Rice’s reaction is both suspect and telling

...If anything is “unacceptable” then it might be argued that it’s Kerry’s comments, not the backlash to them. In making these kind of remarks, Secretary Kerry may not be endorsing these moves against Israel, but he serves to legitimize them by suggesting that they are the natural response, only to be expected, if Israel won’t find a way to make a deal with the Palestinians.

Tom Wilson..
Commentary Magazine..
05 February '14..

White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice has hit back at Israel for criticism from government ministers concerning recent comments by Secretary of State John Kerry. In a succession of tweets sent last night, Rice was at pains to defend Kerry’s record, yet she also didn’t hold back when it came to putting Kerry’s Israeli critics in their place. In one tweet she asserted, “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” It might be tempting to read these statements as an attempt to manufacture another minor spat between the two countries–to put some daylight between the U.S. government and Israel, as some have argued was the strategy in the past. Yet, whether this is being done consciously or not, it creates a public perception so that, if and when negotiations fail, the Israeli government will be less able to direct the blame toward the Palestinians.

The alleged “personal attacks” in question focused on widespread criticism, certainly not restricted to the Israeli press or politicians, that came in response to the implicit threats that Kerry has voiced about anti-Israel boycotts. Speaking over the weekend, he had raised the possibility of an advancing boycott campaign against Israel in the event that the two sides fail to reach an agreement. In November of last year Kerry had made an even more extreme version of this implicit threat; talking about the prospect of talks failing, Kerry asked, “does Israel want a third intifada?”

If anything is “unacceptable” then it might be argued that it’s Kerry’s comments, not the backlash to them. In making these kind of remarks, Secretary Kerry may not be endorsing these moves against Israel, but he serves to legitimize them by suggesting that they are the natural response, only to be expected, if Israel won’t find a way to make a deal with the Palestinians. Indeed, one has to ask: if Kerry is serious about presenting the two sides with a fair offer then why the need for all these thinly veiled threats? If the deal genuinely offers Israel peace and security, we can be confident Israelis will jump at it. These threats would suggest Kerry knows he won’t be able to get the Palestinians to give the Israelis a fair deal, so with no carrot, it’s going to have to be all stick from here on in.

These Sanctions Are Neither 'Crippling' nor 'Biting.' They Are Feeble and Flaccid, Truly Obama's Sanctions

Marty Peretz
The New Republic
19 May '10

It used to be that the president sent out Ms. Clinton to do the retreat on Iran, and she's been doing it for about 17 months. Pathetically, actually, and with some embarrassment on her face. Now it's Susan Rice's turn. It's only fair. For our U.N. ambassador actually believes that the processes of the organization are more important than the results. So it was given to Ms. Rice to explain and explain away why the sanctions agreed upon by the five permanent members of the Council plus Germany omitted and efforts "that would stop the flow of oil out of Iranian ports, or gasoline into the country."

This last quote comes from an absolutely clarifying New York Times news article by David E. Sanger and Mark Landler. Basically it says that nothing will happen. This is, as the dispatch says, "the fourth round of sanctions against Iran." But there is only one truly fresh provision.

The newest element of the sanctions would require countries to inspect ships or aircraft headed into or out of Iran if there are suspicions that banned materials are aboard. But as in the case of North Korea, there is no authorization to board these ships forcibly at sea, a step officials from many countries could start a firefight, and perhaps touch off a larger confrontation.

This is an ideal Ricean solution. You state a goal but provide no means at all to achieve it.

(Read full article)

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.
.

The UN Farce Continues

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
14 May '10

Anne Bayefsky — who had a “j’accuse moment” and was roughed up by the UN thugs when she criticized the Goldstone Report before having her credentials snatched – reports on the latest outrage:

On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.

Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”

Which is worse — allowing another Muslim thugocracy into the clown show that is the Human Rights Council or the cowardice of Rice and the Obama team, which won’t come clean on precisely which thugocracies it is sucking up to? Rice’s remarks are beyond parody:

(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.
.

U.N. Human Rights Council Welcomes Some New Members

Anne Bayefsky
National Review Online
13 May '10
Posted before Shabbat

On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.

Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”

Not constructive because, Rice suggested, it was no big deal. She described the countries on the Council — which include human-rights experts Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba in addition to the incoming freshman class — as just “countries whose orientation and perspectives we don’t agree with.” And later on she described the election as one which “yielded an outcome that we think is a good reflection on the potential of the Human Rights Council.”

(Read full story)

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.
.