"U.N. rights expert accuses Israel of excessive force against Palestinians"

Submitted by Robert (United States), Mar 18, 2016 at 14:08

"U.N. rights expert accuses Israel of excessive force against Palestinians"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-israel-palestinians-violence-un-idUKKCN0VK1O3

Anyone who has read the books on the Middle East should have learned that most of Palestine was a part of the Ottoman province of Syria (Jerusalem was administered separately) until the British conquered it and in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration in which Palestine would become the "national home" of the Jews - and this British imperial policy was subsequently (in 1923?) adopted by the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations.

In this context it seems extremely peculiar that when a Syrian (= Palestinian) murderously stabs or kills a Jew in Syria (= Palestine) with a knife and is shot dead in the process, the UN says "excessive force" was used.

However, we now have the possibility of millions of Palestinians (= Syrian) dying catastrophically from the Mosul Dam collapse - and the UN does NOTHING.

I maintain that this is another manifestation of Antisemitism. The concern for the plight of these Muslim Arabs, Syrian or Palestinian, are only of interest to the world when it comes up as an issue when Jews (= Israelis) are involved. Over 275,000 (by one estimate) Palestinians (= Syrians) have already died in Syria under Assad. Was it not an instance of the use of "excessive force"?

The good news, in this miserable and hypocritical environment, I think, is that under our President Obama administration, the Arab Sunni countries' governs are no longer looking at Israel as the No. 1 enemy. And it looks like the Europeans, Leftist do-gooders, and the American Jewish Liberals who still believe strongly in a two-state solution under Hamas's existence, are far behind the rest of the Sunni Arab world (except for ISS, Hamas, Abu Mazan [Abbas], and Hezbollah, etc.).

I think that Obama was extremely idealistic when he began his first term; but he eventually learned his mistakes, abandoned his program to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and focused instead on the Sunni-Shia conflict by siding - as Metternick, Bismark, Kissinger, and his particular hero Scowcroft (an associate of Kissinger) would have done - with the Iranians. I believe that Obama reverted to the practice of Realpolitik here. By siding with the ultimately weaker party (most Muslims in the world are Sunnis, nor Shia, as Iran is), he stopped Saudi Arabia from holding on to the tailcoat of the United States. The result is that the Saudis and their allies, Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, have come closer to Israel - the power which can obviously protect them against Shia Theocratic Iran.

For most of this I thank Obama for his ultimate Foreign Policy wisdom. I predict that in the 10 years to come, Israel will have made peace with most of the Sunni states - and formed a strategic alliance against Iran; I do not believe that the one nuclear Sunni power, Pakistan, will be able to defend the rest, as it seems to be heading in the chaotic direction of its neighbor, Afghanistan; Turkey, under Erdogan, has neo-Ottoman ambitions to distasteful to Arab regimes. And the Gulf state countries - including Saudi Arabia - remind me of the Roman Empire when it became too decedent to raise true Roman legions and had to enlist from the German tribes on its frontiers - unlike Iran, with its Revolutionary Guards, and Hezbollah allies, the Saudis are to spoiled by their oil-based luxuries to be able to draft Saudi men (or women) for any kind of military force capable to withstand the rigors of boot-camp - that's way they are begging the Pakistanis to enlist their booted soldier to defend them against the Houthis on their frontier on Yemen's border with Saudi Arabia. For all this, thank you Mr. President, Obama.

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".