TROTSKYISM ALONE IS THE VOICE WHICH WILL FIGHT IN OUR ERA FOR JEWISH FREEDOM…HOW TO FIGHT THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL PLOTS

Abbas is a Nazi and the whole business of recognising a Palestine State in the UN is Nazi business. There is only one antidote to this poison which is that Israel arrests Abbas and breaks up forever both the Fatah and the Hamas organizations…I mean totally

This is a most interesting and useful analysis of the position Israel finds itself at the hands of Abbas in the United Security Council. It says the following:

 

The U.N. Vote on Palestine Was a Rehearsal

 

And so it was, of course!

 

I saw this on the Israpundit website. Let me quote first of all the editor Ted Belman introduction to this John Bolton analysis:

 Belman… Bolton rightfully argues that the US should reject out of hand any resolution that circumvents its policy of requiring direct negotiations to achieve an agreement. Although the Obama Administration keeps repeating the mantra of direct negotiations, it still violated the principle of a negotiated solutions by embracing in advance of such negotiations, borders which are based on ’67 lines plus swaps. To do so limits the scope of negotiations.

 

Here is where I start to disagree (as a Trotskyist) with Belman and Bolton. Stay with me on this because I think it is important.

 

Trotskyism is a very bad name for all Jews that I know of. They listen to me quietly and sullenly. If I am right they say nothing at all. Just get ready to stick the knife in later when they can. Ah well!

 

This is my take on what Belman says above:

 

I do not think that “Bolton rightfully argues” at all at all in this analysis for very fundamental reasons. Why should Israel be dependent on anything at all that the US does? Note I did not say what Obama does. I mean the US. Israel is an independent country and it must not allow itself to be placed in this situation for a single moment.

 

But it is and that is the crucial thing now in every day in the lives of every Israeli.

 

Belman follows this American ruling classes creep Bolton. He was the guy all over the place calling for the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Saddam in 2003. Bolton has never for a second changed his position on this game changer.

 

That remains the key issue for Jews. That issue which is hardly ever discussed is the key issue to discuss.

 

It was the overthrow of Saddam by Bush and Blair, supported totally by so many Jews like Belman, that is the defining issue.

 

It was the toppling off Saddam and the destruction of the Baathists (no matter how Antisemitic they were and all Arabs are Antisemitic) that opened the door to the Jihad in all its forms.

 

That action that Bolton was behind was followed by the Arab Spring which is actually a “Nightmare” for Jews.

 

To be kind to him Belman cannot see past his nose. Belman hates Trotskyism. So let us debate, really debate and I am ready against all comers on these issues.

 

So what then as an alternative to that do I propose? I am a Trotskyist and a socialist revolutionary.

 

I propose that there is only one answer. That is for the Israeli Government to arrest and break up all of the Fatah leadership/movement and of course to do the same with the Hamas movement.

 

That is the answer. That is the only answer.

 

In order for that to happen there must be a Government in Israel that is elected to do just that.

 

A Government which is headed by either Netanyahu or Bennett, or by Netanyahu in coalition with Bennett, or in coalition with Labour, or in coalition with Labour and Livni, or any one of a hundred concoctions, will never do that.

 

Do you see my point?

 

This Trotskyist based on the tradition of Trotskyism which Robert Wistrich is so hateful in his writings towards is coming up with this policy, and as far as I can see I am quite alone in putting this forward although I intend in future articles to go into some of the articles of both Sherman and Gil White to prove my point.

 

Belman is saying as is Bolton that the future of Israel is tied to the US Government. If so then Israelis finished. Israel must not for a second depend on the US Governemnt for anything.

 

 

 

An influx of new Security Council members means a likely ‘yes’ vote—and a veto dilemma for Obama.

 

 

By JOHN BOLTON, Wall Street Journal

 Jan. 2, 2015

http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603723

 

Long-standing Palestinian efforts to use the United Nations to achieve internationally recognized statehood status nearly succeeded early Wednesday. Just after midnight, the Security Council narrowly rejected a Jordanian draft resolution fixing a one-year deadline for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, requiring Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine.”

 

Because the U.N. Charter requires nine affirmative votes from among the Security Council’s 15 members (assuming no vetoes) to pass a resolution, Jordan’s proposal failed—by one vote. There were eight in favor, two against, and five abstentions. Nonetheless, a pro-Palestinian, U.N. Charter-compliant majority may soon exist.

 

And absent more-effective U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration could soon face making a choice that it would dearly like to avoid: whether to veto a biased, anti-Israel resolution. The Palestinian Authority has already significantly upped the ante by moving, later on Wednesday, to join the treaty creating the International Criminal Court.

 

 

 

A firmer U.S. strategy might have prevented the dilemma from arising. The White House’s opening diplomatic error was in sending strong signals to the media and U.S. allies that Mr. Obama, wary of offending Arab countries, was reluctant to veto any resolution favoring a Palestinian State. Secretary of State John Kerry took pains not to offer a view of the resolution before it was taken up. Such equivocation was a mistake because even this administration asserts that a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict requires direct negotiations and agreements among the parties themselves.

 

No draft resolution contrary to these precepts should be acceptable to the U.S or worth wasting time on in the diplomatic pursuit of a more moderate version. This American view, advocated for years and backed by resolute threats to veto anything that contradicted it, has previously dissuaded the Palestinians from blue-smoke-and-mirror projects in the Security Council.

 

It is precisely the Obama administration’s audible heart palpitations about negative Arab reactions to a possible U.S. veto that encouraged the Palestinian Authority and its supporters to plunge ahead. Mr. Obama neither prevented the resolution from going forward nor prevailed decisively enough to discourage the Palestinians from trying again within months or even weeks.

 

 Several factors support a swift Palestinian reprise. First, they obtained a majority of the Security Council’s votes, even if not the required supermajority of nine. In today’s U.N., the eight affirmative votes constitute a moral victory that virtually demand vindication, and sooner rather than later.

 

Second, the text of Jordan’s resolution was wildly unbalanced even by U.N. standards—for example, it demands a solution that, “brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967,” and calls for “security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine.” A few meaningless tweaks here and there, and several countries that abstained could switch to “yes.” Third, on Jan. 1 five of the Security Council’s 10 nonpermanent members stepped down (their two-year terms ended), replaced by five new members more likely to support the Palestinian effort.

 

Consider how Wednesday’s vote broke down, and what the future may hold. Three of the Security Council’s five permanent members (France, China and Russia) supported Jordan’s draft. France’s stance is particularly irksome, since it provides cover for other Europeans to vote “yes.” The U.K. timidly abstained, proving that David Cameron is no Margaret Thatcher ; the abstention signals that a more “moderately” worded resolution might be enough to flip London to a “yes.”

 

Washington cast the only permanent member’s “no” vote, which is characterized as a veto only when nine or more Security Council members vote in a draft resolution’s favor. Will President Obama now have the stomach to cast a real veto against a U.N. Charter majority backing the Palestinians? Is this the point where the “liberated” Mr. Obama allows a harsh anti-Israel resolution to pass? Happy New Year, Jerusalem.

 

Among the nonpermanent members, the prospects are grim. Three “yes” votes came from Jordan, Chad and Chile, which all remain Security Council members in 2015. Two additional supporters, Argentina and Luxembourg, have been replaced, respectively, by Venezuela (no suspense there) and Spain. Spain narrowly won election in October, defeating Turkey after three ballots. Madrid might be expected to support Washington, but not necessarily, given recent EU hostility to Israel and the appeasers’ argument to soothe wounded Muslim feelings about Turkey’s loss by backing the Palestinians.

 

Only Australia joined the U.S. in voting “no.” Its successor, New Zealand, would either have abstained or voted affirmatively, according to Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

 

South Korea abstained, but its replacement, Malaysia, is a certain affirmative vote. Angola, taking Rwanda’s seat, is an abstention at best. While abstainers Lithuania and Nigeria remain, Nigeria’s Boko Haram problem could easily move it to “yes” as an olive branch to the Muslim world. And Lithuania, as a new member of the euro currency union, could well succumb to arguments for EU solidarity, especially if Britain also surrenders.

 

Finding nine affirmative votes, and likely even more, looks decidedly easy. The Obama administration can only prevent what it dreads by openly embracing a veto strategy, hoping thereby to dissuade pro-Palestinian states from directly confronting the U.S.

 

And if that fails, the veto should be cast firmly and resolutely, as we normally advocate our principles, not apologetically. As so often before on Middle Eastern issues, a veto would neither surprise nor offend most Arab governments. If the administration had courage enough to make clear that a veto was inevitable, it would minimize whatever collateral damage might ensue in Arab lands. But don’t hold your breath.

 

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

 

– See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=10498#sthash.1a1zwwZ6.dpuf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s