Obama Gives The Wailing Wall To The Muslims

My heart wails. President Obama has lost the plot entirely. Despite earnest and passionate pleas from Democratic and Republican Senators, Representatives, and other politicians and noted Americans in all fields; despite attempts by Donald Trump to sway Obama from his foolish warmongering path; despite almost fifty years of US policy on the matter; despite the steadfast examples set by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush; and despite pleas and entreaties from Israel, President Obama just gave the Wailing Wall, perhaps the holiest site in Judaism, to the Muslims. The UN Security Council resolved that the Wailing Wall doesn’t belong to the Jews, and cravenly, our President refused to veto the resolution.

It gets worse. Obama also gave the part of Jerusalem known as the “Jewish Quarter”, where Jews have lived since, well, forever, to the Muslims.

You know, I didn’t like Obama for a host of reasons. But this is just unexplainable. Obama has said over and over that he had Israel’s back … and now he has stabbed them in the back. Not only has he exposed Israel to further sanctions. The part folks don’t understand is that Obama has driven a stake through the very heart of the Mideast peace process. Let me explain why this action is lethal to the peace process.

In 1967, all of the countries surrounding Israel banded together and attacked Israel en masse. To their shock, they lost big, and Israel ended up with a lot of territory. Now me, I thought at the time that Israel should have just kept the land. On my planet their neighbors forfeited it by their attack. To paraphrase Obama, “Wars have consequences”.

However, repeated experiments on my part have shown that the universe is not all that interested in what I think should happen … who knew, right? In any case, Israel held on to the land as a negotiating tool, and their standing offer to their neighbors since that time has been:

The Israelis will give you land if you will give Israel peace.

As near as I can tell this has not been all that successful. For example, the Israelis gave Gaza free and clear to the Palestinians and they’ve just used it as a base from which to launch attacks.

However, this has been the accepted format for the so-called “Mideast two-state solution” for about a half-century now. The Israelis have been willing to give up some of the land they won in the war for peace. The Israelis know that when there is a final deal, the settlements in the occupied territories beyond a certain line will have to be given up. And they are and have been willing to do that. Land for peace, that’s been the offer from day one, in dozens of forms and lots of attempts.

Now, here is the problem with the recent UN resolution that Obama shamefully did not veto. It says “Hey, Jews, you know that land you’ve been offering to trade for peace? Guess what? IT’S NOT YOUR LAND! It already belongs to the Muslims”

Seriously. The UN resolution says that the Israelis have no land to trade for peace. This is the first time in the long history of this struggle, through every President since 1967, that the US has allowed this to happen. Every President, Republican or Democrat, has prevented that from happening by vetoing this madness every one of the dozens and dozens and dozens of times it has come up. It is a shameful, shameful day, and an eternal stain on the Obama Presidency.

So now, according to the UN, the “Land For Peace” policy of the last fifty years is over because Israelis have no land to trade.

wailing-wallAnd sadly, tragically, it gets worse. The Israelis might have been able to stand it if it were just referring to the Occupied Territories. But Obama also gave away East Jerusalem, including the Wailing Wall and the Jewish Quarter, to the Muslims!  That is total madness. Telling the Muslims that they own the Wailing Wall can only cause increased violence and pain. Giving away the Wailing Wall to the Muslims is like a UN Resolution giving Mecca to the Jews. Such a resolution can only harm, it can never help.

I can’t tell you how heartbreaking this is for me personally. My grandmother, the Captains Daughter, worked in Egypt in 1944 and 1945 for an organization that eventually became UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association. My mother and father also both worked for the UN after the war. So I come from a family proud of what the UN used to do and our contribution to it.

As a result I’ve come to this conclusion slowly and sadly, but I have to say that I think that the UN has outlived its usefulness. It has become a snake-pit of dictatorships, corrupt, cynical, and hypocritical. It has taken me a while to accept that. When totalitarian regimes known for routinely torturing their own citizens were appointed to head up the UN “Human Rights” Commission, I was tired of it. When the UN passed twenty resolutions condemning Israel for every resolution speaking out against totalitarians, I was depressed about it. When all the UN did for Haiti was supply them with cholera, I was sick of it. When UN Peacekeepers were found to be sexually abusing those they were sent to protect including children, I was angry at it. When Kofi Annan corruptly made billions off of Food For Peace, I was sick at heart.

But now that the UN has given the Wailing Wall to the Muslims, I gotta say, I’m done with the UN. Over it. Finished. That’s the last straw. Whatever good it might be doing is a mote in the whirlwind of discord and destruction it is sowing around the world.

So the only good news out of all of this is that perhaps folks will see how vile the UN has become. It may ignite a groundswell where we can now turn in our UN membership card and ask them to move out of town. We have the dumbest deal on the planet with the UN. We pay 22% of all UN expenses, New York has to put up with criminal actions from “diplomats” we can’t arrest, we listen to them abuse the US and the Western democracies day after day on our dime in our home … and now these allies of Shaitan just gave the Wailing Wall to the Muslims.

That’s it. Enough. Here’s the Willis Plan, my five-part scheme for the UN:

  1. Withdraw our funding, every penny. We can give it directly to those in need.
  2. Turn in our UN membership card. Not interested.
  3. Kick them out of their New York City headquarters, to the great relief of New Yorkers.
  4. Turn the UN building into mixed office/apartment/performance spaces, and
  5. Put the UN headquarters in one of the poor countries that it is claiming to be helping, say Zimbabwe.

That should keep the number of parasites and rent-seekers down to a minimum, which is as much as we can hope for given the fact that it’s been scientifically shown that even intense gamma radiation can’t kill 100% of them …

Curious. Obama has just made his name forever cursed and reviled by Israelis and friends of Israel as the man who gave the Wailing Wall to the Muslims … I truly can’t understand an action both so unnecessary and so destructive, first to world peace, and second to his reputation. My guess is that he let spite get the best of him, but who knows?

w.

PS—After Trump successfully got Egypt to withdraw the resolution, it was re-presented to the Security Council by  Senegal, Malaysia, Venezuela, and New Zealand. The first three I can understand, they would have been susceptible to pressure to re-present the resolution.

But New Zealand? Why on earth would the Kiwis want to associate their nation with such a despicable act?

I note that Israel sent the New Zealand Ambassador home, and deservedly so. This is a dark, dark day for New Zealand, to be complicit in giving away the Wailing Wall to the Muslims. Unfathomable.

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Obama Gives The Wailing Wall To The Muslims

  1. His actions show yet again that he is a Muslim to the core. The befuddled masses voted for him twice and he now feels empowered to do anything he pleases. He is an evil, narcissistic man. January 20 cannot come soon enough.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. As a resident and citizen of New Zealand for 25 years, I am absolutely ashamed of my government’s action in this matter.

    However, thank you Willis for a heartfelt and well written piece.

    Like

    • Andy, thanks for your comment. Let me say that it is the government who should feel ashamed and not the citizens. I’m sure that if you asked the people of New Zealand if we should give the Wailing Wall to the Muslims they’d say no …

      w.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. We live in an era where the Left is Marxist without referring to Marx, anti-Semitic while claiming to be friends of Israel, anti-democratic while calling themselves Democrats, anti-intellectual while suppressing scientific discourse.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Great post Willis.

    I can tell you that we in NZ were taken unawares by this unexpected treachery from our (notionally centre right) Government, and I for one, and many others I know of, have written to our Prime Minister registering our feelings of shame and disgust. John Kerry was here last month and met with our Foreign Minister, coincidence or what?

    Leftist bloggers (who seem curiously unable to discern any evidence of jihadis murderous intents towards them) here are rejoicing.

    Regards,
    B

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, Brian. I have nothing but admiration for the people of New Zealand … their current political leadership on the other hand …

      w.

      Like

    • “John Kerry was here last month and met with our Foreign Minister, coincidence or what?” If your press in NZ is any good, they’ll find out what threats Kerry made to get his way. If.

      Like

  5. There’s another aspect to this. For many centuries in the east and in the west, others have assumed they have a right to determine where Jews can and can’t live. Has anything of this really changed. How deeply does this idea still run, associated with all the subtle myths about the role and ‘proper’ place of Jews. Are there right and wrong places for any other peoples to live, that the world would accept as a valid argument for warfare?

    Like

  6. Thank you for this, Willis – I wonder how many Dems (and Canadian “Liberals”) have any idea what Obama has just wrought. If only the MSM would cover this event properly, with the logic and potential consequences that you have outlined. I’m almost afraid to see what our lame PM (Trudeau) has to say about it. I remind people that one of his brothers is (or was?) very pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli, and that the guy pulling his strings, Gerald Butt (Butts?), has similar leanings, if I recall correctly. A dark, dark day.

    Like

  7. Want to know why? Rashid Khalidi
    Bear with me-the following lays it out:

    Obama was always antisemitic. He just hid it well His Long standing friend was Palestinian Rashid Khalidi fr Chicago who babysat his kids. Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn were all best friends in Chicago.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_good_friend_rashid_khal.html

    Also had a connection with Edward Said

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/226104/la-times-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape-andrew-c-mccarthy

    and Khalidi and Obama were at this dinner-the tape has been suppressed by the LA Times.

    Allegedly simulated beheading and suicide bombings by the Dearborne Sanabel Arab kids dance troupe.

    Obama also gave an anti-Israel speech—all on that tape

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4363/exclusive-dance-troupe-obama-khalidi-dinner-of-secreted-tape-fame-simulated-beheadings-in-recent-past/

    Debbie is a US lawyer

    https://web.archive.org/web/20090612052421/http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/10/khalidi-tape-putting-bits-and-pieces.html

    Rashid Khalidi was a PLO operative/terrorist—a detailed insight into what he did

    http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/

    Like

  8. I’ve always thought that the democrats were evil, this proves it. My guess is he is trying to destabilize the Middle East so that PE Trump has to deal with the situation. This will keep Trump from implementing his other plans, and then get him out of office in 4 years.

    Like

    • Terry, I have looked at these reports. In addition, the Israeli Government says that they have indisputable proof Obama was behind it, but they will only reveal it to the Trump Administration. I can hardly blame them.

      I’ve also noted that when Obama’s Press Secretary denied the Israeli accusations, it was parsed and finessed with a lawyer’s care. There were many things that the Obama Administration did NOT deny doing.

      However, for my head post I decided not to go into any of that, and to stick to what I could prove. I do believe that Senegal and New Zealand didn’t suddenly decide all on their own to re-propose the resolution.

      But I also know that a strong piece has one focus with a rock-solid foundation. So that is what I wrote.

      Best regards,

      w.

      Liked by 1 person

      • From Netanyahu’s spokesman:

        “We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” David Keyes said. “We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night.”

        From Obama’s deputy national security adviser:

        “We did not draft, advance, promote, or even tell any other country how we would vote on this resolution in advance of the Egyptians putting it in blue last week,” said White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

        I can tell you who I believe …

        w.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Curious. Obama has just made his name forever cursed and reviled by Israelis and friends of Israel as the man who gave the Wailing Wall to the Muslims … I truly can’t understand an action both so unnecessary and so destructive, first to world peace, and second to his reputation. My guess is that he let spite get the best of him, but who knows?

    Back when the “Russian hackers stole the election” claim was floated, I stated that if you were looking for other countries with the capability and motivation to torpedo the Clinton campaign, Israel would have much greater reason than Russia. Total speculation on my part of course, but they had to be extremely apprehensive about a Clinton administration. If you grant this premise, the UN resolution could be viewed as Obama/Clinton payback. Or it could have been in the works anyway, intended to give the incoming Clinton administration cover for a major policy shift.

    Israel claims to have inside proof the Obama administration was instrumental in the planning of this resolution, so their intelligence service is clearly active in the US. It would be interesting to find out what else they have uncovered.

    The other part that needs to be addressed is the vote was 14 to zero, with one abstention. That meant long standing US allies Great Britain, France, New Zealand and Japan all voted for it. Were they all in on the fix, or did they really think it was a good idea? I can understand about France being especially wary of triggering her significant Muslim population and Great Britain to a lesser extent, but Japan? Why does it always have to come down to the US to veto these resolutions?

    Liked by 3 people

  10. This isn’t spite. The man isn’t stupid. He’s plainly an enemy who has played a pivotal role in making the world worse than it was eight years ago. The electorate was suckered into voting for him and has paid the price. What do you call someone who constantly violates his oath of office? Begins with the letter T.

    Like

  11. Quote: —————————-
    One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel – Palestinian conflict.

    After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.

    “It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we’ve spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the US might go on this.
    Un-quote —————————-

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11747382

    Like

  12. Yes, it is time for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, stop all payments to it, and kick it out of New York City. Your term ‘snakepit’ is apt, a den of two-bit dictators, tyrants, rabid anti-Semites, and no friends of America.

    Someone a few years back—was it John McCain?—suggested we create a organization of freedom-loving democracies. I’m not sure how that could be defined, given the complicity of Britain and France in stabbing Israel in the back.

    Obama has never been able to conceal his distaste for Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, his antipathy toward our country, nor his sympathy for the Muslims. January 20th cannot come soon enough.

    /Mr Lynn

    Like

  13. I look at it a further purification of the Democratic Party by Obama.

    He already pushed the white working class vote to Trump and the GOP.
    He abandoned anyone who values family over having the state the state tell them how to raise their family.

    Now he has forced the moderate Jewish voter to the Republican Party.

    Senator Schumer (D-NY) is in desparate damage control right now over the loss of the Jewish block to Trump and the GOP, and Obama isn’t done yet exacting revenge on Netanyahu. He will likely use the January 15 French Peace Conference to promote a resolution that he will then take the UN Sec Council just before he leaves office.

    Many thought it couldn’t get any worse for Democrats after 8 November and that they hadhit bottom. Obama is about to prove them wrong again and plumb for new lows as rich Jewish donors abandone Democrats unless they repudiate O, which they can’t do.

    Like

  14. Ego—
    President O was awarded the umm Nobel Peace Prize, he was going to be the first president to create a lasting peace in the mid east.
    Netanyahu got in his way and then with O trying to get him ousted by medling in their elections, he got re-elected and would not go along with O’s plans.
    President O’s legacy was destroyed and the petulant child is exacting revenge.
    Just my 2 cents

    Like

  15. All democracies should have a period between an election and the swearing in of a new government (a ‘caretaker period’) whereby no changes to laws/treaties/etc can be made. If the electorate have decided to change the ruling party there needs to be some form of shackle placed on the incumbents to stop the sort of decisions Willis has written about as it appears that egregious and malicious acts can be carried out with impunity, just to spite the incoming government.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Totally agree.
      Image how the popular vote in the US election would have turned out if this had happened before the election.
      Will the US Jewish community continue to support the Dem’s in 4 years. My experience of the NZ Jewish community is that they don’t forget and vote as a community.
      This could have a long impact period if well cultivated by the Rep’s

      Like

  16. I’d like to read the text of the resolution for myself. I’d also like to see which way my Australian Government voted.
    I’ve invested over 30 minutes unsuccessfully so far; if anyone can help me out with the relevant links, I’d be grateful.

    Like

  17. Militarily Israel lacks strategic depth, in 1967 she acquired some. The error was to settle those areas and turn them into places to be defended, rather than something you didn’t own that you were happy to fight a war in. Arab settlements and farms should have been encouraged. Hard to claim gods will for your jihad if you are killing fellow muslims and despoiling there lands.

    Like

    • “Hard to claim gods will for your jihad if you are killing fellow muslims and despoiling there lands.”
      Ya think? Could fool me. Seems to me there’s alot of exactly that happening from ISIS through to the Salafists, + every sect and schism in between.

      And in the War of Independence, ’48 (the mass attack of the confrontation states on the nascent state of Israel), wasn’t it exactly this that led most acutely to the “palestinian” refugee “problem”? That the attacking armies basically said to their co-religionists, “if you don’t leave your homes and fields and are caught with the Jews when we’re killing them all to the last woman and child, you too will be killed”? [while the Haganah was driving around with loudspeakers and publishing in every forum that no Arab civilian would be harmed, that all would be respected and citizens of the new Jewish state – on this point, of course, they were only partially successful…the now approx 1 million Arab Israeli citizens are those whose grandparents decided to throw in their lot with the Jews…all the benefits of 1st world education and financial opportunity, and no obligatory Army service for their youth.
      [seems Jews are not immune to a delusion common among folk of the West – “they’ll surely be nice to us when they see how nice we are to them”. Not all cultures measure life, existence, and the world, by the same metric, alas. With special reference to “the Religion of Peace”, itself, and their guiding text, to which Churchill referred as “the Mein Kampf of War”…]
      Or maybe just as another bon mot from Winston: – “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

      Like

  18. Willis, I think it was pure spite on behalf of Obama. I think he has been a terrible President, limp wristed, and has used the bureaucracy to strangle business and industry

    Like

  19. Consider this: Obama is about 23 days from becoming irrelevant. He cannot accept this. His actions on this resolution are likely in exchange for him being nominated and elected as UN Secretary General.

    Like

    • António Guterres was appointed by the General Assembly on 13 October 2016 to be the successor of Ban Ki-moon once the latter steps down on 31 December 2016. He is a a Portuguese Socialist Party politician.
      This may be a 5 year term, but I haven’t found a number.
      B.O. will have to go around “earning” large speaking fees (like Bill & Hillary) for a few years. He has no useful skills so actually working at something is not going to happen.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tom in Florida wrote

      […] are likely in exchange for him being nominated and elected as UN Secretary General.

