UN To Vote On Palestinian Statehood and Obama Is Trapped In A Catch 22

Here are two headlines from Yahoo News yesterday and today: Stakes high as Mideast envoys try to defuse UN row and  Diplomats scramble ahead of Palestinian UN bid. What is all the brouhaha about? Well, the Palestinian Authority is petitioning the UN to recognize Palestine as a state, as a nation among the world of nations if you will. There seems to be some confusion as to whether the petition for statehood will be addressed by the UN General Assembly or by the UN Security Council or both.

If the petition is heard by the UN General Assembly, it is a forgone conclusion that the Assembly ( a brotherhood of third world totalitarian socialist countries ) will approve Palestine as a state. The US has no veto power in the General Assembly. If the petition is heard by the UN Security Council, the US does have veto power. But why would Obama want to veto the statehood of Palestine? Isn’t statehood for Palestine exactly what he has been pushing for since the day he took office? Didn’t he say before the UN nearly a year ago that he looked forward to welcoming Palestine as the newest member of the United Nations? That’s true. So why then is the Obama administration in a state of panic to try to stop the issue of Palestinian statehood from being addressed by the UN? That, my friends is a question worth pursuing.

When it comes to the issues of Israel, Palestine and the whole of the Middle-East, Barack Obama rushed in where angels fear to tread. From the day Obama took office, he has made it clear the he, The Chosen  One, was going to change over sixty years of US policy in the Middle-East and he, The Chosen One, would finally bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It was crystal clear  to The Chosen One that, for over sixty years,  US policy in the Middle-East had been too one-sided in favor of Israel. As a result, we had unnecessarily made enemies among the Arab and Muslim nations. He was going to correct that situation. Obama believed that by supporting the Palestinians and bullying Israel into withdrawing from the so-called occupied territories and returning to the pre-1967  borders that there could finally be a state of Palestine and that there would be peace. How arrogant is that? Why would he believe there would be peace? Well, The Chosen One had a plan to make peace  with all the Muslim world. He went to Cairo in June of 2009 and made an elegant speech and his State Department participated in training young Arabs to rebel against their totalitarian leaders and bring democracy to their counties, the Arab Spring. How arrogant was that? With the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda in Libya and ever more belligerent Iran, it would appear that the Arab Spring is becoming an Arab Winter. But, for today, let’s stay on the subject of Palestinian statehood.

So, is all that is going on this week due to Obama’s arrogance? After all, arrogance has been a common trait among American presidents. Teddy Roosevelt was arrogant. Woodrow Wilson was arrogant. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the king of arrogance until King Barry came along. Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were also arrogant. In my opinion, what we are seeing in Obama’s handling of the Israel-Palestinian issue is the result of a coupling of monumental arrogance with monumental ignorance. Obama’s demonstrated ignorance of the history of the Israeli and Palestinian region is indeed monumental. Let’s go through a brief and simplified version of that history.

Prior to 1948 there existed a territory known as Palestine and it had been under the governance of Great Britain for some time. Now, it is important to note that words are important. This territory known as Palestine was not a Palestinian nation. There was no recognized nation of any kind in this territory. To my knowledge, there has never in history been a nation of Palestine. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about this. There was once, however, a nation known as Israel. Its exact borders are a matter of dispute; but, there was once in this region a nation known as Israel. On November 29, 1947, United Nations Resolution 181 was passed. In essence, UN Resolution 181 called for Great Britain to withdraw from the territory which would then be partitioned into two states; a state for the Jews and a state for the Palestinians. The resolution also contained special provisions for the City of Jerusalem. So, what happened? What happened is that the Jews accepted UN Resolution 181 and the state of Israel was born. The Palestinians, however, did not accept UN Resolution 181 and a Palestinian state was not born. And, there was no peace in the region. After defending itself in several wars and winning these wars, Israel in 1967 decided for their own security they would annex some of the lands conquered in war to create a buffer zone that would make it easier in the future to defend their nation.

