January 14th, 2017

Obama’s well-timed and coordinated betrayal of Israel—and it may not be over yet

I suggest you read this excellent piece by Scott Johnson at Powerline. It’s a summary of what Obama actually accomplished in his seemingly-passive abstention in the Israel vote at the UN, and what it means for Israel.

Please read the whole thing. But I especially call your attention to this:

• The next act is the Orwellian-named “peace conference,” to be held in Paris on January 15. It has but one objective: to set the stage to eradicate Israel.

• In this new “Dreyfus trial,” the accused will be the only Jewish state and the accusers will be the OIC and officials from Islamized, dhimmified, anti-Israel Western states. As in the Dreyfus trial, the verdict has been decided before it even starts. Israel will be considered guilty of all charges and condemned. A draft of the declaration to be published at the end of the conference is already available. And another vote just happens to come up in the last days (literally) of Obama’s presidency…

• The declaration is most likely meant [to] serve as the basis for a new Security Council resolution on January 17 that would recognize a Palestinian state inside the “1967 borders,” and be adopted, thanks to a second US abstention, three days before Obama leaves office. The betrayal of Israel by the Obama administration and by Obama himself would then be complete.

How much of this will the new administration and new Congress be able to reverse? I don’t know.

In terms of the recent UN resolution on Israel/Palestine—the one that took place right before Chanukah and Christmas of 2016—the White House has denied the reports that it orchestrated that resolution rather than merely being a passive abstainer:

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

Actually, I don’t see why everyone—both Obama supporters and opponents alike—wouldn’t just assume that this is exactly what occurred (or something very much like it). And I don’t see why everyone—both Obama supporters and opponents alike—wouldn’t just assume that the administration would lie about it after the fact.

This is the Obama pattern: work behind the scenes on something the majority doesn’t want, then deny it and lie about it.

Who on earth would be convinced that this resolution just happened to come up at this particular moment, and because it was so very different from previous ones the US decided to react by abstaining rather than vetoing it? Sure. And I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn…

For example, in 2011 Obama vetoed a resolution that was remarkably similar. There was nothing especially pressing about the recent one, or the one to come in January. There has been no special crisis occurring in Israel or Palestine at the moment.

The only thing that has occurred that is different right now is that Donald Trump was elected president and Obama will be leaving office on January 20. Obama is in a hurry and his window of opportunity was small.

Are we really to believe that it was just a coincidence that this resolution (or resolutions, if the second one occurs as well) just came up without any pushing by the US, and that it just happened to be during the seven or so weeks that constitute Obama’s sweet spot (lame duck) period for doing this? Are we really to believe this resolution had such different characteristics (objectively speaking) from previous ones Obama had vetoed, that this time it seemed like a great idea to let it pass? Are we really to believe that when Egypt (the original sponsor) withdrew it, New Zealand just felt so strongly about it that it just had to leap into the fray and bring it to a vote? That all of this happened with the Obama administration sitting on the sidelines, twiddling its collective thumbs and saying “well, whatever”?

Did Obama think his administration’s role in this would go unreported and unleaked? Maybe. I think he may have hoped for that, but he knew there was a risk of the truth coming out and he just didn’t care. After all, what is anyone going to do to him now? Impeach him? He has a goal, and he accomplished it: the vote went forward, and it will hurt Israel, Netanyahu, and even Donald Trump (or at least give the latter a big fat headache).

For some details on how Obama’s decision may have gone down, see this Wapo article:

Skeptics, including Vice President Biden, warned [there would be] fierce backlash [to the UN referendum] in Congress and in Israel itself. But most agreed that the time had come to take a stand.

“The time had come to take a stand” all right, but not because anything had significantly changed on the ground in Israel and Palestine. It was because time was about to run out for Obama:

The resolution’s sponsors, four countries in addition to Egypt, were determined to call a vote before Obama left office.

They’re not dumb. Nor is Obama.

And now I come to this sentence in the WaPo piece—basically, an admission of what I’ve been saying, and what is obvious anyway. But I’m surprised to see the WaPo say it on the record:

Israel had been a third rail of U.S. political debate for decades, but Obama, aides noted, never had to run for office again. He had nothing to lose.

The push seems to have started around September, in anticipation of a Clinton victory:

The first public hint of the move came in the heat of the U.S. presidential campaign in September, just after nominees Trump and Hillary Clinton held meetings with Netanyahu in New York. In an Israeli television interview, Dan Shapiro, U.S. ambassador to Israel, said Obama was “asking himself” about the best way to promote a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“This could be a statement we make or a resolution or an initiative at the U.N. . . . which contributes to an effort to be continued by the next administration,” he said.

