January 5, 2017 --

And so, at the end of his term, President Obama put the United States alongside the enemies of Israel. Why did his representative at the United Nations merely vote to abstain, and not support Security Council resolution 2334, the resolution to pressure Israel into surrendering to the demands of her enemies? LPR believes there is a tradition at the UN of not going from a no vote on a given issue directly to a yes vote – but that the first step away from a no (or yes ) vote is to abstain (rather than vote directly opposite the previous position). Accordingly, had the President Obama previously directed an abstention on a vote condemning Israel, the vote two days before Chanukah and Christmas, would indeed have been a yes vote, joining that “international community” from which the Obama administration contends Israel is today isolated.

Apparently this isolation did not keep Israel from being voted chair of the UN’s Sixth (Legal) Committee, this session of the UN General Assembly.

The New York Times, in its lead editorial December 17, “A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador,” sharply criticized the appointment of David M. Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel. The Times asserted that Mr. Freidman’s support for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, “would anger Arabs” and “provoke violence.” LPR would point out that at least since May 18, 1939, The New York Times has warned of Arab violence in an anti-Jewish contrext. Its editorial, “Palestine,” that day, supported the British White Paper closing Palestine to Jewish immigration notwithstanding the “barbarism” confronting Jews in Europe.

(The Nazi’s Kristallnacht pogrom throughout Germany occurred six months earlier.) The editorial explained that there was now so much “pressure on Palestine…that immigration has to be strictly regulated to save the homeland itself from overpopulation as well as from an increasingly violent resistance on the part of the Arabs.”

(One month later, June 14, 1939, as the Hamburg- American liner “St. Louis”,turned away from Cuba with some 900 Jews trying to flee Hitler, steamed back to Europe, another New York Times editorial declared that the “days” for “mass migrations” to the United States for “economic difficulties” were over. The population of the United States was then about 130 million. Today, with the U.S. population at about 325 miillion, the Times is rather more liberal on immigration issues. But then, the masses seeking entry to the U.S., today, are not known to be Jewish.)

For LPR, The New York Times lost any moral standing to comment on Jewry and the Middle East as of its cold-hearted editorials, May 18 and June 14, 1939, giving to Jewry the back of its hand. LPR will simply note that once again, to block actions due any sovereign nation, there comes The New York Times, warning –to the point of encouraging—yet more Arab violence against Israel.

Please G-d, January 20 and the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump cannot come soon enough, for as of noon, January 20, please G-d the United States will have a president who will stand alongside Israel, under attack for one reason and one reason only: because it is the Jewish State.