The man who famously said ” You are either with us or against us” Â finally chose his side, and he decided not to stand with us. When George W. Bush Â told Muslims and the unbelieving world that “the face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace”, he madeÂ himself not only the laughing stock of the ummah, but much more so of those who understand the doctrine of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacy.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi meeting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Condolllleeeezzza Rice, Â a product of America’s Â affirmative actionÂ feel-goodÂ policies, famously went on record during the cartoon riots with “Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States” – an utterly ridiculous and absurd statement from a secretary of state who is first and foremost obliged to uphold the constitution of the United States of America, which has no tolerance clause for anything Koranic. But not only that: Condi was aÂ permanentÂ embarrassment, not to be taken seriously, hopelessly confused in the Middle East, unable to come to grasp with the duplicity of the Arabs and the realities on the ground.Â
So now they’re on their way out. Bush be gone, Condi be gone. All we can hope for at this point is that they stay gone, unless they decide to wallow in the footsteps of Peanut Khadr or the equally unpleasant, corrupt Bill Clinton and the equally embarrassingÂ MadeleineÂ Albright.
Shame On Bush And Condi
Betrayal. No other word describes the reversal of American foreign policy that took place on the night of Jan. 8 when the U.S. refused to veto the Security Council resolution on Gaza.
A president whose friendship and alliance with Israel once appeared honest, perceptive and unshakable, decided two weeks before leaving office to throw Israel to the wolves. The resolution calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and does not even mention the word “Hamas.”
There will no longer be a need for an Obama transition team on foreign policy. The outgoing president and secretary of State have done it all. Yesterday’s resolution, along with another Condoleezza Rice-inspired resolution from mid-December, draws Israel into a Security Council spider web that U.N. enthusiasts have been weaving for decades.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can simply step into George W. Bush and Condi Rice’s shoes, label themselves new-age multilateralists and let the chips–in this case, remnants of Israel–fall where they may.
The Security Council resolution makes a mockery of Israel’s right of self-defense. In fact, it makes no mention of a right of self-defense at all. Eight thousand mortars have rained down on Israel from the Gaza Strip over a period of eight years.
Israel withdrew every Israeli man, woman and child from Gaza three and a half years ago. Yet the United Nations draws an equivalence between a terrorist organization whose very modus operandi is to target civilians and a state whose aim is to protect civilians, Israeli and Palestinian.
Arab states could scarcely contain their glee. The U.K. went out in front and accepted the idea of a much stronger resolution instead of a Security Council presidential statement, and Secretary of State Rice rolled over and played dead within minutes.
Veto-wielding powers had reportedly given undertakings to Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that they would not permit a resolution. These promises were ignored in the face of allegedly enormous pressure from undemocratic thugs, state sponsors of terrorism and weak democracies cowering at the prospect of unhappy Muslim constituencies or a dent in their bank accounts from belligerent Arab sheiks. What, moaned U.S. officials, was poor Condi to do?
Here is what she did:
1. The resolution she supported makes no mention whatsoever of Israel’s right of self-defense.
2. The resolution calls for a ceasefire while Israel is still under fire, thus gutting the right of self-defense.
3. The resolution puts a right of “all” states “to live in peace”–though Israel is the only state under fire–in its preamble instead of in the operative section of the resolution, where it would have carried substantive weight.
4. The resolution expresses grave concern only about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. No concern is expressed over the humanitarian crisis in Israel that has forced half a million people into underground holes for eight years and left Jewish children growing up with the trauma of fleeing and hiding throughout their young lives.
5. The resolution makes no mention of any need to return Hamas kidnap-victim and Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. It does not even demand that Hamas or the Palestinian Authority abide by the humanitarian requirement under international law to permit a single visit to Shalit from the International Red Cross or any other international agency.
6. The resolution calls for “unimpeded” provision and distribution throughout Gaza of myriad forms of humanitarian assistance–which obviously makes the conduct of war against Hamas terrorists impossible.
7. The resolution condemns “all acts of terrorism”–without mentioning the identity of the terrorist–leaving Islamic countries to claim that Israel is the state terrorist and that the condemnation has nothing to do with Hamas.
8. The resolution places no mandatory responsibility on Egypt to stop the trafficking of weapons into the terrorist-controlled Gaza strip. It merely “calls for member states to intensify efforts” to stop the trafficking.
9. The resolution promotes further international intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than a negotiated settlement between the two parties, by “welcoming…an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Code language for shoving U.N. terms and conditions down Israel’s throat.
10. The kicker is that the Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter.” This means Israel’s failure to abide by any of the points in the resolution is grounds for more and more Security Council meetings designed to thwart Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorism that threatens all civilized societies.
When it was over, Secretary of State Rice “abstained” with the following words: “this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support, and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward.” These words led other ambassadors to point out that the resolution had, in effect, been adopted by consensus.
For over half a century, the state of Israel and its tiny population has been on the front lines of a war against an evil that plagues every decent human being on earth. Israel has time and again sacrificed its children in freedom’s cause.
In leaving Israel to fend for itself in an international arena controlled by the enemies of decency and good, President Bush walks shamefully off the international stage, leaving in shambles everything he has stood for since Sept. 11, 2001.
Israel’s prime minister reacted to the resolution today by pointing to the obvious: It “will not be honored in actual fact by the Palestinian murder organizations.” And though UN actors wish it were otherwise, “The State of Israel has never agreed that any outside body would determine its right to defend the security of its citizens.”
This is a universal principle with which every American–and the U.N. Charter–would agree.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and editor ofÂ www.EYEontheUN.org.
* Condi with Gaddafi:
Picture of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi (R) and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meeting in a government compound in central Tripoli in this video grab taken September 5, 2008. Rice is making the first visit by a U.S. secretary of state to the oil producing state since 1953, a move intended to end decades of enmity and violence five years after Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003. The meeting began when Gaddafi, wearing a white robe decorated with a broach in the shape of Africa, welcomed Rice and her aides at a room lined with armchairs. As Rice entered the room, Gaddafi raised a hand to his chest in a traditional gesture of welcome but there was no handshake between the two. He then shook hands with members of her staff. REUTERS/Reuters TV (LIBYA)
Betrayal to the very end:
Bush rebuffed Israeli request for help to attack Iran’s nuke complex
Wouldn’t want to offend any good friends
And not even direct military help. Just materiel and permission to fly over Iraqi airspace. But no worries: Bush “authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.” And no doubt it is working like a charm. “U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site,” by David E. Sanger for theÂ New York Times, January 10 (thanks to JW):
WASHINGTON â€” President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.
The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama….
Well, itÂ wasÂ covert, anyway.