After she had exercised the Obama administration’s first veto, the plea made by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for understanding of America’s position could not have been more absurd. “Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should not be misunderstood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”
So why the veto? Ambassador Rice said:
“The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating it. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore our opposition to continued settlements.”
What nonsense! If the Obama administration really wanted to underscore its stated opposition to Israel’s on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem, there was no better or more effective way of doing so than voting for the resolution or abstaining. In either case the resolution would have passed and that would have opened the door to real global pressure on Israel if it continued to defy international law.
that's from alan hart's 'the veto and the case for impeaching president obama' (information clearing house). i agree with impeaching him.
and i agree with impeaching him for the above.
i do not agree with some people who say israel is controlling him. i hear that more and more.
and i wonder did they pay attention at all?
while barack's u.s. senate record was sleight, it did exist and he voted like he was a lobbyist for israel. clearly he voted that way because of how he really believed so why are people surprised now? why weren't they paying attention then?
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'