Senate Ignores Samantha Power’s Anti-Israel and Blame-America-First Statements

| July 31 2013
John Walker

Samantha Power Heads to the United Nations

Presidents usually get what they want when they make nominations to fill cabinet posts and other top administration positions. President Obama is no exception.

samantha-power_israel_united_nations_senate_confirmationNevertheless, as Obama moved this year to fill cabinet posts at Defense, Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency, his nominees stirred controversy before gaining Senate confirmation.

Samantha Power, the president’s nominee to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations, is no stranger to controversial statements. Regardless, she sailed through her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate soon.

Power is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School. She is a bona fide Obama loyalist. She worked as a foreign policy adviser to Obama when he was a senator and served on the National Security Council during Obama’s first term.

Power’s statements on America’s foreign policy transgressions as well as her criticism of Israel have been well known for years. The statements were largely ignored during her Senate confirmation hearing in what some observers saw as a blatant rewrite of her record.

Here are highlights of Power’s controversial record as compiled by

discoverthenetworks.org.

  • Power has a long record of antipathy towards Israel. In 2001, she attended the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, even after the U.S. had withdrawn most of its diplomatic participation once it became apparent that the gathering would give prominence to anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic perspectives.
  • Just months later, during a 2002 interview, Power said that even if it meant “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import” (i.e., Jewish Americans), the United States should stop investing “billions of dollars” in “servicing Israel’s military” and invest the money instead “in the new state of Palestine.” Moreover, she accused Israel of perpetrating “major human-rights abuses” and “war crimes.”
  • In a 2003 New Republic article, Power suggested that U.S. officials could enhance their credibility with foreign countries by publicly apologizing for America’s past failures and transgressions. She bemoaned the fact that America’s “exceptionalist impulses” had been “with us for a long time,” and that they animated George W. Bush’s “militant moralism.”
  • In her 2004 review of Noam Chomsky’s book, Hegemony or Survival, Power agreed with many of Chomsky’s criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and expressed her own concerns about what she called the “sins of our allies in the war on terror,” lumping Israel together with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. She called Chomsky’s work “sobering and instructive.”
  • In a 2007 interview, Power said that America’s relationship with Israel “has often led foreign-policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics which… can turn out to be counterproductive.” The United States, she explained, had brought terrorist attacks upon itself by aping Israel’s violations of human rights.
  • In early 2008, Power served as a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign. She was forced to resign from the campaign in March, however, after it was learned that she had referred to Obama’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, as “a monster” whose modus operandi was “deceit.”
  • Soon after leaving the campaign, Power publicly praised Obama for stating that he would be willing to meet, without preconditions, with leaders of rogue nations during the first year of his administration.

When Power takes up her post at the U.N. in New York, she will encounter the organization’s long-held hostility to the United States and Israel. Her performance will reveal if she acts in the interests of the United States or reflects her views written on the record for all to see.

12 comments
MattMcLaughlin
MattMcLaughlin

Go back and look at what the late William Scranton said when he went to the Middle East and returned at the request of Nixon: He said in so many words:quit being Israel's b-word!

p.61
The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process
By Herbert Druks
avail on-line google books

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

@MattMcLaughlin @dleeper47 @WesternFreePress 

Interesting. You sound knowledgeable, and I think I'm learning something new. 

In the past, I've judged the tree by its fruit rather than the other way around, as you evidently do. Maybe I've been wrong all along ... (?)

So ... was America "created by democracy"?

MattMcLaughlin
MattMcLaughlin

@dleeper47 @MattMcLaughlin @WesternFreePressThe Balfour Declaration, the most important event in modern Israel's history, was not democracy. It wasn't even debated in English Parliament. It was handed down by the %1. B) israel will need to adjust its borders soon or it will either be a Jewish state OR a democracy, not both. Rght now Palestinian spouses of Jews in Israel are denied the right to vote. C)Thats a stupid question.

MattMcLaughlin
MattMcLaughlin

@dleeper47 @WesternFreePress @MattMcLaughlin At some point you'll recognize the fork in the road, being an Israeli groupie or an American concerned with democracy. The Balfour Declaration, the most important event in modern Israel's history, was not democracy. It wasn't even debated in English Parliament. It was handed down by the %1, Balfour being in Ireland before Palestine attempting to ruin home rule for the Irish. All of truman's Defense dept advising him not to recognize Israel, including General George Marshall. Caught up in Protestant mythology concerning Palestine Truman was the first to recognize Israel, although no aid was sent for Israel. Britain at this time did not recognize Israel, and it was Brit officers who aided Jordan in its attempt to defeat Israel. Churchill, Kennedy, Nixon all never intended Israel to have atomic defense. Now the USA has a rogue state with nuclear capabilities which remembers us doing nothing as the ovens were filled 1933 to mid-1942, THAT mere help for European Jews, gypsies etc was dependent on the Japanese having bombed Pearl Harbor and was not forthcoming without the Hawaiian event.


WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

@MattMcLaughlin I don't wish to get too far into the weeds with you---my view is this: Antipathy towards the one Jewish state in the whole world; opposition towards its continuance as a Jewish state (favoring the progandistically named "right of return," e.g.); focusing so much opprobrium on a tiny nation surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction; critiquing this one Jewish nation for actions it takes in its own defense while ignoring abject savagery in other (non-Jewish) corners of the world; offering concession after concession to forces that have no interest in peace, and whose stated goal is to drive every Jew—not every Zionist, every JEW—into the sea . . . . these things are, from a consequentalist viewpoint, de facto Jew hatred. It may not be the old-school, openly racist, redneck version, it may even be somewhat unwitting, but at the end of the day, it's a distinction without a difference.

You are, of course, free to see the matter differently.