Ben-Gurion and Bolton vs. the United Nations - by Rafael Medoff

Rather than seeking to change the culture of an organization whose culture will never change, Jewish officials could put their time and resources to better use by concentrating on matters of greater consequence. As indicated by this week’s five resolutions—and the many hundreds that preceded them—some biases are simply too deeply entrenched to be dislodged. Acknowledging that fact may be uncomfortable. But it’s a reality that has been apparent since Ben-Gurion’s time.

Rafael Medoff..
JNS.org..
26 March '18..

Presumably, David Ben-Gurion would have disagreed with John Bolton on a number of issues. But the Israeli founding father likely would have appreciated the incoming National Security Advisor’s strong skepticism regarding the United Nations.

“The [U.N. headquarters] in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” (“Fifteen might be better,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens quipped this week.)

Ben-Gurion’s famous assessment of the world body came in the form of a remark he made at an Israeli cabinet meeting in 1955. He was responding to a suggestion that the United Nations’ 1947 plan for partitioning Palestine brought about the creation of the State of Israel. “No, no, no!” Ben-Gurion shouted. “Only the daring of the Jews created the state, and not any oom-shmoom resolution.”

“Oom” is the Hebrew acronym for “United Nations,” and the use of “shm” as a prefix is, of course, a well-known Yiddishism indicating contempt for the subject. The phrase “oom-shmoom” became a fixed part of the Israel political lexicon and has been invoked by other Israeli leaders over the years.

When the United Nations in 1997 condemned Israel for building homes in the Har Homa section of Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remarked (in Hebrew), “If this is all the ‘Oom’ is good for, then truly it is ‘Shmoom.’ ” Every Israeli adult instantly understood his reference to the unforgettable words of the country’s first premier.

American Jewish organizations had high hopes for the United Nations and actively promoted its establishment in 1945. It was not long, however, before its limitations and biases began to emerge.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

(Video) John Bolton On The UN &The Statehood Vote

Daphne Anson
23 September '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/09/john-bolton-on-un-statehood-vote.html

The UK's former ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock (who not so long ago depicted Hamas in an apologetic light) has been saying harsh things about Israel in the lead-up to the Palestinian statehood vote, but the USA's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, sees things rather differently:



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Abu Marzook Vs. Bolton in the LA Times

Tamar Sternthal
CAMERA Media Analysis
12 June '11


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=2064

Yet again, the Los Angeles Times gives a platform to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook who argues that this September at the United Nations "Palestinians will chart their own course, and there is nothing that the United States or Israel can do to stop it."

John Bolton, whose Op-Ed is paired with Abu Marzook's, ably counters the Hamas man's claims. The former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. writes:

An aversion to reality can be a powerfully destructive force. . . .


First, neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly has the legal authority to declare statehood. The U.N.'s website says candidly that the world body "does not possess any authority to recognize either a state or a government." Attempting to ram such a declaration through is not merely improper but destructive of the U.N. itself.


Some, however, argue that there is precedent, citing General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, which endorsed a plan to partition the former British League of Nations mandate into Jewish and Arab states, and a "special international regime" for Jerusalem. They should read what the resolution actually says. Like all assembly resolutions, it is not legally binding. It simply "recommends" the partition plan in question, and "requests that the Security Council take the necessary measures" to implement it. The council never adopted the plan. Although the Jewish leadership accepted it, the Arabs did not, and a multi-front Arab assault followed. End of precedent.

(Palestinian Authority negotiator Nabil Sha'ath, who just threatened to push the U.N. to implement Resolution 181 should the bid for statehood fail, should take note.) Bolton goes on:

Second, whatever serious political work is done at the U.N. is done by the Security Council, where the veto of the five permanent members -- the United States, France, China, Britain and Russia -- gives them predominance.

(For more on the Palestinian attempt to achieve statehood through the U.N., see here.)

In his Op-Ed, Abu Marzook proves that even terrorists can be funny, writing, "Unlike Obama, we have consistently said the same thing to whomever we address." Arab leaders, and Hamas' are no exception, are notorious for saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. For instance, in Arabic, Hamas speaks of a plan to destroy all of Israel and replace it with a Palestinian state. In English, it speaks only of accepting a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In Arabic, Hamas admits that 600-700 of its fighters were killed in Israel's Operation Cast Lead. In English, it claims that only 49 fighters were killed. In English, Hamas denies that it targets children. In its charter, in Arabic, it calls for the killing of every last Jew.

As for the Los Angeles Times' conduct, beyond the inexcusable publication of a terrorist's Op-Ed, the paper repeats an earlier disservice, misleading readers about Abu Marzook's past. Editors describe him as follows:

Mousa Abu Marzook is one of the founders of Hamas and its deputy political bureau chief. He was born in Gaza and lived in the United States for 14 years.

Understandably, given the unflattering headlines that the Assad regime has recently been racking up, the Times withholds from readers Abu Marzook's current place of residence -- Damascus. And after 14 years of life in America he didn't move to Damascus for the better hummus. The Washington Post, which in 2006 also shamelessly published an Op-Ed by Abu Marzook, at least disclosed to readers that he

was indicted in the United States in 2004 as a co-conspirator on racketeering and money-laundering charges in connection with activities on behalf of Hamas dating back to the early 1990s, before the organization was placed on the list of terrorist groups. He was deported to Jordan in 1997.

Abu Marzook, criminal and terrorist, is good for a few laughs today. The co-conspirator on racketeering and money-laundering and leader of an outlawed terror group lectures Los Angeles Times readers about "legal right[s] under international law" and "moral issues." But there's nothing funny about Times editors repeatedly giving space to an indicted criminal and terrorist while concealing his so-called "credentials."

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

New Challenges for Pro-Israel Activists

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
20 October '10

Former UN ambassador John Bolton, as he is wont to do, sounds a warning:

Once past Nov. 2 and faced with the impending and embarrassing collapse of direct talks, President Obama may well be moved to punish Israel or at least fashion a teachable moment out of his diplomatic failure.

The Obama administration has a jaundiced view of Israel, but actual U.S. recognition of “Palestine” seems a remote prospect in the near term. The domestic political firestorm for the president—already likely to be badly wounded in midterm elections and deeply concerned about his own prospects in two years—would simply be too much.

A more indirect but still effective course is to let statehood emerge through a Security Council resolution. Prior U.S. administrations would unquestionably have voted “no,” thus vetoing such a proposal, but Mr. Obama’s penchant for publicly pressuring Israel is a foreshadow that Washington may decide not to play its traditional role. While even Mr. Obama is unlikely to instruct a “yes” vote on a Security Council resolution affirming a Palestinian state and subsequent U.N. membership, one could readily envision the administration abstaining. That would allow a near-certain majority, perhaps 14-0, to adopt the resolution.

In any other administration, this would be inconceivable; however, this administration is like no other. Yes, this would be a major step forward for the delegitimizers. (”By defining ‘Palestine’ to include territory Israel considers its own, such a resolution would delegitimize both Israel’s authority and settlements beyond the 1967 lines, and its goal of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.”) Yes, it would be politically unpopular, given the country’s pro-Israel orientation. And yes, it would send a dangerous signal to Iran that Israel’s fate is not tied to our own, and that Israel’s existential threat is Israel’s problem alone.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

UAE Ambassador: Benefits of Attacking Iran Outweigh Risks

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
07 July '10

President Obama, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullins, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have all pooh-poohed the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Obami have relied on ”linkage” to justify their fixation on the “peace process” — i.e., the idea that progress there is needed to make progress in stopping the Iranian nuclear program.



But Israel’s neighbors have a different idea. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is “unacceptable” to them — and they really mean it — just as it is to the Jewish state. The latest indication comes in this report from Eli Lake:

The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.

“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion — there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country, that is going to happen no matter what.”

“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE.”

John Bolton, as well as many other Middle East hands who regularly visit the region, confirms that in private, a number of other Arab leaders have said the same thing. So perhaps we can dispense with the fruitless “peace process,” round up a coalition of the willing (it is a catchy term), and make clear to Iran that if it does not voluntarily give up its nuclear program, it will face an alliance that will “disarm” it.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

What Happens When Iran Gets the Bomb

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
03 May '10

John Bolton writes that we can no longer avoid the obvious: “There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.” The watered-down sanctions under contemplation by the UN or being slow-walked through Congress are too little, too late. And as Bolton notes, it is virtually inconceivable that Obama will employ military force to thwart the mullahs’ nuclear plans. So where does that leave us? Bolton explains:

That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

The notion that we can contain a nuclear-armed Iran is preposterous — for we are not containing an Iran that lacks a nuclear capability. For those who perceive a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state as literally “unacceptable” — not merely regrettable, as the Obami seem to — Bolton suggests that it is time to begin marshalling support for Israel’s military action:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Bibi’s Real Mistake

Graphic: TY Stephen Hughes
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
17 March '10

The Israelis’ error was not in announcing a housing-complex addition, writes John Bolton. It was in trying to play ball with an American administration that seeks to dictate negotiations with intransigent Palestinians and has little interest in stopping the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons. Bolton explains:

Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to avoid open disputes with Washington have not won him White House plaudits. Mr. Obama almost certainly believes the real obstacle to peace is not new housing or unfortunate timing but so-called Israeli intransigence.

On Iran, Mr. Netanyahu has faithfully supported Mr. Obama’s diplomacy, hoping to build credibility with the president against the day when Israel might have to strike Iran’s weapons program preemptively. . . As time passes, Israel’s military option grows more difficult and the chances for success shrink as Iran seeks new air-defense systems and further buries and hardens nuclear facilities.

Mr. Netanyahu’s mistake has been to assume that Mr. Obama basically agrees that we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the White House likely believes that a nuclear Iran, though undesirable, can be contained and will therefore not support using military force to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

The rub will come, as Bolton notes, when Israel determines that it must take military action and when the Obami do all they can to prevent the Jewish state’s preemptive strike, or to punish it after the fact (”if Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, the president will likely withhold critical replenishments of destroyed Israeli aircraft and other weapons systems”). Bolton’s advice to Bibi is to stop trying to gain chits with Obama and strike while it is still possible. He argues:

(Read full post)
.

The Price of Engagement

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
19 October 09

John Bolton observes that the UN Human Rights Council, in its latest spasm of Israel-bashing, has further damaged the so-called Middle East peace process. (It isn’t like things were going swimmingly, but leave it to the UN to make things worse.) He writes:

In the month since the report’s release, it has roiled the Middle East peace process. An Israeli spokesman said “it will make it impossible for us to take any risks for the sake of peace,” perhaps foreshadowing Israeli withdrawal from negotiations while the report remains under active U.N. consideration.

The HRC resolution endorsing the report’s recommendations repeatedly lacerated Israel, leading Mr. Goldstone himself to cringe, saying he was “saddened” the resolution contained “not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report.” A U.S. State Department spokesman conceded that the adopted text “went beyond even the scope of the Goldstone Report itself.”

But this is what one expects of the HRC – and why the Bush administration thought it best not to give credence to the body. But, as Bolton observes, it is not simply out of solidarity with the Jewish state that it would be a good idea to bug out. It is rather in our own self-interest to do so:

The Goldstone Report has important implications for America. In the U.N., Israel frequently serves as a surrogate target in lieu of the U.S., particularly concerning the use of military force pre-emptively or in self-defense. Accordingly, U.N. decisions on ostensibly Israel-specific issues can lay a predicate for subsequent action against, or efforts to constrain, the U.S. Mr. Goldstone’s recommendation to convoke the International Criminal Court is like putting a loaded pistol to Israel’s head—or, in the future, to America’s.

Bolton’s observation highlights a key problem with Obama’s push to put that “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. As we aim to ingratiate ourselves with Israel’s foes, we also do great damage to our own interests, which, despite the Obamis’ moral and geopolitical obtuseness, are closely aligned with Israel’s. The Goldstone report strikes at the heart of democratic societies’ ability to wage wars of self-defense against terrorists who would use woman and children as shields (and thereby maximize the body count of both for propaganda value). Wouldn’t this be a bad precedent to set for America, which is, after all, engaged in wars against those who employ the very same tactics? You’d think our rhetoric would be more robust in condemning the Goldstone report, and our toleration much less for the HRC’s anti-terror-fighting gambit.

Nevertheless, we can surmise that an administration that sees benefit in putting daylight between America and another democracy beset by Islamic terrorists isn’t likely to put daylight between America and the HRC. In fact, the rush to “engage” Israel’s foes as well as our own, to smother them with words of affection and apologies at all costs, makes itimpossible to disengage, even when their behavior is reprehensible, as is the case with the HRC.

By making “engagement” a central principle of American foreign policy, we hand the foes of democracy, human rights, and the West tremendous influence and immunity from retribution. They can engage in whenever outlandish behavior they see fit to without fear of detrimental consequences. After all, we’ve already told them we’re going to engage with them no matter what. Doesn’t seem like very smart diplomacy, does it?
.