PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Obama Abandons Israel


Vaspar
06-03-2010, 12:52 AM
Obama Abandons Israel to UN Feeding Frenzy

By Anne Bayefsky

Published June 01, 2010

| FOXNews.com

* Print
* Email
* Share
* Comments (661)
*
* Text Size

In the past twenty-four hours United Nations bodies have engaged in a frenzied attack on Israel over the Turkish-facilitated effort to end the naval blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. In the process, the Obama administration’s Israel policy has been outed.

With virtually unprecedented speed and only hours to go before the Lebanese presidency of the UN Security Council expired at midnight on May 31st the Council unanimously agreed on a Presidential Statement – with American approval. And in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) unanimously decided to invent new procedural rules and hold its first-ever “urgent debate”, with no objection from the United States.

The Obama administration had options. In the past, the United States has avoided efforts to railroad presidential statements or resolutions through the Security Council by allowing only so-called “press statements” made on behalf of just some of its members.

It also could have put its toe in the water and waited until 12:01 a.m. when the presidency would have been transferred to Mexico, thereby slowing the campaign for a middle-of-the-night UN grenade lobbed without time for informed consideration.

Or the administration might have pointed out that the Council could spend its time dealing with international peace and security items constantly delayed or ignored, like an Iranian bomb or the torpedoing of a South Korean naval ship by North Korea.

At the Human Rights Council, the United States could have objected to the invention of the new procedure. After all, it joined the HRC specifically with the promise to end the one-sided fixation of the UN system on Israel. The HRC has carefully-drafted rules allowing it to hold exceptional special sessions. It also has a carefully itemized regular agenda and its fourteenth such session began on May 31st.

Today, the HRC was in the midst of agenda item three, the permanent Israel-bashing agenda item being number seven. All these procedures were thrown out the window and the political lynch mob let loose without a peep from the Obama administration.

Day two of the HRC’s “regular” session, therefore, saw the entire afternoon devoted to the flotilla incident, replete with accusations of massacres and genocide. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) made no effort to cover up the real point, namely, the rejection of Israel’s right to exist and the concomitant right to defend itself. Speaking on behalf of the OIC, Pakistan called for relief from “the yoke of Israeli occupation for the last six decades.” Another 30 speakers, both states and non-governmental organizations, are scheduled for Wednesday.

The OIC, Sudan and “Palestine” have now tabled a resolution for the HRC under an agenda item supposedly about “organizational and procedural matters.” A few hours ago the U.S. sent out signals that it will agree to their initiative if it is aligned with the Security Council statement. The vote, breaking more procedural rules, is expected to occur as early as tomorrow.

The Security Council Presidential statement paints the loss of life which occurred entirely in the framework designed by its Arab and OIC sponsors. All the civilians who participated in the flotilla are cast as humanitarians – including the armed thugs caught on video-tape brutally attacking Israeli soldiers. Gaza is made out to be a humanitarian problem arising in a vacuum.

There is no mention of its government’s dedication to Israel’s annihilation, no mention of the smuggling of arms into Gaza, and no mention of the use of such arms against Israelis. Consequently, according to the Security Council there appears to be no justification for Israel’s interest in the ship’s cargo or its legal blockade of an entity with which it is at war. In fact, the Presidential statement does not mention Hamas at all.

Instead, the Security Council calls for an “impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.” That’s code language for a repeat of the UN-sponsored investigation of the 2009 Gaza war. The investigation in that case produced the widely-discredited, but politically toxic, Goldstone Report.

It was headed by the former South African judge, Richard Goldstone, later exposed as an appointee of the apartheid regime who sentenced many black defendants tried under apartheid laws to death. It may turn out that the investigation in this instance is handed off to 9/11 conspiracy enthusiast and current UN special investigator on Israel, Richard Falk, who issued a statement yesterday in support of more “urgent action.”

The Obama administration chose to join the HRC despite the fact that the HRC’s reputation preceded it: the HRC has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 states in the world combined. Having made its bed with the Council, however, the Obama administration is now lying in it.