Shapiro clearly anticipated a Clinton victory, reflecting thinking within the administration that if Obama took the heat for a critical statement or resolution, she would be in a better position to play the “good cop” and move Israel toward substantive negotiations. For her part, Clinton had expressed no interest in a resolution.

So, this wasn’t just about tying Trump’s hands; that effect was just an unexpected bonus. The Obama camp didn’t think that a Trump victory was at all likely (they certainly were not alone in this). But even in the event of the much-anticipated Clinton victory, they figured that they couldn’t count on Hillary to do it, so they had to squeeze this in before an inauguration no matter who was elected. But it absolutely had to be done after the election, so as not to jeopardize her chances by tainting her as a successor to Obama:

Trump’s Nov. 8 victory increased Israeli concern of a preemptive move by Obama…

I bet it did.

And rightly so.

28 Responses to “Obama’s well-timed and coordinated betrayal of Israel—and it may not be over yet”

  1. Sam L. Says:

    I trust Mr. Trump will do something about this.

  2. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “The resolution declares all of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem — home to the Old City, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount — the most sacred place in Judaism — “occupied Palestinian territory,”

    It effectively declares any Jew living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem to be a war criminal.

    “Daniel Pipes recently wrote that it is time to acknowledge the failure of a “peace process” that is really a war process. He stresses that peace can only come when an enemy is defeated.”

    Defeated in the manner of WWII’s Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

    “If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.” Curtis LeMay

    Allah has declared in the Qur’an that any land once Muslim MUST eternally remain Muslim. This is a theological imperative, a mandatory obligation. Any Muslim who fails to work toward it risks being barred from paradise. That and that alone, lies at the heart of Palestinian intransigence.

  3. Frog Says:

    Peculiar it is, the non-recognition that either Britain or France could have vetoed the anti-Israel Security Council resolution. It was not just the Obama-mandated US abstention that got the resolution passed.

    Note the countries that spoke in favor of the resolution at the SC meeting: New Zealand, Venezuela, France, China, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Russian Federation, Japan, Angola and Senegal. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Note also that New Zealand was the sponsor of the anti-Israel resolution. The same New Zealand that does not allow US Navy ships to refuel/reprovision in its harbors.

    Anti-Semitism is in worldwide favor.
    Thank God for Trump.

  4. Ann Says:

    Also, the same New Zealand that refuses to join the U.K., the E.U., the U.S., Canada, and Australia in condemning China’s organ harvesting program.

  5. M J R Says:

    I know that to be a Jew is not the same thing as to be pro-Israel, or even the same thing as to be a pro-Israel Jew.

    But I can hardly help saying, to no one Jew in particular but to Jews generally, all the warning signs have been there even since before The One ran for election in 2008. Keep on voting Democrat, people. [sarcasm]

    “After my election I have more flexibility” indeed.

    (I do know that fewer and fewer Jews automatically vote Democrat now; in my lifetime it’s decreased from around 90 percent or more to maybe 75 or 70 percent now. That’s still an awfully high proportion. I suppose in these polarized times, many Jews will stick with the collectivist/socialist side, and will choose to swallow the anti-Israel / antisemitic side. Whatever.)

  6. parker Says:

    The Obama Legacy: Lawless bureaucracies, chaos everywhere, including here at home, and soon to be, the entire Middle East in flames. Will a vast majority of American Jews continue to vote for democrats when Israel is at war with the entire Arab world?

  7. Frog Says:

    parker:
    Israel need not take on the entire Arab aka Muslim world.
    When Iran de facto annexes Syria, the Golan Heights will be no barrier. Israel and Iran will be cheek-to-cheek.
    I hope the Israelis have enough nukes and a non-aviation delivery system to repel [deter] the onslaught. Even with Obama gone, with Shias running Iraq, Israel will not be granted flyover to Iran.

  8. parker Says:

    Frog,

    I strongly suspect the sunni boys will not want the shia boys to take Jerusalem.

  9. Yankee Says:

    Just when you think that Mr. Obama could not get up to any more mischief……..

    Depending on what happens with lame-duck changes in policy toward Israel, Mr. Obama could just end up hurting his own political party, if whatever goes on turns out to be unpopular. Mr. Obama is also inviting more scrutiny from the incoming Trump administration, which after everything else that has gone on, will feel little obligation to keep his executive orders in place.

