resolution 2334

Guest Post: Our world: The PLO’s zero-sum game

Caroline Glick

AN AERIAL view of the Palestinian Authority’s Mukata presidential compound in Ramallah.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

The opportunity now upon us may be lost forever as the PLO comes back to win its zerosum game against Israel.

Since its inception in the late 1970s, the Israeli peace movement has been based on one thing: hope.
Members of the peace movement hoped the PLO’s war with Israel could be resolved through compromise. Proponents of peace with the PLO hoped that Yasser Arafat and his terrorist minions weren’t truly committed to Israel’s destruction.

The two-state formula was based on the hope that Israel could reach an accommodation with the PLO. To wit, in exchange for parts of Judea and Samaria and Gaza (no one was talking about Jerusalem), Israeli peaceniks, who over time came to encompass all factions of the Left in Israel, hoped the PLO would bury the hatchet, build a state, or federate with Jordan, and that would be that.

In 1992, the peace camp took over the government. Under the leadership of then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then foreign minister Shimon Peres, hope became the basis for Israel’s national security strategy. That strategy was followed by every Israeli government since. The basic idea was clear enough. In exchange for land and guns and legitimacy, Arafat and his goons would be domesticated.

Read more »

Media Mocks McCully Mercilessly

NZ Foreign Minister Murray McCully

The article in The Times of Israel has the mocking title, “The wisdom of the Kiwi foreign minister.” It reveals that the writer is not impressed at all by his intelligence or his understanding of geopolitics in the Middle East. At the same time as mercilessly pointing out McCully’s ineptitude, the writer praises New Zealand’s very own Shalom Kiwi blog; a blog that we have drawn our readers’ attention to many times in our own posts.

…The main proponent of the Kiwi initiative was Murray McCully, the Foreign Minister.

Thanks to the excellent online publication Shalom.Kiwi we can be privy to Mr McCully’s insights into the geopolitics of the Middle East, offered at a meeting on 18 May 2016 in an address to the Auckland Jewish Community.

When asked about the role of Palestinian terror in the current stalemate, McCully declined to distinguish between Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and the Israeli response to such attacks. When pushed, he refused to call the current wave of stabbings, shootings, car-rammings and suicide bombings “terrorism”, snapping: “You can call it what you like ….. you choose your words, I’ll choose mine.”

Read more »

Opposition Leader and Foreign Affairs spokesman not briefed on Israel resolution

After the Christchurch earthquakes, Opposition Leader Phil Goff complained that he hadn’t been briefed about alleged Israeli spies.  It was subsequently revealed on this blog that he had been briefed. What it did show though was that on matters affecting foreign policy especially relating to Israel convention dictates that the leader of the opposition should be briefed. When New Zealand took the lead in sponsoring UN resolution 2334 as the chair of the UN Security Council it should have been incumbent of foreign minister Murray McCully or at the very least a senior MFaT official to brief Labour leader Andrew Little and his foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker.

We put these questions to Andrew Little:

  1. Were you were briefed by anyone, including Murray McCully and/or Bill English and/or John Key?
  2. If you were briefed were you given full details of the process and resolution and did the briefing match what happened in reality?
  3. If you weren’t briefed why do you think they didn’t brief you?
  4. When John Kerry visited in November were you briefed on the contents of discussions with Murray McCully?

Andrew Little’s response is below in full and unedited:

Read more »

Most people think the resolution is just about settlements. Well it’s not.

Many NZ politicians and the general public think that resolution 2334 is just about condemning Israeli settlements. However, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer has written an excellent piece explaining in detail what resolution 2334 is really all about. In it, he sets out why the resolution represents such a departure from the United States’ original position and why it is so bad for Israel and the West. It goes much, much further than a simple condemnation of Israeli settlements and I have a summary of his key points for you below:

Read more »