Serious Question for Mr. Pipes--Two Critical Elements Missing From the Discussion--Why?

Submitted by JPatriot18 (United States), Oct 11, 2020 at 22:49

Not to suggest that there isn't meaningful, well worthwhile, creative thought behind IVP, but in my opinion, there are two critical elements missing from Mr. Pipes article.

Not a word was written about the European sponsored anti-Israel NGOs, and not even a single mention of the Obama State Department policies placing virtually all the pressure on Israel to relent. I wonder why. How come?

EU/UN and other globalist funded NGOs have not only been funding illegal building and settlement to establish different facts on the ground, but also fomenting civil unrest amongst Israel's citizenry.

Likewise, UNSC Resolution 2334 which Obama/Kerry actually helped draft not only dismisses entirely all aspects of Israel's legal settlement rights as specified in the U.N. Charter, but also permanently calcifies the Palestinians' negotiating stance; read its language!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334.pdf

With the Security Council's approval, they do not EVER have to relent on, or even modify so much as a single aspect of their positions into perpetuity!

Ultimately, both these NGOs and the Obama Administration have been focused not toward promoting peace but toward alienating Israel on the world stage.

Their efforts are all oriented toward hemming Israel in over time, attempting to set her off as a pariah, making the BDS movement look like child's play---With the objective of forcing Israel to relent.

With forces this strong and obvious, then why Mr. Pipes, did you neglect their mention them?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".