{"id":49210,"date":"2017-01-02T06:05:09","date_gmt":"2017-01-02T04:05:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=49210"},"modified":"2017-01-02T09:07:53","modified_gmt":"2017-01-02T07:07:53","slug":"02-05-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=49210","title":{"rendered":"12 Reasons the U.S. Should Have Vetoed U.N. resolution 2334"},"content":{"rendered":"<h5 style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.unwatch.org\/\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"attachment-full size-full alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/www.unwatch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/12\/logo.jpg\" alt=\"UN Watch\" width=\"35%\" \/><\/a><span style=\"text-decoration: underline; color: #000080;\"><strong><a style=\"color: #000080; text-decoration: underline;\" href=\"http:\/\/www.unwatch.org\/joining-jackals-open-letter-amb-samantha-power\/\" target=\"_blank\">12 Reasons the U.S. Should Have Vetoed U.N. resolution 2334<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Hillel C. Neuer<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<hr style=\"background: #d0e6fa; width: 710px; height: 15px;\" \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Joining the Jackals: The Case Against U.N. Resolution 2334 <\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>An open letter from UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer to U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter\" src=\"http:\/\/www.unwatch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/power-vote-570x370.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"80%\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">December 29, 2016<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Dear Ambassador Power,<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">I write in response to your abstention on Friday which allowed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel, and in response to the substantial explanation of vote that you delivered. With even further U.N. measures still possible before President Obama leaves office on January 20th, I urge you and the Administration\u2014where you play an influential role as a member of the President\u2019s Cabinet, and as one of President Obama\u2019s most trusted advisors\u2014to reconsider your approach.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Your speech on Friday had much to applaud. As you have vigorously done for three years, your remarks exposed in compelling detail the U.N. double standard applied to the Jewish state, which, you rightly said, \u201cnot only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations itself.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">As you noted last year on the 40th anniversary of the infamous Zionism is Racism resolution, at the U.N. \u201crarely a day goes by without some effort to delegitimize Israel.\u201d On that occasion, you called for everyone to \u201crelentlessly fight back\u201d against this \u201cignorance and hatred.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Your vote on Friday, however, makes a dramatic break with all of this. While it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with Israel about settlements, allowing Resolution 2334 to pass was morally wrong and strategically damaging. As set forth below, we believe the U.S. decision to acquiesce in the adoption of this lopsided resolution reverses decades of past practice, sets back the cause of peace, and harms the interests of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Leader\u2019s of Israel\u2019s Left-Wing Opposition Reject U.N. Resolution<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Immediate and compelling evidence demonstrates that the Administration has failed to achieve its objective, which you articulated as promoting the two-state solution.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Secretary Kerry\u2019s speech yesterday failed to acknowledge the telling fact that Israel\u2019s mainstream society, including leading supporters of the two-state solution, have sharply rejected the U.N. resolution, and criticized the U.S. role in its advancement and adoption.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Consider:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition and chairman of the Labor Party\u2014whom you recently recognized for being \u201cso principled on behalf of peace\u201d\u2014called for Resolution 2334 to be annulled, saying it caused \u201csevere damage.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Similarly, his colleague, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who led efforts to achieve a two-state solution at the Annapolis Conference, and who welcomed the 2008 Security Council resolution endorsing that summit, said by contrast that Friday\u2019s U.S.-backed resolution \u201charms the interests of Israel,\u201d \u201charms Jerusalem,\u201d and threatens to haul Israeli officers to the International Criminal Court.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Yair Lapid, chair of the Yesh Atid opposition party, who has endorsed the Saudi-Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for peace talks, and who opposes the proposed Knesset bill to legalize outposts which you cited on Friday, called the U.N. resolution \u201cdangerous\u201d, \u201cunfair, and \u201can act of hypocrisy.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Ehud Barak, who as prime minister went to Camp David in 2000 and extended an unprecedented and far-reaching peace offer to the Palestinians, called this resolution a \u201chumiliating blow to Israel.