      I’ve heard and read over the past several years that the reason President-for-22-more-days-Obama seemed aloof, disinterested, and detached from the Presidency was (according to Democrat excuse-makers for Obama’s non-performance) that the job of President of the U.S. was beneath someone of Obama’s ‘towering intellect.’ The implication was that the only job worthy of his attention and efforts was President of The World.

      Trump is carrying a big monkey wrench to throw into that plan. All he has to do is get the U.N. out of the U.S. and get the U.S. out of the U.N.

      I suppose if the U.N. collapses, Obama could become the community organizer for a New World Order. That would be a job worthy of his talents.

      Like

  20. “In 1967, all of the countries surrounding Israel banded together and attacked Israel en masse.”
    Not quite. They banded together and were posturing for a possible, MAYBE probable attack, when:
    “In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force. Without cover from the air, the Egyptian army was left vulnerable to attack. Within three days the Israelis had achieved an overwhelming victory on the ground, capturing the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

    Like

    • Thanks for the comment, Pete. The attack was more than “possible, MAYBE probable”. Investigations after the war showed that the Egyptians and the rest were indeed about to attack. From the office of the official US Historian:

      On May 13, 1967, Soviet officials informed the Syrian and Egyptian Governments that Israel had massed troops on Syria’s border. Though the report was false, Nasser sent large numbers of Egyptian soldiers into the Sinai anyway. On May 16, Egypt demanded that the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), which had been deployed in the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip since 1957, withdraw from Israel’s border. Secretary-General U Thant replied that he would have to withdraw UNEF from all its positions, including Sharm al-Shaykh, which would put political pressure on Nasser to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Nasser remained adamant, and on May 22, after UNEF withdrew, he announced that he would close the Straits. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had promised that the United States would treat the closure of the Straits as an act of war. Johnson now had three unwelcome options: to renege on Eisenhower’s promise, acquiesce in an Israeli attack on Egypt, or order U.S. forces to reopen the waterway.

      Johnson decided to do nothing when faced with an act of war by Egypt, the closure of the Straits … and when Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian axis that left Israel no choice.

      w.

      Liked by 1 person

    • O weasel, may your words burn your throat. Yes, the attack was indeed very ‘probable’, because, of course, the hatred in the destroyer’s breasts overwhelmed them; as any reasonably gifted Mossad agent would have known. And in 1973, the (would-be) exterminators (much more wisely) chose not to give notice of intent in this manner, by attack on the Day of Atonement, the time when every Jew is invited to examine their conscience.

      Their barbarism almost succeeded on this occasion. Israel was caught napping badly, but recovered due to enemy incompetence; and (we can assume in some degree), precisely because they held on to the security zones which they won in the 1967 war.

      The 1976 Raid on Entebbe is the first occasion I have been able to find when one of the new National Socialists who now rule us uttered the word ‘fascist’ about the Jews he captured. Fittingly, this man’s name was ‘Bose’, meaning ‘Evil’ in English. And again, just like the Fuhrer before him, he was against ‘international capitalism’!

      Indeed, so much of our governing class agrees with the Fuhrer on so many things – overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, sexual perversion and permissiveness, the elimination of Christianity, identity politics etc. – it seems only right they add the Jews to their list, somehow.

      Like

      • Actually, it wasn’t so much incompetence…at least in the North in “73. The Syrian tanks we’re already on the slope down to Sea of Galilee out of the Golan before the IDF could mobilize properly…but they stopped, rather than running the 20 minutes it would have taken them to cross the Jordon River, and then an hour down excellent roads to Haifa and the Mediterranean. Later investigation with Syrian military sources revealed they paused because….their passage was so easy, they thought it was a Trap.
        Such things bespeak the Hand of G-d.
        Though it took precious blood to drive them back, to the outskirts of Damascus (or beyond Mt Hermon, in any case). Hence, of course, cometh FOREVER Annexation of the Golan to Isreal…paid x4 wars, never again. Not on ‘land for peace’ (AKA Piece Process) chopping block…ever.
        A source of remarkable world-class wines, btw, for those interested. 😉 (not available under Muslim rule. Alas. heh.)

        Like

    • It went much further than MAYBE for the wider audience. I was in the UK RAF at the time and in the midst of an IRA briefing we were informed that two of our Phantom squadrons would be deployed to protect Saudi oilfields. It was a massive threat. Not sure if the USAF were part of that.

      Like

  21. Well, I am an ‘expert’ in ‘free trade’ ( which almost never really is) , not related geopolitics. But this seems about right in general. Simple asymmetric warfare by other means

    Like

  22. Good article here with a link to the entire resolution:
    http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/28/14090228/9-questions-un-vote-israel-settlements-explained

    …the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal.
    {…..}
    But Obama’s parting shot was also aimed at Trump, who has indicated he wants to take a much stronger pro-Israel stance. For instance, he has said he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem — a step that, as my colleague Zack Beauchamp explains, “every US government has refrained from doing because the future of the disputed city is meant to be resolved as part of direct talks between the two sides for a final status peace deal.”

    According to data from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, the annual growth rate for the settler population (excluding East Jerusalem) in 2013 was more than two and a half times higher than that of the overall population in Israel: 4.4 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. Kerry, in his speech Wednesday, noted that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since the Oslo peace accords (signed in 1993 and 1995), including 100,000 just since 2009, when Obama took office…

    Like

  23. The UN resolution was not only about settlements. Clauses in it have legal implications, re-writing or attempting to revise some of the primary parameters for negotiations laid down in UN resolution 242 and in the Oslo Accords. Read this summary by one of the negotiators who drafted the Oslo Accords, and peace treaties and agreements with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.
    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71956

    Item 9 in the UN Resolution raises the Arab Peace Initiative of Saudi Arabia in 2002, and the yet to be held Conference in France on 15th January, raises their status to equivalent to UN Resolutions and actual signed agreements between Israel and Palestinians.

