Thursday, September 15, 2011

Ambassador Rice:US 'Not Involved' In Toning Down Language Of Pal UN Statehood Resolution

America's Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice dropped a bombshell on a selected group of Jewish journalists in a press conference today, saying America is not involved in trying to tone down or modify language for the upcoming draft U.N. resolution on 'Palestinian' statehood.

“We’re not negotiating any text, we’re not engaged in efforts to water down a text,” Rice said Thursday in a briefing with selected Jewish journalists. “We’re making the case that this is not a productive course.”

The Obama administration has promised to use its veto on any 'Palestinian' statehood resolution that reaches the U.N. Security Council. But if the Palestinians bring a resolution asking for Palestinian membership in the United Nations to the U.N. General Assembly, it's almost certain to pass.

If the 'Palestinians' can upgrade their status there to non-voting member, it means the non-existent state of 'Palestine' will be able to get on international bodies and attempt to sue Israel through the International Criminal Court.

Rice's statement should clue you in to two things. First, that all the talk of 'a last minute diplomatic push' by the Obama Administration to pressure the 'Palestinians' is sheer bolshoi, and second that a deal has likely been attempted between President Obama and 'Palestinian' capo del tutti capo Mahmoud Abbas, and it will likely be finalized as the two meet prior to the UN vote.

The president doesn't really want to have to use the US veto in the UN against the 'Palestinians' and some of you might recall the bizarre anti-Israel rant Ambassador Rice uttered on the floor of the Security Council the last time it happened.!/image/3207038548.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_295/3207038548.jpg

The president's reluctance has nothing to do with any regard for Israel. Instead, his hand is being forced by two considerations. First, politics. President Obama has finally woken up to the fact that he can no longer take the Jewish vote for granted because of his policies towards Israel. Failing to use a veto to block a 'Palestinian' state in the UN would add fuel to what's already a pretty healthy fire.

Second, what a lot of people don't realize is that the 'Palestinians' are abrogating two treaties they signed by going unilaterally to the UN - the Oslo Accords and the Road Map. The US is a signatory to both treaties too, and the 'Palestinians' are putting us in the position of having to support them in violating treaties we signed on to.

In fact the entire aspect of the 'Palestinians' having any kind of foreign relations like a UN ambassador prior to them becoming an actual state is a gross violation of the Oslo Accords, which prohibits that very thing.

Rice's statement is a clue as to what's coming.

Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton are fetishists for the UN and the 'International Community' and the 'Palestinians' going to the UN Security Council for full statehood and the president having to cast a veto to block it would have embarrassed him no end in those circles. So instead, what the president is shooting for is to have the 'Palestinians' go to the General Assembly for an upgrade to non-voting member status instead to help President Obama out. That way, President Obama can have Ambassador Rice cast an ineffectual vote against it, which assures that the 'Palestinians' get what they want and gives President Obama political cover to hide behind and tell people how pro-Israel he is.

Of course, is President Obama was really pro-Israel and wanted to stop this in its tracks, he could do what President George HW Bush did in 1989 the last time the 'Palestinians' tried this, threatening to cut off funds for the UN if they proceeded. It worked quite well then. But that's obviously not President Obama's intention in the least.

As usual with this president, it's all kabuki, designed to try and fool America's Jews into voting for him.

In fact, most of the press conference with Ambassador Rice was devoted to massaging the assembled 'selected Jewish journalists' about how pro-Israel President Obama is.

Rice said that President Obama has done more than any previous president to ratchet up the pressure and sanctions on Iran,( arguably not true and a pretty low bar anyway) and has enhanced Israel’s security by increasing foreign military financing ( after a de facto arms freeze for almost the first six months of the administration, not to mention all the other ways the president has distanced himself from Israel..there's a reason his popularity there is at 4%) .

She also carefully touted the praise that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy had given President Obama for helping secure the safe release of Israeli diplomatic personnel in Cairo who were trapped in their embassy last Friday by an Egyptian mob who broke into the building while Egyptian security personnel assigned to protect the building stood by and watched.

Considering the president's role in paving the way for the ousting of former Egyptian President Mubarak and the empowering of the Muslim Brotherhood there, I think she's stretching it. Just a bit.

As for the Israelis, the 'Palestinian' gambit to the UN represents a huge opportunity if they have the courage to utilize it properly.

Israeli PM Netanyahu has thus far remained conciliatory and continued to offer to go to negotiations, but a far better stance might be calling Abbas' bluff.

Israel should make it clear that if the 'Palestinians' abrogate the Road Map and Oslo by going to the UN, the so-called peace process is over, that this unilateral action will be regarded as a hostile act no matter what the result is and that there will be a heavy price tag involved; an annexation of land in Judea and Samaria in areas A and B along the lines Israel chooses including the Jordan Valley, the expulsion of all 'Palestinians' now living in Israel without Israeli citizenship in places like East Jerusalem to the new 'Palestinian' state, and an end to all security co-operation,work permits for 'Palestinian' citizens, tax remittances, and trade relations.

The timing for drawing this kind of line in the sand also works in Israel's favor. The 'Palestinian' Authority's economy is almost totally dependent of government jobs funded by the US and the EU, corruption is widespread and 'Palestine's' gullible donors are finally wising up to the fact that a 'Palestinian' state is going to be a permanent welfare basket they can't afford to prop up anymore, given the economic problems in the US and the eurozone.

The 'Palestinians' are committed to establishing an apartheid reichlet where not a single Jew will be permitted, to not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and to making sure that refugees in refugee camps will not receive 'Palestinian' citizenship, even if the 'refugees' are already living in the new 'Palestine' so that the conflict is never-ending.

There no way to make peace with that kind of agenda, since it embraces Israel's destruction as it's raison d'ĂȘtre. And it's not as if anything Abbas or Fatah agree to means anything in the real world anyway.

The so-called peace process ended a long time ago, and as Arafat's old commissar in Jerusalem Feisel Husseini once famously said, to the 'Palestinians' it was never more than a Trojan Horse anyway. The Israelis are being presented with a golden opportunity to finally rid themselves of it.

please helps me write more gooder!


B.Poster said...

This morning long before I read this article I had the thought that a US veto of a resolution for a Palestinian state is virtually meaningless. The Palestinians can simply go to the UN general assembly and they can get memberships to important intermnatinal bodies. Also, even if America completely opposed a Pallestinian state they would still have the Europeans and the Russians to assist them in laying all the groundwork that they might feel they need.

The Palestinains certainly may have reasons for what they are doing, however, they are not going to help out Mr. Obama or any other US leader. Quite the opposite. They will hurt the US at every opportunity. The Palestinians don't need America to achieve any of their goals.

1989 and today are non comparable. In 1989, America was a much more powerful country than it is today. As such, a cut off in funding from America does not hold the kind of influence it once did. The UN has other sources of funding that can easily make up for any loss form the US should they want to call on them. Any threat or action by the US in this regard will lead to reprisals by other nations. America may be removed from any number of interanational bodies where it has influence and that can negatively impact its interests. Also, economic sanctions may be taken against America. In addtionn, ther might be moves to get America removed as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The fall of Mubarak was inevitable. There was nothing any thing America could have done to save his government even if it wanted to. Far from "paving the way" the US merely reacted to events it really had no ability to alter. Where America did play a role was acting in such ways that seem to have ensured the inevitable fall of the Egyptian government happened faster than it likely would have had we stayed out of it entirely.

This created a power vacum that the Muslim Brotherhood exploited. We would have done much better to simply stayed out of it entirely.

Finally, while the Palestinians can count on Western Europe and others even if America were not involved at all, Western Europe's financial position may be almost as precarious as America's In time, the Western Europeans and the Americans will likely be forced by events to rethink the massive unconditional aid that is currently sent the way of the Palestinians. When this happens, the Palestinians will likely not possess such lopsided advantages over Israel. In this case, the type of negotiated settlement we calim to want becomes far more likely.

B.Poster said...

If the Palestinians are allowed to get wway with agreements they have singed, this sets very bad precedent. If they violate these agreements, how can we trust them to honor any other agreement? If we won;t hold them accountable for these agreements, what right do we have to hold them accountable for any other agreements they might make.

For that matter, how we will be able to enforce any agreements? This woule represent a complete breakdown of international law and order. The folks supporting this shoudl think more carefully about what they are doing and supporting.

Harwd said...

Understanding the Palestinian (or any other Islamic hoards) intent is simple!
1. The world must cave on to their every want and wish.
2. Israel must be annihilated, while the rest of the world quietly waits their turn.
Anyone who thinks that this bunch of Palestinian squatters can be trusted to do anything else doesn’t have the sense God gave a goose bump!