A plan put forward by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and seconded by President Barack Obama, for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, was described in a speech by Obama at the State Department. The basis of negotiations would be a return to "1967" (pre-war) lines -- that is, the 1949 Armistice Lines -- and then, after Israel accepts this disastrous situation as the basis, there could be negotiations. This plan would give Israel indefensible borders, and a territorial width of merely 8 miles. Also, the post-1967 settlement enterprise would be wiped out completely, the Jewish cities, towns, and villages in Judea and Samaria and even half of Jerusalem being turned into areas for the placement of rocket launchers and missile launchers as happened in the Gaza Strip, with the eviction of over 500,000 Jewish residents, about 2/3 of them children. In Obama's speech, he seems to have ruled out Israel's very important security requirement of having a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley. Obama does this, as a lawyer might, by setting up a series of barriers to this. He proclaimed that security would be left in the hands of the Palestinians (so no Israeli security envelope), that the Palestinian entity would border Israel, Jordan and Egypt while Israel would border the Palestinian entity (so no border between Israel and Jordan and no security envelope), and that there would be a total withdrawal of Israeli military forces, to be carried out during a defined and agreed interval of time (so no long term military presence anywhere, including the Jordan River Valley). This was inserted to guide the Palestinians so that in the unlikely event that they might agree to Israel's security envelope needs, Obama overrules them and decrees that it cannot take place.
How this would work out can be seen by considering the effect on different types of warfare that would result. Rocket and missile attacks would be made relatively easy, since Israel's population centers would be in easy range of the rockets and missiles. So would airplanes landing or taking off from Israel's airport be in easy range.
The security envelope that Israel needs, and that Obama seems to have said "no" to, is needed to prevent the smuggling of weapons, including rockets and missiles, from outside into the Palestinian entity. It is also needed to prevent the infiltration of jihadis into the territory controlled by the Palestinian entity. Also, with events unpredictable in the Middle East in Arab countries, and revolution in the air, there is no way to predict what Islamist forces will gain power in revolutions there and what armies will try to conquer an Israel with a territorial width of merely 8 miles. An Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley would be able to resist and delay and armed invasion across the Jordan River, to gain time for Israel's reserve army to mobilize and fight against the armed invasion. Also, an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley could prevent jihadis from crossing in the other direction, into Jordan, to destabilize that country and lead it to becoming a radically-controlled state, which would be a danger to Israel.
It is unthinkable for Israelis to have to consider what would happen in case of a nuclear attack, say an atomic bomb being dropped on Tel Aviv by Iran. But it would be irresponsible if there were not anyone at all in the government of Israel that is willing to consider what might happen. Think about it. If a nuclear bomb were dropped on Tel Aviv, the blast and fire and enormous radiation would kill large numbers of people outright. But further from ground zero of the bomb, there would be people who survive, but who would have to be brought away from the site to a safer place away from the radiation hazard. Where could they go? The Jewish communities in Samaria would eagerly welcome them. Also, it would provide a place that is highly unlikely to be hit by an Iranian nuclear weapons, because the Jewish communities are distributed over a broad region, and because they are close to Jerusalem which is unlikely to be a nuclear target by Islamic Iran since it is a holy site in the eyes of Muslims, and because there are large numbers of Palestinian residents in the area. In fact, it has already been reported that there was at least one drill in which communities in Samaria pretended to admit Jewish refugees from some unnamed calamity. Likewise, there is room in Judea for receiving Jewish refugees from the nuclear attack. Certainly Jerusalem itself would welcome Jewish refugees, including the half of Jerusalem that Abbas and Obama want to make Judenrein in their ill-conceived plan. This shows two problems of the Abbas-Obama Judenrein plan for half of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. One is that the more than 500,000 Jewish residents would be expelled from there, and many would wind up in the Tel Aviv area where they would have the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb hanging over their heads. The other is that these regions, becoming Judenrein, would no more be amenable to accepting Jewish refugees than were many of the countries of the world during the Holocaust years -- and even worse, since the Palestinians have been at war with Israel and hate has been drummed into their heads for generations. The Abbas-Obama plan, then, is a plan for decreasing the number of survivors from a nuclear attack. Also, by making Israel a more tempting target, since an attack would do more damage, the Abbas-Obama plan also makes an attack more likely, since the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran would see a greater "reward" in lives for their nuclear attack.
The Abbas-Obama plan would result in indefensible boundaries for Israel with a territory merely 8 miles wide, without the essential security envelope including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley, with Israel unable to stop the rocket and missile attacks and unable to control the flow of rockets and missiles to the launchers, the situation would be that of the "Auschwitz borders" that Abba Eban spoke about years ago, there would be instability caused by Israel's enemies being aware of the precariousness of Israel's situation, and there would be more fatalities and more casualties from an Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, bringing about a greater likelihood that such an attack would occur.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
What back-to-'67 means: crush Israel's morale, crush Israel's defensibility, crush Israel's ability to negotiate
President Barack Hussein Obama has a plan for Israel. The basis of negotiations with the Palestinians will be a return to 1967 (meaning Israel goes back to the Armistice Lines of 1949, that is the cease fire lines of 1948), and then Israel and the Palestinians are invited to participate in mutually agreed swaps of land. That is, first Israel is required to commit to a return to pre-war 1967, and then it is allowed to trade if the Palestinians are willing. Trade what? Give up pre-1967 land.
This has several purposes before the actual negotiations for a trade begin.
The first objective of Obama is to crush Israel's morale, by requiring Israel to agree to give up the Western Wall (the holiest place where Jews are allowed to pray), the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (the holiest place where Jews can live), and the Temple Mount (the holiest place). Also, Israel is required to give up half of its capital city Jerusalem before the negotiations begin. Also, there is the reverse of Obama's amnesty program for half of Jerusalem's Jews and for all of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, 600,000 in all. These citizens of Israel would become illegal aliens, and be on the path to being expelled from their homes and communities, becoming displaced persons. Obama speaks of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, their inalienable rights, and their needs (including the needs of the people of Gaza). But for these 600,000 victims of Obama, they are not spoken of as people with aspirations, rights or needs. Perhaps Obama regards them as bumps on the road, perhaps as road kill. This would precede the negotiations, because Obama did not want any emotional issues to be dealt with at first, and producing this road kill is not an emotional issue for Obama. A poll of Israelis a few years ago showed that 96% would rather keep the Western Wall than have "peace". But this is not an emotional issue for Obama. The purpose of all this is to crush the morale of Israelis.
The second purpose, a very serious one, is to crush Israel's ability to defend itself. Israel would commit itself to lines that are indefensible boundaries, with a territory that is 9 miles wide. This would produce instability, and a temptation and empowerment of radical jihadis. But this isn't enough in crushing Israel's security. Obama's speech at the State Department also appears to have ruled out Israel's extremely important security need: a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley. This military presence would allow the Israelis to prevent rockets, missiles and other weapons and military equipment from getting into the West Bank, where rockets and missiles could be fired at planes in the air at Israel's airport, and which would allow rockets and missiles to be fired at Israel's population centers, which would not be far from the territory that the Palestinians would command. This military presence would also allow the Israelis to intercept jihadis heading across the Jordan River into the West Bank, to carry out terror attacks on Israelis. This military presence would also allow the Israeli military force there to delay any enemy armed attack across the Jordan River until the Israeli reserve army could mobilize. With revolutions sweeping the Arab world, there is no knowing what governments will be in power in the region several years from now, let alone in the longer term, so Israel has to be prepared for both an invasion coming from a new and hostile government right across the Jordan River, and for an invasion that originates somewhat further and forces the government of Jordan to allow it to go and fight against Israel. None of this matters to Obama, who wants to substitute worthless security "guarantees" instead of allowing an Israeli military presence to defend its vital survival interests. Obama himself even showed the value of guarantees by trashing the assurances that Israel had received from then-President George W. Bush, that American policy was for Israel to retain the settlement blocs, and that the Arab refugee problem needed to be solved outside of Israel. He even sent a letter stating that, and it was endorsed by both houses of Congress. Yet the Obama administration first insisted that no understandings or agreements existed, and later Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said that anyhow any agreements could not be enforced. Later Obama trashed these further by insisting that the basis of negotiations must be a return to 1967, and by ditching any specific requirements on the Palestinians so that the Bush understandings vanished down the memory hole. With that as an example, Obama wants Israel to rely on "guarantees". He has a sense of humor, I see. In any case, Obama has taken pains to be sure that Israel would not be able to defend itself, in the ways that are very important to Israel.
The third purpose of Obama is to eliminate Israel's ability to negotiate. Israel's negotiating chips are the territories that it won in the 1967 war. But Obama demands that Israel agree to give up that territory, to give up its negotiating chips, before the negotiations begin. So how can it effectively negotiate for reconciliation and security? It's like being asked to have an auction to sell one's stuff, but before the auction begins, one is strangely required to give away all of the stuff. How can one then have the auction? No matter, that's what Obama, in his role as advocate for the Palestinians, mentor to the Palestinians, and agent for the Palestinians requires of Israel.
Another item that Obama included in his speech was the requirement that the end result end up with contiguity -- that is, connectedness -- for the Palestinian entity. But since the Gaza Strip is miles away from the West Bank, separated by Israel, what Obama wants is for Israel to give up a strip of land to connect the Gaza Strip with the West Bank. This would give the jihadist terrorists and other Palestinian warriors a ready path between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it would sever Israel into two states. But no worry, the Palestinians are Obama's clients, so he gifts them with contiguity by removing it from Israel.
From Obama's statement about his plan, we can see that his purpose is to crush Israel's morale, crush Israel's ability to defend itself, and crush Israel's ability to negotiate (e.g., to recover its valuable assets and rights, to gain reconciliation, and to gain security). And if there are any agreed land swaps after Israel capitulated by agreeing to return to pre-war 1967, the land would be torn out of Israel's pre-1967 territory, allowing Obama to satisfy himself that he has helped to slice and dice Israel to prepare for the later attacks on Israel by radical jihadists.
This has several purposes before the actual negotiations for a trade begin.
The first objective of Obama is to crush Israel's morale, by requiring Israel to agree to give up the Western Wall (the holiest place where Jews are allowed to pray), the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (the holiest place where Jews can live), and the Temple Mount (the holiest place). Also, Israel is required to give up half of its capital city Jerusalem before the negotiations begin. Also, there is the reverse of Obama's amnesty program for half of Jerusalem's Jews and for all of the Jews of Judea and Samaria, 600,000 in all. These citizens of Israel would become illegal aliens, and be on the path to being expelled from their homes and communities, becoming displaced persons. Obama speaks of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, their inalienable rights, and their needs (including the needs of the people of Gaza). But for these 600,000 victims of Obama, they are not spoken of as people with aspirations, rights or needs. Perhaps Obama regards them as bumps on the road, perhaps as road kill. This would precede the negotiations, because Obama did not want any emotional issues to be dealt with at first, and producing this road kill is not an emotional issue for Obama. A poll of Israelis a few years ago showed that 96% would rather keep the Western Wall than have "peace". But this is not an emotional issue for Obama. The purpose of all this is to crush the morale of Israelis.
The second purpose, a very serious one, is to crush Israel's ability to defend itself. Israel would commit itself to lines that are indefensible boundaries, with a territory that is 9 miles wide. This would produce instability, and a temptation and empowerment of radical jihadis. But this isn't enough in crushing Israel's security. Obama's speech at the State Department also appears to have ruled out Israel's extremely important security need: a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley. This military presence would allow the Israelis to prevent rockets, missiles and other weapons and military equipment from getting into the West Bank, where rockets and missiles could be fired at planes in the air at Israel's airport, and which would allow rockets and missiles to be fired at Israel's population centers, which would not be far from the territory that the Palestinians would command. This military presence would also allow the Israelis to intercept jihadis heading across the Jordan River into the West Bank, to carry out terror attacks on Israelis. This military presence would also allow the Israeli military force there to delay any enemy armed attack across the Jordan River until the Israeli reserve army could mobilize. With revolutions sweeping the Arab world, there is no knowing what governments will be in power in the region several years from now, let alone in the longer term, so Israel has to be prepared for both an invasion coming from a new and hostile government right across the Jordan River, and for an invasion that originates somewhat further and forces the government of Jordan to allow it to go and fight against Israel. None of this matters to Obama, who wants to substitute worthless security "guarantees" instead of allowing an Israeli military presence to defend its vital survival interests. Obama himself even showed the value of guarantees by trashing the assurances that Israel had received from then-President George W. Bush, that American policy was for Israel to retain the settlement blocs, and that the Arab refugee problem needed to be solved outside of Israel. He even sent a letter stating that, and it was endorsed by both houses of Congress. Yet the Obama administration first insisted that no understandings or agreements existed, and later Sec. of State Hillary Clinton said that anyhow any agreements could not be enforced. Later Obama trashed these further by insisting that the basis of negotiations must be a return to 1967, and by ditching any specific requirements on the Palestinians so that the Bush understandings vanished down the memory hole. With that as an example, Obama wants Israel to rely on "guarantees". He has a sense of humor, I see. In any case, Obama has taken pains to be sure that Israel would not be able to defend itself, in the ways that are very important to Israel.
The third purpose of Obama is to eliminate Israel's ability to negotiate. Israel's negotiating chips are the territories that it won in the 1967 war. But Obama demands that Israel agree to give up that territory, to give up its negotiating chips, before the negotiations begin. So how can it effectively negotiate for reconciliation and security? It's like being asked to have an auction to sell one's stuff, but before the auction begins, one is strangely required to give away all of the stuff. How can one then have the auction? No matter, that's what Obama, in his role as advocate for the Palestinians, mentor to the Palestinians, and agent for the Palestinians requires of Israel.
Another item that Obama included in his speech was the requirement that the end result end up with contiguity -- that is, connectedness -- for the Palestinian entity. But since the Gaza Strip is miles away from the West Bank, separated by Israel, what Obama wants is for Israel to give up a strip of land to connect the Gaza Strip with the West Bank. This would give the jihadist terrorists and other Palestinian warriors a ready path between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it would sever Israel into two states. But no worry, the Palestinians are Obama's clients, so he gifts them with contiguity by removing it from Israel.