The U.S. statement during today’s debate, delivered by American ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahue, says “the United States remains deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza.” It expresses no concern about the suffering of Israeli civilians, paying the price for weapons smuggled into Gaza including by sea.

The policy shift by the Obama administration away from protecting Israel from UN hordes was also in evidence last Friday at the close of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). With the support of the President, that Conference adopted conclusions singling out Israel though Israel is not a party or subject to the treaty.

The agreed NPT document called for an international conference intended to force Israel to give up its (undeclared) nuclear deterrence capabilities without linking it to the realization of the country’s national security needs. And the United States promised to facilitate the 2012 meeting. By contrast, the Conference conclusions made no reference to Iran, which is a party to the treaty and in violation of its provisions.

In a formal statement delivered at Friday’s closing session, Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said: “The Final Document this Conference adopted today advances President Obama’s vision.” She called it a “forward-looking and balanced action plan” and described negotiations as resulting in “a thorough review and constructive outcome.”

At the meeting that was to have taken place today between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Netanyahu was reported to have hoped for assurances from the President that he would not advance another UN-driven onslaught against Israel. In view of the administration’s willingness to participate in just such events days later, a positive response – and improvement in the Obama administration’s relations with Israel – is even more unlikely.

Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and Director, Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.



Obviously our current Commander In Chief doesn't understand the importance of maintaining the long standing relationship the US has had with Israel. If ever there would be an impetus for Israel to act unilaterally against their enemies, Obama has opened the door. One has to wonder if this is not a way for Obama to insure we are drawn into a conflict with Iran, if not by the mid-term elections, most certainly by the 2012 elections, as rarely are sitting presidents voted out of office for a second term during times of war. Keep in mind he has already asked congress for more troops and funding for the Afganistan conflict, and the timetable to remove personnel from Iraq is drawing close. Don't put it past him to create a situation that will tilt the odds in his favor come election time, regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer, and soldiers

Silock
06-03-2010, 12:56 AM
Israel can take care of themselves.

stevieray
06-03-2010, 12:59 AM
Al Quds


/John Brennan

AustinChief
06-03-2010, 03:59 AM
Israel can take care of themselves.
Of course they can.. but it's a BAD situation if we let them... WE keep them in check.. if we stop doing that... Israel (now that Russia doesn't back the Arab league) could wipe out the middle east and do damn near whatever they please... There's a reason Egypt(wisely) backs Israel... since 1947 let's look at the WORST "war" they fought... Yom Kippur.. and even then .. with their hands tied they kicked ass... no one wants to see them unleashed...

Silock
06-03-2010, 05:26 AM
Meh. I'm past the point of caring. Would wiping out the Middle East REALLY be so bad?

irishjayhawk
06-03-2010, 07:40 AM
If only the US would abandon Israel.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 07:52 AM
The implications from Obama's foreign policies will be a major clean up effort when he is gone. He has single handedly done more to destroy strategic alliances, weaken relations with allies, and lead to empowerment of enemies than any President in history.

I would contend this may overshadow his profligate spending, lack of attention to details and his divisive politics when we look back on this disastrous presidency.

healthpellets
06-03-2010, 07:56 AM
finally. although i don't think anything listed in that article is that big of a deal.

but we need to issue a statement saying that we are no longer supporting Israel financially or militarily, but we continue to support Israel's right to defend herself just like any other nation.

and then Israel can go to town.

Pants
06-03-2010, 08:45 AM
It took them 6 days to dominate half the ME in the '67. I'd say it'd be more like 3 days if they did it now. Unleash the ****ing dogs, I say.

Amnorix
06-03-2010, 09:02 AM
The implications from Obama's foreign policies will be a major clean up effort when he is gone. He has single handedly done more to destroy strategic alliances, weaken relations with allies, and lead to empowerment of enemies than any President in history.

I would contend this may overshadow his profligate spending, lack of attention to details and his divisive politics when we look back on this disastrous presidency.


Funny, go back 2 years and that's exactly what those on the left were saying of Bush.

In the long run, I imagine both sides will find that neither President was as disastrous as the opposition thought. I still think, however, that Bush's policies were far, far worse than anything Obama has done.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 09:09 AM
Funny, go back 2 years and that's exactly what those on the left were saying of Bush.

In the long run, I imagine both sides will find that neither President was as disastrous as the opposition thought. I still think, however, that Bush's policies were far, far worse than anything Obama has done.


Not the same at all.

Bush was criticized for being aggressive in his approach to terror and the execution of that strategy. At no time was Bush in this position of turning away from allies and empowering the enemy.

Of course there were those who opposed any action against terrorism anywhere who still cling to the belief that the terrorists will stop if the US just folds our tent and leaves. They would say Bush empowered the terrorists...and Obama has not changed so its certainly not exclusive to Bush ( in fact it would be the same for every President except Carter who was a fool and now is more so).

There have always been such misguided critics of war and of a strong military and always will be.

patteeu
06-03-2010, 09:10 AM
The implications from Obama's foreign policies will be a major clean up effort when he is gone. He has single handedly done more to destroy strategic alliances, weaken relations with allies, and lead to empowerment of enemies than any President in history.

I would contend this may overshadow his profligate spending, lack of attention to details and his divisive politics when we look back on this disastrous presidency.

Funny, go back 2 years and that's exactly what those on the left were saying of Bush.

In the long run, I imagine both sides will find that neither President was as disastrous as the opposition thought. I still think, however, that Bush's policies were far, far worse than anything Obama has done.

I'm giving this round to HonestChieffan. Obama's presidency is like running your car engine without any oil.

Pants
06-03-2010, 09:33 AM
Not the same at all.

Bush was criticized for being aggressive in his approach to terror and the execution of that strategy. At no time was Bush in this position of turning away from allies and empowering the enemy.

Of course there were those who opposed any action against terrorism anywhere who still cling to the belief that the terrorists will stop if the US just folds our tent and leaves. They would say Bush empowered the terrorists...and Obama has not changed so its certainly not exclusive to Bush ( in fact it would be the same for every President except Carter who was a fool and now is more so).

There have always been such misguided critics of war and of a strong military and always will be.

Actually, Bush was criticized for invading a country that he shouldn't have. Nobody gave the U.S. any grief over going into Afghanistan and looking for AQ camps to clean up while getting rid of Taliban. We all remember how much support from the world Bush got to invade Iraq.

Besides, fighting terrorism with a conventional army is about as ineffective as it gets. It's beyond stupid.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 09:40 AM
Actually, Bush was criticized for invading a country that he shouldn't have. Nobody gave the U.S. any grief over going into Afghanistan and looking for AQ camps to clean up while getting rid of Taliban. We all remember how much support from the world Bush got to invade Iraq.

Besides, fighting terrorism with a conventional army is about as ineffective as it gets. It's beyond stupid.


Rehash, off topic, and an opinion you are certainly entitled to. Its the path we are on and have been for some time.

Pants
06-03-2010, 09:42 AM
Rehash, off topic, and an opinion you are certainly entitled to. Its the path we are on and have been for some time.

How is it off topic when we're comparing policies which lead to alliances and support being broken? The UN was telling Bush not to invade, he said "Fuck that" and went ahead with it anyway.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 09:45 AM
I believe the topic is Obama turning away from Israel. Bush was no longer President 16 months or so ago and has no input on Obama policy.

thecoffeeguy
06-03-2010, 09:53 AM
Way to go Obama. Loser.

talastan
06-03-2010, 10:03 AM
Of course they can.. but it's a BAD situation if we let them... WE keep them in check.. if we stop doing that... Israel (now that Russia doesn't back the Arab league) could wipe out the middle east and do damn near whatever they please... There's a reason Egypt(wisely) backs Israel... since 1947 let's look at the WORST "war" they fought... Yom Kippur.. and even then .. with their hands tied they kicked ass... no one wants to see them unleashed...

