WhatFinger


U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power shamelessly defended the U.S. abstention as an act to save the so-called "two-state" solution

Obama Sides with Terrorists over Historic Ally at the Anti-Israel United Nations



President Obama is ending his presidency the way he began it--throwing Israel to the wolves. On September 23, 2009, he told the United Nations General Assembly, "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements." On December 23, 2016, Obama broke with the longstanding practice of both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect Israel from one-sided UN resolutions. He let the UN Security Council pass a resolution declaring that the establishment of settlements by Israel has "no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." The resolution demands that "Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem." The Obama administration abstained, rather than veto this resolution as it had done with regard to a similar resolution back in 2011. All other members of the Security Council, including the United Kingdom and France, voted for the latest outrage against Israel coming out of a UN chamber.
U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power shamelessly defended the U.S. abstention as an act to save the so-called "two-state" solution, which Israel's continued settlements activities were, she said, supposedly jeopardizing. She pathetically reached back to a 1982 statement by then-President Ronald Reagan calling for an end to "the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements" and "the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel." However, Ms. Power quoted Ronald Reagan out of context. In his address, Mr. Reagan was referring to a freeze on settlements during a "period of transition," which would "begin after free elections for a self-governing Palestinian authority" and could prove that "Palestinian autonomy poses no threat to Israel's security." He said that "the United States will not support the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza," but suggested instead "self-government by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan." Ambassador Power also left out of her out-of-context reference to the Reagan quote the repeated failures of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith for more than three decades since that time. She failed to note Israel's voluntary freezing of new settlements and restrictions on existing ones for four years, between 1992 and 1996. The number of Israelis killed as a result of Palestinian terrorist attacks during that time increased from 34 in 1992 to 56 in 1996, the fifth largest annual total between 1967 and 1996. The third largest yearly total of Israeli fatalities from Palestinian terrorism was 65 in 1994, smack in the middle of Israel's settlement freeze. Ambassador Power also failed to note Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and dismantling of all settlements there in Gaza in 2005, for which Israel was rewarded with Palestinian terrorists' firing of thousands of rockets from Gaza into Israel. The year after Israel withdrew from Gaza the number of rocket attacks increased from 488 to 1,123. The 2008 total of rocket attacks increased more than six fold from 2005. Finally, she conveniently skipped over Israel's moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank during Obama's first term in office. During this moratorium, Palestinian terrorists continued to kill Israelis, including a married couple and two other Israelis who were murdered in their vehicle in a Hamas terrorist drive-by shooting attack in the outskirts of Hebron.

Support Canada Free Press


The Security Council resolution that the Obama administration disgracefully allowed to pass focuses almost exclusively on Israeli settlements as "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." It specifically calls out Israel for what the resolution claims was its violation of international law. However, the resolution fails to call out Hamas, which governs territory claimed as part of the "State of Palestine," for incitement to genocide and using schools, mosques, homes and hospitals from which to launch attacks against Israeli civilians in violation of international humanitarian law. It also fails to cite Palestinian Authority leaders for their incitement to genocide through such channels as official Palestinian Authority websites, Palestinian Authority-sponsored media outlets and in their educational materials. Incitement to genocide, committed by both Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials, violates the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Security Council anti-Israel settlements resolution, passed with the Obama administration's consent, is not technically legally binding, because it was not passed under the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The resolution is also not formally characterized as a "decision" of the Security Council adopted for the explicitly stated purpose of "the maintenance of international peace and security." The resolution is not self-enforcing and would require a further resolution to impose sanctions or other punitive measures, which a Trump administration would surely veto. However, the resolution sets down a clear marker 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." With such an unambiguous declaration, now supported or at least unopposed by all five permanent members of the Security Council and most member nations of the UN, the potential effect of the resolution's passage is its use to evidence what international legal scholars refer to as "customary international law" on the subject of Israeli settlements activities. The Palestinians and their supporters would then be better positioned to cause mischief for Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which the so-called government of Palestine has joined. A "preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine" is currently underway at the ICC.

The Palestinians and their supporters may also seek to exploit the Security Council resolution's finding that Israel's settlements are in "flagrant violation under international law" to pressure the UN, member states and companies into boycotting the purchases of any products or services remotely connected to firms doing any business in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Even before the Security Council resolution was passed, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein from Jordan, sought to have the UN's procurement division consider launching what would amount to a blacklisting and boycott of Israeli businesses and international companies with ties to the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already stated that "Israel rejects this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the U.N., and will not abide by its terms." One of the first things that President-elect Trump should do upon taking office is to declare that the United States repudiates anything in the Security Council anti-Israel settlements resolution that denies or calls into question the legal validity of Israel's existing or future settlements activities. He should make clear that any effort by the UN or member states to institute a boycott will result in serious adverse financial consequences to them. And he should announce that the United States will move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the undivided capital of the Jewish state, Jerusalem.


View Comments

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist -- Bio and Archives

Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.


Sponsored