A Crimea referendum poster suggests that to vote against
annexation
is to embrace Nazi fascism: Is that why Israel hasn't backed the
U.S. in
opposing Russian annexation? In fact it is simpler than that.
Israel, too,
has annexed nearby territory.
'Annexing' Crimea and 'Uniting' Jerusalem (Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland)
"When the U.N. General Assembly condemned the annexation of
Crimea, Israel was among the 58 countries that didn't participate in the vote. ...
How is it possible that in a conflict that puts in doubt the entire global order,
one of America's key allies remained neutral? Where are all those universal
values about which Obama spoke so beautifully in Brussels? ... At the first
glance, this seems strange, but if you think about it for a moment, one has to
praise the Israelis for not being hypocrites."
President
Obama condemns Russia for annexing Crimea, yet one of America’s friends remains
silent on this outrageous subject, or is at least has being evasive.
We
refer here to Israel, which only a week after the occupation of the peninsula by
Russian troops, issued a statement saying that it is "following developments
in Ukraine with great concern, and hope that the crisis to be resolved
peacefully." Not a word of condemnation for aggression! Oleksandr
Feldman, a Ukrainian lawmaker who was in Jerusalem at the time, didn't hide
his disappointment. "We were expecting a clearer stance," he said.
Then
last Thursday [Apr. 3], when the U.N. General Assembly condemned the annexation
of Crimea, Israel was among the 58 countries that didn't participate in the
vote. How is it possible that in a conflict that puts in doubt the entire
global order, one of America's key allies remained neutral? Where are all those
universal values about which Obama spoke so beautifully in Brussels?
At
the first glance, this seems strange, but if you think about it for a moment, one
has to praise the Israelis for not being hypocrites. Since they themselves have
conducted an annexation, it's only natural and respectful for them not to
condemn Putin.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
I
am speaking about East Jerusalem, which was incorporated into Israel in 1980,
or 13 years after victory in the Six Day War. True, it
remains debatable whether the bill adopted by the Knesset was an act tantamount
to formal annexation, for one thing, because it lacks any mention of city
limits, describing only
a "complete and united Jerusalem." However, an amendment of the law
from the year 2000 does define those limits, together with the area acquired in
1967. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often repeats that an "indivisible
and united Jerusalem will be forever remain the capital of Israel."
In
August 1980, the Knesset vote was condemned and declared invalid by the U.N.
Security Council. In its Resolution
478, we can read, inter alia,
that " acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible" (the same
argument Obama is using today in respect to Crimea).
Out
of the 15 members of the Council, 14 voted in favor of the resolution, while
the United States abstained. That is how the notion became part of
international law. Its only practical effect, however, has been that every
countries in the world has their embassy in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem.
The
U.S. Congress. moreover, didn't accept even that. In 1995, it passed a bill
obliging President Clinton to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem - and
if he failed to do so by June 1999, funding for all of America's diplomatic
posts around the world would be cut in half! For such an ultimatum directed at
their own government, 93 U.S. senators voted in favor (5 were against), as did 374
representatives (37 voting against).
Perhaps
no other vote better shows the power of the Israel lobby in Washington. American
diplomacy survived, because the bill stipulates that the president can (for
reasons of national security) delay the execution of the ultimatum for half a
year, which Clinton, Bush and Obama have done without hesitation 30 times since
1999.
The
text of that curious American bill does not use the word "annexation."
It only states that Jerusalem has been "reunified." President Putin
is likewise talking about the "reunification of Crimea with its motherland."
Both
annexations, or if you will, unifications, are thus quite similar. The
difference is that the Crimea issue had no chance to be introduced at the U.N.
Security Council, where Russia has veto rights. That’s why the resolution
condemning Russian annexation was adopted only by the U.N. General Assembly,
which is basically no more than a debating club, the decisions of which carry no
legal force.
Accordingly,
the annexation of Crimea is even slightly more legitimate, or strictly speaking,
less illegal, than the reunification of Jerusalem.
