vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009 Status: offline
|
The White House’s decision to break with decades of U.S. policy and allow the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements is the culmination of years of bad blood between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The decision won Obama criticism from across the political spectrum, and almost certainly wouldn't have been made if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election. [SNIP] Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said the rapid expansion of settlement activity under Netanyahu had put the possibility of a future peace agreement at risk. “We could not in good conscience veto a resolution that expressed concerns about the very trends that are eroding the foundation of a two-state solution,” he told reporters. Netanyahu’s office, in turn, made some of its harshest criticisms of Obama to date, accusing the president of plotting behind Israel’s back to undermine the Jewish state. “The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the U.N., it colluded with it behind the scenes,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement. LINK For decades the world's nations have stood by while the Israeli Settlement Movement has devoured land in the West Bank and cordoned off Palestinian villages, harassed village people, and destroyed grape orchards. In his arrogance, Netanyahu thumbed his nose at the UN and at Obama and allowed the de facto invasion of Palestinian land. Obama, in a late but major move in rebuttal to Bibi, abstained and permitted the Council Resolution to proceed. A man of moral principles, indeed. Apologies to MM. I missed his thread on this topic but perhaps there is a little different spin here.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/23/2016 8:03:32 PM >
_____________________________
vML Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|