    A few other interesting angles are explored in other articles on the IMRA website.
    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71955
    http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71958

    And Melanie Phillip’s open letter to Theresa May
    http://melaniephillips.com/open-letter-theresa-may/

    Like

  24. “Obama also gave the part of Jerusalem known as the “Jewish Quarter”, where Jews have lived since, well, forever …”: surely the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and drove out the Jews to live elsewhere in Palestine?

    According to WKPD, the Romans “renamed [it] Aelia Capitolina, and rebuilt it in the style of a typical Roman town. Jews were prohibited from entering the city on pain of death, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B’Av. Taken together, these measures … essentially “secularized” the city. The ban was maintained until the 7th century”

    “… to the Muslims”: are there no longer any Christians amongst the Palestinians?

    Like

  25. Pingback: The Early John Kerry Plan | Skating on the underside of the ice

  26. I find it interesting that all this Obama stuff is happening – back stabbing Israel, federal land grabbing, new rules … when BO is golfing in Hawaii. Is there a pre-written script?

    Curious if he, or the UN, can even try this –
    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/israels-right-to-build-homes-is-settled-under-international-law

    ‘The only binding resolution of international law, a resolution which has never been countermanded to this very day, is the July 1922 Mandate for Palestine. Adopted by the League of Nations, that resolution recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” It called for the creation of a Jewish national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan River. – See more at:

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/israels-right-to-build-homes-is-settled-under-international-law#sthash.OJgjEDvY.dpuf

    Like

  27. Considering Obama´s stand on the subject I wonder why the US abstained and not supported the resolution outright. Back stabbing Israel in his final days of his presidency was a cowardice action but not supporting the resolution was doubly cowardice.

    Like

  28. Pingback: Diplomacy in the Time of Tweets | Skating on the underside of the ice

  29. Willis, as 16 year old in Holland at the time of the 67 war and the subsequent “victory” of the Israelites we were dancing in the street ( And we were not Jews). What the Obama administration has done is appalling. I fear that for the next 3 weeks more of the same crap will show up and it is going to be at different fronts. ( They have already reneged on the hiring freeze and the dems have started hiring people in the bureaucracy and broke that agreement to not to do so. Although Obama is complicit in this of course, I personally feel that the forces behind him like Soros, Valerie Jarrett, Ayers, Sunstein etc have had a huge hand in this whole thing. It is beyond believe. Your observations about the UN is correct as well The USA should close that down ASAP. It has lost any credibility for years.Zimbabwe? No some small island with no airport , let them swim their way over!

    Like

  30. Sorry to be so late to this piece (and I’m sure everyone has moved on) …

    So the only good news out of all of this is that perhaps folks will see how vile the UN has become. It may ignite a groundswell where we can now turn in our UN membership card and ask them to move out of town.

    What? Like some kind of Brexit?

    Nah, never happen.

    Like

    • markx January 2, 2017 at 7:59 pm

      How you look at this all depends on whether you think the Israeli intention is to eventually take over the entirety of the West Bank (the settlements would indicate that is their aim)
      … and whether you think that is right or just.

      Mark, first, you give no clue what “this” is, as in “how you look at this”. Is “this” the American actions this time? The American relationship overall with Israel? The early settlements? The 1967 lines? The possible US involvement in drafting the resolution? THIS IS WHY I ASK PEOPLE TO QUOTE WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING.

      Next, presuming on scant evidence that your “this” refers to settlements in general, there is no “aim of the Israelis” any more than there is an “aim of the Americans” regarding many disputed issues. There are Israelis who think settlements are required, and others for whom settlements are total anathema.

      The aim of the Israeli government, near as I can tell, is and always has been peace. For many years they have pursued peace via a two-state solution with a “land for peace” stance. However, to date that has proven not only unsuccessful, but suicidal. The problem is not settlements. The Israelis removed all settlements before they gave Gaza to the Muslims … and we know how that turned out, ten thousand rockets later.

      In addition, a two-state solution requires someone to negotiate with, and at present there is no one willing to admit that Israel has a right to exist … hard to nego with someone who insists that you should be killed. So it seems to me that a two state solution is fast becoming less probable.

      My main point in all of this, however, is that this is for the Israelis to decide. Why on earth should some jerkwagon from Senegal or Venezuela get a vote in this question? What the heck does a Venezoolian know about what the people in Israel are facing?

      And it is madness for people to take this or any other question to the UN. The UN is a big enemy of the US, it regularly favors dictatorships over democracies, and it is a massive implacable enemy of Israel. Anyone with the slightest sense of decency wouldn’t take anyone’s dispute to the UN, much less Israel’s dispute. The UN lets torturers chair the Human Rights Commission, anyone who turns to them for justice is a fool.

      Finally, no matter which side you’re on, as Chuck Schumer (Senate Minority Leader) said, all that the Obama action has done is to encourage extremists on both sides. I find that reprehensible. Obama’s name will be cursed for generations in Israel, by people on both sides of the question, and rightly so. His actions have set peace back, not advanced it.

      Best to you,

      w.

      Like

      • Further: (re East Jerusalem) A 2011 report.

        Desperation of Palestinian leadership exposed by leaks
        Jason Koutsoukis, Jerusalem
        http://www.theage.com.au/world/desperation-of-palestinian-leadership-exposed-by-leaks-20110124-1a2wa.html

        SENIOR Palestinian Authority officials are expected to face intense pressure to resign amid growing public anger over revelations that they were prepared to give away some of the Palestinians’ most cherished claims in their desire to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
        A cache of leaked documents chronicling the past decade of behind-the-scenes Middle East peace negotiations has shown the Palestinian leadership to be so eager for an agreement that it was prepared to allow Israel to keep almost all Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

        Like

    • Willis,

      Yes, by ‘this’ I do mean the main topic of the discussion, the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

      Regarding it being none of the world’s business:
      It probably is. It is certainly one of the driving factors which powers the extremist imams and religious fanatics and gives them great sway over the masses, and helps promote fanatical belief and a need to act in their more rabid followers. A great injustice, whether real or perceived, or truly or falsely promoted, is a powerful driver.

      The Palestinians were ever wronged in this deal. Unfortunately for them they followed some awful concepts as their struggle for their houses and land went on, and turned to terrorism, hijacking planes, murdering innocent people, thus labelling their major organizations as terrorists and forever tainting their name.
      But, that does not suddenly render the original claims of the vast displaced majority invalid. These claims, and the perceived rights to their lands still stand.

      Still stands in whose eyes? Well, pretty well everyone in the world except Israel, and of course, certain US groups. A lot of US politicians and diplomats see it that way too, but in the interests of party politics, lobbyists and votes, say little.

      Would we still have terrorists without the Israeli/Palestine problem? Sure, especially more recently as we insist on regime changes in Islamic countries every now and then at a drop of the hat, and then ‘accidentally forget’ (what a crock of shit) to make plans for a post-regime society.
      But, this is one longstanding long ingrained perceived injustice which could be resolved.

      Resolved? “You can’t negotiate with someone who denies your right to exist”

      Well, that is the Hamas line, and I don’t want to disillusion you, but as things stand I don’t think this is going to suddenly result in a nice, happy, “Great, that’s that solved then!” deal. Israel has negotiated its right to exist to date solely by force of arms and a powerful ally, and taht will continue fo r the forseeable future. But, it will need that and the backing of the rest of the world if ever forces like Hamas are to be moderated and sidelined.

      So, why are the Israelis riddling the West Bank with settlements? Surely it can only be for one of two reasons, and each one is probably supported by certain groups in the Israeli administration, and the US administration:

      1. The Israelis simply want all of the West Bank eventually. No doubt there are those to whom this is the major goal. And that is likely why there is an ongoing program of settlements, as these people flex their political and ideological muscles. And equally, among rabid opponents of Israel, there are those too who see this as the only goal, and so preach the perceived injustice to their followers. No doubt to many third parties, standing on the sideline, this looks like the apparent longterm aim.

      2. OR, It is simply a bargaining chip, to strengthen the Israeli hand when a deal is eventually made. In which case one may question why there is a need to continually expand the settlements.
      And, typical of the hyperbole of negotiation, diplomacy and deal making, you are rather over-egging the pudding with your wailing about old Jerusalem: There will in the end be a deal made on that. (and if the settlements are only about that, so much the better!):

      Israel’s construction of new neighborhoods throughout East Jerusalem is technically as illegal as its settlement building elsewhere in the West Bank, but many American policymakers from both parties have long acknowledged that Jewish neighborhoods in that part of the city would remain under Israeli control in any peace agreement. That’s particularly true of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, home to the Western Wall, the most religiously important place in Judaism.
      http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/28/14090228/9-questions-un-vote-israel-settlements-explained

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/22/map-the-spread-of-israeli-settlements-in-the-west-bank/

      Like

      • markx January 3, 2017 at 12:27 am

        Willis,

        Yes, by ‘this’ I do mean the main topic of the discussion, the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

        Regarding it being none of the world’s business:
        It probably is. It is certainly one of the driving factors which powers the extremist imams and religious fanatics and gives them great sway over the masses, and helps promote fanatical belief and a need to act in their more rabid followers. A great injustice, whether real or perceived, or truly or falsely promoted, is a powerful driver.

        So your claim is that Malaysia should get a vote on whether the Israelis are right or wrong?

        The Palestinians were ever wronged in this deal. Unfortunately for them they followed some awful concepts as their struggle for their houses and land went on, and turned to terrorism, hijacking planes, murdering innocent people, thus labelling their major organizations as terrorists and forever tainting their name.
        But, that does not suddenly render the original claims of the vast displaced majority invalid. These claims, and the perceived rights to their lands still stand.

        While this is one interpretation of the historical facts, there are many who just as passionately argue the opposite. This is the problem, and it won’t be solved in the UN Security Council.

        Still stands in whose eyes? Well, pretty well everyone in the world except Israel, and of course, certain US groups. A lot of US politicians and diplomats see it that way too, but in the interests of party politics, lobbyists and votes, say little.

        “Everyone in the world”? My goodness, you do have an inflated opinion of your own opinion.

        In addition, this is not a voting matter, because pretty well everyone in the world is infected with some degree of anti-Semitism. I’m sorry, but a vote among the good burghers of Germany on whether the Israelis are right is a sick joke.

        Would we still have terrorists without the Israeli/Palestine problem? Sure, especially more recently as we insist on regime changes in Islamic countries every now and then at a drop of the hat, and then ‘accidentally forget’ (what a crock of shit) to make plans for a post-regime society.

        Dear heavens, you are indeed ignorant of history. We’ve had Islamic terrorism since there has been Islam. It was not started by the Israelis or the US, despite your silly claims.

        But, this is one longstanding long ingrained perceived injustice which could be resolved.

        Yes, it could … but not by the UN Security Council. All that the UN does is exacerbate the tensions and waste time and money berating Israel, as if the Israeli dispute were the only problem on the planet.

        Resolved? “You can’t negotiate with someone who denies your right to exist”

        Well, that is the Hamas line, and I don’t want to disillusion you, but as things stand I don’t think this is going to suddenly result in a nice, happy, “Great, that’s that solved then!” deal.

        Since I never said anything even remotely resembling a “nice, happy” deal, you’re just wandering in your fantasies. QUOTE WHAT I SAID.

        Israel has negotiated its right to exist to date solely by force of arms and a powerful ally, and taht will continue fo r the forseeable future. But, it will need that and the backing of the rest of the world if ever forces like Hamas are to be moderated and sidelined.

        I don’t understand this at all. Somehow moderating and sidelining Hamas is now Israel’s problem?

        And Israel’s “right to exist” was “negotiated” in the UN and in other treaties. It has DEFENDED that right by force of arms, not “negotiated” it as you seem to think. It appears you have a problem with them defending their right to exist … am I wrong?

        So, why are the Israelis riddling the West Bank with settlements? Surely it can only be for one of two reasons, and each one is probably supported by certain groups in the Israeli administration, and the US administration:

        1. The Israelis simply want all of the West Bank eventually. No doubt there are those to whom this is the major goal. And that is likely why there is an ongoing program of settlements, as these people flex their political and ideological muscles. And equally, among rabid opponents of Israel, there are those too who see this as the only goal, and so preach the perceived injustice to their followers. No doubt to many third parties, standing on the sideline, this looks like the apparent longterm aim.

        2. OR, It is simply a bargaining chip, to strengthen the Israeli hand when a deal is eventually made. In which case one may question why there is a need to continually expand the settlements.

        Other than “Israel is somehow always wrong”, I don’t understand your point here.

        And, typical of the hyperbole of negotiation, diplomacy and deal making, you are rather over-egging the pudding with your wailing about old Jerusalem: There will in the end be a deal made on that. (and if the settlements are only about that, so much the better!):

        Perhaps you don’t care that Obama has just given the Wailing Wall to the Moslems. I can assure you that the Israelis care, deeply and passionately, as do I. For them the ownership of their most holy site is not something to be left to future diplomacy as you wish to claim.

        Israel’s construction of new neighborhoods throughout East Jerusalem is technically as illegal as its settlement building elsewhere in the West Bank, but many American policymakers from both parties have long acknowledged that Jewish neighborhoods in that part of the city would remain under Israeli control in any peace agreement. That’s particularly true of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, home to the Western Wall, the most religiously important place in Judaism.

        That is precisely why this latest resolution is so problematical. It repeats the fatuous claim that the Wailing Wall is “occupied territory”. There’s very, very few Israelis for whom this claim about the Wailing Wall is not deeply troubling. It’s as if the UN said that the Kaaba, Islam’s holiest shrine, were actually owned by the Jews … it appears you do not understand how deeply unfeeling and offensive such a claim is, the claim that your holiest place actually belongs to your hated enemies.

        My main point remains. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the UN Security Council is not the place to settle it. As Chuck Schumer said, Obama’s action just encourages extremists on both sides. I fail to see why you are defending something that has obviously made the Mideast situation worse, not better.

        Israelis will curse Obama’s name for generations for this, while heartless people who regularly bomb women and children are laughing and cheering Obama’s actions … tell me, Mark … how is that to anyone’s advantage? Hamas suicide bombers are overjoyed by this UN Resolution, and you vote with them, you think Obama made a wise move?

        Really?

        Best regards,

        w.

        Liked by 1 person

      • markx, you, I and anyone else can quote whatever we like. There never has been a sovereign Palestinian state, there isn’t one now, and there most likely never will be. In future histories if they get a mention in a paragraph or footnote it will be as an example of one of many failed efforts at statehood after the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire.

        ‘Illegal” has become just another meaningless slogan for car stickers and rent-a-crowd banners when discussing anything about Israel, along with “bantuism”, “colonial”, “imperial”, and “apartheid”. Please give us an exposition of the international legislation related to the formation of sovereign states, and how that legislation supports the formation of (say) France, New Guinea, Canada, and Estonia (picking a few at random) and demonstrates the illegality of Israel.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Reply to Willis Eschenbach January 3, 2017 at 11:32 am

        So your claim is that Malaysia should get a vote on whether the Israelis are right or wrong?

        Willis. Did I say that? You may need to ‘quote my words’! But, ripostes aside:
        The 14 members of the UN Human Rights Council as of 28 October 2016 were:
        Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Rwanda, Tunisia United States, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
        http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55433#.WGx1hn09Kao

        “Everyone in the world”? My goodness, you do have an inflated opinion of your own opinion.

        Perhaps partially covered above. Quite a wide spectra of the world and different societies are represented there. It should be noted not all are Islamic nations, and some may care little for Islam itself. Perhaps their sense of justice prevails.

        In addition, this is not a voting matter, because pretty well everyone in the world is infected with some degree of anti-Semitism.

        This is so often the fallback argument. No criticism or different viewpoint allowed? By anyone?
        Therefore can not the opposing argument also then be nullified by labeling opponents as anti-Islamic, or anti-Palestinian?

        We’ve had Islamic terrorism since there has been Islam. It was not started by the Israelis or the US, despite your silly claims. I don’t understand this at all.

        Again, you may consider quoting my words. There was no claim that the US or Israel started Islamic terrorism, or any other type of terrorism for that matter. There was an observation that recent actions and ongoing events will undoubtedly fuel terrorism, and given the nature of those actions and events, yes, it will primarily be of an Islamic source.

        Somehow moderating and sidelining Hamas is now Israel’s problem?

        Well, it seems to me it may be. Especially if you hold the line that no-one else should get any say. Unless you only expect it to be a force of arms solution, and that too is in Israel’s hands.

        [In relation to settlements in the West Bank ] Other than “Israel is somehow always wrong”, I don’t understand your point here.

        Well LE Joiner did, and I suspect he is correct in the intent, and I think many in the world see it that way too:

        L. E. Joiner January 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm
        How you look at this all depends on whether you think the Israeli intention is to eventually take over the entirety of the West Bank (the settlements would indicate that is their aim)
        … and whether you think that is right or just.

        That is indeed the desire, if not the intent, of many Israelis, Judaea and Samaria being part of ancient Israel.

        For them the ownership of their most holy site is not something to be left to future diplomacy

        So, it must inevitably come to brute force then?

        I fail to see why you are defending something that has obviously made the Mideast situation worse, not better.

        I’m not defending Obama’s particular action here, perhaps it was one of conscience and a sense of what is right and what is wrong. It may well lead more rapidly to conflict, in which case you may perhaps be well content.

        I’m pointing out there are two sides to the rights and wrongs of this story. Countering the indignation and outrage, as it were, and pointing out there are many looking in from the outside who do not share your particular view.

        The ‘blame’, not that it can ever be unraveled or allocated, goes back in time far before Obama.

        I do appreciate the reply, while I was in moderation I was getting worried you’d done a Skeptical Science on me an this discussion would vanish into the ether.

        Like

        • Thanks, Mark. As is mentioned in the “About This Site”, I manage and moderate it myself, so sometimes there is a delay.

          Yes, there are indeed two sides to the rights and wrongs here. However, giving the Wailing Wall to the Muslims, which the Muslims clearly think is right, is an absolute non-starter in reality. You won’t find many observant Jews on the planet who would say that the Muslims either own or should own the Wailing Wall. That’s the problem, and it is why Chuck Schumer, a Democrat and a friend of Obama, said that this action WOULD ENCOURAGE EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES.

          Yes, there are two sides here as you correctly point out … but this is encouraging the worst elements of both sides.

          w.

          Liked by 1 person

      • gary@erko January 3, 2017 at 2:09 pm

        Gary, I have not stated, nor do I hold the view, that the State of Israel is or should be illegal.
        I think it is important that it exists and survives, and I admire the Israelis for their courage, hard work and innovation.

        But, the West bank settlements are a difficult issue, as per the discussions above.

        I’d like to be able to admire the Israelis (as a nation) for their sense of justice, humanity and fairness too.
        There are certainly no easy solutions.

        http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12929342/israeli-settlements-explained

        Like

    • markx:

      How you look at this all depends on whether you think the Israeli intention is to eventually take over the entirety of the West Bank (the settlements would indicate that is their aim)
      … and whether you think that is right or just.

      That is indeed the desire, if not the intent, of many Israelis, Judaea and Samaria being part of ancient Israel. Following World War I, all the territory west of the Jordan River was assigned by the League of Nations to British administration and dedicated by the Balfour Declaration to be “the national home of the Jewish people” (earlier drafts assigned the whole of Palestine to the Jews; finally changed to “in Palestine,” with boundaries undefined—see Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration ).

      The history since then is complex, but certainly an argument can be made for a single Israeli state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, with appropriate representation within that state for the Arabs and their descendants who remained on the West Bank after 1948, when their attempts to move to neighboring Arab lands were rebuffed. I suspect many if not most could be induced to move to Jordan with compensation, and the Kingdom of Jordan convinced to resettle them, again with appropriate compensation. It would be a lot cheaper than protracted hostilities, which the Arabs seem determined to pursue until force settles the issue. I think we can be sure the Arabs will not achieve their stated desire of pushing the Israelis into the sea.

      /Mr Lynn

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Balfour Declaration was the birth certificate for Israel. Birth certificates don’t create a person, They record the birth event, which occurs whether it gets recorded or not. Neither Britain, nor the League of Nations, nor the UN created Israel by votes or pieces of paper. After so many centuries of arbitrary restrictions on Jews, the world still hasn’t come to terms with the idea that Jews are in charge of their own fate.

        Like

      • gary@erko January 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm

        The Balfour Declaration was the birth certificate for Israel. Birth certificates don’t create a person, They record the birth event, which occurs whether it gets recorded or not. Neither Britain, nor the League of Nations, nor the UN created Israel by votes or pieces of paper.

        Well, hardly a birth certificate. The Balfour declaration was a letter. Written by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour and sent to a prominent British citizen, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild,
        stating Britain favoured the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and would endeavour to make it happen. Which, as soon as they were handed the Mandate of Palestine after WWI, they proceeded to so do. It took until 1948 an the support of US President Harry S Truman for Israel to be declared a state.

        You can’t erase facts and substitute ideology: they needed a lot of help to get it done in the first place, and they need a lot of help and support to keep it running now.

        After so many centuries of arbitrary restrictions on Jews, the world still hasn’t come to terms with the idea that Jews are in charge of their own fate.

        I have.
        But not with the idea that they should be completely beyond debate, discussion, reason, and having any consideration for the effects of their actions on others.

        Like

      • gary@erko January 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm: Intriguing analogy between birth certificates and documents like the Balfour Declaration and eventually the UN recognition of the State of Israel. Both can be said to acknowledge the facts on the ground, which is what you’re saying. By the time of Balfour’s letter, the Zionists had been battling for a Jewish home for a long while.

        Like birth certificates, these diplomatic acknowledgements create perceptions and obligations that go beyond recognition of events, and so help create new realities. Without Balfour, without Britain acknowledging (giving in?) to the Zionist cause, the eventual Israelis would have had an even tougher time.

        To your final point, much of the world is indeed actively against the idea “that Jews are in charge of their own fate,” and is trying to use the UN to forestall that possibility. I wouldn’t blame Israel from leaving the UN in disgust.

        /Mr Lynn

        Like

  31. Note carefully some of the phrases in the Balfour Declaration. First, in the intro, “a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” – ie. in sympathy with an ongoing occurrence. “View with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People” which had begun a few decades earlier. It doesn’t say “Britain intends to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.” which is the interpretation many give it. And what exactly does Britain intend to do, “will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” – ie. will attempt to assist. If these phrases were not carefully worded to avoid incorrect interpretation then the whole document can be considered as just sentimental doggerel.

    The clause which was breached more thoroughly than any other is the final part “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the …. rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” The first rights and political status destroyed were by Britain itself, the right for Jews to live in the hills west of, and in the lands to the east of, the Jordan River.

    “diplomatic acknowledgements create perceptions and obligations”, yes. But what are the consequences for mutual “perceptions and obligations” If one party to an agreement is in breach with part of it?

    PS – The Zionists of the late 1800s had attempted negotiations with the Ottomans, with Germany, attempted to gain support from Russian, before finally finding a patron in Britain. Britain’s support of Jews in the Middle East was not a new fangled idea. Britain had been by treaty the protector of Jews in the Ottoman Empire since the late 1700s. For instance, Moses Montefiore’s appearance in the court in Damascus on behalf of Jews in the 1840s.

    Like

  32. Very informative, Willis. You make a very complex subject easy to grasp. I had only been on the edges of this story, so your update was most beneficial. Thanks!

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

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