The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Washington Prepares to Leave the World
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

America’s best-that-money-can-buy legislators have passed into law the proposition that any international body that admits the state of Palestine as a full member shall immediately lose all US funding. In the past week this has meant US defunding of UNESCO leading to possible complete withdrawal from that organization if a bill proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham is successful. Graham defends the move to punish organizations for recognizing Palestine with “If the UN is going to be a body that buys into Palestinian statehood…then they suffer. It’s a decision they make.”

The Palestinians are likely to make a bid to join as many as sixteen other UN and non-UN international organizations, to include the World Bank, the IMF, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the International Criminal Court. They will likely receive overwhelming support from voting members, just as they did at UNESCO. Washington will be obliged to defund all those organizations and possibly cease participation in them, which will create, to say the least, an interesting situation all around.

One can reasonably argue that the United Nations is not worth the time, effort, and money that it consumes but there is a disturbing willingness on the part of Washington to abandon any pretense of an independent foreign policy where Israel is concerned. The US has absolutely no national interest that compels it to deny Palestinian statehood and is only making itself even more ridiculous and irrelevant internationally by punishing most of the world over an issue that should not even be in dispute. Many might welcome the withdrawal of America from the world’s stage since it has done little over the past ten years to deserve any respect, but unfortunately it won’t work that way. Barack and Hillary will still see themselves as international players and will no doubt continue to lead us down the well worn path to ruin blazed by the redoubtable George W. Bush.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel Lobby, United Nations 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. And how utterly insane to want to punish most of the world as retaliation for the sensible effort to achieve full membership for Palestine in the US. With “1967” borders.

  2. Membership in the UN, obviously not the US, for Palestine. With “1967” borders.

  3. tbraton says:

    “One can reasonably argue that the United Nations is not worth the time, effort, and money that it consumes but there is a disturbing willingness on the part of Washington to abandon any pretense of an independent foreign policy where Israel is concerned.”

    But the UN sure comes in handy when you seek authorization to wage war against a country that hasn’t attacked you and you want to completely by-pass Congress (as that pesky document known as the U.S. Constitution mandates). But, then, there are always NATO, the GCC and the Arab League to fill the gap.

  4. So the US essentially withdraws from the UN except for the UN Security Council, where it will continue to maintain its veto capability.

    This makes it easier for the US to “go it alone” when the time comes to start more wars against Iran, Pakistan, and probably others. It will veto any resolution that prohibits any such wars and won’t bother to try to get a resolution to permit such wars.

    That’s the whole point of this exercise. Bush said it first, and Obama said it later: the US will ignore any UN attempt to prevent the US and Israel from attacking Iran.

    The clear intent of the recent moves (Israel green lighting an invasion of Gaza, US building up forces in the Gulf, US building up reasons to attack Syria via “Responsibility to Protect”, etc) is to initiate attacks on Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran – and attempt to destroy ALL opposition in the Middle East.

    We are headed for a major regional war pitting the US and Israel (and their puppets in Saudi Arabia and the GCC) against at least four major oppositional states.

  5. cfountain72 says: • Website

    So wait a minute…Ron Paul is an ‘isolationist’ because he doesn’t want to garrison the world with US soldiers and sailors (but wants to have commerce with the entire planet), but Lindsey Graham wants to defund these international causes and sanction the crap out of nations 14,000 miles away–and he’s NOT an ‘isolationist’? We truly live in bizarre times.

    Peace be with you.

  6. tbraton – – I do not think France and Britain would have intervened militarily in Libya without the UNSC resolution(s).
    William Hague opposed the intervention even with the UNSC figleaf.

  7. R S Hack – – And let’s remember that France, Germany and Russia would not have supported the 2002 UNSC resolution, if the Bush administration had not assured them the US would not invade Iraq without a further UNSC resolution. The neocon stooge in the National Security Council, Condoleezza Rice, wanted to punish France and Germany for opposing the further UNSC resolution (unless the arms inspectors got more time to look for WMD in Iraq).

    R S Hack – – The 2002 UNSC resolution on Iraq was an essential element of the American warmongers’ planning.

  8. If this were a matter of principle this might be heroic. But merely for the expedient of keeping a fund raising minority on side in an election year, smacks of banana republic. There may be times to stand athwart international consensus, but this is surely not one of them.

    The world will move on without us and in the end, sooner or later, Washington will give in to reality.

  9. Pointsman says:

    A good number of these bought idiots are going to lose their seats next year, Phil. This is just one of many reasons why.

    We just have to keep pushing.

  10. Pointsman says:

    Somebody should make a list of the congressmen who went with Cantor on junkets to Israel and publish their names all over the Internet. Tea Party, OWS, whatever, everybody can get behind dumping the AIPAC zombies. US Congressmen are supposed to represent American foreign policy, not the latest whim of Bin-Yamin Natan-Yahu.

  11. tbraton says:

    “tbraton – – I do not think France and Britain would have intervened militarily in Libya without the UNSC resolution(s).
    William Hague opposed the intervention even with the UNSC figleaf.”

    I don’t think France and Britain could have overthrown Qaddafi without the participation of the U.S. military. I believe they ran out of missiles after two days. As it was, the little adventure cost the U.S. more than \$1 billion. I haven’t heard comparable figures for France and Britain.

    BTW, with respect to the Tonkin Gulf incident we discussed earlier elsewhere, check out this account on Adm. James Stockdale in Wikipedia:

    ” On August 4, 1964, Squadron Commander Stockdale was, again, one of the U.S. pilots flying overhead during the second attack which occurred in the Tonkin Gulf; unlike the first attack, which was an actual sea battle, no Vietnamese forces were believed to have been involved in this second engagement. In the early 1990s, he recounted: “[I] had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets—there were no PT boats there…. There was nothing there but black water and American fire power.” Stockdale said his superiors ordered him to keep quiet about this. He later said that while in captivity, he was concerned that he would be forced to reveal this secret about the Vietnam War.”

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.