Anyone who thought that the United States has learned anything from the various revolutions upturning the Arab world has another think coming. We didn't.
On Thursday, as the Egyptian revolution was culminating with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the Obama administration announced that it intends to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, condemning Israeli settlement expansion.
This is from AFP's report on what Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee."We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen," said Steinberg.
There is so much wrong with Steinberg's statement that it is hard to know where to start.
First is the obvious. Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don't agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the U.S. policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator).
Accordingly, a U.S. decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples' concerns.
The settlement issue should be an easy one for the United States. Our official policy is the same as that of the Arab world. We oppose settlements. We consider them illegal. We have repeatedly demanded that the Israelis stop expanding them (although the Israeli government repeatedly ignores us). The administration feels so strongly about settlements that it recently offered Israel an extra $3.5 billion in U.S. aid to freeze settlements for 90 days.
It is impossible, then, for the United States to pretend that we do not agree with the resolution (especially when its language was carefully drafted to comport with the administration's official position).
So why will we veto a resolution that expresses our own views?
Steinberg says that "we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues."
Why not? It is the Security Council that passed all the major international resolutions (with U.S. support) governing Israel's role in the occupied territories since the first one, UN Resolution 242 in 1967.
He then adds, with clear pride, that "We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that [the settlements issue] arise there."
Very impressive. The United States has had no success whatsoever in getting the Netanyahu government to stop expanding settlements -- to stop evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers -- and no success in getting Israel to crack down on settler violence, but we have had "some success" in keeping the issue out of the United Nations.
The only way to resolve the settlements issue, according to Steinberg, "is through engagement through the parties, and that is our clear and consistent position." Clear and consistent it may be. But it hasn't worked. The bulldozers never stop.
Of course, it is not hard to explain the Obama administration's decision to veto a resolution embodying positions that we support. It is the power of AIPAC, which is lobbying furiously for a U.S. veto (actually not so furiously; AIPAC doesn't waste energy when it knows that its congressional acolytes -- and Dennis Ross in the White House itself -- will do its work for them).
The power of the lobby is the only reason we will veto the resolution. Try to come up with another one. After all, voting for the resolution (or, at least, abstaining on it) serves U.S. interests in the Middle East at a critical moment and is consistent with U.S. policy.
But it would enrage the lobby and its friends who will threaten retribution in the 2012 election.
Simply put, our Middle East policy is all about domestic politics. And not even the incredible events of the past month will change that.
That is why U.S. standing in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate. We simply cannot deliver. After all, there is always another election on the horizon and that means that it is donors, not diplomats, who determine U.S. policy.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Evelyn Leopold: US Vetoes UN Resolution on Israel --But Agrees with its Substance
What the US and Israel do to the Palestinian people is simply intolerable and beyond believe.
Keep defending something illegal, and when the consequences comes they are shocked and appalled. Doing something illegal that angers BILLION of people, where as the few simply just can't sit and watch.
There is nothing illegitimate about this. If and when support for Israel changes significantly, then our Nation's policy will change as well. This is how our political system is supposed to work.
There is, indeed, nothing wrong with being as an agent of a foreign power but, please, AIPAC should at least have the good grace to register as such.
After all, every other such group prowling around the corridors in Washington has to register as such.
Yes, we agreed with what was in that resolution but, no, we didn't vote for it.
And the reason given for that veto? Boiled down to its essentials, Rice claimed that the USA vetoed it because it was jealous of any attempt by anyone to muscle in on its own (self-appointed) role as the indispensible mediator in those (non)negotiations.
That the most powerful nation on earth has to resort to such a transparently pathetic excuse to justify its inactions is utterly humiliating.
Why not have the courage to say the truth: Obama vetoed this resolution because doing so ensures that his re-election coffers are filled with grateful donations.
That is ALL that this is about, and not a single person on Planet Earth really believes otherwise.
And now, as the West Bank is largely made up of Jewish Settlements and Gaza is under siege, the U.S. and Israel still perform this evil charade. Both nations should be condemned by the whole of the world community. Boycotts should be directed at both of them, boycotts and divestments and sanctions.
Obama should be thrown into jail for being the world's biggest liar and Assange should be released and given Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
Friends, the world is a madhouse. Black is now white and white is now black. How much longer are we going to allow the status quo to continue? How much longer are we going to allow the Evil Empire (the one run by the U.S.) to continue?
Stand up for justice, for equality, for human rights for all the world's people while you still can!
No American political figure can condemn Israel for anything; Israel is untouchable in America. The Israeli lobby has tamed and controlled our Congress and our mainstream media as well. Our Congress is more loyal to Israel than the Israeli Knesset and our media is friendlier to Israel than the Israeli media. The Israeli total control of America’s foreign policy is well known fact that not even the Israelis bother to deny it. No one has framed the power of the Israeli lobby over America better than the ex Israeli Prime Minister, Arial Sharon:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." --Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (speaking to Shimon Peres, as reported on Israel Radio [in Hebrew, Kol Yisrael], 3 October 2001)
The only reason for this, if it's true, would be that there is some real trade-off from the Israeli side in the pipeline. Time will show us.
"The secretary of state nominee reportedly wants Jacob Lew and James Steinberg as her chief lieutenants, according to a report in Tuesday's New York Times."
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2008/12/23/1001783/lew-steinberg-to-join-hillary-at-state
What didn't we learn? We KNOW the Arabs want democracy in general. In Lebanon there was a Ceder revolution, which was put down by Hizbullah. We don't know what the fates of Egypt, Tunisia and the many other revolts, but we can hope.
What didn't we learn? What was the lesson in reguard to Israel?
What's your point?
Oh we absolutely understand what is happening in the Arab world, and this is precisely why we're vetoing this non sense. That you don't agree or like with what "we" understand is really your issue, not the issue of the US.
Sort of how "we" failed to predict Khomeini's rise to power. Or how funding the Taliban without following up on reconstruction is a bad idea. Or how people tend to get really angry when you support dictators. Or how they "found" Saddam's WMD. Or how they completely failed to anticipate the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts.
Ah, such "understanding"!
We didn't fund the Taliban. We funded the people the Taliban were fighting. That we didn't fund reconstruction after the fall of the USSR was a mistake, but you have to remember that the Taliban was a subsidiary of the Pakistani ISI, who are anti-American imperialists.
How Israel has managed to extort money from the US and Europe whilst thumbing their nose at the same groups from which they beg money is simply amazing. Much like a spoiled child that just does not know reality.
Hang in there folks, it cant last forever.
Where did we hear phrases such as this before?
You have no disguise for your rancor Mr Tall and dumb.
As you say; guess it "can't last forever" if people like you ever get your way.
It's as if the concept of "action and consequences" is alien to these guys.
You're right. I mean, why would anyone ever gets angry when they are forced out of their homes and their land stolen, right?
And those Palestinians never wanted peace. What's that? The recent Wikileaks about how they're practically offering everything? Uh, next item, please...
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was confirmation of Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in Middle East. This project, which has been in planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
“New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882
No, Hizbollah launched a cross-border raid for a sensible reason: Israel was refusing to release some prisoners, and Hezbollah had no Israeli prisoners of their own to swap, so they went out to get some.
None of that amounts to a WAR, nor is there any element of FUN involved.
It was Israel's over-the-top let's-go-apeshit-on-Lebanon response that was the WAR, and Olmert launched it because he thought that war would be a stroll in the park.
It wasn't, because the IDF is nothing like as good as it pretends that it is.
"Once again, Israel has been caught with spies at the highest levels of the US Government.
At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy." This put the Israelis, according to one source, "inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try to influence the outcome." [CBS News]
Once again Israel denies wrongdoing, or faced with incontrovertible evidence (in this case one of the spies has reportedly cooperated with the FBI) dismisses the spying with the claim that such spying is harmless, because Israel and the United States are such good friends.
Well, let us take a closer look at that idea of “harmless espionage” by recalling Israel’s most famous failed spy, Jonathan Pollard. "
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/motherofallscandals.php
Sure, small segments of the world, from time to time, have treated Jews in a manner that ranged from "not nice" to "violent death" but there has never been a world-wide campaign to kill all Jews.
In fact during times when small groups persecuted Jews, there were many larger groups that tried to fix the problem.
So it is perfectly reasonable that 122+ of 200 nations on earth find that Israel's actions are unacceptable. Note that there are also many nations that just do not care one bit about Israel and only a very, very small number that support Israel (in reality that number quickly approaches TWO).
If the Israelis want to ignore the will of most of the world they are free to do so, but they should also be prepared to suffer the consequences and if they think the world is picking on them, maybe they need to re-think their view of how humans should act.
Until Israel is moved to some other planet, Israelis are going to have to get along with the rest of the humans on earth and if that means they need to change their behavior, that is what they are going to have to do. If Israelis don't like that, tough.