Obama's Reason for Abstaining from the U.N. Vote on Israel is as Lame as Expected

As was discussed earlier on Friday, President Obama and his administration sold Israel down the river at the U.N. Security Council.

An Egyptian resolution to condemn Israel’s settlement of Judea and Samaria and declare such Jewish historical sites as the Western Wall as “occupied Palestinian territory,” was passed despite the objections from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, as well as many others.


As I speculated earlier, President Obama’s decision to abstain from the vote — effectively letting it pass — and not invoke the United State’s veto power seemed to be a way for Obama to stick it to Israel as a parting shot.

Now we know, thanks to Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes,  just how lame and self serving the Obama administration’s reasoning for abstention was.

According to The Hill:

The administration’s decision was borne out of frustration and a desire to resolve a conflict that has dogged generations of U.S. presidents.

But the move could backfire on Obama by emboldening Netanyahu and Trump to pursue hard-line policies toward Palestinians that contradict the president’s approach.  

Um, you reckon? This move has more of a chance of establishing a hard line in the future. The exact opposite of what President Obama says that he wants.

However, Donald Trump’s friendly position toward Netanyahu’s government stance on Judea and Samaria as well as Jerusalem being Israel’s capital, have created speculation as being the reason why Obama would take such a stark departure from U.S. policy.

But the Obama administration is denying that. Saying,

Rhodes denied the president’s decision would have any bearing on Trump’s policies, which he said were set long before Friday’s vote.

But he also struggled to explain how it would improve the situation in the Middle East.

Instead, the decision appeared to be one final chance for Obama to flex his muscles on the world stage in front of Trump, who has publicly taken stances on foreign policy at odds with the current administration.

“There is one president at a time,” Rhodes said. “President Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20 and we are taking this action, of course, as U.S. policy.”


Oh, nice. Thanks, Obama.

Indeed, The Hill admits that if such a stance was decided regardless of who won the election the implications for a successful peace process would have made Hillary Clinton’s job much more difficult as well. Leaving Obama wide open to the well-deserved criticism he’s received in regards to U.S.-Israeli relations.

President Obama is set to leave office with exactly the record he deserves on Israel: A stark opponent of the only Western democracy in the region and leaving the situation worse than he found it.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos