This is an important study on the matter of the United Nations which is based on the contrast between Obama towards Israel and of Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, towards Israel.

We on 4international have no time for the United Nations in any shape or form.

The author in this article brings out through how the United States elite are using their support for Israel in the United Nations in a very special manner.

It seems that the US elite appear to stand as a protector, as a kind of referee at times, but the essence is that the very powerful US has always used this as a threat against the smaller and vulnerable nation of Jews and their vulnerable religion Jews and Judaism.

(For example, if just ONE resolution comes from these Fascists attacking the right of Israel to exist, etc., then the correct approach for the US to take, and what the US workers should fight for, is for the US to exit the United Nations, and to kick this bunch of ass-holes right out of New York and America.

Let them set up camp in Iran!

But let patriotic Americans NOT be there!)

This has always been the case but as always Obama is a very special case. Obama and his party are really in the camp of open and decisive haters of Israel so then this implicit threat to Israel from the US in the UN becomes an absolute threat. The author tells it well:

by Isi Leibler

Having recently visited the US and Canada, I was left with a feeling of profound disquiet concerning the starkly contrasting attitudes toward Israel displayed by the leaders of these two neighboring countries.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has unquestionably emerged as Israel’s greatest friend in the world, effectively assuming the role previously occupied by former Australian prime minister John Howard.

Harper’s principled approach to Israel was demonstrated in an extraordinary address he gave in Ottawa to an interparliamentary conference for combating anti-Semitism. Courageously dismissing the traditional political correctness expressed by many liberals, who feel obliged to distance themselves from the Jewish state, Harper made it clear that under his leadership Canada would not “pretend” to be impartial on Israel even if that meant facing negative repercussions at the UN and other international organizations.

He said that the persecution of Jews had become a global phenomenon in which anti-Semitic ideologies targeted the Jewish people in their “homeland” and perversely exploited the “language of human rights to do so.” He stressed that “while Israel is the only country in the world under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand.

“I know this because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the UN or any other international forum, the correct thing to do is simply to just go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being evenhanded, and to excuse oneself with the label of ‘honest broker’… There are after all, a lot more votes in being anti- Israel than taking a stand.

“But as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the UN or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost. Not just because it is the right thing to do but because history shows us that the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to us all.”

Canada was in fact “punished” for its support of Israel when it was ignominiously defeated by Portugal, an almost bankrupt country, in its attempt to obtain a seat at the UN Security Council. All 57 seats of the Organization of the Islamic Conference opposed the Canadian nomination.

For some, Canada’s defeat under such circumstances will be viewed as a badge of honor. But what made Canada’s defeat even more outrageous was the role of the US. According to Richard Grenfell, a former press officer with the US mission to the UN, “US State Department insiders say that US Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weekend leading up to the heated contest.”

David Frum, a speechwriter to former president George W. Bush, also noted that “the US government has kept awfully quite about the suggestion that it went missing during the Security Council vote.”

The US betrayal of its neighbor and long-standing ally is a chilling indication of the depths to which the Obama administration has stooped in its efforts to “engage” and appease Islamic and Third World rogue states.

Having joined the appallingly misnamed UN Human Rights Council dominated by dictatorships and Islamic nations, the US is now beginning to reap the harvest from this flawed policy. This was exemplified this month during the council’s first “universal periodic review of human rights.” In a session where US representative Esther Brimmer told the group that “it is an honor to be in the chamber,” Cuba described the US blockade of Cuba as a “crime of genocide”; Iran, a country which stones women for adultery, urged the US “to combat violence against women”; and Libya complained about US “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”

IN THE midst of this and despite repeated assurances concerning the “unbreakable bond of friendship” between the US and Israel, Obama is continuing to flex his muscles by beating up on Israel. Yet, his Middle East policies, which run counter to American public opinion, have failed disastrously, with US approval levels in the Muslim world even plummeting below 2008 levels.

Obama’s most recent assault on Israel was conveyed from his childhood home, Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, which he praised as a model of tolerance worthy of global emulation.

