Time to call Obama’s bluff on Israel

November 6, 2011

(Israel Matzav) This past week, the Obama administration was forced to cut off funding to UNESCO because of a clear US statute, which was passed during the administration of George H.W. Bush (not exactly a friend of Israel) and amended during the Clinton administration, which requires the United States to cut off funding to any United Nations agency that recognizes a state of ‘Palestine’ except as a result of negotiations. Obama wanted to get out of it. He wanted to continue funding UNESCO. But under American law, he can’t, and with the Republicans in control of the House, there is no way he can get that law changed. The UN law has no out for ‘national security.’
On the other hand, every six months, Obama uses the national security excuse to avoid moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Clinton and George W. Bush both did the same thing, but Obama removed from the statement issued every six months the phrase that says that the administration remains committed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Yet, Obama, as he stands for reelection, tries to convince us all that he is committed to Israel. It is time to call him on his ‘commitment.’
It is time to introduce a bill in Congress to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Simple and straightforward. NO NATIONAL SECURITY OUT. You have one year to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Period. The House, which is dominated by Republicans, will vote in favor. The Senate, which has a whole bunch of Democrats who are up for reelection, will fear for its political life and vote in favor. Will Obama veto the bill? In 2012 when he is up for reelection?

it is also important to get all candidates committed to moving the embassy… and also get their opinion on television so that the public can know where they stand on the issue and the issue becomes accepted common knowledge. moving the embassy is symbolic and part of the symbolism is to create as much publicity to the issue as possible. So far we have to my knowledge Newt and Cain… and if I am mistaken then the other candidates can correct me… which is something I would like them to do.


Threatening the UN financially won’t work if Obama and Clinton think the Jews will vote for them anyway.

August 29, 2011
Bush Sr. was no friend of Israel, and neither is Obama. In fact it was Bush’s secretary of state Baker who said, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway”…and actually was kind of correct because the American Jews were for a welfare state for the most part. Little has changed now that the welfare state has cannibalized the Jewish community. Baker despite bigot barking then passed a financial bill that spooked the UN into turning down Palestine. The GOP didn’t do it because they wanted to… the GOP looked a little like a Ron Paul party back then. The GOP did it because in the end they were worried that while the Jewish community was lost to the left, the Christian Zionist community would of been disenfranchised.

…And then there was Secretary of State James Baker’s infamous “fuck the Jews” remark. In a private conversation with a colleague about Israel, Baker reportedly uttered the vulgarity, noting that Jews “didn’t vote for us anyway.” This was more or less true—Bush got 27 percent of the Jewish vote, compared with 73 percent for Dukakis, in 1988. And thanks in part to Baker, it was even truer in 1992, when Bill Clinton got 78 percent of the Jewish vote and Bush got only 15 percent—the poorest showing by a Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964. via slate.com

Baker’s hand was forced… it wasn’t like he actually wanted to do what he did… but it remains to be seen if Obama’s hand can be forced… because unlike Baker… Obama thinks the Jews will vote for him rain or shine… and sadly Obama would be right on that analysis. The Jewish community really is ill from centuries of abuse and can not seem to let go of government mechanisms. Can anyone really see Obama NOT vetoing this bill? I suppose Congress can refuse to fund UN activities, but I doubt that will stop Obama and Clinton from continuing to do so .

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen knows just how to deal with the ‘Palestinian’ bid for ‘statehood’ at the United Nations: Threaten their funding. In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks. This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works. With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void. I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which will reflect the executive branch’s previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective. It is time to use all our leverage to stop this unilateral Palestinian scheme — for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security, and for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles.

Money talks – even at the UN – Carl

Sadly it remains to be seen if the Democrats have any incentive to do the right thing. Sometimes being on the other side is the best leverage an interested party can have.