Said Charles Krauthammer.
In 2012, running for re-election, Obama spoke at the meeting of AIPAC, the big Jewish lobby. He said, “Is there any doubt that I have Israel’s back?” That’s why he didn’t want do it while he was in office. That’s why he didn’t want to do it in 2016 so it would injure Hillary and show to particularly American Jews, who tend to be Democratic, that it was all a farce. He does it on the way out, and that’s part of why it’s so disgraceful. He didn’t even — he hid it until there would be no consequence. Now he is out the door and the damage is done for years. That resolution cannot be undone.ADDED: From the Washington Post editors: "The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot." The NYT has no editorial response yet.
AND: Outside of the opinion pages, the NYT does have a news article, "Obama, Trump and the Turf War That Has Come to Define the Transition." that begins:
President-elect Donald J. Trump and President Obama have been unfailingly polite toward each other since the election. But with Mr. Trump staking out starkly different positions from Mr. Obama on Israel and other sensitive issues, and the president acting aggressively to protect his legacy, the two have become leaders of what amounts to dueling administrations.What happened in the U.N. was Obama showing off his power in the face of Donald Trump? Is that what the NYT means to say? That's not just pathetic. It's shocking.
The split widened on Friday when the Obama administration abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote that condemned Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and allowed the resolution to pass. A day earlier, Mr. Trump had publicly demanded that Mr. Obama veto the measure, even intervening with Egypt at the request of Israel to pressure the administration to shelve the effort....
It was the latest in a rapid-fire series of Twitter posts and public statements over the last week in which Mr. Trump has weighed in on Israel, terrorism and nuclear proliferation — contradicting Mr. Obama and flouting the notion that the country can have only one president at a time....
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219Thanks to Obama's childish fit of pique the world today is closer to nuclear war than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union.Way to cut and run Barry.
Papper J: The Jews who voted for Obama and Hillary traded their religion for a new religion of liberalism and don't reallyrics care about israel
This may very well be true. The Old Testament has a recurring theme of the Israelites turning away from God to better fit in with the neighbors. Part of that theme is it never works out well for them.
That said, I seriously doubt that this position will do them any good if things go badly. People who truly hate Jews don't tend to care if a Jew goes to synagogue on a regular basis or they are an atheist fanatical BDS activist who wants Israel wiped from the map and hates his own family. There are no "good Jews" to these people. The best that can be hoped for is to be killed last.
"Blogger tola'at sfarim said...
I think this also signals obamas support for ellison as dnc chairperson"
This seems right to me. I think that Obama is trying to turn the Dems from the Clinton party to the Obama party. Obama will try to assemble a high-low coalition of educated whites, Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims. No white working people will be made welcome. I think that it will be difficult to make this a winning coalition anywhere but the coasts, but perhaps Obama believes that by leveraging existing civil rights laws he can get a seat at the table. I believe that Ellison's recent remarks that Hillary's recent loss was a result of turnout was a shout out to Obama. Ellison and Obama have similar backgrounds. Both moved up the Dem hierarchy by demonstrating their skill in whipping their voters to the polling place.
I do not think the United Nations should be based in New York City. We are not the center of the world and should not strive to be the center of the world. Maybe the United Nations should rotate cities every four years, like the Olympics. Or stick it next to the World Court.
I do not think the United Nations should be based in New York City. We are not the center of the world and should not strive to be the center of the world. Maybe the United Nations should rotate cities every four years, like the Olympics. Or stick it next to the World Court.
Saint Croix I really think it need s to be in a place which is unequivocally the world's-May I suggest Antarctica
Saint Croix I really think it need s to be in a place which is unequivocally the world's-May I suggest Antarctica
I do not think the United Nations should be based in New York City.
Lazlo has already suggested forcibly relocating the UN to Detroit, which I think is a good solution in principle. But if we really want to put those asswipes in their place I can think of better places, such as Fargo, North Dakota.
Just imagine those high falutin' UN diplomats banished from the fine dining and stylish nightlife of Manhattan, and compelled to shop at Walmart and dine out at Chili's. Sweet, no?
A good place for the United Nations would be some place like Haiti, or Nigeria.
"Just imagine those high falutin' UN diplomats banished from the fine dining and stylish nightlife of Manhattan, and compelled to shop at Walmart and dine out at Chili's. Sweet, no?"
Better at The Olive Garden.
readering said...
"Talk about echo chambers!"
...chambers... chambers...
Dinesh D'Souza's Obama's America used Obama's own autobiography so show his agenda. In Dreams from My Father Obama expressed his desire to fulfill the goals of his father. Obama has shown little respect for his white mother and the white grandparents who raised him but clearly idolized his father, mostly absent from his life.
Yeah, he's getting some push back for this. After all it is an abandonment of decades of clear support for our best ally in the middle east. Played out on the largest diplomatic stage on earth.
But for earth shaking outrage generation it can't compare with a tweet.
Charles Krauthammer:
To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew who lives in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter, inhabited for 1,000 years, is illegal, breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the international criminal court and international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences.
It does not. It says 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. It demands that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard. It calls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. It says it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.
But it doesn't say any individual living there is breaking international law and can be hauled into court.
Samantha Power also sees things in the resolution that aren't there:
Moreover, unlike in 2011, this resolution condemns violence, terrorism and incitement, which also poses an extremely grave risk to the two-state solution….For Palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious: that in addition to taking innocent lives – the incitement to violence, the glorification of terrorists, and the growth of violent extremism erodes prospects for peace, as this resolution makes crystal clear.
Just where in the resolution is this?
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761030
Maybe someone can point out to me just where this is crystal clear.
It calls for the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground.
This resolution boldly LIES.
It is simply a lie to claim that anything now is making a territorial compromise less likely because nothing is changing much and nothing has in years. There was, that is, no cause related to events on the ground for this resolution to be passed now.
But that lie is not any kind of international law.
Another lie is that the status quo is not sustainable, and that urgent steps are needed to stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground ansd create the conditios for final stats negotiatrions. Well, everyone had better hope that thw stats quo is sustainable because the only realistic alternatives are worse for everyone.
The resolution offers as an alternative the idea of two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, , but every informed person knows that is not in the cards. The chief alternative to the status quo is war ands terrorism.
The UN would be well situated in Singapore.
The mask is off and the real Obama stands naked for all to see, a petty, pathetic anti-Semite doing as much destruction as he can in his last days in office. I'm with Ted Cruz, not a dime to the UN until the resolution is overturned. If they persist, throw them out of the country and let them find another place, and another sugar daddy.
There are probably quite a few decent people. But they are not the ones in control and they are not the majority.
Thet typically say they are not interested in politics.
Cements my opinion. Defund the UN and throw them out of the US. Any NATO members who voted in favor...toss them out. Resign from the UN and let it go the route of the League of Nations. Walk away from foreign entanglements, and only give nations we are friendly with MFN status.
Post a Comment