I think I need make only a few points regarding the decision of the United States to abstain at last Friday's UN Security Council deliberation and vote on decision 2334.

First, the decision uses the term "illegal" as in here:

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


"Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law"

The Obama Administration has, for the past eight years, been studiously avoiding that word, preferring "illegitimate".  Just last week, John Kirby, State Department spokesperson, walked himself back on his use of it in a television interview.


To employ that term now not only is sabotaging Israel as Israel did not need to deal with an American position such as that, to argue its validity and to illustrate that that charge lacks its own validity. It also points to the duplicity of Obama.  His legacy will be marred and tarred by this subterfuge.

Second, the behind-the-scenes maneuvering after Egypt withdrew the resolution as an agenda item is malicious in that it foremost sabotages Egypt's standing and position.

Third, supporting such a resolution with countries like Venezuela, China, Russia and others with which America has severe and deep disputes as to international law, violence and humanitarian concerns is abominable.

Fourth, the inclusion of an "East Jerusalem" means that the Western Wall Plaza is occupied territory.  What will the Reform Judaism-led "Feminist Empowerment" campaign now do? Will they be able to pray there? (Remember, despite UN decisions, no Jew was allowed to pray at all at the Western Wall between 1948-1967) Aren't they friends of Obama?

Fifth, with Samantha Powers saying that the immediate adoption of a freeze on settlements could create confidence, she is lying.  We tried a moratorium on construction already.

Sixth, her remark that the US delegation had not supported the resolution because it was focused too narrowly on settlements only highlights American indifference to the not only essential but inherent bias at UN which should have led her, Secretary John Kerry and President Obama to distance themselves from such a body.

Seventh, in having the resolution call for "immediate steps to prevent...all acts of provocation and...to refrain from...incitement and inflammatory rhetoric" which is aimed at the Palestinian Authority, Powers, Kerry and Obama know full well that that is a dead letter and thus, are giving the Arabs a pass while loading the odds against Israel.

Eight, in the resolution's ninth paragraph we read "the principle of land for peace". Since the Arabs initiated the Six-Days War with the PLO's renewed terror campaign launch in January 1965, what land will Israel receive? The parts of Jerusalem left out in 1949? If there is to be territorial compromise, the Arabs must be the ones first to yield.  They were the aggressors.

With Chanukkah upon us, I'll limit myself to these eight points that highlight the immorality as well as the illogical decision of the United States to abstain on the UN's Security Council 2334 resolution.

Just as the UN had to backtrack on its 1975 "Zionism is racism" decision, so this decision will dissipate.

^

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