The Obama administration at the U.N.

I’m so upset about what happened at the UN today, I can’t speak (or write).  Hot Air explains what happened:  after casting a veto against the Security Council’s vote on Israeli settlements, the U.S.’s Ambassador, Susan Rice, launched into a vitriolic attack that would have come easily from the lips of the Syrian or Iranian representative.

Omri Ceren wonders what Rice was trying to accomplishment.  While Rice and Obama may be confused in a hate-filled way, J.E. Dyer explains that the Islamic totalitarians in the Middle East understand that Rice just fired the starting gun in the race to Jerusalem.

And lastly, Jennifer Rubin points out that, whether because they were blinded by the Obama shell game (diddle around with the vote and then give an ugly speech) or because they’ve got their heads buried in their derrieres, Jewish groups in America haven’t made a peep about Rice’s appalling speech.  (By the way, Rubin notes the silence; I editorialized about the heads going where the sun don’t shine.)

I’m just sick about this.  I warned every Jew I knew what they could expect from Obama, but did they listen?  No!  Next to blacks, they were the largest single group to cast the majority of their votes for him.  Idiots!  Idiots!

But of course, if the semi-oil rich Middle East goes rogue on Obama’s watch, we all suffer, not just the Jews.

Idiots!

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Gaza, zacho, Gaza is a fully separate entity. They have no intention of ever making peace – just pieces, for every reason Gringo (thank you) outlined for you.
     
    You don’t get to cherry pick zip zach until you define the State of Israel.
     
     

  2. suek says

    >>Shalit is an Israeli soldier and was captured by Palestinians. >>
     
    Shalit was not “captured”, he was kidnapped.
     
    Or, as another option, he was captured in an act of invasive aggression.  He was not in the Palestinian territories – he was in Israel when they took him prisoner.

  3. suek says

    Islam, whose adherents are muslims, is both a religion and a political system.  They desire the world to be subject to the Caliphate – which is islam imposed on all people of the world.  Any country which has ever been under islamic control is considered to already and forever part of the islamic caliphate.  So you can say that it is not a country, but it behaves like a political body, which is effectively a country.

  4. says

    SADIE: Gaza is a fully separate entity.

    Not fully separate. It certainly isn’t Egyptian or Turkish territory. You’re not making a lot of sense. Do you really think Islam is a single political entity?
     
    SADIE: You don’t get to cherry pick zip zach until you define the State of Israel.

    It’s hard to know what you are asking. The State of Israel is a parliamentary republic on the Eastern Mediterranean. It’s government defines itself as a “a Jewish and democratic state”. 
     

  5. says

    SADIE: By the say, Zach{riel}, do you know what “hudna” is?

    Yes. There have been periodic hudna’s, or ceasefires, in the Palestinian conflict. The treaty with Jordan was a peace treaty that recognised each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.
     

  6. Charles Martel says

    “The Israelis has [sic] already made peace with Muslim-predominate nations, but the underlying problem remains unresolved.”

    Sorry, what problem is that?

  7. says

    Normally, I do not weigh in with my opinion on Israel; especially in regards to the West bank and Gaza as I know my opinion is different from some here. 

    However, there is one critical FACT that is so often overlooked by commenters in the mainstream media, and especially by those on the far left. 

    Forget for a minute all the following:  Israeli settlements in the West bank, Whether Jews “stole” arab lands or not, Arabs forced Jews out of their centuries-occupied homes, Jews and other non-muslims are/have been treated as second-class, whether there should nor should not be a state called Palestine, whether Israel has a future or if it will be “wiped off the map.” 

    I say forget all that because this one fact, to me, represents the true heart of Israel.  In spite of the “bad neighbhood” that Israel is, in spite of its less-than-peaceful history, in spite of its struggle to simply survive;  Israeli Arabs have MORE freedom in Israel than most Arabs have of all the Arab/Muslim countries combined.  And that’s a fact only a fool would argue with.

  8. says

    Charles Martel: Sorry, what problem is that?

    Sorry, we thought you were somewhat aware of the issues. The primary issue is recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the right of return for refugees, and the borders of any new Palestinian state. 
     
    Charles Martel: Notice that he will not address the deceptive nature of a hudna.

    Hudna is, by definition, temporary. However, keep in mind that many countries break treaties. Consider the U.S. behavior towards Native Americans. Or on this very blog, where people have advocated that America ignore its solemn promises on war and its treatment of prisoners. That doesn’t mean treaties have no value. Most countries do attempt to live up to their obligations, and Israel has enjoyed peace with Egypt and Jordan for many years now. 
     
    SADIE: I assumed that you would have a problem defining the State of Israel, so do the muslims.

    We provided the very definition the Israeli government uses. If you wish to propose something different for the edification of our readers, please do. 
     

  9. Danny Lemieux says

    What you don’t understand, Zach, is that “hudna” is a term defined in the Koran as a temporary cease-fire designed only to let Muslim forces regain their strength for the next assault.
     
    CharlesM set a trap for you that you sprung.
     
    You might want to take the time to read the Koran.
     
    Next word lesson…’takiyeh”.
     
    Charles, you are right. Muslims in Israel enjoy far more freedom than they do in any other Middle Eastern or North African country.

  10. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach says, “…or on this very blog, where people have advocated that America ignore its solemn promises on war and its treatment of prisoners.”
    Examples, please.

  11. says

    Danny Lemieux: What you don’t understand, Zach, is that “hudna” is a term defined in the Koran as a temporary cease-fire designed only to let Muslim forces regain their strength for the next assault.

    Yes, that’s a common purpose of a ceasefire, often due to mutual exhaustion or distraction with other matters; otherwise, the parties would normally press the advantage. 
     

  12. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach, it would be interesting to learn how you juxtapose a “hudna” in terms of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel and the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after the Gulf War.

  13. says

    Danny Lemieux: it would be interesting to learn how you juxtapose a “hudna” in terms of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel and the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after the Gulf War.

    That would be the U.N. v. Iraq. 
     

  14. says

    Danny Lemieux: The U.S.-led coalition, which attacked Iraq after the go-ahead by the U.N.

    You’re still missing the point. The cease-fire was between Kuwait, Iraq and the U.N. Member States, not the U.S. The Iraq invasion was not under the U.N. mantle, and was seen by many countries as a breach of the peace. That the U.S. ended the inspections regime, and didn’t find WMD only makes the original justification even more tenuous. If you burn your neighbor’s house down, even if your motives were pure (albeit deranged), you’re still responsible for the damage.
     

  15. Danny Lemieux says

    If a bank robber enters a bank and hands the teller a note that says, “give me your money, I have a bomb”, and the bank guard shoots him dead, it was justified. If later it was found he/she was bluffing, the shooting is still justified.
     
    The second Iraq invasion also happened because Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire between the U.S-led coalition and Iraq. Oh well. End of hudna!
     
    Iraq and the world is far better off today than before. Or, do you miss Saddam?
     

  16. says

    Danny Lemieux: If a bank robber enters a bank and hands the teller a note that says, “give me your money, I have a bomb”, and the bank guard shoots him dead, it was justified. If later it was found he/she was bluffing, the shooting is still justified.

    That’s correct. But unlike your analogy, Saddam said he had disarmed his WMD per the U.N. mandate. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: The second Iraq invasion also happened because Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire between the U.S-led coalition and Iraq. 
     
    The cease-fire was between Kuwait, Iraq and the U.N. Member States, not the U.S. 
     

  17. SADIE says

    If you burn your neighbor’s house down, even if your motives were pure (albeit deranged), you’re still responsible for the damage.

    Saddam’s payments to Palestinian suicide bombers

    $10,000 per family
    $25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
    $35m paid since September 2000
    PALF figures

  18. Charles Martel says

    Apparently, according to Zach, the United States is not a “UN member state” and the UN did not approve of the U.S. request to enforce the terms of the cease-fire on bahlf of the organization to which it did not belong.

    The convolutions keep coming!

  19. says

    Ymarsakar: Saddam’s ceasefire was between the US and Iraq. Not between Iraq and the UN.

    Resolution 687. If Saddam violated the terms of the ceasefire, then it was on the U.N. to determine the appropriate course of action.

    Understandably, the U.S. was nervous after 9-11. Those who counseled patience were vilified by many right-wing elements within the U.S. government. But it is quite obvious that the war was an avoidable disaster for the U.S. and for Iraq. 
     
    Charles Martel: the UN did not approve of the U.S. request to enforce the terms of the cease-fire on bahlf of the organization to which it did not belong.

    Resolution 1441, concerning disarmament. Weapons inspectors were within Iraq, but withdrawn due to the impending U.S. invasion. There were no WMD. 

    The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board. 
     

  20. says

    The UN does not Determine A Damn Thing nor does it do anything even if it makes resolutions determining things.
     
    That’s just to make things crystal clear in the face of Zach’s obfuscations.
     
     

  21. says

    Ymarsakar: Those without power to do what they say, have no “right” to determine anything. It’s called a fiction on paper. Only good so long as people pretend it has value.The U.S. has made promises concerning the conduct of war. Are American promises meaningful, or are they “fiction on paper”? 

     

     

  22. says

    Ymarsakar: Who the hell do you claim made a promise on my behalf?

    If you are an American, the U.S. has signed and ratified a number of treaties with respect to war and the treatment of prisoners, including the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions. Ratification of treaties is by two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate, which the U.S. Constitution says is “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

    So, are American promises meaningful, or are they “fiction on paper”? 

  23. suek says

    Eliminate the Geneva Conventions.  They were made as an agreement between signatory nations.  They do not apply to non-signatories, although the US generally applies them as policy even with non-signatory peoples.

  24. says

    suek: Eliminate the Geneva Conventions.  They were made as an agreement between signatory nations.  They do not apply to non-signatories, although the US generally applies them as policy even with non-signatory peoples.

    You’re probably referring to the issue of “unlawful combatants”. Though terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, do not qualify as prisoners of war, the Geneva Conventions require that prisoners “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
     

  25. says

    Law of War. That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities and occupation. It is often called the “law of armed conflict” and encompasses all international law applicable to the conduct of hostilities that is binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party (e.g., the Geneva Conventions of 1949), and applicable customary international law.
    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231001p.pdf

  26. says

    For Democrats, I would say they treat it as fiction most of the time, except when it conveniences them not to.
     
    For Republicans, their promises last about the time when a new administration turns in at the WH.
     
    The only meaning question you should ask, Zach, is “are your promises meaningful or “fiction on paper”.
     
     

  27. says

    So basically, you believe you are and the Left aren’t totalitarian because people, like us, have a duty or obligation to obey you because you have some words on paper that says we should.
     
    Ridiculous. Of course
     
     

  28. says

    Ymarsakar: Who the hell do you claim made a promise on my behalf?

    Zachriel
    : If you are an American, the U.S. has signed and ratified a number of treaties with respect to war and the treatment of prisoners,

    YmarsakarAlso, civilians have nothing to do with enforcing or obeying the Geneva Conventions.

    You didn’t seem to answer the question. Treaties, according to the U.S. Constitution, are the supreme law of the land. Are these promises “fiction on paper”? 
     

  29. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach pontificates: “The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board.”

    Such a broad sweeping statement with no basis in fact. Libya, for one, determined that U.S. credibility was so high that it gave up its WMD programs.

    I would be curious to know under what legitimate court of law the U.S. invasion of Iraq was deemed to be “illegal”. Also would be interested in knowing under what legitimate court of law the detention of unlawful combatants at Guantanamo has been adjudicated as “illegal”.

    Oh, wait. Zach has determined that these actions are illegal. Thus spake Zacharoosta!

  30. says

    Danny Lemieux: I would be curious to know under what legitimate court of law the U.S. invasion of Iraq was deemed to be “illegal”.

    We can discuss that once Ymarsakar;s answers the simple question as to whether the promises of the Americans are meaningful. If they aren’t, then it doesn’t matter what the U.S. does or doesn’t do.
     

  31. says

    Zachriel: The U.S. invasion was unauthorized. Far worse, it was unwise, and undercut U.S. credibility across the board.

    Danny Lemieux
    : Such a broad sweeping statement with no basis in fact.

    It’s rather odd to claim that the U.S. can go to war based on a false claim without undermining its credibility. It’s the very definition of credibility.
     

  32. Charles Martel says

    “We can discuss that once Ymarsakar;s answers the simple question as to whether the promises of the Americans are meaningful. If they aren’t, then it doesn’t matter what the U.S. does or doesn’t do.”

    Danny, I’ll translate: I can’t answer your question, therefore I won’t. (Also good to know that the smartest kid on this blog writes stuff like “once Ymarsakar;s answers” and expects us to take him seriously.) 

  33. says

    Charles Martel: Danny, I’ll translate: I can’t answer your question, therefore I won’t.

    The answer to the legality of U.S. actions depends on whether or not the U.S. can and has made binding commitments.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply