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."

Year End Reflections, Part IV (Do You Still Believe the Mainstream Media?)

Following President Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the New York Times ran a story entitled: "Jerusalem, Explained: Why Trump's Decision Matters and What's Next." The article by Max Fisher ran in the 12/10/17 edition. Fisher: "Evangelical Christians have been joined by a subset of American Jews and others on the political right in arguing that the United States should overtly back Israel in the conflict." I guess, if we ignore the May, 2016 Pew poll showing that Americans back Israel over the Palestinians by 54% to 19%.

And why wouldn't Americans back Israel, given the shared Judeo values as well as the shared values of democracy and liberty. Fisher says that the pro-Israel position "hardened during the second intifada, a period of vicious Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s." The truth is that it was a period of vicious terrorist attacks started by Yasser Arafat after he rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and walked out on then President Bill Clinton. By "vicious conflict" he means Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and even at a Passover Seder.

Fisher suggests that Trump backed full Israeli control over all of Jerusalem, ignoring Trump's comments that the final decision on the borders of Jerusalem are to be decided by the parties.

In an Op-Ed in the 12/7/17 LA Times, UCLA Professor Saree Makdisi writes of "Trump's Mideast disaster." Admittedly, an Op-Ed piece is not a news story. However, mainstream papers such as the NY Times and LA Times excel at letting left-wing writers use the papers' opinion pages to express ideas which these papers support. The beauty of it is it allows the papers to say that they are simply giving voice to "other" opinions - which the papers just happen to share. Makdisi: "For Trump to endorse Israel's claim to the entire city, then, is to endorse illegality." Allow me to reiterate: Trump endorsed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, clearly stating that the final boundaries are up to the parties.

These papers obviously know that Israel's government offices are in the Western part of Jerusalem, and that any US Embassy will also be in the Western part of Jerusalem. Why, then, do they permit their writers to state "facts" that simply are not true? That would be because they want Trump to look bad, and they want Israel to look bad. The left-wing crowd is anti-Trump and anti-Israel. After accusing Trump of supporting white supremacy and being Islamophobic, the Professor concludes with what I imagine is her real wish for Israel. Accusing Israel of apartheid, she says this: "...what looks like a victory for Israeli apartheid now may well turn out to be a turning point on the road to its eventual demise."

In the 12/15/17 edition of the NY Times, the paper had a chart, or diagram if you will, on page 12 above the fold, with the title "What Is the 'Russia Story?'" Above that are these words: "Confused by all the news about Russia and the 2016 presidential election? We are here to help." Well, isn't that special? Is the Times there to help with the major scandal of the century (see the prior post) and give us a diagram of all the players involved in the cover-up of the Clinton email scandal, the Trump dossier and fabricated Russian collusion story, and the effort by high government officials to prevent Trump from getting elected, and to resort to other tactics to get him removed from office should he win? Just asking.

However, the winner for the most overt bias against, and hatred of, Trump will have to be the USA Today. Their 12/13/17 editorial discusses Trump's dust-up with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. After calling for Trump to resign, Trump responded in his usual attack mode. He said that Gillibrand previously came to his office (before he was President) "begging" for campaign contributions, and "would do anything for them." Now, maybe I'm naive, but I did not attach any sexual innuendo to that comment. To me, it's a politician making promises - and saying anything - in order to get a campaign contribution. Nothing more. But for the USA Today, and others on the Left, Trump was essentially calling Gillibrand a "whore" (per their editorial).

Of course, by interpreting the remark the way the USA Today does, it fits in with the overall attack on Trump based on allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. After all, and as noted in the prior post, the Russian story is not going anywhere, so another plan is needed to help remove Trump from office. And then, the USA Today goes where no other mainstream paper has gone before (sorry, I loved Star Trek): "A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the planned Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."

Of course I would trust any "news" story they might now print about Trump. Their total hatred and loathing of Trump could not possibly bleed over into their news pages. Right?