Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Obama Responsible For Palestinian State

Most Obamaites believe  he is such a good friend of Israel, however, that is not the truth. He does things that "appear" to make him supportive but when the rubber hits the road as in the latest fiasco on the Palestinian "Observer" status, he takes no action to impede the Jewish state's enemies. He could have done the same as the US did 20 years ago, but he chose not to do anything.

We believe, if given the chance, he would abandon Israel completely. That day will come and possibly in this term, especially if Netanyahu does something to make the Dictator mad.  Remember, he has more flexibility now.  Time will tell. We hope that we are 100% wrong.

The following article explains the options that Obama had but for unknown reasons did not take advantage.  

Conservative Tom




Share This Post
 13
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=5294
30 Nov 2012
By Greg McDonald
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton blamed the Obama administration for failing to block the U.N.’s de facto recognition Thursday of a sovereign Palestinian State, saying the White House never took the issue “seriously.”
“This is a reflection of an ongoing failure by the Obama administration to take this issue seriously,” Bolton told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Thursday night, adding that the president should have moved more forcefully in October, when the Palestinian Authority was made a member of the U.N. and its affiliated organizations.
“It never should have been. Palestine is not a state,” Bolton said. “That’s a fact. And when the U.N. engages in this kind of activity, it just shows a real lack of administration commitment to stop it from happening.”
Bolton said the Obama administration could have taken a page from the playbook of former Secretary of State James Baker more than two decades ago when a similar effort to change the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s observer status at the U.N. from an “entity” to a “non-member state,” the same status held by the Vatican.
“We’ve been through this before. We did this 20 years ago and defeated the Palestinians,” Bolton said. “And this is how we did it. Secretary of State Jim Baker issued a statement saying he would recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.
“If the administration had simply done what Jim Baker did 20 years ago, this thing would have been deader than a doornail,” Bolton added. The former ambassador, now a Fox News contributor, said he sees plenty of trouble ahead as the United States, Israel and other nations react to the new Palestinian status.
Pointing to Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has threatened to introduce legislation to cut off U.N. aid, Bolton suggested that other members of Congress could move as well to end funding for other U.N.- affiliated groups with which the Palestinians can now claim association.
He said Israel should also prepare seriously for a move by the Palestinians to take complaints about Israel to the international criminal court now that they have standing in the U.N. He noted that it would be “a big mistake on their part” for Israel to downplay the problems that such a move could create.

3 comments:

  1. Bolton's unstated assumption here is that a ploy that worked in 1988 would work in 2012. As you note in your other thread, the U.S. is on the decline in the world relative to other nations. We don't have the clout over Europe that we had in 1988. Many of these European countries will now even have embassies for Palestine in their countries.

    At the heart of Bolton's assumption seems to be that withdrawing funding from U.N. programs will buy the votes of countries that receive financial aid from the U.S. For most U.N. member nations, that is a questionable assumption. Here is an interesting graph from the Heritage Foundation that shows, except for Israel, most of the top 30 countries receiving aid from the U.S. do not vote with the U.S. on non-consensus votes in the General Assembly…

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/us-foreign-aid-recipients-show-little-support-for-america-when-voting-at-the-united-nations

    What's worse, the influence we DO have with the politically free countries through aid (a few of them shown in the graph), would be jeopardized in an effort that would very likely fail to achieve its objective. Even if successful, what we would lose in withdrawing support from U.N. organizations would be more than we gain as far as our standing and influence in the world and the Middle East. No country in the world has given more support to Israel than the U.S. and that is as true for Obama as his predecessors, but it is not Obama's responsibility to support Israel at all costs.

    Of course, from Bolton's perspective, there would be no cost when his ploy fails, inasmuch as he considers the U.N. worthless anyhow!

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. I looked at the "support" chart and noticed one large receipient of aid--Saudi Arabia which is missing.Also missing are Turkey and Libya.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That list ends at 2008. Here is the updated list of top recipients for 2012 (in Millions $$$)…

    Israel $3,075
    Afghanistan $2,327
    Pakistan $2,102
    Iraq $1,683
    Egypt $1,557
    Jordan $676
    Kenya $652
    Nigeria $625
    Tanzania $571
    Ethiopia $580
    South Africa $489

    As you can see, under the dastardly Obama, Israel gets far more aid than the two countries we invaded or any of the other Arab countries. Saudi Arabia and Turkey don't make the list. Except for Israel, none of these countries voted with us against Palestinian statehood.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.