Okay, let’s get back to the present. Obama in his infinite wisdom has altered America’s foreign policy from one that favored its ally Israel to one that favors the Palestinians. He has made it clear in his infinite wisdom that a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians will occur in his presidency. This will be his legacy. This will make his place in history. Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are not cooperating with The Chosen One. Why? Because, for one thing, The Chosen One has insisted that the only way there can be a peace accord is if Israel agrees before hand to agree to return to its pre-1967 borders. And by the brief and simplified history presented above, you can see that only a fool would believe that is going to happen. But it gets worse. Obama’s new best friend, Mahmoud Abbas is no fool. He knows that the peace talks with Israel are going nowhere.  From the point of view of Abbas, he is making a very smart strategic move. He i s planning to petition the UN to recognize the state of Palestine and give Palestine a seat in th UN General Assembly. This would place Israel in a difficult negotiating position to be sure.  Also, it would appear that Obama’s new best friend is no friend at all.  Abbas has let it be known that instead of going only to the UN General Assembly with is petition which no one can veto, he may take his petition first to the UN Security Council and force Mr. Obama’s hand. If Obama vetoes a UN approval of statehood for Palestine, it will prove he was never a friend of the Arab world. For example, Saudi Arabia threatens to split with US if Obama vetos Palestinian statehood bid. If he doesn’t use his veto power, the Arab world, the enemies of Israel, will undoubtedly react with violence toward Israel. It is a lose- lose situation of Obama’s own doing.. And this why we have the headlines in the news that were linked at the beginning of this post. The Obama administration is desperately trying to get Abbas to with draw his petition for statehood. Will Abbas backdown? If so, at what price?

Obama, through his arrogance and ignorance, has put himself in a Catch- 22 position. Through his arrogance and ignorance, Obama’s mis-steps with the Arab Spring and his mis-steps with the Israelis and the Palestinians my have put the world at risk of a major war in the Middle-East.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “UN To Vote On Palestinian Statehood and Obama Is Trapped In A Catch 22

  1. I think you broke it down real good. Obama’s overinflated ego craved the adulation of the Muslim world. He wants to be buddies? Well, now he’s got to show it by kicking Israel to the curb.

    It is a catch-22 and it is of his own making. Your question…

    “Will Abbas backdown? If so, at what price?”

    is key. How many billions will this criminal extract from Obama to back away from the precipice?

    This, folks, is why presidential elections are important. Wisdom, experience, judgment and knowledge are all of extreme importance. Obama has none of those and it shows.

  2. Why in the world would anyone think that someone who was a community organizer, a lawyer, with zero experience, be anything but what he is? I ask that of anyone who voted for him. It seems clear to me, but then, apparently, I do not recognize his greatness.

  3. I don’t think Obama has made missteps at all. His actions have been purposeful. He sympathizes with Islamic radicals. His goal in the Middle East has been to isolate Israel & strengthen its enemies.

  4. Not only there was never a nation called Palestine, historically Jews were known as Palestinians, see here, for instance:
    http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/never_arab.html
    If you watch “Exodus”, Arabs are called Arabs, and Jews are Palestinians.
    Also, that’s why Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1948 are now known as Israeli *Arabs*, unlike their brethren who fled.

    Obama cornered himself with the Jewish community here, so he’ll probably use the UN veto. Paradoxically, a pro-Israel president, like Bush, pushed Sharon to withdraw from Gaza.
    Arab leaders always threaten something. The fact is, they need us because of our military might and because they need customers for their oil (technically, not the US, but our allies anyway).

  5. While I support the right of Israel to exist as a state, let there be no mistake Israel could care less what consequences US foreign policy incurs in its support of the Israeli state.

    Along those lines, it should be no less surprising Israel prefers Palestine not be recognized as a state. If Palestine were a state, then Israeli settlements and armed interventions would be, de facto, violations of another state’s sovereignty. As it is, Israel gets to act unilaterally with no international accountability. Is this much different from how the Nazis acted in the occupied territories of the east?

    1. The Palestinian Arabs had the opportunity to have their own state and turned it down in 1948. After all the wars and attacks on the Israeli state the Palestinian Arabs should be glad that Israel left them with the Gaza strip. Who has been intolerant to whom?

    2. “As it is, Israel gets to act unilaterally with no international accountability. Is this much different from how the Nazis acted in the occupied territories of the east?”
      Wow! If Nazis were evil, it’s not because they acted “unilaterally”. In fact, they had the support of their Axis allies.
      I find the whole “in the occupied territories of the east” turn of phrase interesting, considering that the Nazis rounded up Jews in the West and shipped us to the East.
      Nazis were evil because they murdered people, and Israel doesn’t do that.
      I suspect that everything you said about Israel has a lot to do with what you said about the Nazis.

  6. Great post! I think you nailed this one; Barack Obama’s arrogance appears on the verge of catching up with him. He can’t win either way if he has to vote on this and he put himself in this situation.

  7. Obama’s endorsement of and praise for the Arab Spring have led us to the point that the Pseudostinians are further emboldened.

    In fact, Obama’s Middle East policies are about to upset even further what little balance there was in the Middle East. **sigh**

  8. “….what we are seeing in Obama’s handling of the Israel-Palestinian issue is the result of a coupling of monumental arrogance with monumental ignorance.”

    It’s born of his leftist education and leftist mindset, they feel that they know it all and what they don’t know is not worth knowing.

    The muslims who don’t dislike obama, and there are many who despise him, view him as a very useful idiot.

  9. The UN general assesmbly is is a “brotherhood of totalitarian third world socialist countries”?

    Thanks for the information. Very helpful. Just in case someone is looking for a list of totalitarian third word socialist countries- here it is . There are about 193 such low life countries

    http://www.un.org/en/members/

    Strangely I notice that some of the totalitarian third world general assembly countries such as japan, singapore, norway, taiwan, India, China, Brazil are financing the united states debt.

    Its not good that U.S is living off the savings of totalitarian socialists. These third world countries should feed their own people and stop lending to U.S

  10. I belive that a Palestinian state is not the main agenda of palestine in this ongoing issue between palestine and isreal. Isreal has made it clear at the united nations that it isn’t against a palestenian state but is concerned about its security. I do not know why it has been such an issue for palestine to sit down with isreal and negotiate on the issue of security if indeed all they’re after is a palestinian state because a peace talk with isreal is a rather cheap price for a state. I personally see and understand the point isreal is trying to make concerning this issue. Isreal worries about the security of the nation considering its location and the consequences of the previous withdrawals from strategic positions hoping to achieve peace. Isreal doesn’t want to be the fool the second time. Palestines refusal to negotiate with Isreal begins to create doubts that this statehood is only part of the master plan with iran to wipe out isreal. This is my fear and my believed fear of Isreal. Why would palestine rather seek “PEACE” from the united nations national assembly than sit down and discuss this simple matter with isreal. Do the Palestines have a hidden agenda here? Another issue I would like to address is the public misunderstanding of presidents Obama’s decision to veto the palestine’s bid for statehood. I strongly believe that the fear I have of a palestinian hidden agenda by not sitting to discuss and settle things with Isreal, is the same fear that president obama is having. President Obama’s aim and goal by his decision is to kill two birds with a stone that is, achieving peace by forcing palestine to sit and negotiate with the isreal if they really want the statehood, and also to grant a statehood to palestine after this is done. I strongly support the decision of Mr president and I respect his wisdom, he has proven by his decision that he truly is a wise leader. I hope other countries in the UN see things through th eyes of Mr president, try to achieve the same goal with their votes, and thin about this question “Why not palestine settle with isreal and then have their craved statehood?”

    1. Thank you, Fidel, for your thoughtful comment. With all due respect, I don’t think President Obama has managed to US position with the Israel/Palestinian issue at all well since he took office. He has tried to make friends with the Arab world and that is good but at the same time he was indicating that the reason that the peace talks were not moving forward was due to Israeli intransigence which was not and is not true as you have noted. Mr. Obama made a grave error when he met with Netanyahu and said Israel must accept the pre-1967 borders as a condition for getting the peace talks going. That was foolish and it gave Abbas the idea that he could force the issue using the UN. The speech that Obama gave before the UN was as good as could be expected considering the corner that he had put himself into. The speech that Netanyahu gave was absolutely brilliant. If Mr. Obama were half the statesman that Netanyahu is, the peace talks would have begun two years ago. Instead, he had to break his word to Abbas and he has alienated the Saudis.

  11. Why is the hamas faction quiet on the issue of statehood of the Palestinians?
    Why didn’t the Palestinians form their own state base on the UN resolution 181?
    Why did they wait till after israel allies in the Arab world such as Egypt led Mubarak were overthrown before seeking statehood?
    Israel shouldn’t back down from the occupied territories until there’s a comprehensive agreement on the security of israel.

  12. I don’t believe that the decision of the United states on the palestenian statehood should be a condition for the continueity of the relations between the US and the saudi’s. The decision of president obama on this issue affects all parts of the world in one way or the other. And president obama can’t possibly take a decision that favours everyone perfectly. So let’s just pray that God gives him the wisdom to do what is right. My overall view on the decision of President Obama is that he was too quick to speak on the issue by telling natanyehu to accept the pre-1967 border as a condition to get the peace talks going. In a situation like this president obama should have thoroughly weighed the implication of the advice he gave, knowing that it will put his aliance either towards palestine or isreal which is wrong considering that his position on this issue should have been rather on the fence till his speech at the UN where he would have given his points on why he was going to veto or support the statehood bill. If he had done that and stated his reasons @ the UN as trying to achieve peace between isreal and palestine by threatening to veto the palestinian bid if they don’t settle with Isreal I think the world and himself would be in a better position right now. President Obama was the initial cause of the palestinian stuborness. He gave them the morale to push their bid to the UN only to turn around and veto their bid. He was too qiuck to speak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s