President Obama's Pick For New UN Ambassador May Very Well Be More Evidence That His Policies And World View Remain Tepid Toward Israel And The Middle East
Despite all of the feel-good rhetoric in support of Israel's national interests during his first and only trip to that nation as commander-in-chief in March, President Obama's actions have spoken volumes to the contrary. Witness the appointments of outspoken critics of Israel: John Kerry as Secretary of State, Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, John Brennan as CIA Director. Witness the leaks of classified documents regarding the building of Israeli military bases, the continued explicit political, financial and military support of anti-Israel leaders like Erdogan and Morsi and the waffling on Iran and Syria. These are but a few examples that shoot holes in the theory of some that the POTUS has changed to a more supportive perspective vis a vis Israel and its place in the middle east.
Now, his latest move has supporters of Israel and those in the know regarding middle-east events shuddering at the news. President Obama's pick for UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, former chair of his Atrocities Prevention Board once called for the United States to force troops into Israeli-controlled territory in order to end abuses she said were being committed by both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Recently working at the State Department under Hillary Clinton and as National Security Council Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Samantha Power once said in an interview with UC Berkley's Harry Kreisler that "external intervention" in the form of a "mammoth protection force" was necessary to separate the Israelis and the Palestinians. She acknowledged that forcing our way in was undemocratic but insisted it was necessary.
The new leader of Obama’s UN agenda, in the same interview, failed to refute a suggestion by the interviewer in 2002 that the Israelis themselves might commit genocide. The interviewer asked,
Instead of getting up and walking out on this “thought experiment,” Power responded by appearing to imply a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, who were then waging an Intifada against the Jewish state.
She spoke of “major human rights abuses” occurring in the conflict and quoted New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman’s use of the term “Sharafat” to describe then-leaders Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon, both of whom she said had been “dreadfully irresponsible” and were “destined to destroy the lives of their own people.”
Here is a segment of the interview.
Power, you’ll notice, spoke sarcastically of the influence of U.S. Jews, saying with a chuckle her proposal to force troops upon Israel “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.” She also suggested the United States was wasting its money supporting the Israeli Defense Forces, which safeguards Israel against another genocide, sneering at the “billions of dollars” we spend “servicing Israel’s military.”
Power backs the goals of the “Responsibility to Protect” movement, or “RtoP,” which advocates international military intervention in countries where the most egregious human rights abuses are occurring. She was reportedly a key force behind President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya.While Power has been a significant voice and a passionate proponent for anti-genocide activity, she has been criticized for being tendentious and militaristic, for answering a "problem from hell" with a "solution from hell."
Her second book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide offers a survey of the origin of the word genocide, the major genocides of the 20th century, as well as an analysis of some of the underlying reasons for the persistent failure of governments and the international community to collectively identify, recognize and then respond effectively to genocides ranging from the Armenian Genocide to the Rwandan Genocide. This work and related writings have been criticized by the historian Howard Zinn for downplaying the importance of "unintended" and "collateral" civilian deaths that could be classified as genocidal.
That Power has indicated that she equates Israel's focus on defensible borders, its commitment to protecting its citizens and its directed and patient responses to continuous attacks on its cities as a substrate for genocidal activity by Israel toward Palestinians is at best misguided, but at worst a manifestation of an apoplectic anti-Israel stance. This view, widely held and continuously preached by the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist movement and others is both erroneous and, some would argue, only a mask for anti-Semitism.
Only time will tell what impact the latest pick for an important Administration post will have on foreign affairs and world politics. But, if the past is any indicator of future events, it does not bode well for Israel's future relationship with one of its only remaining allies.
Portions of this blog were taken from Keith Koffler's article on Samantha Power on his website White House Dossier dated April 24, 2012
Recently working at the State Department under Hillary Clinton and as National Security Council Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Samantha Power once said in an interview with UC Berkley's Harry Kreisler that "external intervention" in the form of a "mammoth protection force" was necessary to separate the Israelis and the Palestinians. She acknowledged that forcing our way in was undemocratic but insisted it was necessary.
"Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic," she said.
The new leader of Obama’s UN agenda, in the same interview, failed to refute a suggestion by the interviewer in 2002 that the Israelis themselves might commit genocide. The interviewer asked,
"Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would in response to current events would you advise to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, lest if one party or another be looking like they might be moving toward genocide?"
She spoke of “major human rights abuses” occurring in the conflict and quoted New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman’s use of the term “Sharafat” to describe then-leaders Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon, both of whom she said had been “dreadfully irresponsible” and were “destined to destroy the lives of their own people.”
Here is a segment of the interview.
Power, you’ll notice, spoke sarcastically of the influence of U.S. Jews, saying with a chuckle her proposal to force troops upon Israel “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.” She also suggested the United States was wasting its money supporting the Israeli Defense Forces, which safeguards Israel against another genocide, sneering at the “billions of dollars” we spend “servicing Israel’s military.”
Power backs the goals of the “Responsibility to Protect” movement, or “RtoP,” which advocates international military intervention in countries where the most egregious human rights abuses are occurring. She was reportedly a key force behind President Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya.While Power has been a significant voice and a passionate proponent for anti-genocide activity, she has been criticized for being tendentious and militaristic, for answering a "problem from hell" with a "solution from hell."
Her second book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide offers a survey of the origin of the word genocide, the major genocides of the 20th century, as well as an analysis of some of the underlying reasons for the persistent failure of governments and the international community to collectively identify, recognize and then respond effectively to genocides ranging from the Armenian Genocide to the Rwandan Genocide. This work and related writings have been criticized by the historian Howard Zinn for downplaying the importance of "unintended" and "collateral" civilian deaths that could be classified as genocidal.
That Power has indicated that she equates Israel's focus on defensible borders, its commitment to protecting its citizens and its directed and patient responses to continuous attacks on its cities as a substrate for genocidal activity by Israel toward Palestinians is at best misguided, but at worst a manifestation of an apoplectic anti-Israel stance. This view, widely held and continuously preached by the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist movement and others is both erroneous and, some would argue, only a mask for anti-Semitism.
Only time will tell what impact the latest pick for an important Administration post will have on foreign affairs and world politics. But, if the past is any indicator of future events, it does not bode well for Israel's future relationship with one of its only remaining allies.
Portions of this blog were taken from Keith Koffler's article on Samantha Power on his website White House Dossier dated April 24, 2012
I find it hard to believe that any intervention consideration in the Israel/Palestinian conflict under the pretense of preventing genocide is even being discussed. We have a real situation of genocide currently carried out in Syria and the current administration has turned their back to it! The president has indicated that any use of chemical weapons would be a "RED LINE" This week the UN team has said "There is sufficient evidence that chemical weapons have been used" That being said, the President must have meant that the "RED LINE" would be painted with the blood of the genocide victims and not intended to be a line that would prompt intervention or any form of prevention. God Bless Israel and those who stand beside her!
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. With the caveat being that in Syria the alternative to Al Assad, in all his maniacal arrogance and genocidal actions may be even worse...if that is remotely possible. Those who are called "rebels" in many cases are Sunni extremists who would inflict enormous harm on both any hope for democratization in Syria and on any possibility for safety for Israel.
ReplyDelete