Why The American Veto Against Palestinian Statehood?

By Chandrashekar (Chandra) Tamirisa, (On Twitter) @c_tamirisa

Flattr this

In a pivot from the year before this, the President of the United States (US) Barack Hussein Obama, a Unitarian Christian with a Muslim middle name at birth, chastised the United Nations (UN) in his annual speech to a captive audience of 193 nations of the General Assembly of the UN on September 21, 2011. The next day, the United States, together with its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-privileged North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies walked out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and British Prime Minister David Cameron suggested UN reform to increase the effectiveness of the institution.

Israel and Palestine, two states imagined to be side-by-side since the 1948 creation of Israel, have instead turned into a fantasy for the Judeo-Christian-Harry Truman-NATO armed-West and a painful reality for both the Jews, who were genocided out of Europe into their Biblical homeland, and for the Palestinians who had lost more than half their land to the bizarre ideology of a Greater Israel (or Palestine-renamed as a geopolitical objective) because they were not given statehood together with Israel in 1948.

The US president did not want ineffective UN resolutions without intended outcomes in the historically long Middle East peace process that predates the UN. Instead of making it work, indignant about America’s burden of global leadership and losing a historic opportunity to begin the process of reforming the UN, he not only decided to veto the Palestinian application for full membership to the UN implying the pariah-status of the Palestinian people, serving the interests of his Nobel-masters in Europe, but also reneged on American support for the withdrawal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Obama appears to want to be Jesus Christ of The Revelation to John. Perhaps this is why he was given The Prize.

To Europe and post-World War II United States, the UN can only be effective if Greater Israel is established and when oil freely flows from the Persian Gulf to the 600 year old Renaissance-West. Hence, the US veto of Palestinian legitimacy, hand-in-hand with Israel and the designated Sunni terrorist group Hamas which ironically is accused of receiving support from Iran along with the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah.

It is neither clear what the boundaries of the Israel of YHWH’s covenant with Abraham are nor where the ark containing the commandments from god to Moses lays in Jerusalem. It is, however, clear where the oil under the ground is. The founding members of the UN, United States and United Kingdom, had made an egregious geopolitical error in 1948 when they denied statehood to Palestine and now want to reform the UN, by blaming the institution established together with Israel, for their mistakes, to rectify which, they want to change Iran – another Anglo-American failure from 1953 in pursuit of oil by Eisenhower and Churchill and Her Majesty’s Intelligence (MI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), before they give the Palestinians their small share west of the Jordan river to eliminate all opposition to Israel’s existence in the region (the Arabs want to fully normalize diplomatic relations with Israel after the Arab spring). This charade of finger pointing, between the founding countries and its proxy global institutions, to make mountains out of mole hills is the US veto.

Necessary wars are wars which cannot be avoided, not intended wars born out of centurion blunders borne by ineradicable ideological geopolitical vermin. Iran could be another of those wars disguised as necessary only because of America’s unwillingness for rapprochement with Iran after 1979, another mistake, and because of Iran’s non-transparency of its nuclear program, Iran’s mistake. This president, before his 2008 election, wanted rapprochement. In a pivot, after the election, he decided to veto rather than vote, punting at the moment of truth, displaying a deep-seated establishmentarian dyslexia induced by geopolitical power, because his Department of the Treasury is citing Iran with helping Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, purportedly compelling enough to go to war even after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Iran, then becomes a “necessary war”, an argument that is unassailable after 9/11, especially before his reelection in 2012. America has a deep history of war time presidents. General George Washington’s non-partisan war time presidency was necessary. The rest were gratuitous and so could be Obama’s war time presidency if he uses his veto power at the UN to make himself re-electable in the 2012 election similar to his partisan predecessors, Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), Harry Truman and George W. Bush.

World War II, contrary to many opinions suggesting the New Deal’s revival of the Depression-era economy, pulled the United States out the Great Depression. Now, it appears that the Pentagon and the National Security Council (NSC) using America’s veto power in the permanent Security Council of the UN want Greater Israel to pull the US economy out of its funk by field testing defense modernization since 9/11 in the UN endorsed global war on terror, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran and eventually North Korea, to finish the unfinished job since Gulf War I after the end of the Cold War. The spark of war between Israel and Palestine could be in the West Bank between the hopeful Palestinian people and Israeli settlers.

The UN was correct in its judgment in 1948 about Israel and Palestine and so was candidate Senator Obama in 2008 about achieving rapprochement with Iran, a judgment as sound in 2008 as it can be in 2012. The UN, in 1948, wanted to give the Israelis and the Palestinians their own nation-states, both consisting of Hebrew and Arabic peoples, scripting right to left, and knowing each other’s languages, religions and cultures since Noah of the Hebrew Bible saved humanity on an ark before there was a covenant with Abraham and before there ever was a law set in stone as commandments saved in an ark for posterity. In 2012 Obama must reopen the US embassy in Tehran, independent of Al Qaeda.

Oil found in someone else’s land is not our own. Palestine, therefore, deserves a vote just as Israel did in 1948. Not a veto.

Advertisements

About Chandrashekar (Chandra) Tamirisa

http://www.thecommonera.com/Common_Era/Me.html
This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense, North America and Caribbean, Politics, Russia and Eastern Europe, Theology, Transformations LLC, Turkey, Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, World and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Why The American Veto Against Palestinian Statehood?

    • Palestine will continue to be a non-member state until all the Arabs, Iran and Syria recognize Israel’s right to exist as a state in the region and establish diplomatic relations with Israel, rephrasing the same, Palestine will remain a non-member state until all Arabs and Iran establish diplomatic relations with the member state of Israel.

      • julia29 says:

        I agree –

      • julia29 says:

        It probably starts with a conversation among the women and leveling the “playing ground” by looking at the situation through a universal lens of a “mother’s” perspective.

      • Women are important because they have lost husbands, sons and several of their own in this more than 50-year conflict. However, more importantly, it begins with talking between Israel and neighbor governments to open embassies in each other’s capitals.

      • julia29 says:

        And, the ones we haven’t lost are broken from growing up in a toxic emotional environment. Allowing them to justify horrendous acts in the name of God.

        Perhaps you are right – but I still believe that in order for that to happen the women must start talking or at least need to be heard.

      • United States must elect a woman president. There are many women in all walks of life but not one in The White House yet.

      • julia29 says:

        Yes – again you are probably right. But, I’m not sure the world in its current state nor the US of A could sit and wait another 4 years and only hope for that reality.

        We need to start taking action now.

        However, politics at its current state is not suitable for a “whole” woman. Ask any woman who ran for office what she thought about the process.

        Since business parallels politics it would make more sense, at least in my opinion, to try to foster better business communication.

        Oddly – in our current times – conversation seems to be good business – let’s look at the Queen of Gab… Oprah.

        Here is a woman that can bring people to the table to have a discussion. If it makes good business sense.

        But, I agree with you – it would be of benefit for a woman to grace the white house with her presence.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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