    Compare this to all the recent news about Russians “hacking the election.” Don’t the Democrats realize that just invites the question of whether hostile foreign powers hacked Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server? And as for the Inspector General looking into the FBI Director’s conduct, don’t those same people realize that also invites questions about the conduct of Attorney General Loretta Lynch?

    I wonder if this is the “change” that people were looking for, back in 2008. There’s a certain arrogance and short-sightedness going on here, with some on the Left being unable to see their own faults, or admit the possibility that they may be wrong, or that they might not always be morally perfect and correct.

  10. parker Says:

    Yankee,

    When you acknowlede bho as MR who acknowledge him as worthy of the title. i am sure you can see why I make this objection.

  11. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Yankee,

    I’m sure we’re not alone in seeing the potential for severe blowback in the left’s recent actions. But one should never interfere when an enemy is busily digging themselves into an ever deeper hole.

  12. Chester Draws Says:

    Frog, you are wrong about NZ not allowing US ships, as you allow your emotions to cloud your judgement around Israel.

    US ships are welcome to N Z shores provided they are non-nuclear. Anti US sentiment is very low here.

    The US Navy have a policy of not indicating which ships have nuclear weapons, so effectively ban themselves. In recent times the US policy has softened and we will see ships back. NZ has trained alongside US naval forces for years.

    We send forces alongside the US coalition’s in Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

    We are neither antiSemitic nor anti-US. We do disagree about Israel.

    You are like the SJWs who insist that there is only one way to be just, and that no deviation from the party line is acceptable. You, like the SJWs, can stick it.

    Because NZ disagree on Israel is not reason to tar us with anti-Semitism.

  13. Sarah Rolph Says:

    “Because NZ disagree on Israel is not reason to tar us with anti-Semitism.”

    That might be a reasonable statement if you had shown your disagreement with an op-ed. Or simply with your foreign policy decisions about trade with Israel, etc.

    But siding with the jackals at the UN? Under these circumstances? Jew-hatred definitely seems like the most likely explanation. The only other possibility is extreme ignorance. And the two are often found together — ignorance of Israel and hatred of Jews — in the form of willful blindness.

  14. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    New Zealand’s non-nuclear policy is either deeply foolish or cowardly. Foolish because if the US unilaterally disarmed from its nuclear arsenal, within a decade, Russia and China would launch a decisive nuclear attack. The brutal truth is that the ONLY thing that keeps evil from ruling the world is America’s nuclear arsenal.

    If NZ acknowledges this reality, then cowardice can be the only motivation.

  15. Barry Meislin Says:

    But 2334 is much more than just screwing Israel.

    It trashes Resolution 242 (and all previous US—and UN—-policy on this issue).

    It trashes Oslo—one of the (if not THE) landmark achievements of the Clinton presidency (though why the Clintons have been, as far as I know, so silent on this issue I find more than a bit puzzling).

    It forever more, trashes American diplomacy, American reliability, and the entire concept of America as an ally (and why the State Department is so eager to play along is, once again, more that a bit puzzling)…

    It screws Trump big time (already mentioned in the thread).

    It further places the focus and onus on Israel as THE PRIMARY reason for there being no “progress” in the I-P “peace process”.

    All of the above are, of course, huge, huge achievements—extraordinary pluses, fabulous bonanzas—for an administration whose goal it is to “fundamentally transform” America (and take down the Jewish State).

    And it’s about to get worse.

  16. Barry Meislin Says:

    I forgot to mention that it will likely weaken the Democratic Party even more than it has already been weakened by the Obama presidency…

    …though to believe that Obama is or was ever interested in the health of the Democratic Party—except for how he would be able to manipulate that strength—-is to be beyond naive.

    (And even when the Democratic Party was weakened, Obama showed he didn’t really need it, employing executive orders, deception and his lackeys in the MSM to achieve his lawless, sordid goals.)

  17. Frog Says:

    I am glad to see Chester Draws come out from behind the curtain.
    “He” is a Kiwi.
    NZ is a pretty inconsequential country, geographically well out of harm’s way, being insulated from the evil that stalks much of the populated world. In consequence, Kiwis pontificate their inherent goodness and play loose with facts. A Wikileaks release some years ago indicated NZ’s involvement in the thoroughly corrupt Iraqi Oil for Food program.

    From a NZ source via Google:
    “Under New Zealand law the US is not required to confirm or deny whether a visiting ship is nuclear armed – it only requires the prime minister of the day to be satisfied any visiting ship does not carry nuclear weapons and is not nuclear powered.
    An assessment on a ship’s nuclear capability is made by New Zealand officials.”

    It is the USN’s longstanding policy never to admit or deny nuclear weapons or nuclear power on any USN ship.

    So NZ banned USN ships for almost 40 years. Until 2016, when our Navy got an invite to send a ship to NZ in celebration of the 75th anniversary of the NZ Navy!

    A self-centered wee little nation. They herd sheep; lamb seems to be the main export.

  18. OM Says:

    Frog:

    Enough with the NZ bashing. Nowhere is as good a Louisiana, don’t you know.

  19. Esther Says:

    It’s like the world needs Israel to undergo biblical struggles, so they will make sure to provide them.

    Meanwhile, I’m trying to mentally steel myself for these “peace talks.” Attacks on Israel tend to have an emotional impact on me, which probably isn’t healthy, but there it is.

    On the plus side, the loathing I’m now feeling for the outgoing administration is making me feel almost giddy with enthusiasm for the new one.

    That’s a problem only because everyone I know is emotionally suffering because of the election. The inauguration looms for them like the apocalypse of America.

    But, I want to burst out laughing, which I have to suppress, out of empathy, and of course, self protection, they lash out.

    The looming biblical destruction business is exhausting.

  20. Frog Says:

    OM:
    Not bashing NZ, just stating some facts, if you read them. Kiwis are very close to joining the BDS movement as a nation.
    If Gazans with their Mediterranean frontage had built resorts and casinos, Gaza would be the Old World version of Las Vegas, raking in the Israeli shekels to boot.

  21. OM Says:

    “Not bashing NZ” – size of the nation, location of the nation, what their economy is based on (or “known” for), with disparaging commentary. “Just facts.” Yeah. Which had nothing to do with their government’s policy or history regarding Israel. BS from Froggy.

  22. Tuvea Says:

    Chester,

    NZ is upset because Jewish people live on lands that the Palestinians ‘claim’ was at one point owned by them.

    Yet White Kiwis have no trouble with living on land that actually was owned by indigenous people as recently as 250 years.

    You folks ha

  23. Tuvea Says:

    Have two sets of rules. One for yourselves. And another one for Jews.

    Perhaps you could find out the term used to define such a double standard.

    ( sorry for the split post … got excited watching the Cowboys-Packers game )

  24. Richard Saunders Says:

    Seriously Chester, NZ is not anti-Semitic because it disagrees with Israel?

    Point me, if you will, to NZ’s support of a UN resolution calling for an independent Basque state, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Moro state, Rohingya state, Free Tyrol, Free Aceh, etc., etc., etc. Point me to the NZ support oif a UN resolution condemning the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus, the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    How about your own invasion and conquest of the Maori? Are you going to declare yourselves occupiers? Label every white New Zealander an invader? Every apartment building owned by whites an “illegal settlement?’

    When you’ve done all that, then you can say NZ is not anti-Semitic. I’m not holding my breath.

  25. Yann Says:

    New Zealand’s non-nuclear policy is either deeply foolish or cowardly.

    Neither of them. It’s an small country, and US umbrella has been always there.

    Of course, that’s vanishing. There is gonna be a moment where US won’t dare to face China in order to protect New Zealand. That moment New Zealand will be inside the sphere of China, which aims to be the only ruler in the Pacific. And then New Zealand will have to agree with the policies dictated from China, no matter they like them or not.

    Meet the new boss, you’ll miss the old one.

  26. Yann Says:

    NZ is upset because Jewish people live on lands that the Palestinians ‘claim’ was at one point owned by them.

    Yet White Kiwis have no trouble with living on land that actually was owned by indigenous people as recently as 250 years.

    Well, the thing is most of Palestinian population went to what now is Israel and Palestine 2-3 centuries ago. It was an Ottoman policy that incentivated inmigration waves to force Islam in middle east. And it worked. A few centuries ago, middle east had more Christians than Muslims. Check now.

    So when Palestinian say they are indigenous from Palestine… well, they are as much indigenous as white kiwis in NZ or white people in US.

  27. Frog Says:

    OM-
    “size of the nation, location of the nation, what their economy is based on (or “known” for)” are indeed facts.
    My associated commentary stands as my opinion.
    Your opinion differs, it would seem. Should I take that as being anti-Israel? Or pro-Hamas? In addition to being pro-Kiwi?

  28. OM Says:

    Frog:

    I’m anti-BS from a curmudgeon who takes pot shots at entire countries. Wikipedia and Google are full of “facts.” Understand that, Doc?

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge