Is Obama About to Betray Israel in the UNSC ?

On November 6 Fox News reported that “President Obama has concluded that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians cannot be reached during the remainder of his time in office, White House officials said Thursday. The Washington Post quoted Rob Malley, the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East, as saying that Obama “faces the reality” that a solution to the ongoing conflict “is not in the cards for the remainder” of his term of office…”

Obama’s claim that the conflict will not be solved during his term does not mean he is not planning to betray Israel in the UNSC. In November 2014 the Algemeiner reported that “In a dramatic development, Israeli cabinet members are warning that US President Barack Obama threatened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US may opt not to oppose future hostile UN Security Council votes, unless Israel accedes to American policy demands, Israel’s NRG News reported on Sunday.

“The prime minister told colleagues in recent days … that his office’s understanding of the issue and the government’s take on it is that the Americans will not cast a veto against a resolution that reaches the Security Council,” Ariel Kahana, diplomatic correspondent for the Makor Rishon and NRG dailies, told The Algemeiner on Monday, quoting ministerial-level sources.

The information was shared at a session of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) Party, led by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, and at which party members Uri Ariel and Ze’ev Hever were present, according to Kahana.

The threat, at least as leaked, implies that the United States is prepared to abandon Israel in the dock of the world body, a step that could further destabilize relations between the two allies to an unprecedented degree, Kahana said.

The Palestinians, according to one version, are demanding Israeli pull backs to the pre-67′ war lines by 2016, while another version says the UNSC threat refers to halting any and all Israeli construction beyond those areas.

Palestinian Authority (PA) UN representative Riyad Mansour said on Friday that “The main option is to go with a vote.”

PA officials said a day earlier that they have seven out of a needed nine “yes” votes in the 15-member Security Council, and the resolution can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members – among the the US.

At the October 1 meeting at the White House between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama, the latter noted that “Israel is obviously in a very turbulent neighborhood, and this gives us an opportunity once again to reaffirm the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel, and our ironclad commitment to making sure that Israel is secure.”

In his response, Netanyahu said that he remains “committed to a vision of peace of two states for two peoples based on mutual recognition and rock solid security arrangements on the ground.”

Kahana, however, pointed to a recent article in The Atlantic by Jeffery Goldberg – who is commonly seen as reflecting the US administration’s views towards Israel – referencing the US pressure, but from the American point of view:

Citing what he called “red-hot” anger by the Obama administration “over Israel’s settlement policies,” and his view that “the Netanyahu government openly expresses contempt for Obama’s understanding of the Middle East,” Goldberg warned that “Profound changes in the relationship may be coming.”

“This is a precedent and a very dangerous step,” Kahana cautioned about the American threat, and said it was the most chilling thing he’d heard uttered in decades of Israel-US relations.

“Beyond the abandonment of Israel, it also flies in the face of previous agreements with the Americans, including vis a vis the Egyptian peace deal in which the US would hold the line against such maneuvers,” Kahana noted.

“The point is that one can’t trust anything the US says anymore, if the information is accurate,” according to Kahana.

“If the US is able to betray Israel like this – what do other allies and foes think?” Kahana wondered aloud…”

In 2013 Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting,” the secretary of state said. “I think we have some period of time – a year to year-and-a-half to two years, or it’s over.”

He added: “Everybody I talk to in the region and all of the supporters globally who care … want us to move forward on a peace effort. They’re all worried about the timing here. So there’s an urgency to this, in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the president’s instructions, to honour that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.”

The Arab-Israeli conflict has existed since 1948, why did Kerry claim there is an “urgency” to solve it in a short 2 year window? Obama is in a rush to pass a UNSC resolution imposing a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank before his time in office ends. He knows that the next administration will not be willing to concede this to the Palestinians without taking into consideration Israel’s security needs.

Obama now admits that the conflict will not be solved during his term, but he may want to approve a UNSC resolution to cement his biased pro-Palestinian solution to the future administration.
Obama has to pass this UNSC urgently before his term comes to an end to tie the future US President’s hands. Future administrations will have no choice but to obey to Obama’s UNSC resolution.

To justify the UNSC resolution, Obama needs to create a sense of urgency. Abbas is escalating the violence through stabbing attacks to create the sense of urgency that Obama needs. Abbas wants to provoke an Israeli reaction which Obama can use as an excuse to justify the anti-Israel UNSC resolution.

On October 28 Arutz 7 reported that “US Secretary of State John Kerry asserted Wednesday that the escalating wave of Arab terror in Israel showcases what would be in store if the Palestinian Arabs were not to achieve statehood.

During a speech in Washington, Kerry emphasized the United States’ commitment to advancing the two-state solution, which he called “the only viable alternative.”

…Stressing that unrest and violence have hurt both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, Kerry contended “the current situation is simply not sustainable.”…

Kerry claims that there is an “urgency” to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and calls the situation “not sustainable” but the alternative that he proposes would be much worse. If a Palestinian State is established in the West Bank, Hamas will attack Israel from the West Bank as it does from Gaza. The current stabbing attacks are far better that the thousands of rockets that will rain in Israel if a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank.

Both Fatah and Hamas reject the two state solution that Kerry supports. Kerry needs to explain how he is planning to implement the two state solution if the Palestinians are committed to Israel’s destruction.

Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”

…What the Palestinians mean by “right of return” according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval.

According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:

“The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.

The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.

The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.

Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.

Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.”

In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of refugees and their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”

The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”

Those who advocate for the Two State Solution cannot ignore that what happened in Gaza can also happen in the West Bank. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took power and started missile attack against Israel. If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank, Hamas will attack Israel with missiles from the West Bank as it does from Gaza.

John Kerry is dishonest in not acknowledging that after Gaza the situation has changed and the “Two State Solution” will lead to war.

After Gaza the situation has changed, the “Two State Solution” became unfeasible. The “Two State Solution” is now actually a “One State Solution” because it will lead to Israel’s destruction. There are 57 Muslim States (see members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation) but only one Jewish State smaller than New Jersey. The “Two State Solution” will lead to the destruction of the only small Jewish State.

Demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will make the situation far worse not better. The “Two State Solution” is not as Kerry claims the only option. There is a much better and honest option which is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?

Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens.

It is not honest for those who seek a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict to ignore that Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must also be part of the solution.

Obama and Kerry ignore the Jordanian solution because it does not satisfy the Arabs’ demands. Although Jordan was also part of Palestine, the Palestinians have no interest in Jordanian land because it is already in Arab hands, the Palestinians only care about the part of the land that is being ruled by Jews, their point is to liberate “Arab land” ruled by infidels. If Israel was controlled by Jordan the Palestinians would not care to demand a Palestinian State, the same way they did not demand the control over the West Bank from 1948 till 1967 when it was under Jordanian rule.

Obama is not concerned about solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, his main concern is to pass a UNSC resolution demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank at any cost, even if it brings war. The creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank will not solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, it will enable Hamas to take over the West Bank and make the conflict worse.