- OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS
- U.S. must 'change approach' to bridge division with Muslims
- Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders
- Abbas calls emergency Palestinian Authority meeting
- Knesset member: Obama is the new Arafat
- Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel
Without bothering to quote the articles, here's my say:
One. Obama should be smart enough to see that any return to pre-1967 borders would spell the end of Israel.
Two. Obama said today that it is the US's position to promote reform, and to support transitions to democracy in the middle east. Great! Israel is at present the only real democracy, yet Obama seeks to give a regime with NO democratic credentials, with stated and demonstrated antipathy toward this Israel's real democracy, a toe-hold in the destruction of said real democracy. In short, Obama supports the wrong side, and defining the US's policy goals as he did shows him to be clueless. It is the Palestinian Authority that's in need of democratic reforms.
Three. Netanyahu is correct in stating that the 1967 lines are indefensible. More than 300,000 Israelis would be left, essentially, behind enemy lines. And why the 1967 lines? What's so special about those lines? How about the lines that were promised Israel in 1920 via the British Mandate (1920-1946)? Why ask the only democratic nation in the middle east to surrender large swaths of land that make the defense of it's resultant borders indefensible? If Israel were given what they were promised, they possess ALL of Jordan as well as the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza. Obama is not concerned with Israeli security. He is only concerned with enabling the terrorists.
Four. Mahmoud Abbas, for his part, appears to want to continue the peace process, while Hamas is distrustful of Obama's motives. Be that as it may, Abbas still insists Jerusalem must be the capital of any Palestinian state, and this is an untenable demand for Israelis. The biblical implication of dividing Jerusalem is one thing, but the reality on the ground is another; Israel will not... en, oh, tee, NOT surrender any part of Jerusalem-- it would be too great a psychological blow to their national identity. How do I know this? Israel is preparing to rebuild the Temple. Why would they make the staggering amount of preparation they already have if giving up Jerusalem were even a remote possibility?
Five. Obama cares more about his own ideological positions than any real stated foreign policy. He says he wants to support reforms in the middle east and establish democracies, but his insistence upon surrendering (or even dividing) Jerusalem, as well as an impractical return to previous lines belies his stated goals. Bush was criticized for his support of Israel; some criticism going so far as to brand his policy as overtly Christian. On the flip-side, Obama claims to be Christian but bends over backward in insisting the Jewish state sacrifice its very existence for the illusory promise of a democratic Palestinian state.
The real threat to Israel today is not Pestinians or Hamas. Israel has shown itself to be the dominant superpower in the region. The real threat to Israel that undercuts all your arguments is that in ten years or less there will be more ethnic arabs living in Israel than jews.
ReplyDeleteHow can Israel continue as a democratic(actually republic) jewish state when jews are an ethnic minority?
What happens when arabs are denied government representation?
Why should the US support a state in the mideast that is such a linchpin of violence? How does that enhance US security?
"What happens when Arabs are denied government representation?"
ReplyDeleteSo we're more concerned about what hasn't happened, than we are with what is already happening? The continued barrage of attacks from the Palestinians? Let's worry about your concern over the denial of government representation to Arabs when it's actually happening. In the meantime, do the Israelis get ANY credit at all from the Left? An interesting question considering the violence on our border with Mexico. I guess the powers-that-be figure if we can allow the unchecked violence on our own border, allow the Mexican invasion to continue without any honest concern for defending our borders, then Israel can and should do the same? Should the US return to its pre-1845 borders and give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado back to Mexico?
"Why should the US support a state in the Mideast that is such a lynchpin of violence?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying Israel is a lynchpin of violence? Seriously? Israel wouldn't launch a single attack on any of its neighbors if its neighbors would simply stop attacking them? You have it the wrong way around. It is the Palestinians, who are the lynchpins of violence [though 'lynchpin' isn't a good choice of words in this regard, I get your meaning] in the region.
Israel is not the source of violence. Israel is the only democratic state in the region. All its neighbors have to do is recognize its right to exist, and there could be peace.
But there will be no peace. Not as long as Israel's neighbors insist on holding on to their desire to see Israel wiped off the map.
The US should be supporting Israel. Not seeking her destruction. Which is what it advocates when it insists Israel return to indefensible lines and forsake Jerusalem.
Besides which, there has never existed a nation of 'Palestine'. Palestine was a region which was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I when, after Britain seized control of much of the area, a "Mandate" was established... the British Mandate. The preamble of which declared:
ReplyDelete"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The mandate, as I wrote in the 3rd point of this post, consisted of ALL of Jordan, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and Gaza. Why are the pre-1967 lines so special? Why not return to the 1922 lines as described in the British Mandate? Why not return to the lines described by the Balfour Declaration of 1917?
In short, the so-called "Palestinian People" have never had a nation, they were an occupied people of the Ottoman Empire. There has never been a nation of "Palestine". That's not to say they can't have one if they renounce their stated desire of violence against the state of Israel. Let them renounce and live in peace FIRST... then when they've proven themselves trustworthy, then we can discuss the creation of a Palestinian state. Jerusalem, however, belongs to the Jews.
It appears I was duped into thinking Bush also supported a return to pre-1967 borders.
ReplyDeleteFrom Frontline Magazine 2004....
"As Refugees Forever"
--John Cherian
President George Bush's stance that the new realities on the ground in West Asia make a return to the situation as it existed before 1967 unrealistic means that Palestinians will remain barred forever from returning home.
Excerpt:
"The Bush Declaration of April 15 in the presence of Ariel Sharon is now viewed as a historical and political milestone similar to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917. Lord Balfour announced that the U.K. favoured the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine but emphasised "that nothing shall be done which will prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Since then it has been downhill for Palestinians. Before the creation of Israel, Palestinians owned 90 per cent of the land. The first Arab-Israeli war of 1948 left the Jews in control of 78 per cent of Palestine. Three quarters of a million Palestinians were displaced at that time. After the 1967 war, Israel occupied all the Palestinian land. Today Palestine nominally exists only in Gaza and a number of "bantustans". Two-thirds of Palestinians are either refugees or displaced people.
Now Palestinians will have to make even more sacrifices if Bush, Blair and Sharon have their way. President Bush declared on April 15 that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is expected that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities"."
Furthermore, both houses of congress endorsed Bush's letter to Israel.
It's just another example of today's media distorting the truth. Bush is vindicated by at least this much; that media loves to lie about him, and today's media, especially, loves to cover for Obama.
From Wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries,[1][2] as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life.[3]"
And then from Haaretz (Israel's largest newspaper) we get:
"Israel on Saturday morning launched the start of a massive offensive against Qassam rocket and mortar fire on its southern communities, targeting dozens of buildings belonging to the ruling Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian medical sources said that at least 230 people had been killed in the strikes, which began with almost no warning at around 11:30 A.M.
Some 780 were wounded in the fighting throughout the day, Palestinian medical officials said. "
That's just one retaliatory attack by Israel. So even if the Palestinians are inflating numbers wounded and killed by a factor of 10 then Israel almost equaled in one strike what Palestinian "terrorists" had done in eight years.
And then in Wikipedia you can see Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010
"According to the Israel Security Agency's annual report, Palestinians carried out 150 rocket launches and 215 mortar launches at Israel during the year. This represented a decrease in both types of attacks compared to 2009, in which there were 569 rocket launches and 289 mortar launches.[1][2]"
So the number of mortar and rocket attacks on Israel fell by more than half last year.
It's time Israel stopped taking American support for granted. They are a regional superpower. They can stand up for themselves. And our unequivocal support of their foreign policies have not been to our benefit.
So unless Israel is going to commit a holocaust or establish an apartheid of their arab citizens, then in a decade the underlying religious foundation for much of Israel's foreign policy will be swept away.
It takes a stiff-necked arrogant people to say, "We have enough guns and planes and nuclear bombs to destroy the whole global region, and you must appease us before we will make the slightest concession towards amicable existence."
Israel could just as easily recognize the right of Palestinians to a sovereign state. They could do it first. They could respond less maximally to insignificant provocations. They could help raise Palestinians up with schools and legitimate governmental organizations.
Yes the holocaust was bad but eventually Israel can't trade on that tragedy. We don't hold modern Germany beholden to the crimes of Nazi Germany. Why do Israel's foreign policies get a free pass?
Regarding your last, Eric, and the exerpt posted, it is my understanding that no pallies were displace. They abandoned their homes in order to allow for the total annihilation of the Jews that they thought would occur. They were wrong and now claim to have been driven away. It is also my understanding that Israel welcomed those Arabs already living in the area to be citizens of Israel with them.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'.
Blogger has this new spam filter that's keeping some comments from being posted. Mark, Marshall, or myself will have to keep an eye on the pesky feature. I noticed one comment from Jim, from some time back, that was reposted several times in an attempt, I can only assume, to get his comment to post.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the problem. Had I known about this sooner...