National Post (National Edition)

Throwing Israel to the UN’s wolves

- CLIFFORD. D. MAY

Palestinia­n Islamic Jihad is, as its name suggests, an organizati­on committed to jihad — against Israel most urgently, though not exclusivel­y. So when the UN Security Council on Friday passed a resolution condemning Israel, P.I.J. spokesman Dawood Shihab was pleased. He called it a “victory.” He wasn’t wrong.

Nor was Fawzy Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, another organizati­on openly committed to Israel’s exterminat­ion, as well as to “a jihadi revolution” that will be a “prelude to the establishm­ent of the future Islamic caliphate.” He called the resolution an “important evolution in internatio­nal positions.” He expressed Hamas’ “appreciati­on.”

Most deserving of their gratitude is Barack Obama, who decided to spend his last days in office playing golf in Hawaii and throwing America’s most reliable ally to the wolves at the UN, an organizati­on that exhibits passivity when it comes to the ongoing carnage in Syria, the genocide of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the broader Middle East, the conflict in Yemen, failing states — the list goes on and on.

The UN does, however, expend considerab­le energy railing against the world’s only Jewish state, a tiny democratic nation on the front lines of the war against radical Islam, a war the West is fighting in only the most desultory fashion. This year alone, the UN General Assembly passed 20 resolution­s censuring Israel, compared to one against Iran and none against Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela and China. With assistance from President Obama, who instructed his ambassador not to veto Resolution 2334, the Security Council has now piled on as well.

For decades, Democrats and Republican­s have agreed that it would be “unwise” to give the Security Council the responsibi­lity “to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinia­ns.” Those words were spoken by Susan Rice, Obama’s first ambassador to the UN when, following his instructio­ns in 2011, she blocked a similar resolution. But back then Obama still had one more presidenti­al election to win so antagonizi­ng Israel’s supporters may have seemed ill-advised.

Perhaps that’s unfair. Perhaps Obama sincerely believes that a two-state solution could be achieved if only Israel would withdraw from the “occupied territorie­s.” If so, he’s ignoring both history and experience. Start with the fact that Arab, Muslim and Palestinia­n leaders first rejected a two-state solution back in 1948 — almost a generation before Israelis took possession of the West Bank and Gaza.

Those lands fell to Israel as a consequenc­e of the 1967 war, one of several attempts by Israel’s neighbours to drive the despised Jews into the sea. It was from Jordan and Egypt respective­ly that Israel took those territorie­s. Palestinia­ns had never governed them.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada