The United Nations, the non-binding world parliament of color, has denounced Israel for the 6,000,000th time. Ordinarily this is not news. See the boilerplate below for just how routine this particular resolution (2334) was:
Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions ... Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements... has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
Israel continues to colonize the West Bank, the third-worldist voter bloc in the UN musters more than enough support to symbolically condemn Israel because demographics can only be altered in favor of third world peoples, a maelstrom of kvetching ensues, nothing happens, etc.
What is different is that the United States, in its last days under the Obama administration, has seen fit to abandon Our Greatest Ally™ by not blocking a UN resolution. For the first time in recent diplomatic history, Israel has been deprived of its faithful golem. At least, that is how the shrieking zionist lobby and their politicians in the United States see it.
Fear not neurotic skypes, for this will pass in a couple of weeks. President-Elect Donald J. Trump made it clear in several tweets that his administration would be firmly behind Israel, and in a cringy mix of slobbering and paternalistic gaze said that the Israelis need only wait until January 20, 2017. What of America First? Trump has always made it clear that whatever Israel wants is a priority—even at the cost of an independent foreign policy.
President Trump also condemned the UN (for the wrong reasons) and suggested he would approach that body differently than his predecessor. Indeed, it is hard to imagine him being anything but hostile to the left-of-center UN, given that the international luegenpresse have anointed him an illegitimate president and Literally Hitler™. They've framed President Trump such that his platform would be against the UN's charter were it carried out. The least popular man in the UN—other than Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu—I am sure will get along just fine with the General Assembly:
Resolved, that since the unlawful President of the United States has repeatedly imposed discrimination based on national origins, racism, sexism, and white supremacy on its citizens...
Hey, stranger things have happened this current year.
The other major reaction came from Obama's Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate John Kerry (notice a pattern?). He gave a speech defending the American abstention from the vote, drawing condemnation from Israel and the kosher right. Kerry begins by outlining the basic American foreign policy, which is nominally to support both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism:
[T]he two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing U.S. interests in the region.
Kerry goes on to explain that the abstention was not meant to anger the Jews but a means of maintaining the two state solution that he believes is best for them:
They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States... cannot be true to our own values -- or even the stated democratic values of Israel -- and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel -- if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our eyes. And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the UN was about preserving the two state solution. That’s what we were standing up for: Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors.
Kerry's schizophrenic mix of byzantinism and sincerity is something to behold. He points out that America has sacrificed for Israel more than ever before under the Obama administration, in an attempt to dress up the fact that he has committed a cuck faux pas (not doing precisely what a foreign power wanted):
In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic 38 billion dollar Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the U.S. has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense, and sustain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge for years to come. This commitment to Israel’s security is very personal for me.
Most interesting are Kerry's remarks on the one-state solution:
But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both... The Israeli Prime Minister publicly supports a two state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history... policies of this government – which the Prime Minister himself just described as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history” – are leading in the opposite direction, towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes... Let’s be clear: settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel’s security; many settlements actually increase the security burden on the IDF. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations... There are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible... So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank... separate but unequal.
It is clear that under Obama-Kerry, the United States currently favors the two-state solution because it would preserve:
- Israel's status as a Jewish state, that is to say the exclusive territory of an ethno-religious group which has total control over who enters and exits
- Democracy, which for Israel means parliamentary rule, a set of universal human rights for everyone under its flag, and normalized peaceful diplomacy with its neighbors.
The problem is that Israel wants lebensraum and that the United States is obligated to obey the zionist lobby because of the way political donations work in Washington. This causes obvious tension since the ideology of the left that permeates the still-ruling Democratic party is one of anti-nationalism and "anti-discrimination." It is patently obvious that Israeli expansion into the West Bank consists of making the territory more Jewish and worsening the odds of a two-state solution by breaking down the ethno-geographic continuity of Palestine, a Jewish nationalist policy. Doing so privileges Jewish colonists above Arab indigenes, therefore it is clearly unacceptable. Kerry cites the American civil rights movement, calling the one-state result of the settlement policy "separate but unequal."
The Democrats must give lip service to the Palestinian cause even while supporting Israel, because Likudnik ultra-zionism runs contrary to their third-worldism. Even when Kerry talks about the Palestinians, the creation of their state is only a means to keep Israel Jewish and democratic (i.e. Jewish-majority without discriminating too much against goyim). In that regard he is a bit like (((George Soros))), who is very much concerned with the ability of Jews to live in Europe or the United States without Israeli policies hung around their necks like an albatross. But Kerry, as the highest-ranking American diplomat, is concerned about the states themselves rather than the Jewish diaspora, and therefore wants to support Israel while having the United States be seen as supporting democracy. If Israel continues to aggressively pursue the one-state solution while saying it wants a two-state solution, an example of trademark Jewish duplicity, it damages the diplomatic capital of the United States to support it.
- Leftists interpret Israel as a White European colonial power.
- Colonialism is wrong because it displaces people of color.
- Palestinians are obviously a non-white third world population.
- The United States and the rest of the international community are third-worldists who view the interests of people of color as morally superior to those of White people.
- The UN (and the United States under Obama-Kerry) insists that Israel not pursue nationalistic policies in the Palestinian territories because that would be colonialism.
Recall that the UN labelled zionism a form of "racism" during the Cold War, and has never failed to condemn Israel when the opportunity arises. Unironically they hold that Palestinian nationalism is not racism because Palestinians are considered people of color. Saying Israel has to choose between being Jewish and democratic is thus the parting shot of the Obama administration, the most third-worldist government the United States has had to date. Obama did not have the power to cut Israel off, but he never missed an opportunity to snub a state created by the same people (in his mind) who colonized his ancestral home of Kenya. This was his last opportunity to do so, so he took it.
As for what the United States should actually do? Defund the UN and Israel.
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.