This is delicious. The U.S. is trying to build international pressure against Russia’s occupation of the Crimea, of course, and guess who’s not playing ball? The country for which we veto resolutions in the Security Council condemning its illegal colonization project, for whom we’ve alienated the good opinion of much of the Arab world.
And the U.S. is reportedly angered at Israel for not helping out. From Haaretz, Barak Ravid:
White House and State Department officials in Washington have built up a great deal of anger over Jerusalem’s “neutrality” regarding Russia’s invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. Senior figures in the Obama administration have expressed great disappointment with the lack of support from Israel for the American position on the Ukraine crisis and with the fact that the Israeli government puts its relations with the United States and with Russia on the same plane.
One senior U.S. official noted that one of the reasons for the anger in the White House was Israel’s absence from the UN General Assembly vote about two weeks ago on a resolution censuring the Russian invasion and expressing support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
… While the Americans viewed Israel’s behavior as ungrateful, in light of Washington’s unshakable support for Jerusalem in the UN, in the Kremlin and in the Russian media Israel’s action was seen as an expression of support for Moscow, or at the very least a lack of opposition to the invasion of Ukraine.
…Adding more fuel to the flames in Washington were public remarks by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in which they maintained their “neutrality” and failed to back up the United States.
I’m not behind the U.S. on this one; I’ve found Stephen Cohen’s comments and articles about the two Ukraines and the new Cold War instructive. But it goes to show, the special relationship works so long as it serves Israel. It’s not been based on an American interest.
Thanks to Scott McConnell.
When will the US ever learn? They are expected to bend over backwards, expend enormous amounts of money and effort to support a right wing segregationist, expansionist, undemocratic state, only to find that state cares nothing about US interests or its citizens. A reckoning will surely come, when Israel finds that it has sucked the goodwill dry, exploited and manipulated its host too often.
This surprised me. What is Israel getting from Russia? (Not that I have any dog in the fight here–haven’t looked closely enough at the Ukraine situation to have an opinion.)
Phil, I am pleased you have read up on Professor Stephen Cohen’s opinions on Ukraine, although the article in the piece above is behind a pay wall, I have read other article by him, he sure knows what he is talking about. In my opinion the present government of Ukraine is illegitimate, here is a complaint I sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13th March 2014, needless to say I have had no response as of yet, nor do I expect one ever.
In a statement to the House of Commons on 4th March 2014, the Foreign Secretary deceived the House about the legitimacy of the new regime in Ukraine. He led the House to believe that the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, had removed President Yanukovich from power on 22 February 2014 in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that therefore “it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities. It is simply untrue that the Rada followed the procedure laid down in the Ukrainian constitution to impeach and remove a president from power.
Article 108 of the Ukraine constitution has four circumstances whereby a President can be replaced, the powers of the President of Ukraine terminate prior to the expiration of term in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) death.
The procedure, laid down in Article 111 of the constitution, is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.
Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president’s guilt for the Rada to consider.
Prior to a final vote to remove a president from power, it requires
(a) The Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
(b) The Supreme Court of Ukraine must certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.
The Rada didn’t follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February 2014, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.
Furthermore, the bill wasn’t even supported by three quarters of the members of the Rada, as required by Article 111 for the removal of a president from office – it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).
Justifying UK support for the new regime in Kiev in the House of Commons on 4 March 2014, the Foreign Secretary said:
“Former President Yanukovych left his post and then left the country, and the decisions on replacing him with an acting President were made by the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, by the very large majorities required under the constitution, including with the support of members of former President Yanukovych’s party, the Party of Regions, so it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities.”
The Ukrainian President had not resigned, he is still the legitimate President of Ukraine, therefore the Foreign Secretary’s statement was a calculated deception of the House of Commons, designed to give the impression that the procedure prescribed in the Ukrainian constitution for the removal of a president from office had been followed, when it hadn’t.
Because this statement was fundamentally wrong can I be assured that the Foreign Secretary will tell the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity, and through them the British people, that the statement he made on 4th March 2014, was false.
I await your response
Harry Law.
I love the body language in the photograph. Nutanyahu is giving his best shot at his cliche death ray ‘you will obey’ stare, and Putin is laughing in his face.
Given the history of occupation by itself, I was anticipating that Israel would support the occupation by Russia . Given the prominent and succeesful role of the Jeiwsh persons in the politics and the finances, I was expecting that they would support the current Ukraine government as legitimate and flow with US/EU.
But is also possible to opt for the status quo( Crimea under Russia, Ukraine under the current financial and political leadership) which Israel is doing.
But it is surprising that Israel has been going against US,supporting Russia,and the media here in US are silent on the behavior of it’s(US) only ally in the world who shares US values , threat to the security, and who was even established on the same prinicple and determination based on same releigious impulses as that of the US!( according to the Israeli firsters)
But is there another explanation? Is this the things Tablet and J Post have been talking about -pivoting away from US and towards to Russia ( later to China and India if situation demands )?