Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

UN General Assembly votes to condemn US Jerusalem recognition and Embassy move (128-9-35)

UN General Assembly votes to condemn US Jerusalem recognition and Embassy move (128-9-35)

How will Trump retaliate?

The UN General Assembly is meeting this morning on a resolution that, without mentioning the U.S. by name, condemns Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and plan to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem at some future point. The resolution also demands a return to the so-called 1967 lines (which actually are the 1949 Armistice lines), which would put the main Jewish holy sites and the Jewish Quarter in the hands of Palestinians.

General Assembly Resolutions are not binding under UN Rules and do not create international law.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, backed up by Donald Trump, has promised that the U.S. and Trump take this vote personally, and will be “taking names,” as detailed in our prior post, Nikki Haley: “US will be taking names” during General Assembly vote on Jerusalem Embassy move.

Official Palestinian media is portraying Haley as a Vulture (via PalMedia Watch):

Trump also suggested a cut-off of aid to countries that vote against the U.S.:

The General Assembly almost certainly will vote overwhelmingly in favor of the resolution in a direct slap at Trump. The question is, how will he react. I suggest that Trump immediately redesignate the Jerusalem Consulate as our Embassy, rather than waiting years for planning and construction of a new Embassy.

We also should close the PLO office in Washington, D.C., suspend visas for Palestinian Authority and PLO officials, and pass and sign into law the Taylor Force Act, which would suspend aid to the P.A. unless it stopped paying terrorists to kill and maim Israelis.

NIKKI HALEY

MY LIVE TWEETING:

RESULT

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune has a pair of articles about this move, with the Palis being represented by “Trump Move Endangers Peace Prospects —US Must Not endorse Oppression of Palestinians” by Doris Bitter & Wedad Schlotte, both associated with the ADC.

This article reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles, where Clevon Little, new black sheriff of a hostile white town, points his own gun at his own head, and says something like “Don’t move, or the ni**er gets it!” The townspeople think he is crazy, and this stops them in their tracks for the moment.

In the movie, the wily sheriff makes use of weird and funny moments to get through to the townspeople, to help them, and eventually win their support.

The difference between the movie and the history of the Palis is that the suicidal threat scene is a one-off, that leads to eventual accommodation among all of the people (Irish, Chinese, black and white) in the town, while the Palis keep playing the same scene over and over, always blaming the Israelis for the consequences of their own ugly actions.

The Palis have been quite clear, from the founding of HAMAS forward, that their objective is to murder their neighbors. When their neighbors aren’t handy, they murder one another. From infancy, they teach their children to kill, and when they do kill, they pay blood money to the families. Their own poor stewardship of their own territory is the source of any oppression they experience. The rest of the world, including Israel, has, at most, attempted to contain their unreasonable malice.

The other article, “Validation of Reality is the right move” by Sara Miller of StandWithUs San Diego, recognizes that Israel’s stewardship of its territory has created a haven of freedom and reason an a very troubled location.

All three of the Abrahamic religions recognize the validity of the teaching, “By their fruits shall you know them.”

So, be sure to publish that list of names from the vote.

It starts with Yemen.

The Palis have been quite clear, from the founding of HAMAS forward, that their objective is to murder their neighbors.

Try from 1920 forward.

A counter proposal…..return all lands in Africa, Middle East, Indian Subcontinent and Europe to pre-Islam original communities. In modern context…give Germany back all pre-1942 land they controlled.

Does the USA taxpayer still support the UN? Why? They appear to be the enemy of peace and freedom and the USA.

Looks like there may be a number of abstentions on the vote – I count those a win for the US. Not many countries have populations ready to go along with the Jerusalem move, but a refusal to condemn is a strong statement itself.

    Exiliado in reply to Tom Servo. | December 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    I agree with you, but at the same time, I think that in this case an abstention is an act of cowardice.
    It’s time to stop robbing the American taxpayer to help a bunch of ungrateful a-holes.

Hungary and the Czech Republic will abstain at today’s UN vote on Jerusalem, thus breaking the EU consensus in favor of the resolution, Channel 10 news reports …

… Speculations on how certain countries will vote emerged earlier Thursday, and according to Reuters both Canada and Mexico are expected to abstain. 

Netanyahu himself participated in the efforts directly, speaking personally to dignitaries such as the prime minister of the Czech Republic. 

    LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | December 21, 2017 at 11:55 am

    A nice, chilled Czech Pilsner Urquell goes well with Sabra Hummus.

    Just sayin’.

    Mid-week, the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke with Prime Minister Andrej Babis of the Czech Republic, thanking him for his support of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Netanyahu confirmed “I also spoke yesterday with Prime Minister Andrej Babiš of the Czech Republic, and thanked him for his support for Israel in the European Council and for condemning the UNESCO decisions against Israel.”

Time to get out from and remove the Unholy Natoins out of the United States.

Bucky Barkingham | December 21, 2017 at 12:26 pm

If Trump goes thru with his threat to cut foreign aid to countries which vote against us in the UN the LibDems will immediately seek a friendly judge to issue an injunction against doin so. They have figured out that they don’t need to win elections to control the agenda so long as they have friendly judges to issue injunctions against what they don’t like and court orders to do what they want.

    As everyone should know that when it comes to foreign policy the progressive cabal of the judiciary knows all.

    It isn’t necessary to act overtly. There will be countless opportunities to slip in a jab in the course of time, and of course favors in good faith are a tough thing to justify when with the memory of the insult is still fresh. So most of Europe just volunteered for pain and suffering in service to their principle that the US does not have a sovereign right to determine it’s relationship with an ally. Hope they choke on it, hard.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to Immolate. | December 21, 2017 at 3:05 pm

      Exactly. The USA can diplomatically reply to requests from our ‘friends’ with plausible delays until the matter is at deadline on matters that mutually serve the interest or not at all on matters that are of none of our concern.

    Yesterday Amb. Haley said President Trump would take a Yes vote as a personal insult. She said that.
    President Trump later confirmed the vote is personal for him.
    By now everyone on earth knows that Donald Trump gets revenge when he’s insulted.

      Ragspierre in reply to richardb. | December 21, 2017 at 5:25 pm

      So long as its limited to a nasty tweet from his tiny fingers…

      Otherwise, that whole idea is insane. “Personal” and “insult”? He’s the leader of the free world.

No need for anything precipitate. Tightening the screws a bit should be adequate for now. There’s a great deal of tightening room available, and that leaves plenty of maneuvering space for the US.

Jane Kirkpatrick would be smiling.

How? No carrot for you.

Hopefully, we’ll avoid the Obama solution, and there will be no Libyas, Syrias, Ukraines, etc.

Let’s hear it for Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Togo!

Lets just kick the UN out. It is just an excuse to allow spies in our country. Lets move it to Russia or say Dubai.

The UN is the worst 8 B deal we have. I say give 20 M to some mercenaries and all our problems are solved.

I noticed that Canada and Mexico abstained. An abstention is as good as a “NO” in this particular vote. A couple EU members abstained as well but all the EU major allies voted “YES”. Garnering 128 “YES” isn’t the overwhelming victory the Soros, #Resistance gang expected. Still the headlines write themselves: “Trump trounced at the UN”. “World condemns Trump”, which was the whole purpose of this vote of course.

IndependentDem | December 21, 2017 at 2:43 pm

So little, meaningless Liberia voted against the US? I’m currently posted here in this miserable cesspool, and without US aid it wouldn’t even still be a country. If I needed any reason to loathe this place or the parasitical, hypocritical Liberians any more than I already do, this would do it.

Paul In Sweden | December 21, 2017 at 2:50 pm

I really hope this international insult pushes the USA to really consider our options regarding our bases within our NATO partner Turkey’s border. power to our airbase was cut during what I believe to be a staged coup by Erdogan prior to the last purge which is still going on.

    With Syrian and Iraq combat winding down, the US may decide the time is ripe to wind down our military investments in Turkey as well. The other huge elephant to acknowledge is the F-35 participation by Turkey. It’s significant in numbers, 100 and given Turkey’s conduct, highly threatening to Israel. With Turkey partnering with Russia on the S-400 I just can’t imagine the US letting Turkey have those jets.

There are some interesting anomalies in that vote that I’d love to hear the backstory on. For example, Guatemala voted with us. Guatemala? Uganda and Rwanda abstained. Really? Poland, Hungry, Chech Republic I can understand abstaining, because we work with them, but… Uganda?

    Olinser in reply to georgfelis. | December 21, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Uganda and Rwanda don’t have particularly large Muslim populations (less than 5% in both I believe), and they are heavily reliant on US aid.

    Most people obviously believe Trump is just bluffing about revoking aid, but those 2 countries in particular aren’t interested in risking US aid for some stupid empty gesture they don’t even care about.

Italy??? Greece??? How many times did we save Greece? This is pathetic. Even Canada and Mexico could only bring themselves to abstain. Close the borders with these two countries.

I suspect this is the first move in Trump’s long-range plans to extract us from this insanity – likely taking the 9 no’s and 35 abstainers with us.

I suggest that the USA pay only 9/128 of the annual assessments from any UN agency. And then require those 128 to justify the foreign aid they get from us.

OK tRump, time to start putting our tax money where your mouth is and start saving us BILLIONS!!!

WTF was the UK thinking, voting Aye? Don’t they realize how much they’re going to need our friendship, post Brexit?

I don’t know all of the rules for the U.N ambassadors but I would find it funny if Trump had all of them that voted aye declared persona non grata.

I saw a pertinent comment on theaugeanstables.com about the legality of Israel’s claim to Jerusalem which shoulf have been pressed on the public’s mind all the years past and not left out.
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2017/12/21/je-debats-avec-marius-schattner-au-sujet-de-trump-et-jerusalem/#comment-921196
” There are two answers – and I assume you know both, one is quick the other no so much and I apologize in advance for the length (it could have been far longer). The first is to remind everyone that until 1948, Jews lived throughout those lands and did so in many cases for centuries (and in some instances even before the Arab imperial invasion). Jordan ethnically cleansed these Jewish populations, and ethnic cleansing is a war crime. So to call the area “Palestinian” and assert that Jews have no right to settle there (or even reconstitute their old communities, such as in Hebron), is to support the results of ethnic cleansing – a position, I suspect, that no Western intellectual will support although The NY Times bizarrely refered to pre-1967 East Jerusalem as an Arab city. Should the other side argue that both Jews and Arabs were ethnically cleansed by the other side, then you can simply point out that (a) Israel has a 20% Arab population versus 0% by the time Jordan and Egypt were done in 1949, and (b) this proves that charges against Israel of ethnic cleansing are either in large part false as a matter of history or “ethnic cleansing” has been conveniently redefined to fit the facts against Israel.

The second answer is a bit legalistic, and longer, but as many advocate for “rights” and “justice” it is just as important. We start with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922. It accomplished two major things. One, it delineated for the first time in modern history the borders of the historical homeland of the Jewish people and called it Palestine. Two, it provided the only example of a “right of return” under international law (because the Mandate has the status of an international treaty and so is a basis for the creation of international law, as opposed to, say a non-binding UN resolution). That right gave the Jewish people the power to closely settle throughout the Mandate lands. 1923 saw the first partition of the Mandate lands with 78% being closed off to the Jews to create the Emirate of Transjordan (today’s Jordan). It could just as easily have been called East Palestine

Had “facto” been the accepted doctrine, then Jordan and Egypt would at least have had an argument, though a weak one, over having acquired sovereign rights from their conquests. Note, the “Palestinians” do not come into play at all as they were not even recognized at the time as a separate people.

As a final note, Article 80 of the UN Charter prohibited the UN from diminishing the rights of peoples that were granted under earlier Mandates (of which Palestine was one). So, the 1947 UN resolution could only suggest but not impose any solution. Similarity, the Security Council was deprived of power to impose any solution (as for Jerusalem, for instance).
… “

Perhaps the UN and its members have not realized that the US 2018 budget is NOT yet approved; the we’re only operating under a Continuing Resolution for the next couple of weeks.

This seems like an opportune moment to “take names”.

Defund the UN and kick them out of New York. Only a few luxury hotels will suffer, but the rest of us will be better off!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend