Obama’s U.N. betrayal: Who benefited?

OPINION:

In the Orwellian reality that is the United Nations, peaceful housing construction is criticized as a “flagrant violation” and violent housing destruction is not worth mentioning.

While half a million people were being killed in Syria and half its population displaced, there was hardly a peep from the U.N. Security Council. That august council didn’t blink at barrel bombs dropped on Arab families in Syria, but became mobilized to prevent the outrage of Jewish families moving in next door to Arab villages in disputed territories.

I say, “disputed territories” because the phrase “occupied territories” is misleading and prejudicial. In fact, the Israel-West Bank -Gaza territorial dispute is one of more than 100 territorial disputes around the world. India and Pakistan’s disputed territory is Kashmir. The U.K. and Spain have an unresolved border dispute in Gibraltar. Russian territorial disputes include Crimea, and the Ukraine. The U.K. and Argentina have an unresolved dispute over the Falkland Islands. China is involved in multiple territorial disputes… Each is a unique situation, but what they share in common is that all are territorial disputes.

Why did President Obama fail to veto resolution 2334, a measure so harmful to Israel, when Israel is the only functioning democracy in a part of the world torn by chaos and conflict?

Who benefited by America’s abstention?

Not the U.S., who is once again seen by the world to be an unreliable ally, a country that throws its friends, both Arab and Israeli, under the bus with aggressive passivity.

Not the Democratic Party, already decimated by election losses at every level during the Obama years. The Democratic Party is hotly divided over this U.N. action, with incoming senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders voicing strong objections.

Not the Palestinians, governed by an unpopular leader serving the 11th year of a four-year term. Mahmoud Abbas has already rejected the terms Secretary of State Kerry outlined after the U.N. vote. Abbas reiterated his refusal to recognize the Jewish state, or to agree to terms that would secure Israel’s boundaries. The Palestinians are therefore no closer to having a state of their own.

So why did Obama do it? Why did he diminish American prestige by endorsing a resolution brought by two human rights disasters, Malaysia and Venezuela? Malaysia is a country that criminalizes homosexuality, whose political leaders are renowned for their virulent anti-Semitism. The Venezuelan government imprisons its opposition and causes mass starvation.

Some suggest that Obama let the resolution pass in order to hobble the incoming Trump administration’s foreign policy plans. Others say that he acted in a fit of pique. Having endured years of frustration in a mutually hostile relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama let loose a final punch at Israel before leaving office.

But emotion-driven behavior on the international stage is not what we’ve come to expect from “no-drama Obama.” What else might be motivating this decision?

Let’s turn to history for guidance. The last president to slam Israel in a similar fashion was Jimmy Carter. After leaving the White House without two peanuts to rub together, Mr. Carter was rescued by petrodollars from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and their financial institutions, particularly BCCI. Mr. Carter’s post-presidential career has been viciously and persistently anti-Israel, in line with his Arab states’ support.

What are Obama’s plans for the future? And who are his financial backers? Will we see him evolve into another Jimmy Carter?

It will take time to understand what happened at the United Nations on Dec. 23, 2016. Let’ keep an eye on Barack Obama as he moves into the public sector. We may understand this bizarre resolution better as the story unfolds.