The UNSC Resolution 2334 was a disappointment, a sham, and an instance of racism. On the other hand, it should perhaps not be surprising that the United States didn't use its veto to protect Israel. Since the rebirth of the national home of the Jewish people in 1948, the State Department has been hostile towards Israel. It rabidly encouraged President Truman not to recognize Israel, and instead support Arab aspirations in the former British Mandate of Palestine. Even after Truman disregarded their desires, the State Department still lobbied him, Congressional figures, and later presidents against supporting Israel overtly, or even covertly. Their fears? That it would alienate the "traditional Arab partners" of the United States and give way to an oil embargo against those countries that were allies of Israel. 

The Obama Administration was not the first administration to listen to these ridiculous viewpoints, but it could very well be the first to continue to believe them and spew them to the public in the face of more important Middle East crises. (In Dennis Ross' book, Doomed to Succeed, various examples are given of how the surrounding Arab countries actually care very little about the Palestinian problem, and are not as reactionary to pro-Israel changes and moves made by America and other countries as is assumed.) This is not to say the Arab World is ready to establish open relations with Israel yet, or that it doesn't care about the ultimate fate of Palestinians, but this is not--and never has been--the primary focus. As Ross says in his 2015 book, the Arab regimes of the Persian Gulf and North Africa are preoccupied with their own survival, to which Israel is not a threat. Instead, they face the same enemies of the Jewish state, in Iran's colonial ambitions as well as destabilizing Sunni jihadist groups, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. Yet strangely, the Obama Administration chooses to gather the international community in condemning Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria, instead of the more pressing dangers and destabilizing processes throughout the region: the proxy war in Yemen between Arab countries and the Iranian-backed Houthis; the Syrian Civil War; the ISIS insurgency; and the Libyan crisis---all of which the "liberal democratic international order" had some role in creating or inflaming. 

The Obama Administration and State Department have continued to maintain that creating an independent Palestine would cure all ills in the Middle East and end jihadism. Even as chaos unfolds in the region that has nothing to do with the "plight" of Palestinians, President Obama in his final weeks gives interviews urging a two-state solution, refuses to veto a one-sided UNSC resolution against Israel, and sends his failed top diplomat, John Kerry, to a futile peace conference in Paris. The administration and State Department defended their refusal to veto UNSC Resolution 2334 by saying that previous administration, on both sides of the political aisle, were against "settlement building". And yet there are stark differences in the ways that previous administrations handled the Middle East. The Bush 41 Administration, while vehemently against the building of communities in Judea & Samaria and hostile to Israel at times, was more preoccupied with the Gulf War of 1991. The Clinton Administration lucked out, having to deal with far fewer instances of danger in the region, and genuinely dedicated itself to creating a two-state solution while not showing unordinary hostility to Israel. The Bush 43 Administration was more busy dealing with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan than dedicating itself to the two-state paradigm to the level that Bill Clinton did. One would expect the level of attention given to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict during the 2009-2017 timeframe to be minuscule in comparison to other crises in the Middle East. Instead, it seems to have been elevated above the others. 

It's no secret that racism is institutionalized in the USA on many levels and in many ways. But often when discussing institutionalized racism in America, the focus is primarily on African-Americans, or sometimes, Latinos and Native Americans. There is also a problem with institutionalized racism against Jews, particularly in the State Department. Disagreeing with Jerusalem on certain issues doesn't make one an anti-Semite. However, the State Department's historic hostility towards Israel stems from much more than the flow of Arab oil (which is far less relevant to the US as time goes on) or keeping the Arabs "on our side". In the days of the Truman Administration and prior, one must remember that the State Department was predominantly, if not exclusively, White, male, and Christian, and that Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust were denied entry. It was a "good ol' boys club", like the very country clubs where so many minorities were denied access to. Even as the years progressed, there's still good reason to believe that the world's oldest hatred has a stranglehold over Foggy Bottom. Why else would it be that, whenever something bad happens in the Middle East or the Islamic World, the conversation shifts to Israel and its "treatment of Palestinians"? This is not so different from the Middle Ages, when Jews were blamed for anything and everything bad that occurred, and suffered from expulsions, pogroms, and mass killings over it. The double-standards applied to Israel in international forums, such as the European Union and the United Nations, have been normalized by the Department of State for decades, even if the presidents haven't always agreed or acted on their policy recommendations. Yet the Obama Administration engages in hypocrisy and incoherence. While seeming to have no problem easing sanctions on the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, Samantha Power, the current UN Ambassador, says that doing so on Russia would embolden their behavior.  The problem with this theory is that the sanctions themselves have emboldened Moscow and rallied its people behind Putin, even though they protested his "reelection" in 2011. Moreover, the easing of sanctions on Tehran have allowed it to funnel even more money towards its proxies in the region and create more of a humanitarian disaster in Syria. Furthermore, Obama's appointment of Ben Rhodes to the Holocaust Memorial Council--the same Ben Rhodes that lied to the public about the nuclear deal with Iran, which pledges to wipe Israel off the map, and lies about the number of "settlements" being built in Judea & Samaria--is a grave insult to Jerusalem and to Jews around the world. 

Perhaps President Obama himself is not an anti-Semite, but he sure doesn't seem concerned by the idea of anti-Semitism. It's self-evident in his actions and his policy alignments with the State Department, UN, and EU. He denied Jewish ties to the Land of Israel in his 2009 Cairo outreach to the Islamic World, saying Israel was created only because people felt guilty about the Holocaust. He didn't veto a UNSC resolution that called Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria "occupied Palestinian territory", and continues to harp on the issues of building homes in Ma'ale Adumim or Gilo rather than the institutionalized racism and terrorist-support in Palestinian society. He aligned himself with notorious anti-Semite Jeremiah Wright even before running for president. And he has rewarded the country that refers to America as "Great Satan" and Israel as "Little Satan" with cash so they can send more missiles to Lebanon to aim at Dimona, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Be'er Sheva, and other places. President Obama can continue telling the public that he's the most pro-Israel president ever because of his past vetoes, help during the Carmel wildfires, or military aid to the Jewish state. But it's more likely that these were all well-thought-out ploys to score Jewish votes in 2008 and 2012 and fool our people into believing that the Democrats are still friendly towards Israel. Now, in its last days in office, with no more need for the Jewish vote and no Democrat succeeding him, the administration can show its true colors. 

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share