the world and lately from many other parts of the world. Israel can defend itself on its own, they don't need American help. And stupid American people think that their government can solve all the F....n problems in the world. American people also need to upraise and take down this corrupted, greedy and egoistic government.

[formrusmcsgt]

One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, America will realize that being Israel's 800-pound trained gorilla on the UNSC only benefits Israel.

[formrusmcsgt]

by MarineVet64 February 21, 2011 5:40 PM EST
I have a plan....CUT OFF THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of punishing American teachers, firemen and cops, let's stop supporting the apartheid Israeli welfare State that murders our sailors, misionaries and humanitarian aid workers.
---

Nothing's changing until AIPAC stops determining our foreign policy for us.

[formrusmcsgt]

And aside from insults you contribute what, exactly?

[formrusmcsgt]

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said that the U.S., regrettably, had to veto the Resolution.
--
Why did we HAVE to veto it although all the others voted for it?

AIPAC.

[formrusmcsgt]

Considering that Jihad isnt't a country moron, that would be impossible.

You are obviously a schill for Israel.

How many shekels per post do they pay you?

[formrusmcsgt]

The only one I posess.