\u201d Amos Yadlin, head of Tel Aviv University\u2019s Institute for National Security Studies, the country\u2019s most influential think tank, and another prominent supporter of the two-state solution, said that the resolution was \u201cextremely problematic for Israel and the peace process alike,\u201d and he accused President Obama of committing \u201ca severe anti-Israeli move\u201d which \u201charmed the United States\u2019 staunchest ally in the Middle East.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"> To be sure, all of these left-leaning figures faulted or admonished Prime Minister Netanyahu for failing to head off the blow. Yet neither President Obama, Secretary Kerry or anyone else in your Administration has yet addressed the astonishing fact that their closest Israeli political allies and interlocutors in promoting the peace process have uniformly denounced an action which you claim will advance their position.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><em>Hamas &amp; Islamic Jihad Terrorists Cheer Resolution: \u201cNow Israel Can Be Isolated, Boycotted, Prosecuted\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">By contrast, are you not troubled that among the first to endorse the resolution were the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad? \u201cHamas commends the countries that voiced their opposition to the Israeli occupation\u2019s aggressive settlement policy aimed against the Palestinian people,\u201d said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum. Hamas praised \u201cthe important about-face in the international position in favor of the Palestinian people.\u201d Iran-backed Islamic Jihad welcomed the U.S.-backed resolution, saying, \u201cIt\u2019s plain to see the world opinion is against Israel and its policies,\u201d and \u201cnow Israel can be isolated and boycotted, as well as prosecuted in the international arena for all its crimes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><em><span style=\"color: #000000;\">12 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Have Vetoed U.N. Resolution 2334<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">To understand why, by contrast, so many supporters of Israeli-Palestinian peace oppose what you did on Friday, I urge you and the Administration to consider the following 12 points:<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">1. Resolution 2334 Encourages Palestinian Rejectionism, Undermines Negotiations<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> The resolution dangerously disincentivizes Palestinians to come to the negotiating table. Instead, Resolution 2334 will for the foreseeable future encourage them to await being handed the same or more by international fiat. This will feed into the Palestinian strategy of preferring to deal with international institutions over bilateral talks with Israel. Contrary to its stated objective, therefore, the resolution will only push negotiations further away.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">In this regard, we recall that in 2011, your predecessor Susan Rice vetoed a similar resolution on the grounds that it risked \u201chardening the positions of both sides,\u201d and \u201ccould encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.\u201d She said it was \u201cunwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Though your speech claims that circumstances have now changed, many will see the only meaningful difference as the fact that the current transition period allows a president to make unpopular decisions at no political cost.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">2. Resolution Fuels Palestinian Targeting of Israelis with BDS &amp; International Prosecutions<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> Secretary of State John Kerry pledged this month to oppose any \u201cbiased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel.\u201d And though he likewise said on Friday after the vote that he is proud of \u201cdefending Israel against any efforts to undermine its security or legitimacy in international fora,\u201d and \u201csteadfastly opposing boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting the State of Israel,\u201d the fact is that these are precisely the efforts empowered by Resolution 2334.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Friday\u2019s text not only provides the first Security Council endorsement of the scandalous 2004 ICJ advisory opinion, which denied Israel\u2019s right to defend itself from Gaza rockets, but it implicitly encourages the International Criminal Court (ICC) to move forward in its preliminary examination of whether Israeli officials have engaged in the \u201cwar crime\u201d of settlement building, and provides the same impetus to prosecutions in national courts that claim universal jurisdiction. If Tzipi Livni was already being served with UK arrest warrants before, Resolution 2334 will only aggravate anti-Israel lawfare. The U.S. should never have lent its hand to a campaign designed to delegitimize Israeli civil and military leaders as criminals.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Moreover, the resolution\u2019s appeal to all states to take action, in paragraph 5, is a clear call to escalate campaigns seeking to boycott Israeli products, companies and citizens. Certainly the UN Human Rights Council will feel empowered to continue preparing its blacklist of Israeli companies that do business over the green line, due in March. Meanwhile, the resolution\u2019s mandated reports by the Secretary-General every three months will ensure constant activity.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">3. Contrary to U.S. Claims, Resolution Fails to Condemn Palestinian Incitement<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> You said after the vote that the U.S. \u201cwould not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence.\u201d Yet that is exactly what happened: the resolution that was adopted mentions terrorism and incitement only in the abstract; nowhere are these crimes attributed to Palestinians. Whereas Israel is named and shamed throughout the text, the Palestinians get a free pass. The U.S. reversed decades of past practice by allowing the adoption of such an unbalanced text.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">The failure of this resolution to truly confront Palestinian incitement is not inconsistent with your failure to speak out against the routine incitement to antisemitism and terrorism by Palestinian school principals and teachers at UNRWA, to which your Administration gave $380 million last year. We sent you petition after petition, supported by thousands worldwide, yet your only statements on UNRWA have been to defend or promote the organization, not to hold it accountable. I hope you will change your approach when we soon reveal the latest trove of UNRWA\u2019s online incitement.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">4. Blames Israel as \u201cMajor Obstacle\u201d to Peace, Yet Palestinians Evade Responsibility<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> Despite the fact that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate without preconditions, refused to negotiate even during Israel\u2019s 2009-2010 settlement freeze, rejected the Kerry framework principles, and are inciting to terrorism at the highest levels, they are spared in the resolution from any blame. Instead, the resolution accuses Israel alone of creating, with the settlements, \u201ca major obstacle\u201d to just, lasting and comprehensive peace.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">5. Failure to Distinguish Settlements Loses Israeli Mainstream<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> By ignoring the 2000 Clinton Parameters, the Obama Administration unwisely managed to alienate itself from the vast majority of the Israeli population and political parties, who regard the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem such as Ramot and Gilo as an integral part of Israel\u2014all of which are defined in the resolution as \u201coccupied Palestinian territory\u201d\u2014and likewise, the Israeli Jewish communities in the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion have for years been considered part of the Israeli consensus. The U.S. failure to distinguish between these and isolated, remote settlements is what doomed the U.N. resolution to complete rejection by Israeli society as a whole.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">6. Offensive to Call Jerusalem\u2019s Jewish Holy Sites \u201cOccupied Palestinian Territory\u201d<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> The resolution is offensive to Jews worldwide by absurdly defining the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and the holiest Jewish sites of the Temple Mount and Western Wall, as \u201coccupied Palestinian territory.\u201d In describing your commitment to Israel as both personal and profound, you have on several occasions noted before Jewish and Israeli audiences that your son is a descendant, from his father\u2019s side, of Rabbi Elijah, the 18th-century Lithuanian Jewish sage known as the Vilna Gaon, considered the greatest Talmudic scholar of his time.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Given that the Gaon\u2019s vision of return to the Land of Israel was a decisive factor in the rebuilding of the Jewish Quarter, by inspiring hundreds of his disciples to immigrate to Jerusalem in the early 19th century, and given that we are about to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which recognized the ancient, indigenous Jewish rights to the Holy Land\u2014formalized internationally in the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, which stated that the British Administration \u201cshall encourage\u2026 close settlement by Jews, on the land\u201d\u2014I hope you will reconsider the logic of now criminalizing Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">7. Seeks to Relitigate &amp; Rewrite Cornerstone Resolution 242<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> By injecting new language enshrining \u201cthe 4 June 1967 lines,\u201d the resolution seeks to relitigate and rewrite U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967, the cornerstone of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations over the past half-century\u2014endorsed by the Palestinians at Oslo\u2014which calls for the right of every state to live in peace within \u201csecure and recognized boundaries\u201d and for Israel to withdraw \u201cfrom territories occupied.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Your predecessor Arthur Goldberg, former Supreme Court Justice and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. when 242 was enacted, made clear that the text\u2019s \u201cnotable omissions in language\u201d on withdrawal are the words \u201cthe,\u201d \u201call,\u201d and the \u201cJune 5, 1967, lines.\u201d The choice of language was clear, he explained: \u201cthere is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Instead, the resolution \u201cstipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.\u201d And it \u201ccan be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.\u201d Goldberg likewise told King Hussein in the lead-up to 242 that there was a \u201cneed for some territorial adjustment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">8. Explanation of Vote Misstates Longstanding U.S. Policy<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> Your speech on Friday opened with a 1982 quote from President Ronald Reagan opposing settlements, and you argued that \u201cour vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history\u201d of how American presidents have approached the issue. In fact, your speech was selective, excluding material statements by U.S. leaders rejecting the notion of return to the 1949 armistice lines, what Israeli statesman Abba Eban once called \u201cAuschwitz borders.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">For example, you failed to quote the rest of President Reagan\u2019s statement, in which he said: \u201cI have personally followed and supported Israel\u2019s heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel\u2019s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Nor did you quote President Lyndon Johnson who said: \u201cWe are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure, and there must be recognized, borders.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Likewise, you omitted Secretary of State Schultz\u2019s 1988 statement: \u201cThe territorial issue needs to be addressed realistically. Israel will never negotiate from or return to the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The Clinton parameters of December 2000, which contemplates Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs, are also ignored by the resolution.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">9. U.S. Position Reneges on Commitments in 2004 Bush-Sharon Letters<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> By allowing the resolution\u2019s new language enshrining \u201cthe 4 June 1967 lines,\u201d which are the 1949 armistice lines, the U.S. position reneges on the 2004 exchange of letters negotiated between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush. The Bush letter stated: \u201cIn light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Prime Minister Sharon relied on the Bush commitments as part of negotiated package deal, being the consideration Israel received and relied upon in exchange for its total withdrawal from Gaza. When the U.S. ignores written commitments to allies, its international credibility is dangerously diminished. Moreover, the Bush letter severely undermines your claim that the U.S. vote on Friday was \u201cfully in line\u201d with prior history.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">10. Resolution Lacks Legitimacy in U.S. Opinion<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> The resolution has been firmly rejected by the broad mainstream of American society, including by congressional leaders of President Obama\u2019s own party:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the U.S. vote \u201cfrustrating, disappointing and confounding\u201d and said it will move the Middle East farther from peace.\\<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was \u201cdeeply disappointed\u201d that the administration \u201cset aside longstanding U.S. policy to allow such a one-sided resolution to pass.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The U.S. abstention on \u201csuch a flagrantly one-sided resolution,\u201d said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Vt.), \u201cis unconscionable.\u201d<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"> Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he was \u201cdismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the U.N. resolution.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Even President Obama\u2019s former Special Envoy for Middle East Peace opposed the decision. \u201cPresident Obama would have been wise to veto this resolution,\u201d said George Mitchell, a former Senate majority leader, \u201cbecause of the timing and the circumstance that it leads to with respect to trying to get the parties together.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The Washington Post called the U.S. decision a \u201cdangerous parting shot at Israel,\u201d likely to do more harm than good.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">11. Reverses Decades of U.S. Practice<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> There has not been a resolution like this in a generation, not since the Carter years in 1979 and 1980, and even those resolutions did not take place during a time of extreme anti-Israeli BDS campaigns and in the context of global anti-Israeli lawfare prosecutions sought in the ICC and elsewhere. This reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Moreover, unlike with the few other U.S-backed resolutions in history that criticized Israel from time to time, the nature of the coordination and the careful timing of this maneuver against a close ally make it seem particularly deliberate and hostile.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">12. Joining with Venezuela &amp; Malaysia to Condemn Israel<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000080;\"> Whom you align with at the U.N. matters. I cannot think of another time in modern history when the U.S. endorsed a U.N. Security Council resolution co-sponsored by countries such as Venezuela, whose Maduro regime has thrown its opposition leaders in jail while causing mass starvation, and Malaysia, a hotbed of antisemitism.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Speaking of Venezuela, whose political prisoners we have championed, I have to note that while Secretary Kerry said repeatedly yesterday that the U.S. \u201ccannot, in good conscience, do nothing, and say nothing\u201d in regard to Israeli settlements, your Administration has said nothing every year when we have appealed to you to oppose the election of tyrannies such as Venezuela to the U.N. Human Rights Council. You said nothing to stop the Maduro regime being elected last year; you said nothing to stop Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba from getting elected this year; and you said nothing to stop Russia getting elected in 2013. Your Administration\u2019s policy of speaking out when good conscience requires it ought to be less selective.