OBAMA PUSHES FOR END OF ISRAEL
From 1967 borders, even with Obama's duplicitous back-peddling rhetoric of "territory trades" or "land swaps" — any compromise portends destruction for our only true and free Middle Eastern ally.
Barack Hussein Obama is the first American president to overtly seek to compel Israel to a position of disastrous weakness against those who would annihilate her. He has stated that Israel must withdraw to its indefensible 1967 "borders," that all negotiations with her Arab enemies ("peace partners") be based on what in fact were the armistice lines of 1949. This is the truth; all media and Obama faction spin to the contrary are lies.There are appalling and inescapable consequences to the shocking pronouncement by Obama than no amount of flim-flam can avoid, including indefensible borders that have historically proved an incitement to Arab aggression, the creation of 300,000 Jewish refugees in a new Arab state committed to Israel's destruction, and the overall security nightmare Obama's demands would create. Over 300,000 of Israel's residents currently live in the territories Obama just demanded that the Jewish state cede to a future "state of Palestine." The literal impossibility for Israel to protect her people and defend herself against future Arab attacks, (wars currently forestalled only by the presence of buffer zones and IDF personnel outside the lines Obama has declared Israel must cede) are obvious to anyone who can read a map.
It is a bold and promiscuous Obama lie that this speech is not a new departure — throughout it Obama carved out and systematically destroyed long-standing American assurances to Israel for her security and survival as a Jewish state. Obama proposed that Israel be obliged to negotiate with terrorists, in the new "coalition" of the Palestinian Authority's shared governance with the terrorist organization Hamas; that Israel withdraw to the indefensible 1967 borderlines; that this outrage proceed with Israel stripped of any American diplomatic guarantees regarding the right of return or disposition of Jerusalem.
All previous efforts by the United States to help negotiate a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians have memorialized binding American assurances of Israel's vital interests on these key strategic issues — ALWAYS with the resolute commitment that Israel's borders with her Arab neighbors were unresolved and had yet to be negotiated.
It is imperative to remember that before the Six Day War, these lines in the West Bank Obama now unilaterally seeks to enforce upon the Israelis as "borders" only marked where five attacking Arab armies were halted by the Israelis in the Pan-Arab invasion of the nascent Jewish state 19 years earlier. Legally, these are and ever have been only an armistice line, not a recognized international border, and this fact has been consistently reconfirmed in international diplomacy time and again. No Palestinian state ever historically existed with any claim mirroring these armistice lines. Never. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the Arab invasion, but its claim to sovereignty was not recognized by any U.N. members other than the U.K. and Pakistan. As Jordan's U.N. ambassador said before the war, the old armistice lines "did not fix boundaries." Thus the central fact of Israeli-Arab diplomacy for over 40 years has been that Israel, once her sovereign right to existence has been affirmed by legitimate "peace" partners, must negotiate an agreed-upon border with the Arab states surrounding her.
The keystone of all Israeli-Arab postwar diplomacy is U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967. It specifically does not demand that Israel pull back to the pre-1967 lines. Its withdrawal clause only calls upon on Israel to withdraw "from territories," not from all territories. Britain's foreign secretary at the time, George Brown, later underscored this vital distinction: "The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,' and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."
On April 22, 2004, Ariel Sharon told the Israeli Knesset what U.S. support meant for the Jewish state:
"There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the [19]67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the [19]67 borders and implementation of the term 'defensible borders.'"
"There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the [19]67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the [19]67 borders and implementation of the term 'defensible borders.'"
With his speech, Obama officially changed that U.S. policy — a fact which Netanyahu immediately was obliged to remind him of, and pronounce unacceptable to the Israeli government and people :
"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state."
That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.
Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.
Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.
Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.
Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.
Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel."
Those in the Obama media claque and throughout the Left who immediately took exception to the Israeli Prime Minister's tone did so because they do not see Netanyahu and Obama as equals, nor the relationship between the U.S. and Israel as one of equals. Israel is seen as our vassal state, who should take our aid, face her hordes of enemies stoically and shut up as Obama tees her up for annihilation.
George W. Bush, for all his faults, stood by Israel better than this. In the spring of May, 2008, after the "peace process" which Annapolis meetings were intended to restart had proven utterly fruitless (as might be expected due to the lack of the most basic of preconditions for participation — including recognition of Israel's right to exist), Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset:
"[T]he founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. …[T]he followers of Hezbollah chant 'Death to Israel, Death to America!' That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that 'the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties' …[T]he President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map…There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century."Obama refuses to acknowledge Jew-hatred by the Arab world, and made little of Hamas's open and declared dedication to Israel's utter destruction, completely ignoring the death-to-Israel sentiment that permeates the rest of the Palestinian leadership and population.
Why has Obama acted to undermine Israel and Netanyahu? There are both ideological and partisan political interests dangerously at work here upon Obama. Incredibly, Obama contends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a direct consequence of prior U.S. failure to treat Palestinian claims against Israel's mandate respectfully, and Israel's unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it won during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.
This fantasy misreading of history is colliding with reality, and making trouble for Obama. The recent Hamas-Fatah unity accord is indisputable proof that contrary to Obama's Leftist revisionism, the Arab-Israeli conflict is neither the result of previous U.S. administrations' support for Israel, nor of Israel's boundaries. It is not because America has been unfair or unkind to Muslims, nor unresponsive to the diplomacy of suicide bombers. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians' intransigent rejection of Israel's right to exist, and the violent, unyielding determination of the Muslim and Arab world to achieve Israel's destruction.
How so? What are the Palestinian peacemakers doing? The Islamic Republic of Iran is Israel's most openly declared enemy, dedicated to extinction of the Jewish people. Hamas terrorists have long been trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and by Hezbollah; Hamas maintains operational ties with these groups and receives most of its weapons and significant funding from Iran. The recent agreement between the PLO's Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a full partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas can now win the Palestinian legislative and presidential elections scheduled for this September, just after the deplorable U.N. General Assembly (now emboldened by Obama to further isolate Israel) will likely endorse Palestinian statehood. The Hamas-Fatah unity deal also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the U.S. trained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.
Forcing Israel into indefensible boundaries, (which as Netanyahu explained to Obama at the White House on Friday, "were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them,"), will not advance the cause of peace. It will advance the Palestinian and the greater Islamist goal of destroying Israel.
In making the statements he did, Obama irreparably weakened Israel's position in any possible negotiating process. The Israelis are on notice that Obama is not a president who cares anything for the Jewish state, nor will he lift a finger to defend her against her enemies. If Obama remains in office, what political leverage will either the Israelis or pro-Israel voters have with this man?
Obama has acted deliberately to undermine Netanyahu, an Israeli patriot and a defender of freedom I have long been proud to call my friend. Strategically, Obama has picked a fight with a crucial ally for ideological reasons (he doesn't want to change his mind about Palestinians and Jews) and for political gain with his Leftist base (he doesn't want to change his policies about Palestinians and Jews). Congress must act now to override Obama and avert the assured doom facing Israel by issuing a joint resolution declaring support for Israel, including her long-affirmed right to negotiate her own borders. As Benyamin Netanyahu rightly told Congress, Israel does not need America's troops. What she does need is real and reliable assurances, from real and reliable American statesmen, given before the entire world, that her greatest ally will not betray her to her enemies.
I implore you – STAND FOR ISRAEL and DEMAND CONGRESS DO THE SAME!
No comments:
Post a Comment