New Zealand are “useful idiots”. Well, Murray is at least

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 will inflict serious and enduring damage to the State of Israel and to the Jewish people. It brands Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, a ?flagrant? violator of international law, fueling the movement to isolate it and turn it into a pariah among nations. As such it will promote the growing anti-Semitism around the world. It may even invite or be used to justify horrific terrorist attacks of the sort we have seen in Jerusalem this month. But those are not the primary reasons the President should have vetoed it.

The United States should not surprise (some have used the term ?ambush?) a close ally and friend in an important forum like the UN Security Council, as it seems clear was done in this case. But that also is not the main reason he should have vetoed it.

The American president should not base critical foreign policy decisions on personal animus, as it appears he did here. But that too is not the most important reason he should have vetoed it.

The decision was not only highly inappropriate for a ?lame duck? president, designed to make it more difficult for the incoming administration to pursue its foreign-policy goals, but there can be little doubt that he knew his action was antithetical to the bipartisan views of the majority of the American people. In other words, his action was deeply undemocratic. But even that, although more than cause enough, is not the main reason he should have vetoed it.

The fundamental reason he should have vetoed UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is because it is a very bad resolution: it is lawless, ahistorical, unprincipled, unfair and counterproductive.

It is lawless because it purports to state a legal conclusion which it is unqualified to do and which is incorrect. It is ahistorical because it does not describe reality, but adopts a fabricated political narrative.

It is unprincipled because it runs counter to past UN resolutions (not to mention promises by past US administrations) on which all peace-making efforts of the past 25 years have been based.

It is unfair because it is unbalanced, blaming Israel for the failed peace process when it is the Palestinians who for years have refused to negotiate but turned instead to warfare and lawfare (this very resolution being a case in point).

And it is counterproductive because it makes a negotiated peace much more difficult to achieve.

Onya Murry. ? Onya.

And thanks for nothing.

Saddest of all are what Lenin might have called the ?useful idiots,? decent but distant countries like New Zealand and Japan who, although not immune to peer pressure, may actually have thought that all they were doing was registering their disagreement with Israel?s settlement policy and encouraging the parties to negotiate. All the free riders at the UN know that they can comfortably vote their own self-interest when it comes to the Middle East because America ?has Israel?s back? to use Obama?s own phrase. So it is not unfair to lament how he wielded his veto power. Et tu, Barack?

It is sad that this abstention heard around the world, along with the decimation of the Syrian people, a nuclear Iran and a revanchist Russia, will be Obama?s primary foreign policy legacies.


– Trevor Norwitz,?Shalom Kiwi