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><span style=\"color: #000080; text-decoration: underline;\">Conclusion: The Obama Administration Joined the Jackals<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">In conclusion, I ask you to consider what one of your predecessors and role models, the late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, might have thought about what the U.S. did on Friday.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">You cited Moynihan during your confirmation hearing as an iconic American who \u201cstood up for what was right.\u201d And as an example of how to bring the U.N. to live up to its ideals, you have invoked the moral clarity that Moynihan eloquently expressed in his formidable speeches as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1975.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">We certainly know what Moynihan thought about the Carter Administration\u2019s similar votes against Israel in 1979 and 1980. In his iconic 1981 Commentary essay, \u201cJoining the Jackals,\u201d Moynihan diagnosed the confused ideas which led U.S. delegates and officials to abandon Israel to what the Washington Post editorial board had identified as the pack at the U.N. which hounds Israel shamelessly. Carter, the Post had said, had decided to \u201cjoin the jackals.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">I believe Moynihan\u2019s observations of 36 years ago are no less apt to the resolution which you just allowed last week:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[F]or the United States to abstain on a Security Council resolution concerning Israel is the equivalent of acquiescing.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cAs a direct result of American policy, the Security Council was allowed to degenerate to the condition of the General Assembly.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On a 1979 resolution which used the language \u201cArab territories\u2026 including Jerusalem,\u201d Moynihan said, \u201cJerusalem is the capital of Israel. How could its capital be in the territory of others?\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Invoking against Israel the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, one of a series of treaties designed to codify the behavior of Nazi Germany and make such behavior criminal under international law, \u201cplayed perfectly into the Soviet propaganda position that \u2018Zionism is present-day fascism.\u201d Needless to say, Friday\u2019s Resolution 2334 invokes the same convention and uses language meant to describe Israel\u2019s building of homes in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as the U.N. 1947 partition plan called the areas, as war crimes.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Were Moynihan alive today, do you have any doubt that he would have said that on Friday the U.S.\u2014after 36 years\u2014once again joined the jackals?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">What we don\u2019t know yet is the degree to which the U.S., directly or indirectly, may have actually orchestrated the maneuver. If that proves to be the case\u2014and based on my knowledge and experience of U.N. diplomacy, your Mission had to have played a key role in influencing the language, as well as the timing, of this infamous resolution\u2014would not Moynihan say that the U.S. this time didn\u2019t just join the jackals, but became leader of the pack?<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Thank you for your consideration.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Sincerely,<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Hillel C. Neuer<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"> Executive Director<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"> UN Watch<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"> Geneva, Switzerland<\/span><\/p>\n<hr style=\"background: #d0e6fa; width: 710px; height: 15px;\" \/>\n<div id=\"content\" class=\" content-alignment&lt;br \/&gt;&lt;br \/&gt; \">\n<div id=\"watch-description\" class=\"yt-uix-button-panel\">\n<div id=\"watch-description-text\">\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #808080;\"> twoje uwagi, linki, wlasne artykuly, lub wiadomosci przeslij do: <span style=\"color: #000080;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><a style=\"color: #000080; text-decoration: underline;\" href=\"mailto:webmaster@reunion68.com\">webmaster@reunion68.com<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<hr style=\"width: 710px;\" \/>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>12 Reasons the U.S. Should Have Vetoed U.N. resolution 2334 Hillel C. Neuer Joining the Jackals: The Case Against U.N. Resolution 2334 An open letter from UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer to U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power December 29, 2016 Dear Ambassador Power, I write in response to your abstention on Friday which allowed a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6],"tags":[26,24],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49210"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=49210"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49226,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49210\/revisions\/49226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=49210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=49210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=49210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}