As they say, "the devil is in the details":
Among his announcements, the president highlighted his new Atrocities Prevention Board, an initiative aimed at preventing genocide and related social ills. What’s most interesting about the bold proposal, though, is the individual who will chair the board — Samantha Power.
Why is she noteworthy, you ask? To begin, Power has a complicated history with the Obama camp and has been accused, in the past, of making disparaging remarks about Israel. The Chicago Sun-Times has more about Power and her involvement in the new-found genocide prevention board:
Samantha Power — who won a Pulitizer Prize for her book on genocide and now advises the Obama administration on the subject–will chair President Barack Obama’s new Atrocities Prevention Board, which gets down to work Monday
You may also remember Power from her role in Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign (she resigned after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster”). She’s also the wife of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ Administrator Cass Sunstein (of “Nudge” fame).
“Now from her perch on the national Security Council, she is in a position to make the case for the commander in chief and to watch him translate her ideas into action. She’s clearly the foremost voice for human rights with in the White House, says Kenneth Ross. She has Obama’s ear. The Irish‑born Miss Power…functions as kind of an institutional memory bank on genocide,”
“So we have Cass Sunstein’s wife advising on the Responsibility to Protect,” Glenn said “If you’re in the circle of George Soros, she was a queen. George Soros immediately funded a group to push the Responsibility to Protect.”
“[UN official Richard Falk] has been pushing for the right to protect or the Responsibility to Protect to be used against Israel and they’ve been trying this now for the last couple of years, and that’s what this is really all about, period. This is about going after Israel,” Glenn said. [Emphasis added]
Wait - it gets worse (note the bolded comments):
Considering this information and her past comments about Israel, The Lid blog wonders if Powerwill use her position on the Atrocities Prevention Board “as a tool to de-legitimize Israel.” The blog notes that, in 2002, Power sat down with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following:
“Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?”
Power’s response, in the eyes of those who support Israel, was problematic, as she claimed support for “external intervention” in the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma and said that it’s important to consider the “lesser evils” associated with getting involved in alleviating the issue. She also, at one point in her commentary, claimed that Middle Eastern leaders — including Israel, it seems — are “destroying the lives of their own people.” Here is a portion of her response, word-for-word:
“What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line…and putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean…investing literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israeli military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine.
In investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what would to be, I think, a mammoth protection force…a meaningful military presence because it seems to me at this stage — and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there — but is that you have to go in as if you’re serious. You have to put something on the line and unfortunately the position of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful, it’s a terrible thing to do its fundamentally undemocratic.”
I have always felt that the "confirming the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 would have to (by necessity) involve sending in ground "peace-keeping" forces to Israel. The basis for this belief is the fact that all previous attempts at peace covenants in Israel and the surrounding enemies were met with significant violence which subsequently disrupted any possibility to confirm such a covenant. 1993 and the Oslo Accords immediately comes to mind.
With the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, the rationale would be in place to send in such peace-keeping forces, which would effectively "confirm the covenant".
This is very big news and worth watching very closely in the coming months. The fact that we now have a formal organization to implements such action - coupled with the fact that the main players are devoutly opposed to Israel gives even more credibility to such speculation.