That would go a long way towards getting rid of the crazy Islamo-fascist ****ers that are trying to bomb us daily. Israel is more than capable of defending itself and we are doing more damage there by holding them back and interfering IMO.

Otter
06-03-2010, 12:22 PM
That would go a long way towards getting rid of the crazy Islamo-fascist ****ers that are trying to bomb us daily. Israel is more than capable of defending itself and we are doing more damage there by holding them back and interfering IMO.

Slippery slope considering the USA armed them to the teeth with just about everything but their small arms in the first place. If Barry isn't smart he'll be minus an ally on both sides of the equation.

Islamic radicals will still be trying to blow us up for arming Israel and Israel will no longer take the USA's views into consideration when acting.

Barry's trying to be friends with everyone. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Especially when you're already in up to your eyebrows.

stevieray
06-03-2010, 12:26 PM
How is it off topic when we're comparing policies which lead to alliances and support being broken? The UN was telling Bush not to invade, he said "**** that" and went ahead with it anyway.

ya, all by himself....:rolleyes:
funny how everyone on the left scoured for and cried about any bad news about Iraq on a daily basis, and now could give a shit.

go bowe
06-03-2010, 12:45 PM
ya, all by himself....:rolleyes:
funny how everyone on the left scoured for and cried about any bad news about Iraq on a daily basis, and now could give a shit.well, i give a shit...

we should continue to withdraw from iraq as expeditiously as possible...

if the iraqi government hasn't got it right by now, they might not ever get it...

we've been there long enough, it's time to go...

patteeu
06-03-2010, 02:18 PM
Actually, Bush was criticized for invading a country that he shouldn't have. Nobody gave the U.S. any grief over going into Afghanistan and looking for AQ camps to clean up while getting rid of Taliban. We all remember how much support from the world Bush got to invade Iraq.

Besides, fighting terrorism with a conventional army is about as ineffective as it gets. It's beyond stupid.

And to that extent, his critics (and you) were wrong about everything.

Pants
06-03-2010, 02:49 PM
And to that extent, his critics (and you) were wrong about everything.

What were we wrong about? The fact there were no MWD's or the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ?

We already know about acting on bad intelligence, no need to bring it up. The war was a colossal mistake, no matter how you look at it.

healthpellets
06-03-2010, 02:56 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Ur9Pe42jCM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Ur9Pe42jCM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

patteeu
06-03-2010, 02:58 PM
What were we wrong about? The fact there were no MWD's or the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ?

We already know about acting on bad intelligence, no need to bring it up. The war was a colossal mistake, no matter how you look at it.

Here's your post:

Actually, Bush was criticized for invading a country that he shouldn't have. Nobody gave the U.S. any grief over going into Afghanistan and looking for AQ camps to clean up while getting rid of Taliban. We all remember how much support from the world Bush got to invade Iraq.

Besides, fighting terrorism with a conventional army is about as ineffective as it gets. It's beyond stupid.

You are wrong that he invaded a country he shouldn't have. You are wrong about the idea that nobody gave him grief over Afghanistan. And you are wrong that fighting terrorism with a conventional army (as one of many different tools) is about as ineffective as it gets. That pretty much covers everything you said.

Pants
06-03-2010, 03:26 PM
Here's your post:



You are wrong that he invaded a country he shouldn't have. You are wrong about the idea that nobody gave him grief over Afghanistan. And you are wrong that fighting terrorism with a conventional army (as one of many different tools) is about as ineffective as it gets. That pretty much covers everything you said.

How do you justify the invasion of Iraq?

Who gave him grief over Afghanistan?

A conventional army will never ever stop terrorism. It is something that's done with intelligence and special forces.

A conventional army, besides being ineffective at rooting out terrorists is too cumbersome and kills in broad strokes. An invasion leads to many civilian casualties which, in turn, breed more terrorists.

Terrorists don't give two shits about the army. Their job is to instill fear in the general populace. You can't achieve that by killing soldiers.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 03:31 PM
How do you justify the invasion of Iraq?

Who gave him grief over Afghanistan?

