Thursday, February 17, 2011

We're Back to the "Illegitimate"/"Illegal" Debate

Here's the proposed text of a UN Security Council resolution that may have been promoted by the US:


Note the use of "legitimacy" vs. "legal and "illegal" vs. "illegitimate".
You can take a "who cares?" approach.  Or assume the US is wishy-washy.

But then, there's Jennifer Rubin who terms this

an unprecedented "compromise" that would entail a sharp rebuke of our democratic ally

and continues:

...[it is a] remarkable deviation from past administrations' treatment of Israel

and quotes a possible Republican presidential contender, Tim Pawlenty:

"The Obama administration has shown an astonishing unwillingness to stand by Israel at the United Nations, an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for just about every problem in the Middle East. It's time for our UN ambassador to finally show some leadership, draw a line in the sand, and defend our historic ally. Global stability depends more than ever on a respected America that is loyal to our allies and realistic about the malice of our adversaries."

Perhaps recognizing that the Administration is really go off the deep end on this issue, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to back-pedal a bit, saying

...UN Security Council resolutions are "not the right vehicle" for forging ahead towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Our focus is on doing what is best to advance negotiations between the parties that will lead to a two-state solution," she told reporters after a closed-door briefing with senators covering unrest throughout the Middle East...

That report noted that her comments came after Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki said the Palestinians had refused a compromise offered by Washington to withdraw a UN resolution condemning Jewish settlements.

But the terminology involved has bothered me in the past. As I noted in September 2009 and even earlier, is this a question of:

if illegitimate is worse than illegal

The Jewish residential location in Judea and Samaria are quite legal and even more so legitimate. They were made so by the Jewish people's historical, religious and cultural reality in its national homeland for over 3000 years, and that was recognized by the civilized world for centuries prior to the League of Nations recognition of our right as Jews to reconstitute in that land area our National Home.

Returning to the area in 1967, we have the right of reversion, based on the Arab rejection of territorial compromise in 1947 and its constant warfare and terror campaign ever since.

I am sure that the Obama Administration will eventually realize itself that its legitimacy among future voters in an election will become an issue which may yet save the immediate situation.


No comments: