Year End Reflections, Part V (John Kerry vs Nikki Haley - No Contest)

In December of last year, the United States - by abstaining - allowed the passage of UN Security Resolution 2334. As was typical of the Obama-Kerry team, the resolution criticized Israel for building in Jerusalem, blamed Israel for the lack of a peace agreement, and, as usual tried to appease the Palestinians by giving them everything they want - and still expecting the Palestinians to come to the bargaining table.

Now, a year later later, Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, said this: "Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the US would vote no, and we would exercise our veto power." The other day, the UN Security Council voted 14-1 on an Egyptian sponsored resolution declaring that the US should annul its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the one "no" vote was cast by Nikki Haley on behalf of the US, and as the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, the resolution did not pass. Haley: the US "will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy."

Kerry, last December: "Now you may have heard that some criticize this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution (2334) on that issue." Except, that was not true, as previous policy was that the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated between the parties. No excuse making by Haley, however, as she asserted that the US had the "courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality: Jerusalem has been the political, cultural and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years; they have had no other capital city."

Last December, Kerry gave a 70 minute speech defending the contents of resolution 2334. The resolution included a provision claiming that Israeli "settlements" were "a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Here is what Haley just said about which party constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace: by "misplacing the blame for the failure of the peace efforts squarely on Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another."

Haley, with no hand wringing, and no doubt about what was right and what side the United States should take, then tweeted this: "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, about where to locate our embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday, there'll be a vote (this time in the General Assembly where the US has no veto power) criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names."

No apologies. No appeasement. No agonizing over using US power and influence. Does it make sense to keep providing foreign aid to countries who then poke us in the eye and vote against US interests at the UN? My take? G-d bless Nikki Haley and G-d bless Donald Trump for appointing her to be UN Ambassador.

Postscript: We can reasonably predict how the Western European, anti-Israel, Palestinian-appeasing countries will vote. For example, and representative of the Western European leaders, French President Emmanuel Macron referred to Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital "regrettable." But it is worth noting the words of Czech President Milos Zeman: "The European Union, cowards, are doing all they can so a pro-Palestinian terrorist movement can have supremacy over a pro-Israeli movement."