A conventional army will never ever stop terrorism. It is something that's done with intelligence and special forces.

A conventional army, besides being ineffective at rooting out terrorists is too cumbersome and kills in broad strokes. An invasion leads to many civilian casualties which, in turn, breed more terrorists.

Terrorists don't give two shits about the army. Their job is to instill fear in the general populace. You can't achieve that by killing soldiers.

I notice you are from lawrence.

Pants
06-03-2010, 03:36 PM
I notice you are from lawrence.

I went to school there. I don't reside there anymore. Never got around to change that.

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 03:39 PM
I went to school there. I don't reside there anymore. Never got around to change that.

aaaa ha

Pants
06-03-2010, 04:00 PM
aaaa ha

What school did you go to?

HonestChieffan
06-03-2010, 04:03 PM
What school did you go to?

University of Illinois
Missouri Auctioneers College( no joke)

KC native
06-03-2010, 04:13 PM
University of Illinois
Missouri Auctioneers College( no joke)

fast forward to 1:10 in for the lulz

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bc5cOohfHhA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bc5cOohfHhA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Pants
06-03-2010, 04:50 PM
University of Illinois
Missouri Auctioneers College( no joke)

aaaah ha!

See how stupid that is?

patteeu
06-04-2010, 05:52 PM
How do you justify the invasion of Iraq?

The invasion was justified for a variety of reasons. Saddam was hostile to the US and as long as he remained in power, he represented a potential threat to our interests. The sanctions regime that had contained him for a decade was crumbling and was not a viable approach to ongoing containment. He was an instigator in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He had a history of collaborative relationships with terrorists, including Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Jihad, which merged with Osama bin Laden's outfit to form the modern al Qaeda. He continued to pursue WMD capabilities and had every intention of pursuing a nuclear capability as soon as he was able to shed the UN sanctions. He was a brutal dictator who had demonstrated his willingness to attack his neighbors twice and to use WMD on his own people. He had attacked US aircraft countless times over the previous decade. About the only thing we believed about him that didn't end up panning out was that he had large stockpiles of WMD already produced and available for use.

Who gave him grief over Afghanistan?

Liberals like the NYTimes R.W. Apple (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/apple-afghan.html) who was calling Afghanistan another Vietnam just weeks into what would soon become one of the more successful military invasions of all time.

You're right that there was substantial support, both domestically and internationally, for the original invasion of Afghanistan, but it wasn't universal (see critics like RW Apple and those who complained that the Bush strategy was foolish because he didn't use a massive land force) and some of it was paper thin posturing (e.g. Iran's double dealing).

A conventional army will never ever stop terrorism. It is something that's done with intelligence and special forces.

A conventional army, besides being ineffective at rooting out terrorists is too cumbersome and kills in broad strokes. An invasion leads to many civilian casualties which, in turn, breed more terrorists.

Terrorists don't give two shits about the army. Their job is to instill fear in the general populace. You can't achieve that by killing soldiers.

Intelligence and special forces are important tools and so is police investigatory work (especially financial and forensic), but the conventional army has a place too. There's a reason why the al Qaeda in Iraq problem has been reduced to manageable levels and that reason's initials are U.S.M.C. (along with the US Army).

HC_Chief
06-04-2010, 06:01 PM
Intelligence and special forces are important tools and so is police investigatory work (especially financial and forensic), but the conventional army has a place too. There's a reason why the al Qaeda in Iraq problem has been reduced to manageable levels and that reason's initials are U.S.M.C. (along with the US Army).

34 of the 42 top AQI leaders popped in the last 90 days. Odierno is a bad mofo. He wrote the playbook along with Petreaus.

Donger
06-04-2010, 06:56 PM
If only the US would abandon Israel.

Helen, is that you?

vailpass
06-04-2010, 07:00 PM
obama abandoned Israel? Excellent news for Israel. How can the US get obama to abandon us?

AustinChief
06-04-2010, 07:13 PM
obama abandoned Israel? Excellent news for Israel. How can the US get obama to abandon us?

hahahah, nice one.