Like CRAZY TX Judge, Romney Also Went There On Obama, the U.N., and "American Sovereignty"+

RE-Posted from Ian Reifowitz at Daily Kos

Thanks to our friend Hunter, you should all be aware of the truly insane wing-nuttery represented by Lubbock County (Texas) Judge Tom Head.

Here's what Judge Head had to say:

“He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked. 

“I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.

"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops.

What's truly frightening is the degree to which this kind of paranoia is prevalent in the minds of Republican voters. Over at the Huffington Post, Nick Wing made an incredibly important connection between Judge Head's "prediction" and statements made by the titular leader of the Republican party, Mitt Romney.

While it might seem outrageous that such a bizarre conspiracy theory is being promoted by an elected official -- as grounds to support a particular policy no less -- Head isn't the only one. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared to give some credence to the same theory in response to a question at a town hall in Ohio last month.

Here's the quotation from Romney:

"Turning to the United Nations to tell us how to raise our kids, or whether we can have the Second Amendment rights that our Constitution gave us, I mean, that is the wrong way to go, right? Do not cede sovereignty," Romney said. "I’m happy to talk there. I’m not willing to give American sovereignty in any way, shape or form to the United Nations or any other body. We are a free nation. We fought for freedom and independence. We are going to keep freedom and independence."

This kind of talk is rampant, by the way, in the right-wing media. And if Romney's remark about the 2nd Amendment leaves you scratching your head, you're not the only one. In case you missed it, this editorial from the Washington Times op-ed page goes right for the jugular. It's called "The U.N. Is Coming For Your Guns." Here's the opening paragraph:

The United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldn’t take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.

We have an elected Republican judge saying that President Obama will -- not might, will -- invite "U.N. troops" into our country and hand over sovereignty to the United Nations. We have the Republican nominee for President playing on exactly that kind of paranoia by promising he'll never "give American sovereignty in any way, shape or form to the United Nations," of course implying that Barack Obama will. That, by the way, is another of the many, many Romney attempts to "other" Obama and paint him as, in some way or another, "not American." 

 

What we have, folks, is one candidate for President who has sought to strengthen American national unity, to enhance the ties that bind together Americans of different races, cultures, regions, sexual orientations, and religious beliefs, and another whose campaign centers on exploiting the divisions and fears that separate us from one another.

 

That's the choice ahead of us this November.

Wrestling with our Angels

The history of the Jewish people has been a history fraught with hard decisions. In biblical times, Jacob has his name changed to Israel after an all night wresting match with an angel in Genesis 32: 24-30,

^24-25  But Jacob stayed behind by himself, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he couldn't get the best of Jacob as they wrestled, he deliberately threw Jacob's hip out of joint.
 ²⁶ The man said, "Let me go; it's daybreak."
   Jacob said, "I'm not letting you go 'til you bless me."
 ²⁷ The man said, "What's your name?"
   He answered, "Jacob."
 ²⁸ The man said, "But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it's Israel (God-Wrestler); you've wrestled with God and you've come through."
 ²⁹ Jacob asked, "And what's your name?"
   The man said, "Why do you want to know my name?" And then, right then and there, he blessed him.
 ³⁰ Jacob named the place Peniel (God's Face) because, he said, "I saw God face-to-face and lived to tell the story!"

Current times are no different and now the American and Israeli Jewish communities face some difficult decisions. The week of the Palestinian push for Statehood at the United Nations is here and what happens this Friday will alter the course of relations in the region for years to come. Oh, maybe not at first but, down the line this will be a "game changing event".

At the end of this week the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas will ask the United Nations Security Council for a vote on Statehood. As things currently stand, the United States is planning on vetoing this measure (or so it has announced). Both the United States and the European Union favors direct negotiations over this move but as far as anyone can see only the U.S. is planning a veto.

As for the main players.. .the Israeli people strongly oppose this move though there are widely dissenting opinions on how to handle it. Interestingly enough, the Palestinian People are mixed on this. Palestinian polls offer widely differing opinions on the matter. According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

83% support going to the UNSC to obtain recognition of Palestine as a state. Moreover, 74% believe that there is no point in returning to negotiations with Israel without acceptable terms of reference or without freezing settlement construction and that therefore president Abbas is right in seeking UN involvement.

The Palestine Center for Public Opinion had this to say:

Whilst (59.3%) of the respondents are of the opinion that it’s necessary to go first back to the negotiations with Israel as to reach a permanent peace with the Israelis then resort to the UN, (35.0%) however support going directly to the UN seeking the recognition of the Palestinian state unilaterally without the need for concluding a peace accord with the Israelis.

So if the people involved are so divided, how should American progressives and liberals look at this upcoming vote and it's implications for The United States and the region?

First of all, it should be a given that this measure has enough votes to pass the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It most likely has Security Council support or at least abstentions from everyone BUT the United States (who plans to veto). Given this America now needs to make an informed and important decision.

For American progressives and liberals this question is fraught with pitfalls, longterm traps, and really no good answers. On one hand, there are many reasons to support the Palestinian quest for Statehood (a quest I support along with supporting the maintenance of a strong Israel as the Nation State and Homeland of the Jewish People), from the yearning of the Palestinian people to be free to run their own polity to the necessity of maintaining the Jewish people's legitimate rights to self-determination. On the other hand, the Palestinian Polity is badly fractured between a group that actively calls for the destruction of the State of Israel (Hamas)and a group of individuals that are committed to creating a State that considers Jews as settlers in the land and talks of their expulsion of an ethnic group (Fatah/PLO). Neither Fatah/PLO or Hamas represent anything remotely progressive or liberal in their polity. SO... the question remains what should the U.S. do.

Further complicating the matter for the American team is a potential draft of wording on the resolution which DOES NOT call for establishing borders based on June 4th, 1967 armistice lines but on declaring Statehood and deciding borders based on negotiations (land swaps) of those borders at a later point. This position has been a big part of the American position regarding the resolution of borders for the conflict.

SO... here is a short list of the political and realistic Pro's and Con's of an American Veto:

CON'S (Why a veto would be bad)

1. America's standing and prestige in the area will take a hit. American prestige is already low and is being challenged by both Turkey and Iran (who are also lining up as opposing forces). This symbolic move for statehood is popular both with the "street" and with governments within the region. A U.S. veto would be go directly against these wishes and would inflame the Arab "street" making relations with the U.S. difficult. Though many of the governments involved here (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc....) have strong ties to the U.S. they would be faced with massive unrest should they continue their relationships with the U.S.

2. Ultimately the Palestinian people need a State and as such will keep asking the United Nations for recognition.Despite the wishes of the Israeli ruling coalition and the U.S. administration, this move will succeed in the U.N. at some point even if it does not succeed in the UNSC. It will pass the UNGA this time around. Should there be responsible behavior on the part of the Palestinian polity it is just a matter of time for it to pass the UNSC as well. When the U.S. veto's the Palestinian resolution it will further reduce America's diminshed ability to influence behaviors of the Palestinian Polity.

3. This measure would bring about strong international pressure to actually end the conflict. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this would force their Right Wing into decision making mode and there would be no more ambiguity to what position they would take regarding a number of issues involving the West Bank and Jerusalem. As the colloquial saying goes... at this point Israel would have to "Shit or get off the pot" relative to what they see as the fate of the occupied territories.

PRO'S (Why a veto is the right thing to do)

1. This will do nothing to settle the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Given recent Palestinian pronouncements regarding ethnically cleansing Jews from their territory, pronouncements on Right of Return, and Hamas' recent signal that they might accept the Palestinian move at the U.N. as long as the future Palestinian State refuses to recognize Israel. The Israelis are simply not going to end their occupation because this measure passes. Far from that, what will likely happen is that the security meme will become dominant (as it is already) and that even Israeli Center - Left groups will adopt the Center-Right's narrative on Security (see my article Avodah Rising). This in turn would lead to conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians and could even lead to a violent Third Intifada.

2. The Palestinian polity is simply not ready for this despite the popularity of such a move. There is no coherency or unity there. Should there be a State, it would be a split policy with Hamas ruling part of the State and the Palestinian Authority ruling the other part. Who would anyone negotiate with as far as borders or peace? It potentially could set off a Palestinian Civil War, a conflict that could explode in other parts of the Arab world.

3. Unilateralism does not solve conflicts. The U.S. (rightly so) feels this issue should be settled through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The U.S. feels that it is not up to the United Nations to set borders between two nations and that only direct negotiations between the parties involved can do that.

4. The United States made a pledge to Israel, Whether right or wrong, the U.S. has "made it's stand". What would this tell our allies about what our words mean? Not too mention that Israel has been our strongest friend in the region. Not vetoing this would be seen as us turning our back on some of our best friends in the world.

So given what we are facing we are indeed faced with a task no less than Jacob was when he wrestled with an angel of G-d. He was wounded in the fight (as was evidenced by his permanent limp following the battle) but he emerged stronger and with the new name of Israel. How we wrestle with our own angels will determine how we come out of this fight.

P.L.O.: "PALESTINE SHOULD BE FREE OF JEWS"

AND... There we have it.

Saying that it would be in the best interests of all concerned, the P.L.O.'s Ambassador to the United States, Maen Areikat commented that the future Palestinian State would be "free" of a Jewish minority.

From Haaretz:

"Answering questions on minority rights in a future state, Areikat was quoted by USA Today as saying on the possibility of a Jewish minority: "After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated."

This is significant in a number of ways:

1. For years "One State" advocates both Jewish and Palestinian talk about how the two peoples need to come together and can live together for a  "just" future. They pattern their philosophy on creating an idealized version of a "United States of Palestine" if you will. Now, some of these advocates are hardly sincere in their wish for Jews and Palestinians living together and really simply want to get rid of Israel... BUT for those that are sincere, they take a view that despite the history of the conflict and despite the intransigence found on both sides of this conflict people will somehow come together in peaceful co-existence.

Of course the main failing of the approach is it's complete ignoring of reality. America was founded as a non-religious, non-ethnic State. The ideal behind the U.S. was to create a society that was independent of ethnic, religious, or racial dogma. But the creation of Israel and the future creation of Palestine are based on providing homelands for specific ethnic groups of people. The divides between the sides are great and to think that these divides would be forgotten is naive at best.

In Europe (also touted as examples of modern tolerance), States only became multi-ethnic after years of strife and struggle a process that has not ended. Look for instance at the resurgent Right Wing in many European countries. Even in Scandinavia, touted as the most open societies on Earth, there is ethnic backlash and conflict.

2. This statement does not bode well for future peace efforts in the region. Only the most extreme members of the Israeli polity (National Union), advocate transfer of populations between Arab and Jewish States. Yes, Likud Coalition partner Yisrael Betainu has advocated positions similar to this, although even they don't go so far as to advocate that their can't be an Arab minority in Israel.

This comment by Ambassador Areikat seems to reiterate every talking point of the extreme right in the Israeli Polity and now gives them ammunition they need to say: "See, the Palestinians admit that they don't want to live with us, how can we make Peace with them."

3. More ominously, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.), the recognized body of the Palestinian people in the United Nations makes a statement like this what does this mean for a future in which Palestinians strive for a Right of Return to pre-1967 Israel. A return that would create another majority democratic Palestinian State next to the State of Palestine. Could Jew's live in that Israel as well? Using the P.L.O.'s logic the answer would be "Certainly Not". Given that how can Israelis/Jews think that there could possibly be a peaceful solution to this issue.

Of course, given this as well, how can Israelis take this statement as anything different from the Hamas statements calling for a Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River? Just today Hamas stated that they could not back the Palestinian move for the U.N.

Al-Bardaweel told the workshop that the consequence of getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state would also be recognition of Israel's boundaries.

"Going to the UN draws the borders of Israel, which was established on stolen lands and still has no borders," he said.

Abbas' UN bid, he explained, would mean that the Palestinian state would exist only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and not in all of historic Palestine, as Hamas wants.

Moreover, he said, once a Palestinian state is ratified, "the Palestinian resistance won't be allowed to fire one single gunshot at the Israeli occupation."

Given Hamas' advocacy for ONE PALESTINIAN STATE and the P.L.O. insistence that the two sides cannot live together.... how can Israelis/Jews take this information than anything other than what it is. A call for ethnic cleansing from BOTH sides of the Palestinian Polity. Moreover, the last sentence is chilling and a reminder that should there be a Palestinian State, Hamas rejects that it can't still shoot at Israeli targets, particularly since it considers Palestine occupied since 1948 NOT 1967.

4. This statement shows that the Palestinian Polity simply does not have it's act together on the eve of their U.N. move in the General Assembly. They are promising the world an ethnically pure state in an area where conflict defined by ethnicity is a major problem. What amazes me is that the PLO thinks that the Israelis would compromise along lines that the Palestinians can accept given the potential message being sent to the Israelis. Can the Palestinians really think that the Israelis would dismantle every settlement and move 300,000+ people back into Israel when the Palestinians just stated that Jews would not be welcome in their country????

My question to other progressives and the world community in general is: How can one support the creation of a State that supports the ethnic cleansing of a minority and plans to have no presence of a given minority in that country? What is progressive or even sane about this policy? I understand what Mr. Areikat is saying but honestly, it is a policy that speaks to the worst in all of us.

I call on those people of good will and of conscience to reject this statement and all of it's implications.