web analytics
March 7, 2015 / 16 Adar , 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


What Are They Thinking?

This past April, with the U.S. voting “yea,” the United Nations General Assembly approved the first UN treaty regulating the international arms trade. The ostensible goal is to curb transfers of weapons that would violate embargoes or abet acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. More recently, Secretary of State Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the U.S.

While keeping weapons out of the hands of those who would misuse them is a good thing, context is all-important with most such issues, particularly when the UN is involved. And the context here should raise red flags for anyone concerned about U.S. security interests and the growing international efforts to isolate Israel.

To be sure, it now appears that despite Mr. Kerry’s signature on the document, the treaty will not become legally binding on the U.S. In order for that to happen, the treaty would have to be ratified by at least a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate in the exercise of its “advise and consent” power. But fifty senators recently joined in a bipartisan letter to President Obama declaring their opposition to the treaty, thereby making a two-thirds vote to ratify impossible. In addition, the House of Representatives must pass legislation funding the implementation of the treaty – and a bipartisan group of 181 House members also issued a letter opposing the treaty.

But there is still the perplexing matter of Mr. Kerry’s assent.

For one thing, after the administration laid down the “red line” that the U.S. would support the treaty only if it was adopted by a consensus vote in the General Assembly, the secretary of state still went along with a vote of 154-3 (with 23 abstentions). This is not just a bookkeeping issue. Unanimity is a vital principle for the U.S. with regard to the General Assembly since the overwhelming majority of UN member states are aligned against the U.S. on most issues. This therefore represents a dangerous precedent.

Further, the treaty allows for amendments by a three-quarters majority vote, which means that as the treaty is inevitably amended pressure will mount on the U.S. to comply with changes it never envisioned or agreed to.

Even more apparent is the threat to Israel, which will continue to come under withering assault at the UN for alleged war crimes, state terrorism and crimes against humanity, only now the U.S. will face restrictions in providing military support. The treaty covers tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, attack helicopters, warships and missiles.

Typically for the Obama administration, the State Department is seeking to end-run congressional opposition, arguing that the U.S. cannot violate the “object and purpose” of a signed treaty even if it was never ratified. Administration mouthpieces also suggest they can implement the treaty through existing funds rather than requesting new appropriations.

Plainly, the Senate and House letters are not enough. Many are calling for congressional hearings as well. It is important that the public be aware of what is going on.

President Obama has gone to great lengths to reassure Israel that the U.S. will always have its back. And he is acutely aware of the disdain with which most member nations of the UN view the U.S. So what are he and his secretary of state thinking?

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “What Are They Thinking?”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., the United States, calling for rejection of a bad nuclear deal with Iran, on March 03, 2015.
Post-Bibi Bipartisanship May Result in Congressional Ability to Review Iran Deal
Latest Indepth Stories
Ron Prosor

Values at the very heart of the UN are threatened by extremist ideologies targeting our way of life

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Anti-Semitism today focuses on Israel and the quest to delegitimize it.

Ballots for elections "made in Samaria."

Any Jew who ties his fate to Israel should be able to vote in Israel’s elections-even before aliyah

A young Moshe Meir Weiss introduces his mother, Mrs. Agnes Weiss Goldman, to Rav Moshe in 1979.

There were no airs about him. Rav Moshe was affectionately known as the Gaon of Normalcy.

Israel’s full sovereignty over a united Jerusalem is the only path for true peace in the region.

Just like Moses and Aaron, Mordechai decides to ruin the party…

The president has made clear – I can’t state this more firmly – the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.

Obama has an apparent inability to understand Islam in particular and Mid-East culture in general

Pesach is a Torah-based holiday whose fundamental observances are rooted in Torah law; Purim is a rabbinic holiday whose laws and customs are grounded in the rabbinic tradition.

In honor of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s successful speech before Congress.

Mr. Spock conveys a message with painfully stark relevance to our world today, especially in the context of PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

Obama created the “partisan politics” by asking Dem. party members to avoid Bibi and his address

Enough is enough. The Jewish community has a big tent, but the NIF should have no place in it.

I vote for the right and get left-wing policy. Every. Frigging. Time.

More Articles from Editorial Board

The real issue is that in many respects the president has sought to recalibrate American values and our system of government.

Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, provided one of the clearest and most compelling analyses we’ve seen of the importance of the prime minister’s speech.

Gone are the days when an anchorman sitting in a New York studio could, after sharing 22 minutes of carefully selected and edited news items, trumpet in stentorian tones, “And that’s the way it is.” No it wasn’t. It never was.

President Obama has frequently cautioned that Americans should take great care to avoid fomenting anti-Muslim passions in our reaction to the murderous activities regularly being perpetrated by terrorists in the name of Islam. One wonders why, though, he seems to have no concern with the potential for anti-Semitic fallout from his full-court press against Israeli […]

Typical of the administration’s milquetoast approach is the lack of any call for a substantial increase in military resources in order to crush ISIL, only a tepid mention of the need to “ultimately defeat” it.

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

In this particular case, the issue was whether the Arkansas prison system could prohibit, for security reasons, a devout Muslim’s maintaining a beard of a certain length as a matter of religious practice.

According to Natan Sharansky, director of the Jewish Agency for Israel, France was the largest source of Jewish emigration to Israel last year and he believes as many as 15,000 French Jews may make aliyah in 2015.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/what-are-they-thinking/2013/10/23/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: