Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
SAN DIEGO, May 19, 2011 —In America’s fine tradition of presidents who can’t seem to throw in the towel and give up on a pesky, turbulent part of the world, President Obama followed suit today. As part of a much broader speech on Middle East uprisings, Obama spent a considerable portion of time addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To his credit, Obama defended Israel by saying; “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”
Although well spoken, this cannot be emphasized nearly enough. The policy of our own nation, articulated by George Bush on the heels of 9/11, is to never make deals with terrorists or countries that harbor terrorists. And yet, Israel has been continually pressured to do just exactly that. Kudos to Obama for at least appearing to appreciate the hypocritical dilemma our nutty world loves to put Israel through.
Unfortunately, logic and fairness did not prevail for very long. President Obama (never one to be mistaken for Harpo Marx) moved on with his favorite hobby of long speech making:
“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
When you speak of old borders, Mr. President, have you forgotten your history? In 1967, 9 different nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) mutually pledged their armies for Israel’s destruction. Egypt enthusiastically promised to destroy the tiny state.
“Egypt is ready to plunge into a total war that will be the end of Israel” (Radio Cairo, May 17, 1967).
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq also offered some fun inspiration: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map” (Isi Leibler, The Case For Israel, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972) p. 18.)
The issue was not a two state solution, but rather a no state solution: No Israel! It didn’t turn out as Iraq and Egypt expected. Instead, Israel surprised all of civilization with a preemptive strike, defeating her enemies in just six days. At that time, Israel’s territory was expanded to the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and the remainder of Jerusalem, half of which had been taken over by Jordan after a 1948-49 war, also aimed at Israel’s annihilation. This territory is frequently referred to as a part of Israel’s “illegal occupation.” Now let’s use our heads for a moment: Is it possible that Israel expanded her borders because she was threatened, rather than out of a desire to “occupy?”
Obama also called upon Israel to act “boldly to advance a lasting peace.” Excuse me, Mr. President, but didn’t Israel make bold steps when she gave over Gaza to the control of the Palestinians? Didn’t our peace loving Palestinians repay her by firing missiles from Gaza into Israel? Exactly why should Israel expect any other course of action if she returns to pre-1967 borders?
And, Mr. President, since you yourself acknowledged that Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, are you also aware that the Palestinian charter itself does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and that Israel usually does not appear on maps in Palestinian schools?
If you are so nostalgic for old borders, Mr. President, how about the original land promised to Israel by the League of Nations through the Balfour Declaration? Remember? 75 percent of what had been promised to the Jews was sold behind her back to the Arabs, creating a place we today call “Jordan.” Wasn’t that enough of a two state solution?
Or, how about that other two state problem solver, back in 1947, when the United Nations offered to break up the remaining 25 percent with both a Jewish and Arab state? The Arabs (who were not yet calling themselves “Palestinians”) rejected that idea as well, and instead joined attacking nations in an attempt to obliterate Israel.
True, some Arabs remained in Israel, and today they have more rights than most Arab citizens in any Arab country. But this coveted two state idea was rejected long ago, Mr. President, because Israel’s very existence is itself the only real problem to her neighbors.
Yes, Palestinians talk about a two state solution today, but history doesn’t seem to offer evidence that such a compromise will be enough. Neither does all their talk about a “right of return,” in which (according to a popular plan) all Arab families of refugees will move back to Israel on the heels of Palestine’s birth, and basically turn Israel into a “second Palestine.”
By the way, Mr. President, after the old city of Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan in 1949, Jews were not allowed to worship at their own temple site. Yet, strangely enough, ever since Israel’s “occupation” of Jerusalem in 1967, Arab Muslims have been free to worship at their mosque. Shouldn’t an action such as this speak volumes? When old Jerusalem is returned to the Arabs as part of the pre-1967 borders, what kinds of rights will Israel have to their own temple mount, especially with so many Arabs denying that Jews have any historical claim to the land whatsoever?
Mr. President, if you did not already know or ponder these facts, you are too ignorant to be offering advice. If you were aware, your motives may just be downright evil. In any event, the best thing you can do is back off and accept a painful reality check: The only two state solution Israel’s enemies are interested in is one where they share land by burying Jews underground and building their own houses above the ground.
Share this on