While compared to Arab standards, Islamic Indonesia may be relatively tolerant, the president overlooked the recent opinion polls, in which 25 percent of the population expressed confidence in the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and that between 2004 and 2007, 110 Christian churches were closed due to pressure from local governments. In January of this year, 1,000 Muslims burned down two churches in Sumatra.

Needless to say, Indonesia does not recognize Israel, bans Israeli aircraft from flying over Indonesian territory and denies entry visas to Israeli citizens. It is especially galling that from such a country, Obama again saw fit to distance the US from Israel and aggressively condemn the Jewish state for building homes in the exclusively Jewish suburbs of its capital Jerusalem.

We must ask ourselves what endgame the US administration is pursuing. Obama knows that former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians everything and that they still refused to reach an accommodation because their ultimate objective remains the delegitimization of Jewish sovereignty. What they now seek is a non-demilitarized state based on the 1949 armistice lines to provide them or other Arab states with a launching pad to attack and destabilize Israel. Not surprisingly, the Europeans are more than happy to accept such a state of affairs. It would thus be catastrophic for the Obama administration to stand aside and enable this process to eventuate.

Yet, all indicators suggest that the Obama administration is determined to capitalize on Israel’s international vulnerability. Despite the absence of any response from the Palestinians or the Arab world to Israel’s 10-month settlement freeze, the US has literally bludgeoned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to breach his undertaking to the people of Israel and renew a settlement freeze, including areas that will undoubtedly remain in Israel.

Although on the surface the US appears to be offering incentives to Israel to persuade it to accede to its requests, anyone reading between the lines recognizes that nothing new is being offered. The exercise of the veto in the face of UN resolutions demonizing Israel and offering to maintain Israel’s security needs have been fundamental tenets of the relationship between Israel and the US. In reality, Obama issued an ultimatum to Netanyahu by threatening to abandon Israel unless it capitulates to his demands.

Many of us today yearn for an American president who would be more considerate of our needs than the present incumbent. It would perhaps be an impossible dream to have someone of the caliber of Stephen Harper leading the US, but alas, today, we are becoming increasingly reconciled to the reality that the US president is no friend of Israel and is paving the way for an imposed settlement with potentially disastrous long-term repercussions on the security of our nation.



The US in organizing the talks between Netanyahu and Abbas is also interfering directly in politics in Israel totally behind the back of the Israeli Government 

it is a situation of sinister intrigue which is geared against Netanyahu. Everything that Obama has done since taking power is aimed at having netanyahu defeated and replaced by Livni and Barak. 

As Francisco Gil White has said, the US has at its disposal enormous funds in the field of intelligence gathering. it knows every single detail of every aspect of Israeli political life, and this will extend to the private lives of all Israelis in politicsñ 

The centre of this intrigue against Israel is the “Geneva Initiative” 

 Yossi Beilin.jpg 

Beilin’s association with the peace process is the most notable element in his career. Backed by Shimon Peres, he initiated secret negotiations in 1992 which led to the Oslo accords in 1993. Together with Mahmoud Abbas, another architect of the Oslo accords, he signed in 1995 the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement, a ‘non paper‘ of guidelines for a permanent solution to the conflict. During 1992-1995 he headed the Israeli delegation to the Multilateral peace process working groups. In 2001 he participated in the Israeli-Palestinian Taba talks and, the initiative that he is currently most famed for, signed the Geneva Accords with Yasser Abd Rabbo

On 28 October, 2008 he announced that he will not be seeking a spot on his party’s Knesset roster in the upcoming elections. His aides said he “will remain a public figure and will keep pursuing his political initiatives, most of all the Geneva Initiative”.[2] On 4 November he was replaced by Tzvia Greenfield, who became the first Haredi woman sworn as an MK.[3] 

Beilin holds a soft capitalist agenda, which did not stop him from joining forces with the mainly socialist Meretz. He rarely speaks publicly on social issues, but instead focuses his efforts on promoting negotiations with the Palestinians. In fact, his victory over Meretz’s own Ran Cohen was construed as a vote of Meretz electorate of giving precedence to the conflict over socioeconomic issues. 


Beilin was stated in Ynet to have retired from politics in 2008. Beware of these types of people “retiring” from politics” 

The Ynet report is fairly revealing in understanding the corrupt and tribal nature of Israeli ruling class politics. When we speak of labour we are speaking of the Israeli elite. Not ethe presence of Peres: 

Meretz’s Beilin retiring from politics


Prominent left-wing politician informs current party chairman he will not be seeking slot on Knesset roster; said to be leaving politics in favor of business world 

Dr. Beilin informed Meretz Chairman Chaim Oron of his decision on Tuesday evening. The move marks the end of the veteran statesman’s political career. 

Beilin apparently intends to enter private practice, but was reluctant to elaborate on its nature or the circumstances surrounding his decision to retire from political life. His aides told Ynet that he “will remain a public figure and will keep pursuing his political initiatives, most of all the Geneva Initiative.” 

Yossi Beilin began his political career in 1977, as Labor’s spokesman. He was later named cabinet secretary the political director of the Foreign Ministry. 

Considered Shimon Peres’ protégé, he was elected to the Knesset for the first time in 1988. He went on serve as a deputy minister, and was elected MK for four consecutive terms. He resigned from the Knesset in 1999. In 2004, he turned left of Labor, and joined Meretz. 

Beilin announcement spells yet another end for Meretz, and may be seen as a possible indicator for the troublesome times ahead of the party, which has suffered declining support by the voting public – from 12 mandates in the 1992 general elections to five in the current Knesset. 

“I was saddened by Beilin’s decision, of which he told several days ago,’ said Oron. 

“Yossi Beilin is one of the most important political leaders we have ever known. He shaped a political road supported by the majority of Israeli today. I can only hope that his daring and original way will keep serving Israel and Meretz for years to come.” 

MK Effie Eitam (National Union-National Religious Party) added that “Beilin has always been a fair and worthy political adversary, who loves the people and the country in his own way. 

“As we served together on the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I was privileged to know a person of principles. His retirement from politics should upset every Israeli citizen, regardless of their political affiliation,” he said. 


Avraham Burg by David Shankbone.jpg

Note in the following re Avraham Burg that his parents were Israeli patriots, and that Burg has left Israel now living in France

Burg was born and raised in Jerusalem‘s Rehavia neighborhood. His father was Yosef Burg, a German-born Israeli politician and long-time government minister for the National Religious Party. His mother Rivka (née Slonim), was born in Hebron and survived the Arab massacre in 1929.[1]

In the Israel Defense Forces, Burg served as a lieutenant in the paratroopers brigade. He graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with a degree in the social sciences.

Burg is married to Yael and lived in Nataf, a rural community on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Burg and his wife have six children.[2] Burg has now lived in France since 2004, acquiring French citizenship and working in business.[3]


In Burg we are dealing with a real political menace to Israel. Read the following and place in the context of his proud Jewish parents, and also see how mixed in he is with the very tops in Israeli life:

In 1992, when the Alignment merged with the Labor Party, he was reelected to Knesset. In 1995, he was appointed Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, and resigned from the Knesset. As head of the Jewish Agency, he worked to recover Jewish property lost during the Holocaust, and in the transfer of ca. half a million predominantly Jewish citizens from the Commonwealth of Independent States (the former Soviet Union) to Israel.


(So was the leader of this group, Gadi Baltiansky. At camp David Baltiansky was very close to Barak. That was where Barak was giving everything but the kitchen sink to Arafat)

In 1999, Burg returned to domestic politics, and was elected to the Knesset on Ehud Barak‘s One Israel list (an alliance of Labor, Meimad and Gesher). Burg was elected Speaker of the Knesset, a position he held until early 2003. In his capacity as speaker of the Knesset he served as interim President of Israel for 20 days, from 12 July until 1 August 2000 when the presidency was vacant following Ezer Weizman‘s resignation. Following Barak’s defeat in the 2001 election for Prime Minister and his subsequent resignation, Burg ran for the Labor Party leadership, but lost. Nevertheless, he retained his seat in the Knesset in the 2003 elections.

In October 2003, Burg caused a sensation when he published an article in the British newspaper The Guardian named ‘The end of Zionism’ calling for a quick withdrawal from the Palestinian Territories.[5]

Also in 2003, Burg published an article in Yedioth Ahronoth in which he declared, “Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism.”[6]

[edit] Retirement from political life

In 2004, Burg resigned from the Knesset and public life. Since then, he has lectured at international events and served on the board of directors of Vita Pri Hagalil.[7]

In an interview in Haaretz in June 2007, Burg suggested amending the Law of Return and stated that “to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It’s dynamite.”[8] In response to public criticism of the interview, however, he published a retraction, recommending that Israel be defined not as a “Jewish State” but as a “State of the Jews.” [9][10]

In April 2008, Burg signed a letter of support for the recently created J Street American pro-peace lobby group.[11] On November 14, 2008, he joined a new left-wing movement intending to support the Meretz-Yachad party in the 2009 national elections.[12]

In April 2009, Burg participated in the Doha Debates at Georgetown University in Washington DC, where he debated for the motion “this house believes that it is time for the USA to get tough on Israel” with fellow speaker Michael Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Issue Station. Speakers against the motion were Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Burg and Scheuer won the vote on the debate, with 63% of the audience voting for the motion.[13


The Haaretz article listed in the Wiki article above is most revealing. He says there was something astonishing about the Jews in Germany. Similarly with the Jews in America, he says. He places this “astonishingness” in the context of this remark

They created a situation in which the goy can be my father and my mother and my son and my partner,” Burg says.


Indeed so Burg. So astonishingly successful right on to the gates of the Concentration Camps!

The Doha Debates of 2003 should be studied. This applies to the contribution of Burg there. If you like skip the following condensed paragraph which Burg gave but do look at the question and answer at the end:

I’m in favour of the motion.  If tougher means opinionated, involved, caring, a different rather than an indifferent United States of America, I’m all for it.  The history, at least the lessons learned from our history is that each and every time the United States of America was involved and actively so in our affairs, it was good for the region, it was good for the United States of America, and it was good for Israel.  So it was the case in ’56 in which the United States of America made Israel and forced Israel to withdraw from Gaza.  This was the case in ’78 in which Jimmy Carter forced Israel and Egypt to finish the peace accord between the two of us, so was the case with Madrid and so many other cases in the history, and each and every time, the United States of America was away from the region and let us have like the last eight years a cowboy, isolationist, indifferent, arrogant policy. It was bad for the region, it was bad for the United States of America, it was bad for the world, it was bad for Israel. And therefore I welcome this kind of caring, opinionated, active United States of America.  The Middle East is one of the most dangerous, volatile places in the world – for itself, for its residents and for the well-being of Western civilisation, and ours is one of the causes of this conflict, and after 100 years of war, it’s a century of war, one of the longest in history, it’s about time to say: “enough,” it’s about time to say: “let’s think differently about it.”  Now, everybody knows what would be the solution, everybody knows the outline of the future.  We are there, but the depths of the previous mistakes, the missed opportunities, the traumas, the fears and the hatred made both sides lock horns and we cannot move anywhere because we are so locked into each other.  So using President Obama’s language, alone, no we cannot.  It’s impossible for both sides to redeem themselves alone, and time is not an ally any more.  Time is not working for the benefit of the region.  America is getting weaker, the era of a one superpower world is over, and the days of the two-state solution are numbered, and therefore we must do an impossible effort to redeem us and to redeem the region and maybe to introduce peace, tranquillity and reconciliation to the trigger of the next nuclear, potential nuclear round in the area.  And only a dramatic turnaround can make it, and only, maybe nobody can do it, but if somebody can do it, and unify a different alternative world international coalition that comes with a logical policy to the Middle East and persuade, and pressure is about persuasion, and there are ways to talk, Mr. Gold.  Talk and talks, so it depends how you talk the talk President Obama, and how you talk the talk, United States of America, and if it is a talk according to the new language we heard during the campaign, this is exactly the waiting of the majority of both societies, waiting for the responsible adult to come to the region, maybe tougher like a father sometimes, a parent sometimes has to be tough.  A parent who doesn’t know how to say “no” to a child is a bad parent.  An American president who allows everything to the children in the Middle East to do is a bad president for the world, and only then a tougher president, who can stand the challenges, will not run away from the little traps we’ll put ahead of him, who will separate and unlock the locked horns of both sides, is a United States of America which is the leader of the free world that reintroduced hope into the region. Will give back hope to myself and my children, and my children’s children, and if this calls for some tougher measures, so be it.
Avraham Burg, thank you very much indeed.  Let me get this straight.  You want Israel to act the child, and you want America to act the parent?  That’s a little insulting to a democracy, isn’t it?  Israel is hardly a child.  Its government has been voted in by democratic voters.
Okay.  But we are living in a kind of a reality in which …
The reality is that democracies don’t react well to being treated like kids by other countries, do they?
Well, this is right when you are a superpower.  It is not necessarily right when you’re a small nation which has many considerations and you need sometimes, and you lean so many times on the big brother or the big sister.  When you have this kind of adult relations with somebody who’s your back …
So it’s worked well in Central America when America told all those countries that had the death squads in El Salvador and places like that what to do, it was a good record there, was it?
I don’t know the history there, I can tell you about the history on our side of the ocean, okay? And on our side of the ocean, if we are dangerous to ourselves and we are dangerous to our neighbours and we are dangerous to the world, and the world cares about itself, the world should say something.  But to say: “Hey kids, play, do whatever you like, it’s fine with me, and if it’s volatile, volatile, what can I do?  If it’s explosive, explosive, what can I do?”  This is an irresponsible world leadership.
So let me get this straight.  Thousands of rockets …
Wasn’t it straight enough?
No.  Maybe not.  Thousands of rockets have rained down on Israel and you somehow want more pressure on the country because it hasn’t been through enough yet.
Pressure is on the region, pressure is on the parties, pressure is on the situation.
We’re talking… the motion is “getting tough” on Israel.
I’ll come to the next one when we’re putting pressure on Palestine.  I mean, I’ll have the same arguments, because you cannot  …
You’re infinitely flexible then?
Oh, no, I’m not flexible.
Depends on the occasion?
No, I’m not.  I’m very determined.
A real speaker of the Knesset.
Yes, this is why I speak so much, okay, but it is not about this, it’s not about being flexible, it’s about an approach.  It’s a comprehensive policy.  It’s about responsibility.  If the region stands a chance for peace, and only an indifferent America or indifferent world communities between the motivation and the potential of the region, to create a new coalition for reconciliation, and America does not move because it is not appropriate, it’s not politically democratically correct, it’s a wrong policy.  Now, when President Obama ran and actually ignited …
You want him to wave a stick at Israel?
I’m sorry?
You want him to wave a stick at Israel?
No, to wave a carrot.  I do not believe in stick and carrot, I believe in carrot and carrot.
Okay, all right.  Avraham Burg, thank you very much indeed.
Thank you very much.


If you visit the site of the Geneva Initiative mentioned earlier you can view the photographs of a very wide circle of people inside Israel connected with this Geneva initiative.

If you want to find out more about how the Obama Government is interlinked with this Geneva Institute, who (the important thing) remember they are not elected by anybody, then visit the Elder of Zion website

The US is funding an advertising campaign meant to make Israelis doubt the leadership abilities of the people they elected. The Geneva Initiative is far the the left of the mainstream Israeli public.

USAID is primarily meant to provide development and reconstruction assistance. To use it to fund a blatantly political program seems to go against its stated purpose.