When Samantha Power began her speech at the UN to justify the Obama Administration’s decision not to veto UN Security Council Resolution 2334, she started with a quote from Ronald Reagan.
She did this with a specific goal: to find historical “proof” that the US, prior to Obama, has seen “settlements” as central to achieving peace. This is a complete lie. They were to be part of negotiations but nothing more. Samantha Power fraudulently quoted Reagan’s words to lie and change history.
Samantha Power’s selective quote was malicious and fraudulent. She stole words to prove her point. This is symbolic of the nature of Obama’s whole approach to his Presidency.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me begin with a quote: “The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.”
Of course she had to rip Reagan’s quote completely out of context to use it. Here’s some of the context:
I have personally followed and supported Israel’s heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.
The United States has thus far sought to play the role of mediator; we have avoided public comment on the key issues. We have always recognized – and continue to recognize – that only the voluntary agreement of those parties most directly involved in the conflict can provide an enduring solution. But it has become evident to me that some clearer sense of America’s position on the key issues is necessary to encourage wider support for the peace process.
First, as outlined in the Camp David accords, there must be a period of time during which the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza will have full autonomy over their own affairs. Due consideration must be given to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of the territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties involved.
The purpose of the five-year period of transition which would begin after free elections for a self-governing Palestinian authority is to prove to the Palestinians that they can run their own affairs, and that such Palestinian autonomy poses no threat to Israel’s security.
The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs and a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.
It’s absolutely obvious (apart from this being in a completely different era, long before Oslo, the Israeli pull out from Lebanon or Gaza) that freezing “settlement activity” was only ever to be a quid pro quo following the Palestinians proving they can run their own affairs without trying to kill Jews all the time.
From the introductory paragraph it’s clear the 1949 Armistice Line (10 miles wide) was NEVER going to be a final border. That’s further underscored by this:
When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return.
Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.
Once the border was negotiated (and this was to include land definitely beyond anything Israel held in 1949) building in that land would not be considered “settlements”. Many or most of our existing Jewish towns and villages would fall in this category.
Had there actually been “true peace and normalization” from the Palestinians, that would mean more land for them. 30 years later we haven’t had a day of true peace.
Also note the specific inclusion of Jordan here: that’s because Reagan absolutely rules out a two state solution (which Dave pointed out on Israellycool Nov 7):
Beyond the transition period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories. Nor is it achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the West Bank and Gaza.
So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel.
The arrogance of Obama and Power in quoting that tiny part of Reagan’s long and detailed speech, out of context, knowing the media is too stupid or too compliant to do their jobs and actually check it, tells you a great deal about their malevolence toward Israel.
Obama believes he lives in a post-truth, post-facts world where he and his followers can just decide something is legal or illegal on their own and twist history to their will. That’s what they did by supporting this revolting resolution. The ire extends, also, to all the other nations of the world who helped with this, but (as it’s now being reported) it is overwhelmingly clear Obama is behind this travesty.
Here are most of the relevant parts of Reagan’s speech: