Ambassador Samantha Power's Last Vote in the United Nations May be a Cowardly Abstention

Ambassador Samantha Power's Last Vote in the United Nations May be a Cowardly Abstention

Last week's vote in the United Nations Security Council may be Samantha Power's last vote as an ambassador to the U.N.. If that turns out to be the case, it may be a vote that will define and haunt her for years to come.

It would be disingenuous not to point out that Ambassador Power's vote reflects the intentions of her boss, President Obama.

It would also be remiss not to point out that since 1967 there have been 71 anti-Israel votes from which the United States either abstained or voted "Yes."

This is first time during the Obama administration that an anti-Israel vote was allowed to pass, making him the most Israel-friendly president since before Lyndon Johnson, based upon our record of votes in the U.N..

It's also worth noting that the Security Council is composed of some of the worst violators of human rights on the planet.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the U.N. entertains a “disproportionate” volume of resolutions against Israel, which has “foiled the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively.”

Why should Israel be precluded from building settlements? Not even the Oslo accords, signed by the Palestinians in 1993 required Israel to stop building settlements. Since then, all proponents of the two-state solution, including the Palestinians, have acknowledged that Israel would annex settlements as part of a land swap allotting disputed territory in the "West Bank" to a Palestinian state.

Notice that I said, "disputed territory," which is what it is. The term "occupied territory" is a prejudicial misnomer.

Why wouldn't Israel have a right to maintain communities in Judea and Samaria? To do otherwise would be like the erstwhile restricted policy (no Jews) of Kenilworth, Illinois, established in 1889.

Propagandists have been allowed to promulgate the idea of the West Bank as being occupied, effectively erasing thousands of years of history during which the area was referred to as Judea and Samaria. They created the term (West Bank) as an area relative to the Jordan River, but it was never a sovereign state and never subject to rule by the so-called "Palestinians."

Judea and Samaria were unlawfully occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950 was recognized only by the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan. Jordan could certainly stake a claim, but so could the (defunct) Ottoman Empire or The Palestine mandate. The so-called Palestinians aren't even on the short list of claimants.

Israel has the strongest historic, political, religious and geographical claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. When Jordan occupied the West Bank, the world stood silent and the inhabitants (referred to since 1967 as Palestinians) did not complain about it being occupied or demand an independent state.

Whether building settlements and annexing territory in the West Bank is in Israel’s best interests is for her to decide, not opponents of Israeli existence.

After Israel annexed the Golan Heights (which would now be occupied by ISIS if they hadn't), they were excoriated by the international community.  No other nation would have been censured for taking control and governing a territory they lawfully occupied.

The only remarkable thing about Israel annexing the Golan Heights is that she waited as long as she did.

The real question of the West Bank is why Israel has held off so long annexing that territory.

It seems like we're running over here, so we're not going to get into the fact that the U.S. Congress actually voted in 1955 to move our embassy to Jerusalem. That's a whole 'nother story, but to allege that Israel has no legal right to the area encompassing the Western Wall is on par with the verdict that O.J. Simpson is innocent.

Overall, the resolution passed last week is without merit or meaning. In a largely antisemitic world, though the United States should not normalize or give credence to that prejudice.

The obstacle to peace is the refusal of the so-called Palestinians to accept the right of Israel to exist PERIOD

Arabs have rejected offers of statehood or routes to independence in 1937, 1939, 1947, 1979, 1993, 2000 and 2008.  They have refused to negotiate with Israel during the last seven years, during which the United States had a president sympathetic to Palestinian positions.

How is it that building houses is an impediment to peace, but building bombs and tunnels, launching rockets and having schools focused on teaching children to hate Jews isn't?

As Gold Meir said (and I often quote): "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

Leave a comment