Readers Write: U.S. hypocritical on Israeli settlements

The Island Now

After years of enduring Karen Rubin’s myopic columns unconditionally supporting anything related to Obama/Clinton/Democrats, whether it be her lame defense of Obamacare, Hillary’s emails and private server, or the Clinton Foundation, I finally couldn’t take it anymore with her Dec. 30 piece “Why Obama Administration abstained.”

If Rubin had any journalistic acumen, she would  realize that, at best, Obama’s abstention was a personal vendetta of a lame duck president against the Netanyahu government of our democratic ally Israel, and Obama’s attempt to damage our country by sabotaging the foreign policy agenda of our incoming administration.

Even worse, the abstention sets back the peace process and endangers Israeli and American lives.

Fittingly, Obama, who abstained from his red line in Syria, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and abstained from action in Iraq, leading to the rise of ISIS, has once again defined his foreign policy with an abstention.

It’s unprecedented that an American lame duck president makes substantial foreign policy decisions within the last month in office that run counter not only to the incoming president’s planned policies, but to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of our democratically elected Senate and Congress, including a substantial number of Democrats.

It perplexes me that in the same column Rubin makes some rational observations, including the fact that Israel’s dismantling of settlements and complete withdrawal from Gaza has led to an unrelenting terrorist barrage of rockets from Gaza, she then bizarrely concludes that Israel should follow the same withdrawal policy with regards to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Rubin prefaces her favor of UN Resolution 2442 with, “The way I understand the resolution.”

Well, here is some text of the resolution to help clarify her understanding:

1. “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, 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;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;”

A rudimentary “understanding” of the resolution would make it clear that even the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem are considered illegal settlements.

Does Rubin therefore believe, as the UN does, that the renovation of the Western Wall plaza area, reconstruction of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter previously destroyed  by Jordan in 1948-1967, or addition of a bedroom to a Jewish Quarter home, are illegal settlement activities?

Does she agree with UNESCO, that the Western Wall isn’t even a Jewish site?

If not, she should understand why for decades the United States has vetoed such UN resolutions and why Obama (and his cheerleader Karen Rubin) should have objected as well.

But Obama, Kerry, and Rubin, from the comforts of their homes, are content to dictate the terms of their vision of a peace agreement to Israel with regards to settlements.

The word settlement is even a misnomer, as the land at issue dates to being Jewish for 4000 years.

Had the state of Israel not been attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967, it would have remained within the 1948 borders.

But it was attacked, and in a defensive move, reclaimed these territories.

Yet, despite Israel’s historical connection to this land, and despite Palestinian intransigence, it is still willing to negotiate land for peace.

Speaking of actual settlements and occupation, perhaps Rubin should ponder the fact that her home, as well as the White House, are genuine settlements on land originally belonging to the Native Americans.

And this is very recent history, stretching only over the last few hundred years.

However, through guns and germs, “America” has been quite successful in eradicating the Native Americans, and marginalizing the remaining handful to substandard living on reservations, where, out of sight and out of mind, they are occasionally thrown a bone of a casino.

Perhaps we should return to the pre-1492 border, when it was all Native American.

Or the pre-1607 border, before there were North American European settlements.

Or the pre-1803 border, before the Louisiana Purchase gained land from France that was unjustly taken from the Native Americans.

Or the pre-1845 border, and return Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada to Mexico.

And what is America doing way out in the middle of the Pacific on land taken from the native Hawaiians?

Perhaps the UN, Obama, and Rubin should consider these occupying settlements (never mind Tibet, Kurdistan, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Crimea, Australia, New Zealand, and others) before lecturing Israel about their native land.

Ron Weber

Great Neck

Share this Article