Throw­ing Is­rael to the U.N.’s wolves

Obama en­cour­ages Is­rael’s en­e­mies, in­clud­ing caliphate-builders, in a part­ing shot

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By Clif­ford D. May Clif­ford D. May is pres­i­dent of the Foun­da­tion for De­fense of Democ­ra­cies (FDD) and a colum­nist for the Wash­ing­ton Times.

Pales­tinian Is­lamic Ji­had is, as its name sug­gests, an or­ga­ni­za­tion com­mit­ted to ji­had — against Is­rael most ur­gently, though not ex­clu­sively. So when the U.N. Se­cu­rity Coun­cil on Fri­day passed a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing Is­rael, PIJ 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 U.N., 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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, Mr. Obama’s first am­bas­sador to the U.N., when, fol­low­ing his in­struc­tions in 2011, she blocked a sim­i­lar res­o­lu­tion. But back then Mr. Obama still had one more pres­i­den­tial elec­tion to win so an­tag­o­niz­ing Is­rael’s sup­port­ers may have seemed ill-ad­vised.

Per­haps that’s un­fair. Per­haps Mr. 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 neigh­bors 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.

But that led to a bright idea: Why not trade land for peace with the Pales­tini­ans? With Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton serv­ing as hon­est bro­ker, spe­cific of­fers were put on the ta­ble in 2000 and then again in 2001. Another of­fer was prof­fered in 2008. Pales­tinian lead­ers turned them down. They made no coun­terof­fers.

In 2005, an ex­per­i­ment was con­ducted: Is­raelis with­drew from one of the oc­cu­pied ter­ri­to­ries. Within two years, Hamas was firmly in charge of Gaza from which it be­gan launch­ing mis­siles at Is­raeli vil­lages. Is­raelis learned a les­son. The “in­ter­na­tional com­mu­nity” did not. On the con­trary, Pres­i­dent Obama and the U.N. Se­cu­rity Coun­cil have just told the Is­raelis that they en­vi­sion a land-for-peace deal that omits the peace part. Mean­while, on the West Bank, only thanks to Is­rael’s military and in­tel­li­gence pres­ence (read: oc­cu­pa­tion) does Fatah main­tain its hold on power. Mah­moud Ab­bas, who leads both Fatah and the Pales­tinian Author­ity, is no wild-eyed ji­hadi. But, he, too, re­fuses to ac­knowl­edge the right of Jews to self-de­ter­mi­na­tion in any part of their an­cient home­land.

Res­o­lu­tion 2334 de­mands noth­ing of Pales­tini­ans. Its def­i­ni­tion of “oc­cu­pied ter­ri­tory” is extreme, in­clud­ing even the Jewish Quar­ter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Con­quered in 1949 by Jor­dan’s Arab Le­gion, it was then “cleansed” of Jews. Syn­a­gogues and ceme­ter­ies were de­stroyed. Jewish holy places were des­e­crated. The U.N., of course, did noth­ing.

Look at the map: Across North Africa and the Mid­dle East, from Morocco to Pak­istan, there is only one state not ruled by Mus­lims, only one in which mi­nori­ties — eth­nic, reli­gious, sex­ual — are guar­an­teed ba­sic hu­man rights. The dream of PIJ, Hamas, the Is­lamic State, the Is­lamic Republic of Iran and other Is­lamic rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies is to de­stroy that ex­cep­tional state, to in­cor­po­rate it into a new em­pire — an em­pire that, over time, is to ex­pand well be­yond the re­gion.

Mr. Obama has now en­cour­aged that dream. That will be his legacy. And he still has a few weeks left to do more dam­age. I wouldn’t put it past him.

The day be­fore the U.N. vote, Pres­i­dent-elect Trump stated what Pres­i­dent Obama once claimed to be­lieve, that “peace be­tween the Is­raelis and the Pales­tini­ans will only come through di­rect ne­go­ti­a­tions be­tween the par­ties, and not through the im­po­si­tion of terms by the United Na­tions.” Af­ter the vote, he added: “As to the U.N., things will be dif­fer­ent af­ter Jan. 20th.”

His nom­i­nee for am­bas­sador, David Fried­man, has pro­posed mov­ing the U.S. em­bassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That would be an ap­pro­pri­ate re­sponse to this lat­est provo­ca­tion.

Among the ad­di­tional mea­sures Mr. Trump will con­sider: dra­mat­i­cally re­duc­ing Amer­i­can fund­ing for the U.N. Like other transna­tional pro­gres­sives, Mr. Obama re­gards the U.N. as a proto-global gov­ern­ment. Mr. Trump, an anti-glob­al­ist, does not.

It will be use­ful for him to em­pha­size that so long as he’s in the White House, Amer­ica’s sovereignty will not be sur­ren­dered to transna­tional or­ga­ni­za­tions, Amer­ica’s tax dol­lars will not be squan­dered on transna­tional or­ga­ni­za­tions, Amer­ica’s en­e­mies will not be re­warded and Amer­ica’s al­lies will be abused no longer.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.