From Obama's statement about his plan, we can see that his purpose is to crush Israel's morale, crush Israel's ability to defend itself, and crush Israel's ability to negotiate (e.g., to recover its valuable assets and rights, to gain reconciliation, and to gain security). And if there are any agreed land swaps after Israel capitulated by agreeing to return to pre-war 1967, the land would be torn out of Israel's pre-1967 territory, allowing Obama to satisfy himself that he has helped to slice and dice Israel to prepare for the later attacks on Israel by radical jihadists.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Obama's mostly incoherent foreign policy, plus his obsessive-compulsive Terroristan land fetish
Look at any newspaper covering foreign events, and you will see evidence of President Obama's incoherence in his foreign policy -- for most of it, anyhow. You will see how Obama is waging a war in Libya, based on the possibility that Gadaffi might kill somebody, and putting the opinion of the UN above Constitutional requirements to consult with Congress, and ignoring the War Powers Act as if he is above the law. He obviously has total contempt for Congress, and for him what happens at the UN is supreme. But even there, he never got any authorization from the UN either, to carry out a 3 month long botched attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. On the other hand, Bashar Assad, the Butcher of Damascus, has actually been slaughtering his own people, having killed already some 1500 of his people, and President Obama is unable to even say: "Let me be perfectly clear. Assad has lost his legitimacy." The Butcher has already driven thousands of his people into neighboring Turkey, and there is no knowing what else he will do, in massacring and driving out his own people. Yet Obama gives the Butcher a pass. The incoherence of Obama's policy is obvious for all to see.
Recently he showed some more of his incoherence. He recognized the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan, of Egypt, giving it legitimacy in the next Egyptian government, and, like President Jimmy Carter did, helping to assure that Egypt is going to become an Islamist state with the Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots. The Obama administration asked for dialog with the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas claims to be the Palestinian branch. Obama's people also put Israel on the terrorist watch list.
Apart from Obama's incoherence in foreign affairs, he has one obsessive-compulsive project in the foreign affairs sphere: to create a Palestinian reichlet, ruled by a confederation of terrorist gangs, mainly the genocidal Hamas terrorist gang, and its Fatah kleptocrat partners, but also the other terrorist gangs: Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the other more minor terrorist gangs. He wants land for this confederation of terrorist gangs, and he wants to take as much land as possible from Israel. I would not say that he hates Israel, but he certainly does not have the love for Israel that President Bill Clinton had, nor the love for Israel that President George W. Bush had. He just doesn't care about Israel, he has a love for his Palestinian reichlet project, and for him Israel is a land cow that can provide all of the land that the Palestinians may demand at this time. Never mind that Israel is of the order of one hundredth of one percent of the land of the Muslim land-mass -- that is, of the order of 10 thousand times smaller than the territory of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. To Obama, Israel is a resource that will yield its land for his Palestinian reichlet project, no matter how much pain it causes Israel.
Can you imagine Obama telling the Saudis that before they can negotiate with Israel, they have to give up to Israel the Kaaba at Mecca? Impossible. But his basis of negotiations, that he has dictated for the reward of his beneficiaries, the Palestinians, and to blazes with Israel according to Obama, starts by having Israel give up the Western Wall, the Kotel, the holiest place of prayer for Jews for centuries, to the terrorists. That's what his back-to-(pre-war)-1967 implies. A poll of Israelis, a couple of years ago, showed that 96% of those polled would rather keep the Western Wall than have peace. But then Obama is not capable of being moderate in his compulsive-obsessive plan. Some of his supporters point to the undefined mutually agreed swaps that Obama mentioned. That means that Israel would then have to try to ransom back the Western Wall, by offering all or part of pre-1967 Israel. Obama's plan is not based on analyzing the situation, nor on calculating the consequences of what he proposes. Rather, he is in a time warp of the 1960s and 1970s, regurgitating the sound bites of leftist circles of that time, without regard to what troubles and pains and bad consequences these sound bites would produce if they are policy. There is no justice at all in his idea of stealing the Western Wall for the terrorists, and having Israel try to ransom it back, but that's Obama.
Same for the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Except for the 18 years of Jordanian conquest and occupation, from 1948 to pre-war 1967, Jews have lived in Jewish Quarter for the past thousand years. Just as Obama's father and step-father, if they prayed in public, prayed toward Mecca, Jews have for the past three thousand years prayed toward Jerusalem. Obama's edict would not only take away the Jewish Quarter of the Old City for the terrorists, but also take away half of Israel's capital Jerusalem, and turn its 250,000 Jewish residents into displaced persons. Oh yes, Israel could try to ransom back what is rightly Israel's, by offering all or part of pre-1967 Israel. In that case, Obama's plan is to slice and dice Israel, for the benefit of his Palestinian reichlet project.
Obama's basis-of-negotiation plan, by going back to pre-war 1967, knows no moderation. All of the disputed territories, all of territory A, all of territory B, and even all of territory C of the Oslo Accords, would go to the terrorists at the start of the negotiations, in return for nothing at all. Also, all of Israel's negotiating chips, including the whole West Bank (Judea and Samaria), would go to the terrorists, in return for nothing. Nothing in the way of Palestinian concessions to produce reconciliation, by recognizing the Jewish state, and nothing to end the casus belli, as President George W. Bush wrote in his letter to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to solve the Arab refugee problem outside the borders of Israel. All that is off the table, so Israel cannot get such concessions when it is making the maximum concessions of territory according to Obama's edict. The undefined mutually agreed swaps means that more of pre-war Israel is on the table, to be offered to the terrorists to ransom back what Obama has taken for the terrorists.
Obama has offered the terrorists even more. His edict is that contiguity -- meaning connectedness -- is for the Palestinian reichlet (but not for Israel, of course). Apparently he wants to grab a swath of additional territory from Israel for his Palestinian reichlet, by taking territory from Israel to join together the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are separate areas. The slicing and dicing of Israel by Obama continues in his plan.
Obama has security for Israel only in his meaningless words about how he loves the idea of security for Israel. In fact, he has ruled out any possibility of security by excluding the essentials of security: a long-term Israeli security envelope around the Palestinian reichlet, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley. This is absolutely essential to prevent the smuggling of weapons (including rockets and missiles) into the area ruled by the confederation of terrorists, and to prevent jihadis from getting across the Jordan River into that terrorist-ruled area. But Obama, never knowing any moderation in his project to create Terroristan (the Palestinian reichlet ruled by the confederation of terrorists), has ruled that out in his speech at the State Department, with his words demanding a total Israeli military withdrawal over a defined period of time. That would cause a situation where if you flied into Israel's airport, you would have to worry about terrorists shooting missiles at your airplane. That would insure that all of Israel's population centers would have to worry about rocket and missile fire, not knowing when the next rocket or missile would hit. Obama waxes almost poetical about how he loves for Israel to have security, but in the actual deeds, he rules out security for Israel by ruling out a long-term security envelope. Not that he hates Israel. He just doesn't care enough to give Israel anything it needs, when he is busy giving his beneficiaries, the Palestinian terrorists, everything.
Obama's back to 1967 plan would bully Israel to give up its right to defensible borders, and bully Israel to withdraw to territory a mere 9 miles wide with indefensible borders. Not that he hates Israel. It's just that Israel's rights and needs don't exist for Obama, except in meaningless poetic words that he has about his love for Israel's security;but in actual facts according to his edicts, he takes away Israel's security in order to give more land to his beneficiaries, the Palestinian terrorists, according to his obsessive-compulsive land project. Terroristan is created by Obama, not because he hates Israel, but because he sees everything through a prism, in which everything is for the Palestinian terrorists, and nothing is for Israel.
Then there are the Obama victims, the roughly 600,000 people who would be displaced according to Obama's back-to-1967 plan, for the crime of being Jewish. Obama speaks of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and the needs of the Palestinian people, including the people of the Gaza Strip. As for the 600,000 victims of Obama according to his back-to-1967 plan, he does not speak of them as people at all, and certainly he doesn't speak about their aspirations, their rights, and their needs. Not that he hates them. They are simply not on his mind as actual people. They are just bumps on the road, as he travels in his car in reverse seeking to obtain the utopia that never existed in the unstable and dangerous times of pre-war 1967. These bumps on the road are, you might say, like road kill, as far as Obama is concerned. And nobody worries about or takes into account the aspirations, the rights, and the needs of road kill. He doesn't hate them. They pretty much don't exist as people, real people with aspirations, rights and needs, in Obama's words and thoughts.
When it comes to Obama's number one project, Terroristan, Obama doesn't hate Israel. He simply tunes Israel out, and does all that he can for his beneficiaries the Terroristanians, and never looks or thinks about what he is doing to Israel.
And he is dead serious about his obsessive-compulsive project. Even at the recent G-8 conference, which was supposed to be an economic summit, he introduced his back-to-1967 plan to seize Israel's land for his beneficiaries the Terroristanians. Canada toned down his proposal, but he got something through anyhow, carefully working on organizing a lynch mob to pressure Israel to give up its right to defensible borders. Not because he hates Israel. But because he will do anything for his Terroristanians, and cannot even think about things from the view of Israel's aspirations, rights and needs, when he is indulging his obsessive-compulsive passion.
Recently he showed some more of his incoherence. He recognized the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan, of Egypt, giving it legitimacy in the next Egyptian government, and, like President Jimmy Carter did, helping to assure that Egypt is going to become an Islamist state with the Muslim Brotherhood calling the shots. The Obama administration asked for dialog with the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas claims to be the Palestinian branch. Obama's people also put Israel on the terrorist watch list.
Apart from Obama's incoherence in foreign affairs, he has one obsessive-compulsive project in the foreign affairs sphere: to create a Palestinian reichlet, ruled by a confederation of terrorist gangs, mainly the genocidal Hamas terrorist gang, and its Fatah kleptocrat partners, but also the other terrorist gangs: Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the other more minor terrorist gangs. He wants land for this confederation of terrorist gangs, and he wants to take as much land as possible from Israel. I would not say that he hates Israel, but he certainly does not have the love for Israel that President Bill Clinton had, nor the love for Israel that President George W. Bush had. He just doesn't care about Israel, he has a love for his Palestinian reichlet project, and for him Israel is a land cow that can provide all of the land that the Palestinians may demand at this time. Never mind that Israel is of the order of one hundredth of one percent of the land of the Muslim land-mass -- that is, of the order of 10 thousand times smaller than the territory of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. To Obama, Israel is a resource that will yield its land for his Palestinian reichlet project, no matter how much pain it causes Israel.
Can you imagine Obama telling the Saudis that before they can negotiate with Israel, they have to give up to Israel the Kaaba at Mecca? Impossible. But his basis of negotiations, that he has dictated for the reward of his beneficiaries, the Palestinians, and to blazes with Israel according to Obama, starts by having Israel give up the Western Wall, the Kotel, the holiest place of prayer for Jews for centuries, to the terrorists. That's what his back-to-(pre-war)-1967 implies. A poll of Israelis, a couple of years ago, showed that 96% of those polled would rather keep the Western Wall than have peace. But then Obama is not capable of being moderate in his compulsive-obsessive plan. Some of his supporters point to the undefined mutually agreed swaps that Obama mentioned. That means that Israel would then have to try to ransom back the Western Wall, by offering all or part of pre-1967 Israel. Obama's plan is not based on analyzing the situation, nor on calculating the consequences of what he proposes. Rather, he is in a time warp of the 1960s and 1970s, regurgitating the sound bites of leftist circles of that time, without regard to what troubles and pains and bad consequences these sound bites would produce if they are policy. There is no justice at all in his idea of stealing the Western Wall for the terrorists, and having Israel try to ransom it back, but that's Obama.
Same for the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Except for the 18 years of Jordanian conquest and occupation, from 1948 to pre-war 1967, Jews have lived in Jewish Quarter for the past thousand years. Just as Obama's father and step-father, if they prayed in public, prayed toward Mecca, Jews have for the past three thousand years prayed toward Jerusalem. Obama's edict would not only take away the Jewish Quarter of the Old City for the terrorists, but also take away half of Israel's capital Jerusalem, and turn its 250,000 Jewish residents into displaced persons. Oh yes, Israel could try to ransom back what is rightly Israel's, by offering all or part of pre-1967 Israel. In that case, Obama's plan is to slice and dice Israel, for the benefit of his Palestinian reichlet project.
Obama's basis-of-negotiation plan, by going back to pre-war 1967, knows no moderation. All of the disputed territories, all of territory A, all of territory B, and even all of territory C of the Oslo Accords, would go to the terrorists at the start of the negotiations, in return for nothing at all. Also, all of Israel's negotiating chips, including the whole West Bank (Judea and Samaria), would go to the terrorists, in return for nothing. Nothing in the way of Palestinian concessions to produce reconciliation, by recognizing the Jewish state, and nothing to end the casus belli, as President George W. Bush wrote in his letter to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to solve the Arab refugee problem outside the borders of Israel. All that is off the table, so Israel cannot get such concessions when it is making the maximum concessions of territory according to Obama's edict. The undefined mutually agreed swaps means that more of pre-war Israel is on the table, to be offered to the terrorists to ransom back what Obama has taken for the terrorists.
Obama has offered the terrorists even more. His edict is that contiguity -- meaning connectedness -- is for the Palestinian reichlet (but not for Israel, of course). Apparently he wants to grab a swath of additional territory from Israel for his Palestinian reichlet, by taking territory from Israel to join together the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are separate areas. The slicing and dicing of Israel by Obama continues in his plan.
Obama has security for Israel only in his meaningless words about how he loves the idea of security for Israel. In fact, he has ruled out any possibility of security by excluding the essentials of security: a long-term Israeli security envelope around the Palestinian reichlet, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley. This is absolutely essential to prevent the smuggling of weapons (including rockets and missiles) into the area ruled by the confederation of terrorists, and to prevent jihadis from getting across the Jordan River into that terrorist-ruled area. But Obama, never knowing any moderation in his project to create Terroristan (the Palestinian reichlet ruled by the confederation of terrorists), has ruled that out in his speech at the State Department, with his words demanding a total Israeli military withdrawal over a defined period of time. That would cause a situation where if you flied into Israel's airport, you would have to worry about terrorists shooting missiles at your airplane. That would insure that all of Israel's population centers would have to worry about rocket and missile fire, not knowing when the next rocket or missile would hit. Obama waxes almost poetical about how he loves for Israel to have security, but in the actual deeds, he rules out security for Israel by ruling out a long-term security envelope. Not that he hates Israel. He just doesn't care enough to give Israel anything it needs, when he is busy giving his beneficiaries, the Palestinian terrorists, everything.
Obama's back to 1967 plan would bully Israel to give up its right to defensible borders, and bully Israel to withdraw to territory a mere 9 miles wide with indefensible borders. Not that he hates Israel. It's just that Israel's rights and needs don't exist for Obama, except in meaningless poetic words that he has about his love for Israel's security;but in actual facts according to his edicts, he takes away Israel's security in order to give more land to his beneficiaries, the Palestinian terrorists, according to his obsessive-compulsive land project. Terroristan is created by Obama, not because he hates Israel, but because he sees everything through a prism, in which everything is for the Palestinian terrorists, and nothing is for Israel.
Then there are the Obama victims, the roughly 600,000 people who would be displaced according to Obama's back-to-1967 plan, for the crime of being Jewish. Obama speaks of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and the needs of the Palestinian people, including the people of the Gaza Strip. As for the 600,000 victims of Obama according to his back-to-1967 plan, he does not speak of them as people at all, and certainly he doesn't speak about their aspirations, their rights, and their needs. Not that he hates them. They are simply not on his mind as actual people. They are just bumps on the road, as he travels in his car in reverse seeking to obtain the utopia that never existed in the unstable and dangerous times of pre-war 1967. These bumps on the road are, you might say, like road kill, as far as Obama is concerned. And nobody worries about or takes into account the aspirations, the rights, and the needs of road kill. He doesn't hate them. They pretty much don't exist as people, real people with aspirations, rights and needs, in Obama's words and thoughts.
When it comes to Obama's number one project, Terroristan, Obama doesn't hate Israel. He simply tunes Israel out, and does all that he can for his beneficiaries the Terroristanians, and never looks or thinks about what he is doing to Israel.
And he is dead serious about his obsessive-compulsive project. Even at the recent G-8 conference, which was supposed to be an economic summit, he introduced his back-to-1967 plan to seize Israel's land for his beneficiaries the Terroristanians. Canada toned down his proposal, but he got something through anyhow, carefully working on organizing a lynch mob to pressure Israel to give up its right to defensible borders. Not because he hates Israel. But because he will do anything for his Terroristanians, and cannot even think about things from the view of Israel's aspirations, rights and needs, when he is indulging his obsessive-compulsive passion.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Obama makes precise demands against Israel, but no measurable demands on Palestinians
One of the peculiarities of President Obama's interventions in the Israel-Palestinian situation is that he makes precise demands against Israel, but no measurable demands on the Palestinians. His recent back-to-1967 speech at the State Department illustrates this.
The basis of negotiations, according to President Obama, will involve a return to 1967, with mutually agreed swaps. The mutually agreed swaps do not impose any measurable demands on the Palestinians. Regarding mutually agreed swaps, the Palestinians are free to just say no.
However the return to pre-war 1967 (meaning a return to the 1949 Armistice Lines) means something very precise in terms of territory -- and it involves Israel giving up all that it won in the 1967 war. The Palestinians give up nothing in return.
This implies that before the negotiations even begin, Israel would lose all of its negotiating chips. Then Israel would be free to throw itself on the mercy of the Palestinians, led by the Hamas terrorists and their Fatah partners, to see if they would want to help Israel out. The chance of this happening is about zero.
Since Israel would not have any negotiating chips when the real negotiations begin, it is clear that the starting position, the basis of negotiations, will be very important. This brings up the fact that in the basis of negotiations, according to President Obama, there are no measurable demands on the Palestinians.
Some things that are missing from the basis of negotiations:
If Israel is to have security, it needs a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This is so basic, it should be part of the basis of negotiations.
Unfortunately, President Obama's speech appears to exclude this, since he spoke of complete withdrawals by Israel with defined time limits for the withdrawal to take place. So this essential need of Israel has been taken off the table completely by President Obama. The long-term security envelope would be mainly to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Palestinian entity. Otherwise, planes landing at Israel's airport would be threatened by the firing of rockets and missiles, and Israel's population centers would be threatened by rockets and missiles. The security envelope would also prevent the infiltration of jihadis across the Jordan River. It would also delay a military invasion from across the Jordan River, if the present Hashemite regime fell or was compelled to allow such an invasion from another country, and this would give Israel time to mobilize its reserves.
Also missing from the basis of negotiations is Israel's need for the Palestinians to clearly recognize the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish state in its historic homeland, that state being Israel. The refusal of the Palestinians to accept this -- even to simply say, "I will accept a Jewish state" -- has been at the root of the Palestinians' endless war against Israel. Without this, and without this being taught to 2 or 3 generations of Palestinian school children, and in the mosques and in the media, there is no hope for peace since there will be no effort to end the radicalization which is at the root of the war against Israel.
Also missing from the basis of negotiations is Israel's need for the Palestinians to agree that the Arab refugee problem must be settled outside the boundaries of Israel. A letter from then-President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spells this out.Otherwise, the Palestinian demand that millions of great grandchildren of Arab refugees and their relatives be allowed to immigrate into Israel, to end the Jewish state, will continue. This has been the pretext for war against Israel, and it would continue.
Without addressing these issues of a security envelope and reconciliation, and putting them into the basis of negotiations, this process is clearly a process of land-for-war.
The basis of negotiations, according to President Obama, will involve a return to 1967, with mutually agreed swaps. The mutually agreed swaps do not impose any measurable demands on the Palestinians. Regarding mutually agreed swaps, the Palestinians are free to just say no.
However the return to pre-war 1967 (meaning a return to the 1949 Armistice Lines) means something very precise in terms of territory -- and it involves Israel giving up all that it won in the 1967 war. The Palestinians give up nothing in return.
This implies that before the negotiations even begin, Israel would lose all of its negotiating chips. Then Israel would be free to throw itself on the mercy of the Palestinians, led by the Hamas terrorists and their Fatah partners, to see if they would want to help Israel out. The chance of this happening is about zero.
Since Israel would not have any negotiating chips when the real negotiations begin, it is clear that the starting position, the basis of negotiations, will be very important. This brings up the fact that in the basis of negotiations, according to President Obama, there are no measurable demands on the Palestinians.
Some things that are missing from the basis of negotiations:
If Israel is to have security, it needs a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This is so basic, it should be part of the basis of negotiations.
Unfortunately, President Obama's speech appears to exclude this, since he spoke of complete withdrawals by Israel with defined time limits for the withdrawal to take place. So this essential need of Israel has been taken off the table completely by President Obama. The long-term security envelope would be mainly to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Palestinian entity. Otherwise, planes landing at Israel's airport would be threatened by the firing of rockets and missiles, and Israel's population centers would be threatened by rockets and missiles. The security envelope would also prevent the infiltration of jihadis across the Jordan River. It would also delay a military invasion from across the Jordan River, if the present Hashemite regime fell or was compelled to allow such an invasion from another country, and this would give Israel time to mobilize its reserves.
Also missing from the basis of negotiations is Israel's need for the Palestinians to clearly recognize the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish state in its historic homeland, that state being Israel. The refusal of the Palestinians to accept this -- even to simply say, "I will accept a Jewish state" -- has been at the root of the Palestinians' endless war against Israel. Without this, and without this being taught to 2 or 3 generations of Palestinian school children, and in the mosques and in the media, there is no hope for peace since there will be no effort to end the radicalization which is at the root of the war against Israel.
Also missing from the basis of negotiations is Israel's need for the Palestinians to agree that the Arab refugee problem must be settled outside the boundaries of Israel. A letter from then-President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spells this out.Otherwise, the Palestinian demand that millions of great grandchildren of Arab refugees and their relatives be allowed to immigrate into Israel, to end the Jewish state, will continue. This has been the pretext for war against Israel, and it would continue.
Without addressing these issues of a security envelope and reconciliation, and putting them into the basis of negotiations, this process is clearly a process of land-for-war.
Friday, June 24, 2011
When the referee in a game is playing for one of the teams, and scoring all its goals
Watching President Barack Obama mediate the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations gives me the feeling that I am watching a sports event between two teams, and the referee is also playing for one of the teams, and actually scoring all its goals.
The basis of negotiations, according to Obama, is a return to pre-war 1967. Here is what that means. Israel gives up the Western Wall, and Jews give up the right to pray at their holiest place of prayer. What do the Palestinians give up? Israel gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, where Jews have lived for the past 1000 years except for the 18 years of Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967, and Jews give up the right to live in their holiest place of residence. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that Israel gives up half of its capital city Jerusalem. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that Israel gives up all of Judea and Samaria. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that more than 500,000 Jews give up their right to live in their homes and communities and become evicted, they become displaced persons, refugees. On Obama's road trip to appeasing and pandering to certain groups in the world, these 500,000 Jews become Obama's road kill. What do the Palestinians give up? Can you see the imbalance here? Can you see how this resembles a referee who is playing for one of the teams and scoring all of its goals?
Of course, all the while Obama is scoring goals for the Palestinians, he is proclaiming his love for Israel's security, becoming almost poetic in his love songs to Israel's security. His back-to-1967 basis for negotiations gives Israel indefensible borders with territory merely 9 miles wide. Apart from the indefensible boundaries that Obama demands Israel accept as a basis for negotiations, let's look at what Israel most needs for security. To prevent a Palestinian entity from becoming a rocket base, as has been happening with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, and Hizballah-ruled south Lebanon, Israel needs a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley. But in Obama's speech at the State Department, he appears to be against allowing Israel to have a long-term security envelope. Not in the front-loading of the negotiations. But also not in the intermediate or back end of the negotiations. Not at all. He appears to have removed this from the table completely, so that there is nothing that Israel can offer the Palestinians to have this essential security need met. But apart from taking this off the table completely, he has insisted, in his back-to-1967 plan, that Israel is stripped of all its negotiating chips before the negotiations even start. So Israel would be stripped of its negotiating chips, and its main security need would be off the table -- at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end. He can sing romantic love songs about how he loves security for Israel, but his actions in removing a long-term security envelope for Israel speak much louder, and that is what I hear, not the distracting conning nonsense.
If Obama wanted to give the impression of balance, instead of his playing for one of the teams, he should include in his front-loading for the negotiations not merely the Palestinian demands, but also Israel's essential requirements.
First of all, if this is to be a peace process, and not merely a war process, the pretexts for war need to end, and the basis for negotiations needs to include 3 principles:
1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state.
2. The treaty to be signed must be an end to the conflict.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders.
Why was Obama's basis of negotiations merely a return to the dangerous situation of pre-war 1967, and not the inclusion of these 3 principles for actually ending the pretexts for war? Is Obama willing to actually stop playing for one side, and include the basis for ending the war pretexts as the basis of negotiations?
Secondly, it has to be recognized that any effort at peace must be defended, and provision must be made in case the peace fails. To do this, the basis for negotiations needs to include these principles.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel's security.
5. Israel cannot return to the situation of pre-war 1967, and must have defensible borders, not territory 9 miles wide.
6. Israel must have a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley that can prevent the smuggling of weapons, prevent the infiltration of jihadis, and resist an invasion from across the Jordan River by armies to provide sufficient time for Israel to mobilize its reserves and get to the front.
Thirdly, Israel cannot create a humanitarian catastrophe by not taking into account the vast demographic changes that have occurred over the past 44 years, that is over the past two generations. The basis for negotiations needs to include this principle:
7. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital.
After this basis of negotiations is agreed to by the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as the Obama administration, the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations can begin.
The basis of negotiations, according to Obama, is a return to pre-war 1967. Here is what that means. Israel gives up the Western Wall, and Jews give up the right to pray at their holiest place of prayer. What do the Palestinians give up? Israel gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, where Jews have lived for the past 1000 years except for the 18 years of Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967, and Jews give up the right to live in their holiest place of residence. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that Israel gives up half of its capital city Jerusalem. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that Israel gives up all of Judea and Samaria. What do the Palestinians give up? It means that more than 500,000 Jews give up their right to live in their homes and communities and become evicted, they become displaced persons, refugees. On Obama's road trip to appeasing and pandering to certain groups in the world, these 500,000 Jews become Obama's road kill. What do the Palestinians give up? Can you see the imbalance here? Can you see how this resembles a referee who is playing for one of the teams and scoring all of its goals?
Of course, all the while Obama is scoring goals for the Palestinians, he is proclaiming his love for Israel's security, becoming almost poetic in his love songs to Israel's security. His back-to-1967 basis for negotiations gives Israel indefensible borders with territory merely 9 miles wide. Apart from the indefensible boundaries that Obama demands Israel accept as a basis for negotiations, let's look at what Israel most needs for security. To prevent a Palestinian entity from becoming a rocket base, as has been happening with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, and Hizballah-ruled south Lebanon, Israel needs a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley. But in Obama's speech at the State Department, he appears to be against allowing Israel to have a long-term security envelope. Not in the front-loading of the negotiations. But also not in the intermediate or back end of the negotiations. Not at all. He appears to have removed this from the table completely, so that there is nothing that Israel can offer the Palestinians to have this essential security need met. But apart from taking this off the table completely, he has insisted, in his back-to-1967 plan, that Israel is stripped of all its negotiating chips before the negotiations even start. So Israel would be stripped of its negotiating chips, and its main security need would be off the table -- at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end. He can sing romantic love songs about how he loves security for Israel, but his actions in removing a long-term security envelope for Israel speak much louder, and that is what I hear, not the distracting conning nonsense.
If Obama wanted to give the impression of balance, instead of his playing for one of the teams, he should include in his front-loading for the negotiations not merely the Palestinian demands, but also Israel's essential requirements.
First of all, if this is to be a peace process, and not merely a war process, the pretexts for war need to end, and the basis for negotiations needs to include 3 principles:
1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state.
2. The treaty to be signed must be an end to the conflict.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders.
Why was Obama's basis of negotiations merely a return to the dangerous situation of pre-war 1967, and not the inclusion of these 3 principles for actually ending the pretexts for war? Is Obama willing to actually stop playing for one side, and include the basis for ending the war pretexts as the basis of negotiations?
Secondly, it has to be recognized that any effort at peace must be defended, and provision must be made in case the peace fails. To do this, the basis for negotiations needs to include these principles.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel's security.
5. Israel cannot return to the situation of pre-war 1967, and must have defensible borders, not territory 9 miles wide.
6. Israel must have a long-term security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley that can prevent the smuggling of weapons, prevent the infiltration of jihadis, and resist an invasion from across the Jordan River by armies to provide sufficient time for Israel to mobilize its reserves and get to the front.
Thirdly, Israel cannot create a humanitarian catastrophe by not taking into account the vast demographic changes that have occurred over the past 44 years, that is over the past two generations. The basis for negotiations needs to include this principle:
7. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital.
After this basis of negotiations is agreed to by the Palestinians and the Israelis, as well as the Obama administration, the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations can begin.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
virtual harakiri gentlemen's jihad
President Barack Hussein Obama seems to have invented a new kind of jihad. I call it the virtual harakiri gentlemen's jihad. This is Obama's back-to-1967 plan for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
First of all, before the negotiations actually get underway, Israel is required to agree to: give up the Western Wall, the holiest place of prayer for Jews, to the Hamas jihadist terrorists and their temporary Fatah frontmen; give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which has had a Jewish presence for the past 1000 years apart from the 18-year Jordanian massacre, expulsion, and exile, to the same gang; give up half of Israel's capital city Jerusalem to the same gang; give up Judea and Samaria to the same gang; expel more than 500,000 residents of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria for the crime of being Jewish; give up all of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and the half of Jerusalem that an army of soldiers crossing the Jordan River from Transjordan grabbed in 1948 and kept until 1967. So this transformation involving great Israeli losses can be viewed as a kind of jihad.
But it isn't a jihad that involves even a single extra suicide bombing. It's all done as white collar work by the President. So it might be called a virtual jihad.
But it cannot be done, according to Obama's plan, without the cooperation of the government of Israel. The victims, the Israelis, have to partake of this according to Obama, and do this voluntarily. Obama may say: repeat these words after me, and afterward I will explain to you what they mean, and what you have committed to. (Obama's formula then follows.) Since it involves the victim's own hand in cooperating with this jihad, it might be called a harakiri (suicidal) jihad.
But that doesn't end the strangeness of this jihad. Afterward, Israel is invited to ransom back the people, territory, and rights it has had snatched away from it, by giving up pieces of territory of pre-1967 Israel. This is supposed to be an amicable ransom, because the President seeks to sell it to Israel as a great feature of his plan, although the Hamas jihadist terrorists, who are committed to ending the life of Israel, ending Judaism, and genocide (their charter says when you meet a Jew kill him), and their temporary Fatah frontmen, are not going to do anything that Israel wants.
The scariest part, however, is yet to come -- that is, that Obama has been ahead of the Palestinians in making demands on Israel and thereby ratcheting up the Palestinians' demands.
As the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick has written: "Not only has Obama adopted the Palestinians' increasingly hostile policies toward Israel. He has led them to those policies. It was Obama, not Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, who first demanded that Israel cease respecting Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first called for the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2011. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first stipulated that future 'peace' negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be predicated on Israel's prior acceptance of the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as a starting point for talks."
If Obama continues on that path of clueing the Palestinians to ratchet up their demands, the efforts of Israel to ransom back its people, territory and rights will be more effectively an even greater disaster for Israel than without his help, with Israel having to give up large amounts of its pre-1967 territory to ransom back what is most precious, of all that is lost in the virtual harakiri jihad. What is likely to happen next is that Obama will be busy effectively slicing and dicing Israel, all the while becoming almost poetic about how he is committed to Israel's security.
First of all, before the negotiations actually get underway, Israel is required to agree to: give up the Western Wall, the holiest place of prayer for Jews, to the Hamas jihadist terrorists and their temporary Fatah frontmen; give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which has had a Jewish presence for the past 1000 years apart from the 18-year Jordanian massacre, expulsion, and exile, to the same gang; give up half of Israel's capital city Jerusalem to the same gang; give up Judea and Samaria to the same gang; expel more than 500,000 residents of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria for the crime of being Jewish; give up all of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and the half of Jerusalem that an army of soldiers crossing the Jordan River from Transjordan grabbed in 1948 and kept until 1967. So this transformation involving great Israeli losses can be viewed as a kind of jihad.
But it isn't a jihad that involves even a single extra suicide bombing. It's all done as white collar work by the President. So it might be called a virtual jihad.
But it cannot be done, according to Obama's plan, without the cooperation of the government of Israel. The victims, the Israelis, have to partake of this according to Obama, and do this voluntarily. Obama may say: repeat these words after me, and afterward I will explain to you what they mean, and what you have committed to. (Obama's formula then follows.) Since it involves the victim's own hand in cooperating with this jihad, it might be called a harakiri (suicidal) jihad.
But that doesn't end the strangeness of this jihad. Afterward, Israel is invited to ransom back the people, territory, and rights it has had snatched away from it, by giving up pieces of territory of pre-1967 Israel. This is supposed to be an amicable ransom, because the President seeks to sell it to Israel as a great feature of his plan, although the Hamas jihadist terrorists, who are committed to ending the life of Israel, ending Judaism, and genocide (their charter says when you meet a Jew kill him), and their temporary Fatah frontmen, are not going to do anything that Israel wants.
The scariest part, however, is yet to come -- that is, that Obama has been ahead of the Palestinians in making demands on Israel and thereby ratcheting up the Palestinians' demands.
As the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick has written: "Not only has Obama adopted the Palestinians' increasingly hostile policies toward Israel. He has led them to those policies. It was Obama, not Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, who first demanded that Israel cease respecting Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first called for the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2011. It was Obama, not Abbas, who first stipulated that future 'peace' negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be predicated on Israel's prior acceptance of the indefensible 1949 armistice lines as a starting point for talks."
If Obama continues on that path of clueing the Palestinians to ratchet up their demands, the efforts of Israel to ransom back its people, territory and rights will be more effectively an even greater disaster for Israel than without his help, with Israel having to give up large amounts of its pre-1967 territory to ransom back what is most precious, of all that is lost in the virtual harakiri jihad. What is likely to happen next is that Obama will be busy effectively slicing and dicing Israel, all the while becoming almost poetic about how he is committed to Israel's security.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Masterpiece of Bias
The plan announced by President Barack Hussein Obama for the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is a masterpiece of bias.
According to his plan, from the get-go, before negotiations are even to be allowed, he puts Israel into a great hole, by requiring Israel to base negotiations on a return to 1967.
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Western Wall, the holiest place that Jews have for their prayers. Apart from Mr. Obama's extreme bias, by any logic the Western Wall would be Israel's. He indicated that the negotiations would address the non-emotional issues. Yet a poll a few years ago showed that 96% of Israelis that were polled would rather that Israel keep the Western Wall than have peace. Non-emotional for whom?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Does Obama know that for the past 1000 years, except for the period of the 18 years from 1948 to 1967, when forces led by Britain's John Glubb, involving British officers and troops of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, carried out an aggression by crossing over the Jordan River, and conquering the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, and massacring its residents, expelling the survivors, and exiling the Jews, and occupying the land -- except for that interval of 18 nightmare years Jews have lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City for the past thousand years? By what logic, other than Mr. Obama's bias, does that belong to the Palestinian Arab Muslims led by the Hamas terrorists and their Fatah partners? Is it a legitimization, celebration, and reward for the massacre that occurred and the expulsion of the Jews that occurred, which seems to be preferred over the liberation?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up half of its capital city, Jerusalem. And expel the 250,000 Jewish residents who are living in the chunk of the city that was conquered in 1948 by John Glubb and his army of Transjordanian soldiers and held for 18 years before the liberation and re-unification of the city. These Jerusalemites that Obama would turn into illegal aliens and expel, are citizens of Israel, living in the capital of the Jewish state, and expelled from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish. These victims of Obama are never addressed by the president as actual people, with aspirations (as the Palestinians have aspirations), with rights (as the Palestinians have rights), and with needs (as the Palestinians have needs, and as Obama has spoken of the needs of the people of Gaza). No, the ObamaVictims are dehumanized, and treated as abstractions, not as actual people. This is the opposite of Obama's policy in the US of giving amnesty to illegal aliens, giving them a path to citizenship, and allowing them to stay in this country, for humanitarian reasons. Rather, for inhumanitarian reasons Mr. Obama's plan is to take 250,000 citizens of a foreign country Israel, who are legal residents of its capital city, and turn them into illegal aliens and expel them. By what logic is he driving to do this injustice and inhumanitarian deed, apart from his extreme bias?
That means that before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up all of Judea and Samaria. This used to be called disputed territory. Apparently now it's no longer disputed, but all of Israel's claims are rejected by Mr. Obama, and all of the Palestinian claims are granted by Mr. Obama.This has no logic except for his extreme bias. And it means that 320,000 residents of Judea and Samaria are to be expelled for the crime of being Jewish. Again, this is the reverse of Obama's program of amnesty for US illegal aliens for humanitarian reasons, turning citizens of a country into illegal aliens and expelling them for inhumanitarian reasons. There is no logic to this apart from his extreme bias. They join the 250,000 people to be expelled from Jerusalem because they are Jewish, to form the more than 500,000 ObamaVictims driven from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish.
Mr. Obama has made it plain that he has great love for the Palestinians. For Israel, he offers only one word: "security". Not actual security, but the word "security", just the lip service. For his plan is that before the negotiations begin, Israel has to go back to pre-war 1967, to indefensible boundaries, with territory merely 9 miles wide. The territory is indefensible, and Mr. Obama's plan is indefensible, and utterly inconsistent with his word that he offers the Israelis, "security". There is no offer of security when they are offered a forced retreat to indefensible boundaries only 9 miles wide. There is no logic behind it except Mr. Obama's extreme bias.
But not only is Israel required to give up its most valuable rights and assets, and defensible boundaries. Before the negotiations start, Obama's demand that Israel promise to return to 1967 for the start of the negotiations means that Israel also gives up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations. These are the chips that Israel would have liked to exchange for Palestinian concessions for peace, but if Israel has to give up these chips in advance of negotiations, it cannot use them to draw out Palestinian concessions for peace. For example, then-President George W. Bush sent a letter to then-Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, indicating that US policy is for Israel to retain the settlement blocs, and the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and that the solution of the Arab refugee problem has to be found outside of Israel. But Obama has trashed all of that policy of his predecessor. His Secretary of State has even claimed that the agreements and understandings (and even the letter?) don't really exist at all! Under Obama's plan, since Israel is required to give up all of its negotiating chips in advance of the start of negotiations, there will not be any Palestinian concessions for peace. There will not be any Palestinian agreement to solve the Arab refugee problem outside the boundaries of Israel. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they accept a Jewish state. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that a treaty will end the dispute. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they will teach their children in their schools, and in the mosques and in the media, that the war is over, that Israel has a right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people in the Jewish people's homeland, and that the Arab refugee problem has to be solved outside the boundaries of Israel. No, there will not be any elimination of the pretext for war, and the indoctrination for war will continue. This plan of Obama's will not lead to Land for Peace, but rather to Land for War.
Obama's plan for a peace process is all process and no peace. Not a chance for peace. Nor will there be in place the most important requirement for Israel's security -- a security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley for the indefinite future as long as there is the threat of war and terrorism and rocket and missile fire. Without this security envelope, there will be an unchecked deluge of weapons flowing into the Palestinian entity, including rockets and missiles, including missiles that could knock out planes landing at Israel's airport coming from the US and elsewhere. How would Americans who may want to some day fly to Israel to see the holy land like to fly into an airport where there is the threat of being shot down by terrorists armed with shoulder-fired missiles? The rockets and missiles would also threaten all of Israel's population centers. From time to time, when the problem becomes unbearable, Israeli forces would have to enter the Arab towns in the West Bank and look for the stored rockets and missiles, but that would be like looking for needles in a haystack. Much better to block their entry into the Palestinian entity in the first place, by having a security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley, to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons into the Palestinian entity.
Yes, Obama has promised to provide Israel with more Iron Dome missiles. This is a plan to knock out incoming rockets and missiles out of the sky before they can do damage. But if the Palestinian IED-type Qassam rockets cost only a few bucks, say 5 or 10 bucks apiece, it is unsustainable to knock them out with missiles at a million dollars a pop. No matter how many missiles Israel has to defend itself, the Palestinians can easily acquire more than that, and therefore exhaust the supply of defensive missiles. And when the flood gates are opened to more advanced offensive missiles, by taking away Israel's security envelope, the Palestinians can acquire advanced weaponry in massive numbers. Hizbollah has some 50,000 missiles at present, because nobody is stopping them except the joke that is the United Nations. If the Palestinians acquired 100,000 or 200,000 missiles, it would be impossible for Israel to acquire the defensive missiles necessary to shoot these out of the sky at a million dollars a pop. Better to stop these right at the border, with an Israeli security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley.
But Obama's plan has ruled out a long-term Israeli military presence in a security envelope. Not in exchange for Israeli concessions of any kind, and not for any deal under the sun. Obama's plan doubly kills Israeli security also by requiring Israel to give up its negotiating chips in advance of all negotiation. So according to Obama's plan, the essential requirement that Israel has for a security envelope is off the table and the subject cannot even be raised, and Israel's negotiating chips are taken away prior to the negotiations anyhow. This plan for a peace process is all process but no peace. It is a plan for a rocket and missile nightmare, shot at planes coming into Israel's airport from the US and elsewhere, and at Israel's population centers. When the warnings go off, Israelis will have a few seconds to find shelter from the missiles. Is that any way to live? That's what Obama offers in his peace process, which is all process, with a process stacked against Israel and stacked against peace, and no peace at all. It is not land for peace, but land for war.
According to his plan, from the get-go, before negotiations are even to be allowed, he puts Israel into a great hole, by requiring Israel to base negotiations on a return to 1967.
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Western Wall, the holiest place that Jews have for their prayers. Apart from Mr. Obama's extreme bias, by any logic the Western Wall would be Israel's. He indicated that the negotiations would address the non-emotional issues. Yet a poll a few years ago showed that 96% of Israelis that were polled would rather that Israel keep the Western Wall than have peace. Non-emotional for whom?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Does Obama know that for the past 1000 years, except for the period of the 18 years from 1948 to 1967, when forces led by Britain's John Glubb, involving British officers and troops of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, carried out an aggression by crossing over the Jordan River, and conquering the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, and massacring its residents, expelling the survivors, and exiling the Jews, and occupying the land -- except for that interval of 18 nightmare years Jews have lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City for the past thousand years? By what logic, other than Mr. Obama's bias, does that belong to the Palestinian Arab Muslims led by the Hamas terrorists and their Fatah partners? Is it a legitimization, celebration, and reward for the massacre that occurred and the expulsion of the Jews that occurred, which seems to be preferred over the liberation?
That means, before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up half of its capital city, Jerusalem. And expel the 250,000 Jewish residents who are living in the chunk of the city that was conquered in 1948 by John Glubb and his army of Transjordanian soldiers and held for 18 years before the liberation and re-unification of the city. These Jerusalemites that Obama would turn into illegal aliens and expel, are citizens of Israel, living in the capital of the Jewish state, and expelled from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish. These victims of Obama are never addressed by the president as actual people, with aspirations (as the Palestinians have aspirations), with rights (as the Palestinians have rights), and with needs (as the Palestinians have needs, and as Obama has spoken of the needs of the people of Gaza). No, the ObamaVictims are dehumanized, and treated as abstractions, not as actual people. This is the opposite of Obama's policy in the US of giving amnesty to illegal aliens, giving them a path to citizenship, and allowing them to stay in this country, for humanitarian reasons. Rather, for inhumanitarian reasons Mr. Obama's plan is to take 250,000 citizens of a foreign country Israel, who are legal residents of its capital city, and turn them into illegal aliens and expel them. By what logic is he driving to do this injustice and inhumanitarian deed, apart from his extreme bias?
That means that before negotiations begin, Israel has to give up all of Judea and Samaria. This used to be called disputed territory. Apparently now it's no longer disputed, but all of Israel's claims are rejected by Mr. Obama, and all of the Palestinian claims are granted by Mr. Obama.This has no logic except for his extreme bias. And it means that 320,000 residents of Judea and Samaria are to be expelled for the crime of being Jewish. Again, this is the reverse of Obama's program of amnesty for US illegal aliens for humanitarian reasons, turning citizens of a country into illegal aliens and expelling them for inhumanitarian reasons. There is no logic to this apart from his extreme bias. They join the 250,000 people to be expelled from Jerusalem because they are Jewish, to form the more than 500,000 ObamaVictims driven from their homes and communities for the crime of being Jewish.
Mr. Obama has made it plain that he has great love for the Palestinians. For Israel, he offers only one word: "security". Not actual security, but the word "security", just the lip service. For his plan is that before the negotiations begin, Israel has to go back to pre-war 1967, to indefensible boundaries, with territory merely 9 miles wide. The territory is indefensible, and Mr. Obama's plan is indefensible, and utterly inconsistent with his word that he offers the Israelis, "security". There is no offer of security when they are offered a forced retreat to indefensible boundaries only 9 miles wide. There is no logic behind it except Mr. Obama's extreme bias.
But not only is Israel required to give up its most valuable rights and assets, and defensible boundaries. Before the negotiations start, Obama's demand that Israel promise to return to 1967 for the start of the negotiations means that Israel also gives up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations. These are the chips that Israel would have liked to exchange for Palestinian concessions for peace, but if Israel has to give up these chips in advance of negotiations, it cannot use them to draw out Palestinian concessions for peace. For example, then-President George W. Bush sent a letter to then-Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon, indicating that US policy is for Israel to retain the settlement blocs, and the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and that the solution of the Arab refugee problem has to be found outside of Israel. But Obama has trashed all of that policy of his predecessor. His Secretary of State has even claimed that the agreements and understandings (and even the letter?) don't really exist at all! Under Obama's plan, since Israel is required to give up all of its negotiating chips in advance of the start of negotiations, there will not be any Palestinian concessions for peace. There will not be any Palestinian agreement to solve the Arab refugee problem outside the boundaries of Israel. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they accept a Jewish state. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that a treaty will end the dispute. There will not be any Palestinian agreement that they will teach their children in their schools, and in the mosques and in the media, that the war is over, that Israel has a right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people in the Jewish people's homeland, and that the Arab refugee problem has to be solved outside the boundaries of Israel. No, there will not be any elimination of the pretext for war, and the indoctrination for war will continue. This plan of Obama's will not lead to Land for Peace, but rather to Land for War.
Obama's plan for a peace process is all process and no peace. Not a chance for peace. Nor will there be in place the most important requirement for Israel's security -- a security envelope around the Palestinian entity, including a long-term Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley for the indefinite future as long as there is the threat of war and terrorism and rocket and missile fire. Without this security envelope, there will be an unchecked deluge of weapons flowing into the Palestinian entity, including rockets and missiles, including missiles that could knock out planes landing at Israel's airport coming from the US and elsewhere. How would Americans who may want to some day fly to Israel to see the holy land like to fly into an airport where there is the threat of being shot down by terrorists armed with shoulder-fired missiles? The rockets and missiles would also threaten all of Israel's population centers. From time to time, when the problem becomes unbearable, Israeli forces would have to enter the Arab towns in the West Bank and look for the stored rockets and missiles, but that would be like looking for needles in a haystack. Much better to block their entry into the Palestinian entity in the first place, by having a security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley, to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons into the Palestinian entity.
Yes, Obama has promised to provide Israel with more Iron Dome missiles. This is a plan to knock out incoming rockets and missiles out of the sky before they can do damage. But if the Palestinian IED-type Qassam rockets cost only a few bucks, say 5 or 10 bucks apiece, it is unsustainable to knock them out with missiles at a million dollars a pop. No matter how many missiles Israel has to defend itself, the Palestinians can easily acquire more than that, and therefore exhaust the supply of defensive missiles. And when the flood gates are opened to more advanced offensive missiles, by taking away Israel's security envelope, the Palestinians can acquire advanced weaponry in massive numbers. Hizbollah has some 50,000 missiles at present, because nobody is stopping them except the joke that is the United Nations. If the Palestinians acquired 100,000 or 200,000 missiles, it would be impossible for Israel to acquire the defensive missiles necessary to shoot these out of the sky at a million dollars a pop. Better to stop these right at the border, with an Israeli security envelope, including an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River Valley.
But Obama's plan has ruled out a long-term Israeli military presence in a security envelope. Not in exchange for Israeli concessions of any kind, and not for any deal under the sun. Obama's plan doubly kills Israeli security also by requiring Israel to give up its negotiating chips in advance of all negotiation. So according to Obama's plan, the essential requirement that Israel has for a security envelope is off the table and the subject cannot even be raised, and Israel's negotiating chips are taken away prior to the negotiations anyhow. This plan for a peace process is all process but no peace. It is a plan for a rocket and missile nightmare, shot at planes coming into Israel's airport from the US and elsewhere, and at Israel's population centers. When the warnings go off, Israelis will have a few seconds to find shelter from the missiles. Is that any way to live? That's what Obama offers in his peace process, which is all process, with a process stacked against Israel and stacked against peace, and no peace at all. It is not land for peace, but land for war.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Rigged
The best single word to describe the latest idea for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations proposed originally by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and endorsed recently by President Obama is "rigged".
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations based on the pre-war 1967 lines. That means that before the negotiations actually begin, Israel would have to promise to reset the clock to pre-war 1967, and accept that as the situation for the start of the negotiations, as the goal for the final result, and as the mediator's accepted position for mediating the negotiations. If Israel did this, it would mean that Israel is put into a deep hole, without the means for getting out, and would be required to negotiate after first giving up its negotiating chips.
Israel's basic negotiating position concerning territory is that "the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital", summarizing the territorial part of Netanyahu's speech to the Israeli Knesset, in the words of correspondent Elad Benari of Israel National News. This is a position that the entire Israeli coalition government agrees on, and that the main opposition party, Kadima, also agrees on. It is the Israeli position. There is a letter from then-President George W. Bush affirming support for Israel keeping the settlement blocs. There is a congressional resolution affirming the unity of Jerusalem under Israeli control. There is a congressional resolution affirming support for Bush's letter.
But the Abbas-Obama demand is that before the negotiations even begin, Israel must agree to the 1967 lines. That means Israel gives up the Western Wall, gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, gives up half of its capital Jerusalem, and gives up all of the settlement blocs. The demand is for Israel to retreat to indefensible borders only 9 miles wide. But it gets even worse: the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to give up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations start. Israel's plan is for some of the territory that Israel gained in the 1967 war in Judea and Samaria be given up by Israel as negotiating chips, but since the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to agree to lose all of this territory in advance of the negotiations, Israel would be losing its negotiating chips before negotiations start.That is the first way that the negotiations are rigged.
The second way the negotiations are rigged is that Israel's basic demand for security requires an Israeli long term presence along the Jordan River. When this would end cannot be predicted in advance, because that depends on the state of relations between Israel and its neighbors. This is necessary in order to prevent the smuggling of arms, including rockets and missiles, into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It would be necessary also in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and other jihadis into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It is not possible to know now which regimes are going to survive in the long term, and when regime change will take place. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in strength in the region. Al Qaida is also determined to overthrow what it considers to be "apostate" regimes that are not governing according to Sharia. There have been Arab-Israeli wars in the past, and they could happen in the future also. An Israeli long term presence is needed along the Jordan River in order to delay an incoming invasion from across the Jordan River, if the friendly regime across the river is ever overthrown by Islamist forces, or if an invasionary force uses Jordan's territory to carry out its intended invasion into Israel. But Obama's speech, which he wants to make the basis of negotiations, rules out such an Israeli long-term presence along the Jordan River. It doesn't say that this is even negotiable. It just rules it out.
Obama's decision on the final result of the negotiations states: "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated." Full withdrawal with a defined period of transition, as Obama requires of the final result of the negotiations, means that if Israel agrees to Obama's terms for the final result of the negotiations, it would be denied a long-term military presence on the Jordan River, and denied effective means of stopping the smuggling of weapons including rockets into the Palestinian entity, denied effective means of stopping the infiltration of jihadis and terrorists, and denied effective means of holding up an invasionary force that crosses the Jordan River. That is a denial of Israel's basic security needs, and it does not allow Israel to even negotiate for this necessity. That is the second way the negotiations are rigged.
The third way that the proposed negotiations have been rigged is for Israel's essential requirements for ending the conflict to be taken off the table at the time Israel makes its territorial concessions. That means that these will not even be discussed. These requirements are, according to Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (in the summary words of correspondent Elad Benari):
1. "The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state."
2. "The treaty must be an end to the conflict."
3. "The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders."
But these will not even be considered when Israel makes territorial concessions, because Obama has taken them off the table.
They are essential for ending the conflict, but they will not be addressed, certainly not with the needed concessions by the Palestinians, because Israel will be deprived of negotiating chips long before they are discussed, if ever.
The conflict goes on for a root cause reason that Obama has never acknowledged. The Muslim states, the states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to which Obama has sent a US ambassador, has territory that sweeps from the Atlantic Ocean, across north Africa, and to the Persian Gulf and beyond the Persian Gulf. This Islamic territory has in its midst a small piece of territory controlled by infidels, the Jews, who have no desire to convert to Islam, and have the desire and need to keep the Jewish state. This is a part of the Dar al Harb that is within the territory that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists consider to be Islamic. For example, Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, considers all of the territory of Israel, whatever its dimensions now or in the future, to be part of an Islamic trust, that must be ruled by Sharia. Plainly, it is clear that there will not be peace with the Palestinians until they change their approach by recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation's state, and take on the task of educating their children that Israel is the Jewish nation's state and is entitled to exist. But this issue has been taken off the table by Obama while Israel makes territorial concessions, so the root cause of the endless war will not be resolved.
There are millions of descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees, including great-grandchildren, and the mass of people that the Palestinians consider to be "Arab refugees" includes these descendants and other relatives. If they were to inundate Israel, the country would cease to be a Jewish state. If there is a 22nd Arab state of Palestine, and if these millions of foreign Arabs who are hostile to Israel were to immigrate to Israel, that would turn it into the 23rd Arab state. That is not what is meant by a "2 state solution", both Arab states. It would mark the end of the aspirations, rights, and needs of the Jewish state of Israel. And yet Obama has decreed in his speech that this issue would be taken off the table while Israel was making territorial concessions. That means that the necessary concessions that the Palestinians need to make to end this Arab refugee issue, which has been a cassus belli or pretext for war, would not be made. The pretext for war would continue, and the wars and terrorism would continue, and this whole matter would not be resolved.
Israel's requirement for peace is that the process results in a treaty that is the end to the conflict. But this has not been put on the table for the time that Israel makes territorial concessions. So it will not be addressed, and the Palestinians, who have wanted to have endless war (as the Hamas charter makes clear, and even the Fatah charter, and the PLO charter), will not make the necessary concession to even state in the treaty that the conflict is ended (let alone carry it out). Therefore, there is no chance that this will lead to anything but irredentist war, war continuing indefinitely.
The Abbas-Obama plan for negotiations rigs the negotiations so that right at the start, before negotiations start, Israel loses its rights and its valuable assets, and loses defensible borders, and in the final result loses the essential ingredient for security -- a long term presence along the Jordan River (which was blocked by Obama), and doesn't address the issues necessary for ending the war. It is a formula for slicing and dicing Israel, to make it even more attractive for war against it by the Islamists, and its result, just as the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip turned out to be, is a land-for-war result.
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations based on the pre-war 1967 lines. That means that before the negotiations actually begin, Israel would have to promise to reset the clock to pre-war 1967, and accept that as the situation for the start of the negotiations, as the goal for the final result, and as the mediator's accepted position for mediating the negotiations. If Israel did this, it would mean that Israel is put into a deep hole, without the means for getting out, and would be required to negotiate after first giving up its negotiating chips.
Israel's basic negotiating position concerning territory is that "the settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital", summarizing the territorial part of Netanyahu's speech to the Israeli Knesset, in the words of correspondent Elad Benari of Israel National News. This is a position that the entire Israeli coalition government agrees on, and that the main opposition party, Kadima, also agrees on. It is the Israeli position. There is a letter from then-President George W. Bush affirming support for Israel keeping the settlement blocs. There is a congressional resolution affirming the unity of Jerusalem under Israeli control. There is a congressional resolution affirming support for Bush's letter.
But the Abbas-Obama demand is that before the negotiations even begin, Israel must agree to the 1967 lines. That means Israel gives up the Western Wall, gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, gives up half of its capital Jerusalem, and gives up all of the settlement blocs. The demand is for Israel to retreat to indefensible borders only 9 miles wide. But it gets even worse: the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to give up all of its negotiating chips before the negotiations start. Israel's plan is for some of the territory that Israel gained in the 1967 war in Judea and Samaria be given up by Israel as negotiating chips, but since the Abbas-Obama demand is for Israel to agree to lose all of this territory in advance of the negotiations, Israel would be losing its negotiating chips before negotiations start.That is the first way that the negotiations are rigged.
The second way the negotiations are rigged is that Israel's basic demand for security requires an Israeli long term presence along the Jordan River. When this would end cannot be predicted in advance, because that depends on the state of relations between Israel and its neighbors. This is necessary in order to prevent the smuggling of arms, including rockets and missiles, into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It would be necessary also in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and other jihadis into areas of Judea and Samaria that would be controlled by the Palestinians. It is not possible to know now which regimes are going to survive in the long term, and when regime change will take place. The Muslim Brotherhood is growing in strength in the region. Al Qaida is also determined to overthrow what it considers to be "apostate" regimes that are not governing according to Sharia. There have been Arab-Israeli wars in the past, and they could happen in the future also. An Israeli long term presence is needed along the Jordan River in order to delay an incoming invasion from across the Jordan River, if the friendly regime across the river is ever overthrown by Islamist forces, or if an invasionary force uses Jordan's territory to carry out its intended invasion into Israel. But Obama's speech, which he wants to make the basis of negotiations, rules out such an Israeli long-term presence along the Jordan River. It doesn't say that this is even negotiable. It just rules it out.
Obama's decision on the final result of the negotiations states: "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated." Full withdrawal with a defined period of transition, as Obama requires of the final result of the negotiations, means that if Israel agrees to Obama's terms for the final result of the negotiations, it would be denied a long-term military presence on the Jordan River, and denied effective means of stopping the smuggling of weapons including rockets into the Palestinian entity, denied effective means of stopping the infiltration of jihadis and terrorists, and denied effective means of holding up an invasionary force that crosses the Jordan River. That is a denial of Israel's basic security needs, and it does not allow Israel to even negotiate for this necessity. That is the second way the negotiations are rigged.
The third way that the proposed negotiations have been rigged is for Israel's essential requirements for ending the conflict to be taken off the table at the time Israel makes its territorial concessions. That means that these will not even be discussed. These requirements are, according to Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (in the summary words of correspondent Elad Benari):
1. "The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation's state."
2. "The treaty must be an end to the conflict."
3. "The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel's borders."
But these will not even be considered when Israel makes territorial concessions, because Obama has taken them off the table.
They are essential for ending the conflict, but they will not be addressed, certainly not with the needed concessions by the Palestinians, because Israel will be deprived of negotiating chips long before they are discussed, if ever.
The conflict goes on for a root cause reason that Obama has never acknowledged. The Muslim states, the states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to which Obama has sent a US ambassador, has territory that sweeps from the Atlantic Ocean, across north Africa, and to the Persian Gulf and beyond the Persian Gulf. This Islamic territory has in its midst a small piece of territory controlled by infidels, the Jews, who have no desire to convert to Islam, and have the desire and need to keep the Jewish state. This is a part of the Dar al Harb that is within the territory that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists consider to be Islamic. For example, Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, considers all of the territory of Israel, whatever its dimensions now or in the future, to be part of an Islamic trust, that must be ruled by Sharia. Plainly, it is clear that there will not be peace with the Palestinians until they change their approach by recognizing Israel as the Jewish nation's state, and take on the task of educating their children that Israel is the Jewish nation's state and is entitled to exist. But this issue has been taken off the table by Obama while Israel makes territorial concessions, so the root cause of the endless war will not be resolved.
There are millions of descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees, including great-grandchildren, and the mass of people that the Palestinians consider to be "Arab refugees" includes these descendants and other relatives. If they were to inundate Israel, the country would cease to be a Jewish state. If there is a 22nd Arab state of Palestine, and if these millions of foreign Arabs who are hostile to Israel were to immigrate to Israel, that would turn it into the 23rd Arab state. That is not what is meant by a "2 state solution", both Arab states. It would mark the end of the aspirations, rights, and needs of the Jewish state of Israel. And yet Obama has decreed in his speech that this issue would be taken off the table while Israel was making territorial concessions. That means that the necessary concessions that the Palestinians need to make to end this Arab refugee issue, which has been a cassus belli or pretext for war, would not be made. The pretext for war would continue, and the wars and terrorism would continue, and this whole matter would not be resolved.
Israel's requirement for peace is that the process results in a treaty that is the end to the conflict. But this has not been put on the table for the time that Israel makes territorial concessions. So it will not be addressed, and the Palestinians, who have wanted to have endless war (as the Hamas charter makes clear, and even the Fatah charter, and the PLO charter), will not make the necessary concession to even state in the treaty that the conflict is ended (let alone carry it out). Therefore, there is no chance that this will lead to anything but irredentist war, war continuing indefinitely.
The Abbas-Obama plan for negotiations rigs the negotiations so that right at the start, before negotiations start, Israel loses its rights and its valuable assets, and loses defensible borders, and in the final result loses the essential ingredient for security -- a long term presence along the Jordan River (which was blocked by Obama), and doesn't address the issues necessary for ending the war. It is a formula for slicing and dicing Israel, to make it even more attractive for war against it by the Islamists, and its result, just as the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip turned out to be, is a land-for-war result.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
GIGO
There is a saying in the world of computers: "Garbage in, garbage out." That means that if you start by inputting garbage into a computer program, you cannot expect to get anything out except garbage.
Same in the real world. If your initial assumptions are garbage, then your conclusion will be garbage.
Same with the plan to start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations by assuming that there will be a return by Israel to the 1967 lines. This is a garbage-type input, with Israel agreeing to give up all its negotiating chips before the negotiations get underway, and give up the Western Wall, give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, give up half its capital city Jerusalem, give up Judea and Samaria, expel 500,000 people for the crime of being Jewish, and withdraw to indefensible borders 9 miles wide. Since Israel will have no negotiating chips for the negotiations if the negotiations start by assuming a return to 1967, there will not be any negotiations. And since the Arab refugee problem is off the table during these attempted negotiations, there will be no progress toward peace. The result will be garbage.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Same in the real world. If your initial assumptions are garbage, then your conclusion will be garbage.
Same with the plan to start Israeli-Palestinian negotiations by assuming that there will be a return by Israel to the 1967 lines. This is a garbage-type input, with Israel agreeing to give up all its negotiating chips before the negotiations get underway, and give up the Western Wall, give up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, give up half its capital city Jerusalem, give up Judea and Samaria, expel 500,000 people for the crime of being Jewish, and withdraw to indefensible borders 9 miles wide. Since Israel will have no negotiating chips for the negotiations if the negotiations start by assuming a return to 1967, there will not be any negotiations. And since the Arab refugee problem is off the table during these attempted negotiations, there will be no progress toward peace. The result will be garbage.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Hatch-Lieberman Senate Resolution Against 1967 Lines for Israel
President Obama has begun a campaign to push Israel to return to the indefensible 1967 lines. The first step has been Obama's pressure on Israel to agree to start negotiations based on the 1967 lines. These are indefensible lines giving Israel a width of only 9 miles. These lines imply that Israel gives up the Western Wall, gives up the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, gives up half of its capital Jerusalem, gives up all of the Jewish ancestral homeland of Judea and Samaria, and makes more than 500,000 Israelis subject to expulsion from their homes and communities.
The second step in Obama's campaign is to demand that Israel negotiate, after having been deprived of all its negotiating chips. For there to be any chance of peace, Israel needs to have the Arab refugee problem resolved outside of the borders of Israel. But President Obama has removed this topic from the table, while the land changes are discussed. So there is zero chance that this matter will be resolved, and the casus belli will remain, and there will not be any resolution of the conflict. Israel cannot trade territorial concessions for Palestinian concessions on the Arab refugee problem, because (1) Israel would have all its negotiating chips taken away, and (2) the vital topic of Arab refugees was taken off the table by Obama. So the agenda is not land for peace but land for war. Since Israel will have nothing to offer, and the Palestinian side will see no reason for concession or for any form of compromise or reasonableness, there will not be any progress in negotiations, and a deadlock will occur -- at the beginning and throughout the negotiations.
The third step, once there is a deadlock, is for Obama to declare that Israel must retreat to the 1967 lines. After Israel has accepted the Obama demand for making the 1967 lines the starting point of negotiations, Israel will have legitimized this demand for a return to 1967, and it will be more difficult for Israel to refuse to do so. So Obama, with help from the international community, will press Israel to go back to 1967. He may say, for example: "The United States does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel's not going back to the 1967 lines." He may also add the lie that UN Resolution 242 requires Israel to go back to those lines, when in actuality it affirms Israel's "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." This maximum pressure by Obama against Israel, to force it to go back to 1967, will likely come during his second term. There will be nothing for Israel to gain by going back to 1967, and everything to lose.
But there has already started some pushback against this.
A bipartisan group of Senators has sponsored a resolution "Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967."
The cosponsors of this resolution includes Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Ron Wyden of Oregon,
Jerry Moran of Kansas, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah, John Thune of South Dakota, Rob Portman of Ohio, Dan Coats of Indiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Boozman of Arkansas, Roy Blunt of Missouri,
Scott Brown of Massachusetts, David Vitter of Louisiana, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Johnny Isakson of Oregon, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
The second step in Obama's campaign is to demand that Israel negotiate, after having been deprived of all its negotiating chips. For there to be any chance of peace, Israel needs to have the Arab refugee problem resolved outside of the borders of Israel. But President Obama has removed this topic from the table, while the land changes are discussed. So there is zero chance that this matter will be resolved, and the casus belli will remain, and there will not be any resolution of the conflict. Israel cannot trade territorial concessions for Palestinian concessions on the Arab refugee problem, because (1) Israel would have all its negotiating chips taken away, and (2) the vital topic of Arab refugees was taken off the table by Obama. So the agenda is not land for peace but land for war. Since Israel will have nothing to offer, and the Palestinian side will see no reason for concession or for any form of compromise or reasonableness, there will not be any progress in negotiations, and a deadlock will occur -- at the beginning and throughout the negotiations.
The third step, once there is a deadlock, is for Obama to declare that Israel must retreat to the 1967 lines. After Israel has accepted the Obama demand for making the 1967 lines the starting point of negotiations, Israel will have legitimized this demand for a return to 1967, and it will be more difficult for Israel to refuse to do so. So Obama, with help from the international community, will press Israel to go back to 1967. He may say, for example: "The United States does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel's not going back to the 1967 lines." He may also add the lie that UN Resolution 242 requires Israel to go back to those lines, when in actuality it affirms Israel's "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." This maximum pressure by Obama against Israel, to force it to go back to 1967, will likely come during his second term. There will be nothing for Israel to gain by going back to 1967, and everything to lose.
But there has already started some pushback against this.
A bipartisan group of Senators has sponsored a resolution "Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967."
The cosponsors of this resolution includes Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Ron Wyden of Oregon,
Jerry Moran of Kansas, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike Lee of Utah, John Thune of South Dakota, Rob Portman of Ohio, Dan Coats of Indiana, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Boozman of Arkansas, Roy Blunt of Missouri,
Scott Brown of Massachusetts, David Vitter of Louisiana, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Johnny Isakson of Oregon, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
Monday, June 13, 2011
What does President Obama want Netanyahu to do?
According to the back-to-1967 plan of President Obama, before the negotiations can begin, Israel's Prime Minister must promise to: strip Israel of its negotiating chips (by agreeing to go back to 1967 lines), give up defensible boundaries (by getting a 9 mile territorial width), give up Judaism's holiest place of prayer (the Western Wall) and give up pilgrim's rights, give up Judaism's holiest residential neighborhood (the Jewish Quarter of the Old City), give up half of its capital city, give up all of Judea and Samaria, create a humanitarian crisis by expelling more than 500,000 Israelis from their homes and neighborhoods.
Obama wants to slice and dice Israel, but he doesn't want to be the one to force it -- he wants the government of Israel to take the blame for doing this. So he wants to pressure Netanyahu to accept this.
If Netanyahu accepts this plan, then he will have legitimized the idea of returning to the 1967 plans. When there is a deadlock in the negotiations, Obama will demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines. He will say: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israel's refusal to return to the 1967 lines." And after Israel has accepted Obama's terms and thereby legitimized the idea of such a return to 1967, Israel will be in a weaker position to refuse it. Then, Obama and his friends in the international community will threaten Israel with "isolation" if Israel doesn't return to the 1967 lines.
Obama's second goal, if he doesn't succeed in slicing and dicing Israel, is to cause the collapse of Israel's government, and to remove Netanyahu from power.
Obama wants to slice and dice Israel, but he doesn't want to be the one to force it -- he wants the government of Israel to take the blame for doing this. So he wants to pressure Netanyahu to accept this.
If Netanyahu accepts this plan, then he will have legitimized the idea of returning to the 1967 plans. When there is a deadlock in the negotiations, Obama will demand that Israel return to the 1967 lines. He will say: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israel's refusal to return to the 1967 lines." And after Israel has accepted Obama's terms and thereby legitimized the idea of such a return to 1967, Israel will be in a weaker position to refuse it. Then, Obama and his friends in the international community will threaten Israel with "isolation" if Israel doesn't return to the 1967 lines.
Obama's second goal, if he doesn't succeed in slicing and dicing Israel, is to cause the collapse of Israel's government, and to remove Netanyahu from power.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Obama negotiating plan would be a disaster for Israel
A plan for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, originally put forward by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and now endorsed by President Obama would be a disaster for Israel for several reasons.
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps". The return-to-1967 idea is itself a disaster for Israel. It means that Israel loses the Western Wall, it loses the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, it loses half of its capital Jerusalem and has to expel the 250,000 Jewish residents of the targeted area of Jerusalem, it loses all of Judea and Samaria and has to expel its 320,000 Jewish residents, and Israel would be reduced to having a territorial width that is 9 miles wide with indefensible borders.
Secondly, Israel would not be permitted to negotiate until it agreed to this back-to-1967 plan, which means that it would not be permitted to negotiate until it agreed to give up all of its negotiating chips.
Thirdly, when the negotiations become deadlocked, Israel would be required to return to the indefensible 1967 lines.
Fourthly, the most important matter that Israel needs to trade for its negotiating chips, solving the Arab refugee problem outside of Israel's borders, would be kept off the table according to President Obama. But that is the Palestinians' casus belli, their pretext for continued war. That assures that Israel will neither have any negotiating chips nor will the issue even get to the table, so the problem will certainly not be solved, and the pretext for Palestinian war against Israel will continue indefinitely.
All in all, this is not a preparation for peace, but a preparation for indefinite war. It involves an assault against the rights of pilgrims, creating an unstable situation with indefensible Israeli borders that will tempt jihadist terrorists, rocketeers, and armies to attack Israel, and that won't get to address the casus belli of the Palestinians.
Nor will there be any effort to get to the heart of the matter, which is that the Muslims have control over a stretch of land from the Atlantic Ocean to beyond the Persian Gulf, save for a bit of mostly sand called Israel and ruled by infidels -- the Jews. The followers of political Islam cannot accept this, and want to wipe out this infidel-ruled piece of land in their midst. Obama's plan to slice and dice Israel by shrinking Israel's borders to those of 1967 and giving the jihadists the Jewish holy places will not make the Islamists less desirous of wiping out Israel. Just the opposite, the weaker Israel is and appears, the more they will smell blood, and the more they will be emboldened to try to wipe out Israel. Obama's plan is land-for-war.
First, Israel would be required to accept negotiations "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps". The return-to-1967 idea is itself a disaster for Israel. It means that Israel loses the Western Wall, it loses the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, it loses half of its capital Jerusalem and has to expel the 250,000 Jewish residents of the targeted area of Jerusalem, it loses all of Judea and Samaria and has to expel its 320,000 Jewish residents, and Israel would be reduced to having a territorial width that is 9 miles wide with indefensible borders.
Secondly, Israel would not be permitted to negotiate until it agreed to this back-to-1967 plan, which means that it would not be permitted to negotiate until it agreed to give up all of its negotiating chips.
Thirdly, when the negotiations become deadlocked, Israel would be required to return to the indefensible 1967 lines.
Fourthly, the most important matter that Israel needs to trade for its negotiating chips, solving the Arab refugee problem outside of Israel's borders, would be kept off the table according to President Obama. But that is the Palestinians' casus belli, their pretext for continued war. That assures that Israel will neither have any negotiating chips nor will the issue even get to the table, so the problem will certainly not be solved, and the pretext for Palestinian war against Israel will continue indefinitely.
All in all, this is not a preparation for peace, but a preparation for indefinite war. It involves an assault against the rights of pilgrims, creating an unstable situation with indefensible Israeli borders that will tempt jihadist terrorists, rocketeers, and armies to attack Israel, and that won't get to address the casus belli of the Palestinians.
Nor will there be any effort to get to the heart of the matter, which is that the Muslims have control over a stretch of land from the Atlantic Ocean to beyond the Persian Gulf, save for a bit of mostly sand called Israel and ruled by infidels -- the Jews. The followers of political Islam cannot accept this, and want to wipe out this infidel-ruled piece of land in their midst. Obama's plan to slice and dice Israel by shrinking Israel's borders to those of 1967 and giving the jihadists the Jewish holy places will not make the Islamists less desirous of wiping out Israel. Just the opposite, the weaker Israel is and appears, the more they will smell blood, and the more they will be emboldened to try to wipe out Israel. Obama's plan is land-for-war.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Obama's poison pill
Obama has offered a formula to Israel, for land changes "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps", which is a poison pill for Israel.
The part that becomes deadly afterward is that before the negotiations start, Obama wants Israel to agree to the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiation. In effect he is saying: "Accept this formula, and some time later I will explain to you what your obligations are according to this formula".
The Jordanians have no interest in returning to claim the territory that they conquered and held from 1948-1967, so it means turning over the territory to the Hamas-Fatah partnership. That is, promising to give up the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, the Temple Mount, half of Jerusalem, expelling the 250,000 Jews living in Jerusalem in the area targeted by the ethnic cleansers and their helpers, all of Judea and Samaria, and the 320,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. It means indefensible borders reducing Israel to 9 miles in width. It means that Israel gives up a military presence along the Jordan River, which was demanded in Obama's statement about a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. It means a disastrous, perilous situation for Israel, and a demand for that will be coming when that phase of the poison pill takes effect.
After Israel agrees to the poison pill formula, the negotiations will become deadlocked, because it profits the Palestinians to produce a deadlock which will reward them with the 1967 lines. For example, the jihadists of Hamas will welcome obtaining the Western Wall from Israel, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (with its Jewish residents expelled), and complete control over the Temple Mount. Even if Israel offered half of pre-1967 Israel in an effort to ransom the holy places, this will not be good enough for Hamas (although it would be a disaster in itself for Israel to offer such a ransom). The deadlock will cause Obama to spring into action, and accuse Israel of reneging on its promise, unless it agrees to go to the 1967 indefensible borders. He will say something like: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israel's refusal to go back to the 1967 borders." He will get the international community to back his threat that Israel will be isolated in the world if it doesn't go back to the 1967 borders. He will say that Israel has reneged on its promise, and is therefore in violation of international law. He will say that this behavior by Israel is an insult to the U.S. He will say that this behavior is causing instability in the world, and causing American deaths.
Mr. Obama tries to move into his plan gradually, not all at once. But once Israel agrees to accepting a return to the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiation, Israel will have legitimized this concept of returning to the 1967 lines, and will open itself for the next phase, which will come when there is a deadlock. That phase is the demand, backed by threats by Obama and the international community, for Israel to go back to the 1967 lines.
The maximum pressure on Israel will come during Obama's second term. He will not exert maximum pressure during his first term, because Jews contribute more than 50% of the donations received by Democrats running for political office (even though they are nationally a small percentage of the total number of voters). He will not exert maximum pressure during his first term, because in the key battleground state of Florida, with 29 electoral votes and a history of switching between the parties in different elections, the significant Jewish vote there could make a difference that affects which presidential candidate wins Florida's 29 electoral votes, a sizable amount. But after the November 2012 election, he will feel free to exert all the pressure he likes against Israel. And that's when the poison aspect of the poison pill will start to be felt.
Accepting, and therefore legitimizing, a plan involving a return to 1967, whether as a goal for negotiations, or as the starting point of negotiations, or as the official mediator's position, or as a basis for negotiations, would be an invitation to disaster for Israel. When a deadlock in the negotiations occurs, that 1967 situation would become the default, and it would be demanded that Israel go back to 1967.
The part that becomes deadly afterward is that before the negotiations start, Obama wants Israel to agree to the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiation. In effect he is saying: "Accept this formula, and some time later I will explain to you what your obligations are according to this formula".
The Jordanians have no interest in returning to claim the territory that they conquered and held from 1948-1967, so it means turning over the territory to the Hamas-Fatah partnership. That is, promising to give up the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, the Temple Mount, half of Jerusalem, expelling the 250,000 Jews living in Jerusalem in the area targeted by the ethnic cleansers and their helpers, all of Judea and Samaria, and the 320,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. It means indefensible borders reducing Israel to 9 miles in width. It means that Israel gives up a military presence along the Jordan River, which was demanded in Obama's statement about a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. It means a disastrous, perilous situation for Israel, and a demand for that will be coming when that phase of the poison pill takes effect.
After Israel agrees to the poison pill formula, the negotiations will become deadlocked, because it profits the Palestinians to produce a deadlock which will reward them with the 1967 lines. For example, the jihadists of Hamas will welcome obtaining the Western Wall from Israel, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (with its Jewish residents expelled), and complete control over the Temple Mount. Even if Israel offered half of pre-1967 Israel in an effort to ransom the holy places, this will not be good enough for Hamas (although it would be a disaster in itself for Israel to offer such a ransom). The deadlock will cause Obama to spring into action, and accuse Israel of reneging on its promise, unless it agrees to go to the 1967 indefensible borders. He will say something like: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of Israel's refusal to go back to the 1967 borders." He will get the international community to back his threat that Israel will be isolated in the world if it doesn't go back to the 1967 borders. He will say that Israel has reneged on its promise, and is therefore in violation of international law. He will say that this behavior by Israel is an insult to the U.S. He will say that this behavior is causing instability in the world, and causing American deaths.
Mr. Obama tries to move into his plan gradually, not all at once. But once Israel agrees to accepting a return to the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiation, Israel will have legitimized this concept of returning to the 1967 lines, and will open itself for the next phase, which will come when there is a deadlock. That phase is the demand, backed by threats by Obama and the international community, for Israel to go back to the 1967 lines.
The maximum pressure on Israel will come during Obama's second term. He will not exert maximum pressure during his first term, because Jews contribute more than 50% of the donations received by Democrats running for political office (even though they are nationally a small percentage of the total number of voters). He will not exert maximum pressure during his first term, because in the key battleground state of Florida, with 29 electoral votes and a history of switching between the parties in different elections, the significant Jewish vote there could make a difference that affects which presidential candidate wins Florida's 29 electoral votes, a sizable amount. But after the November 2012 election, he will feel free to exert all the pressure he likes against Israel. And that's when the poison aspect of the poison pill will start to be felt.
Accepting, and therefore legitimizing, a plan involving a return to 1967, whether as a goal for negotiations, or as the starting point of negotiations, or as the official mediator's position, or as a basis for negotiations, would be an invitation to disaster for Israel. When a deadlock in the negotiations occurs, that 1967 situation would become the default, and it would be demanded that Israel go back to 1967.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Abbas-Obama plan: First Israel capitulates then it may negotiate
The plan put forward by President Obama, which copies the territorial demands made by the Palestinians and trashes Israel's demand for a long term military presence along the Jordan, is that first Israel capitulates by agreeing to accept the pre-war 1967 lines, and then it may negotiate with the Palestinians.
In the first phase, Israel capitulates by agreeing to: hand over the Western Wall, the holiest prayer site of all Jews, to the Hamas jihadists and their Fatah partners; hand over to the genocidal jihadists Hamas the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, which has been a residence of devout Jews for centuries (apart from the 1948-1967 Jordanian conquest and occupation); hand over the Temple Mount, which has been the holiest of places for the Jews since even centuries before the birth of Mohammed; make 250,000 people living in Israel's capital to have the status of illegal aliens subject to expulsion or worse whims of the Hamas genocidal jihadists, for the crime of living in Jerusalem while being Jewish; slice Israel's capital city and take half of it away; make 320,000 people living in Judea and Samaria illegal aliens subject to expulsion or worse for the crime of being Jewish while living in the Jewish ancestral homeland; force Israel to the indefensible "1967 lines", the armistice lines of 1949 that lasted until the war of 1967, which give Israel a width of 9 miles and are an invitation to warfare by Israel's neighbors; give up Israel's military presence along the Jordan River, which is essential to prevent smuggling of rockets and jihadis, and to engage any invading military force to give Israel time to call up its reserve army. This demand by Obama, to prevent Israel from any hope of security by eliminating the possibility of a long-term Israeli military force along the Jordan River, was not even mentioned by the Palestinians, but now it is part of the US demand to really crush Israel's security before it is even allowed to negotiate.
There may be other demands that would be part of the required Israeli capitulation before it is allowed to negotiate. Obama mentioned contiguity for a Palestinian state. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank, so from what we have already seen from Obama, it appears that he would interpret this as Israel consenting to split Israel in half in order to join the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
The Palestinians have also added another demand that they want from Israel before they would allow negotiation. This would be to remove property rights and any building for their needs in the areas where the more than 500,000 victims of the ethnic cleansers are living -- that is, in Judea and Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, which would apply only against Jews. Obama has already delegitimized the rights of these victims, so he may also interpret this Palestinian demand as part of his own demands before Israel is allowed to negotiate.
What Obama will, in effect, say to the Israelis is: agree to say the following words (and he will have prepared the words that he wants the prime minister of Israel to say), and later I will tell you what you have committed to.
Obama has a special relationship with matters legal. For example, he got his start in politics by entering a large field of Democratic candidates for a position in the Illinois legislature, and then challenging the signatures of all of his rivals on their nominating petitions. He got all of the candidates except himself to be ruled as disqualified, including even the incumbent (who had been his mentor), and he ran without any opposition.
He participated in the delegitimization campaign against Israel, by deciding to trash the property rights of Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem. He didn't bother to give any reason for this, instead proclaiming that the United States does not accept the legitimacy (of what he interpreted to be any building activity whatsoever by these victims, or in the designated areas to be ethnically cleansed).
Perhaps he decided that once Netanyahu agreed to give a try to a 10-month building moratorium, that was an admission that property rights were illegitimate, and never mind that there was a time limit, and never mind that it was conditioned on the expectation that the Palestinians would negotiate.
On the other hand, regarding the US war in Libya, he tells Congress that Le loi, c'est moi, the law is me. No going to Congress to satisfy the Constitution or the War Powers Act. He decides the law.
Having seen what Obama does, my guess is that once Israel agrees to Obama's formula -- say, accepting a return to 1967 lines as the basis of negotiations, with mutually agreed swaps -- and if, as expected a deadlock arises regarding agreed swaps and any further negotiations come to a stand still, then Obama will say that Israel must return to the 1967 lines or it is in violation of its own promises and therefore in violation of international law. He is collecting international support for doing this to Israel, and he will threaten Israel with international isolation if it does not go to the indefensible 1967 lines. The maximum pressure on Israel from Obama will come during his second term in office, or even right after the November 2012 election, when he is no longer seeking votes or donations, and feels free to do to Israel whatever he likes.
In the first phase, Israel capitulates by agreeing to: hand over the Western Wall, the holiest prayer site of all Jews, to the Hamas jihadists and their Fatah partners; hand over to the genocidal jihadists Hamas the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, which has been a residence of devout Jews for centuries (apart from the 1948-1967 Jordanian conquest and occupation); hand over the Temple Mount, which has been the holiest of places for the Jews since even centuries before the birth of Mohammed; make 250,000 people living in Israel's capital to have the status of illegal aliens subject to expulsion or worse whims of the Hamas genocidal jihadists, for the crime of living in Jerusalem while being Jewish; slice Israel's capital city and take half of it away; make 320,000 people living in Judea and Samaria illegal aliens subject to expulsion or worse for the crime of being Jewish while living in the Jewish ancestral homeland; force Israel to the indefensible "1967 lines", the armistice lines of 1949 that lasted until the war of 1967, which give Israel a width of 9 miles and are an invitation to warfare by Israel's neighbors; give up Israel's military presence along the Jordan River, which is essential to prevent smuggling of rockets and jihadis, and to engage any invading military force to give Israel time to call up its reserve army. This demand by Obama, to prevent Israel from any hope of security by eliminating the possibility of a long-term Israeli military force along the Jordan River, was not even mentioned by the Palestinians, but now it is part of the US demand to really crush Israel's security before it is even allowed to negotiate.
There may be other demands that would be part of the required Israeli capitulation before it is allowed to negotiate. Obama mentioned contiguity for a Palestinian state. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank, so from what we have already seen from Obama, it appears that he would interpret this as Israel consenting to split Israel in half in order to join the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
The Palestinians have also added another demand that they want from Israel before they would allow negotiation. This would be to remove property rights and any building for their needs in the areas where the more than 500,000 victims of the ethnic cleansers are living -- that is, in Judea and Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, which would apply only against Jews. Obama has already delegitimized the rights of these victims, so he may also interpret this Palestinian demand as part of his own demands before Israel is allowed to negotiate.
What Obama will, in effect, say to the Israelis is: agree to say the following words (and he will have prepared the words that he wants the prime minister of Israel to say), and later I will tell you what you have committed to.
Obama has a special relationship with matters legal. For example, he got his start in politics by entering a large field of Democratic candidates for a position in the Illinois legislature, and then challenging the signatures of all of his rivals on their nominating petitions. He got all of the candidates except himself to be ruled as disqualified, including even the incumbent (who had been his mentor), and he ran without any opposition.
He participated in the delegitimization campaign against Israel, by deciding to trash the property rights of Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem. He didn't bother to give any reason for this, instead proclaiming that the United States does not accept the legitimacy (of what he interpreted to be any building activity whatsoever by these victims, or in the designated areas to be ethnically cleansed).
Perhaps he decided that once Netanyahu agreed to give a try to a 10-month building moratorium, that was an admission that property rights were illegitimate, and never mind that there was a time limit, and never mind that it was conditioned on the expectation that the Palestinians would negotiate.
On the other hand, regarding the US war in Libya, he tells Congress that Le loi, c'est moi, the law is me. No going to Congress to satisfy the Constitution or the War Powers Act. He decides the law.
Having seen what Obama does, my guess is that once Israel agrees to Obama's formula -- say, accepting a return to 1967 lines as the basis of negotiations, with mutually agreed swaps -- and if, as expected a deadlock arises regarding agreed swaps and any further negotiations come to a stand still, then Obama will say that Israel must return to the 1967 lines or it is in violation of its own promises and therefore in violation of international law. He is collecting international support for doing this to Israel, and he will threaten Israel with international isolation if it does not go to the indefensible 1967 lines. The maximum pressure on Israel from Obama will come during his second term in office, or even right after the November 2012 election, when he is no longer seeking votes or donations, and feels free to do to Israel whatever he likes.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Obama's push to return to 1967
On the Jay Leno show, Leno joked about Obama's efforts to return Israel to pre-war 1967. He said that Native Americans, hearing about this, asked if America could please return to pre-1492. Also, Leno said that on Obama's trip to England, the Queen asked if America could please return to pre-1776. On the Internet, someone circulated a call to return America to pre-1959, to before Hawaii was a state, so that Obama would not be a citizen of the U.S.
Unfortunately, it's no joking matter that Obama is serious about turning the clock back to pre-war 1967. Mr. Obama works in phases, and the maximal pressure on Israel to return to pre-war 1967 will come after the November 2012 election that gives Obama a second term, when he will no longer care what any voter or donor thinks about what he is doing. For now, he is setting the stage for that pressure.
Obama has adapted the territorial plan of the Palestinians. Here is a description of the positions of the Israeli government and the position of the Palestinians, as described in a joint U.S.-Israel statement after a November 11, 2010 meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
"The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that 'The United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.' Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement."
What Obama did in his State Department speech is trash the Israeli position, which he did not mention, and set U.S. policy to push the Palestinian position, which he legitimized, and gave cover to by proclaiming it as the U.S. position. He said nothing about Pres. George W. Bush's letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, supporting Israel's negotiating position on settlement blocs. Nor did he mention Bush's letter's support for solving the Arab refugee problem outside of Israel's final borders. Instead he repeated the Palestinian position as being the U.S. position.
Some deceivers like David Harris are seeking to fool the Jewish community into believing that Obama is not pushing for return to the pre-war 1967 lines, because, like the Palestinian position he included a reference to permitting agreed swaps. But that is a distinction without a difference, because all that stands in the way of a return to the pre-war 1967 lines, in this formulation, is a shake of the head by Abbas, turning down any offer of a swap that Israel proposes. If Israel accepted the Abbas-Obama formulation, then if there is a deadlock, as is certain, the situation would not revert to the present situation; it would revert to a return to the pre-war 1967 situation.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is based on trashing of the Jewish state's claims in Eretz Yisrael such as the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, liberated Jerusalem, and territories of Judea and Samaria. Under the Abbas-Obama plan all of these, including the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem would be put in the care of the Hamas violent aggressive jihadists and their Fatah partners. Just as the Jordanians did when they controlled these, the Jews would be denied access to the Western Wall, the synagogues in the Old City would be destroyed and the Jews expelled.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is also based on rewarding the aggression of the Arab states. On May 15, 1948, the day 5 Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, Arab League Sec. Gen. Azzam Pasha said: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Among the invading armies, the army of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, with its British officers, and commanded by Britain's John Glubb, crossed the River Jordan to invade. They captured the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and massacred the Jewish residents there, expelled the survivors, and exiled the Jews from a place that has been inhabited by Jews for centuries. The occupation by Transjordan (which then changed its name to Jordan) lasted from 1948 to the war of 1967. The Abbas-Obama plan is based on rewarding this aggression and massacre, making the Hamas and Fatah terrorists the beneficiaries of Transjordan's aggression and occupation from 1948-1967.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is also based on replacing the idea of territorial compromise with the idea of unilateral concessions by Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967, calls for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories", not from "the" territories, and it calls for "secure and recognized borders". But the Abbas-Obama plan is for maximum Israeli territorial concessions, and no compromise at all to give secure borders to Israel. The borders to which the Abbas-Obama plan would force Israel would be only 9 miles wide, and indefensible.
Mr. Obama's plan also guarantees that there will be no resolution of the Arab "refugee" problem, which has been the casus belli of the wars and violence since 1948, and which is a continuing pretext for endless war against Israel. Israel cannot admit the millions of foreign Arabs who claim to be great-grandchildren of Arab refugees of 1948, or it will end its existence as a Jewish state and become the 23rd Arab state after the Palestinians have the 22nd Arab state. That is not what is meant by the "two-state solution", having two more Arab states and the end of the one Jewish state. Pres. George W. Bush's letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured Israel that the Arab refugee problem would be settled outside the final borders of Israel, but Pres. Barack Obama refuses to confirm Bush's promise. Instead, he has trashed the agreements and understandings reached between the US and Israel, and his Secretary of State has asserted that these agreements and understandings don't exist. The letter, which was endorsed by Congress, also doesn't exist in the parallel universe of Mr. Obama. In order to further prevent any progress on this crucial issue of the Arab refugee problem, Obama has also taken the issue off the table for the discussions about territory, so that Israel would not be permitted to trade Israeli concessions on territory for a Palestinian resolution of the Arab refugee problem. This was done by Mr. Obama to make sure that Israeli territorial concessions were unilateral, with no significant measurable concessions by the Palestinians on the crucial Arab refugee problem. This trick by Obama guarantees that the Arab refugee issue will not be resolved, the war against Israel will not be settled, there will be an effort to slice and dice Israel for the sake of future wars but there will not be any peace, no resolution of the Arabs' infinite grievance against Israel. Likewise, when Israel concedes territory according to the Abbas-Obama plan, the crucial-for-Israel issue of recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state will be off the table, and therefore never addressed since the Abbas-Obama plan involves stripping Israel of all its negotiating chips before such important-for-Israel matters are addressed.
In 1948, the leader of the Palestinians, the Mufti of Jerusalem (who was an ally of Adolf Hitler during WWII), declared: "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" The genocidal incitement against the Jews has continued ever since, and that is a reason why the war against the Jews continues and will continue. But Obama's trick is to take the matter of incitement off the table when Israel makes territorial concessions, so that this issue of incitement cannot be brought up at the time when Israel makes the concessions. So it will not be brought up at all, since by Obama's trick Israel would be stripped of its negotiating chips before this issue and other critical issues for Israel are discussed.
Unfortunately, it's no joking matter that Obama is serious about turning the clock back to pre-war 1967. Mr. Obama works in phases, and the maximal pressure on Israel to return to pre-war 1967 will come after the November 2012 election that gives Obama a second term, when he will no longer care what any voter or donor thinks about what he is doing. For now, he is setting the stage for that pressure.
Obama has adapted the territorial plan of the Palestinians. Here is a description of the positions of the Israeli government and the position of the Palestinians, as described in a joint U.S.-Israel statement after a November 11, 2010 meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
"The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that 'The United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.' Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement."
What Obama did in his State Department speech is trash the Israeli position, which he did not mention, and set U.S. policy to push the Palestinian position, which he legitimized, and gave cover to by proclaiming it as the U.S. position. He said nothing about Pres. George W. Bush's letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, supporting Israel's negotiating position on settlement blocs. Nor did he mention Bush's letter's support for solving the Arab refugee problem outside of Israel's final borders. Instead he repeated the Palestinian position as being the U.S. position.
Some deceivers like David Harris are seeking to fool the Jewish community into believing that Obama is not pushing for return to the pre-war 1967 lines, because, like the Palestinian position he included a reference to permitting agreed swaps. But that is a distinction without a difference, because all that stands in the way of a return to the pre-war 1967 lines, in this formulation, is a shake of the head by Abbas, turning down any offer of a swap that Israel proposes. If Israel accepted the Abbas-Obama formulation, then if there is a deadlock, as is certain, the situation would not revert to the present situation; it would revert to a return to the pre-war 1967 situation.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is based on trashing of the Jewish state's claims in Eretz Yisrael such as the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, liberated Jerusalem, and territories of Judea and Samaria. Under the Abbas-Obama plan all of these, including the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem would be put in the care of the Hamas violent aggressive jihadists and their Fatah partners. Just as the Jordanians did when they controlled these, the Jews would be denied access to the Western Wall, the synagogues in the Old City would be destroyed and the Jews expelled.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is also based on rewarding the aggression of the Arab states. On May 15, 1948, the day 5 Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, Arab League Sec. Gen. Azzam Pasha said: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Among the invading armies, the army of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, with its British officers, and commanded by Britain's John Glubb, crossed the River Jordan to invade. They captured the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and massacred the Jewish residents there, expelled the survivors, and exiled the Jews from a place that has been inhabited by Jews for centuries. The occupation by Transjordan (which then changed its name to Jordan) lasted from 1948 to the war of 1967. The Abbas-Obama plan is based on rewarding this aggression and massacre, making the Hamas and Fatah terrorists the beneficiaries of Transjordan's aggression and occupation from 1948-1967.
The Abbas-Obama plan to return to pre-war 1967 is also based on replacing the idea of territorial compromise with the idea of unilateral concessions by Israel. UN Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967, calls for "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories", not from "the" territories, and it calls for "secure and recognized borders". But the Abbas-Obama plan is for maximum Israeli territorial concessions, and no compromise at all to give secure borders to Israel. The borders to which the Abbas-Obama plan would force Israel would be only 9 miles wide, and indefensible.
Mr. Obama's plan also guarantees that there will be no resolution of the Arab "refugee" problem, which has been the casus belli of the wars and violence since 1948, and which is a continuing pretext for endless war against Israel. Israel cannot admit the millions of foreign Arabs who claim to be great-grandchildren of Arab refugees of 1948, or it will end its existence as a Jewish state and become the 23rd Arab state after the Palestinians have the 22nd Arab state. That is not what is meant by the "two-state solution", having two more Arab states and the end of the one Jewish state. Pres. George W. Bush's letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured Israel that the Arab refugee problem would be settled outside the final borders of Israel, but Pres. Barack Obama refuses to confirm Bush's promise. Instead, he has trashed the agreements and understandings reached between the US and Israel, and his Secretary of State has asserted that these agreements and understandings don't exist. The letter, which was endorsed by Congress, also doesn't exist in the parallel universe of Mr. Obama. In order to further prevent any progress on this crucial issue of the Arab refugee problem, Obama has also taken the issue off the table for the discussions about territory, so that Israel would not be permitted to trade Israeli concessions on territory for a Palestinian resolution of the Arab refugee problem. This was done by Mr. Obama to make sure that Israeli territorial concessions were unilateral, with no significant measurable concessions by the Palestinians on the crucial Arab refugee problem. This trick by Obama guarantees that the Arab refugee issue will not be resolved, the war against Israel will not be settled, there will be an effort to slice and dice Israel for the sake of future wars but there will not be any peace, no resolution of the Arabs' infinite grievance against Israel. Likewise, when Israel concedes territory according to the Abbas-Obama plan, the crucial-for-Israel issue of recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state will be off the table, and therefore never addressed since the Abbas-Obama plan involves stripping Israel of all its negotiating chips before such important-for-Israel matters are addressed.
In 1948, the leader of the Palestinians, the Mufti of Jerusalem (who was an ally of Adolf Hitler during WWII), declared: "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" The genocidal incitement against the Jews has continued ever since, and that is a reason why the war against the Jews continues and will continue. But Obama's trick is to take the matter of incitement off the table when Israel makes territorial concessions, so that this issue of incitement cannot be brought up at the time when Israel makes the concessions. So it will not be brought up at all, since by Obama's trick Israel would be stripped of its negotiating chips before this issue and other critical issues for Israel are discussed.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
maintaining the casus belli involving the "right of return" ?
I watched President Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC. What was stunningly missing was any reference at all to the claimed "right of return", by which the Palestinians demand that the millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great grandchildren of Arab refugees immigrate into Israel. This immigration would end the existence of Israel, and former President Bush openly opposed it. This omission of any reference to the claimed "right of return" allowed the statement by President Obama that he had not changed the policy that went before. But did he?
The letter by then-President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated, in part:
"The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final-status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
If President Obama meant to continue the past policy, then clearly he would have said so. He would have repeated the essence of what President George W. Bush said. But he didn't and refused even to say anything at all about the topic, thereby showing that he reversed President Bush's policy. His refusal to say anything at all on the topic allowed him to claim that there was no change in policy, when actually the Bush policy regarding the "right of return" was reversed by Obama.
But not only was it reversed, Obama's policy is to require the negotiators to discuss the territorial concessions that Israel will make -- and Obama has demanded that Israel meet the fullest territorial concessions demanded by the Palestinians (apart from some minor corrections in the form of swaps of equal value), without simultaneously allowing a negotiation on refugees. This takes away Israel's ability to trade Israeli concessions on territory for Palestinian concessions on the right of return. Obama requires Israel to make the maximum concessions on territory, in advance of the negotiations, by accepting the Armistice Lines as Israel's border as a basis for negotiations before they even begin, and also takes away the possibility of Israel linking it to Palestinian concessions on refugees. These lines would give Israel a width of only 9 miles from the enemy to the sea, and would give Israel indefensible borders, and the risk of being defeated militarily. But this non-linkage by Obama also means that the problem of the Arab refugees would never get solved. Israel cannot risk allowing millions of hostile Arabs immigrating into Israel, causing a civil war, multiplying, and ending the existence of the Jewish state. And by Obama's taking away Israel's negotiating cards, and removing all leverage it could have, the Palestinians would not agree to end their demand for a "right of return". In this way, the casus belli would be maintained, and there could not possibly be peace.
The letter by then-President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated, in part:
"The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final-status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
If President Obama meant to continue the past policy, then clearly he would have said so. He would have repeated the essence of what President George W. Bush said. But he didn't and refused even to say anything at all about the topic, thereby showing that he reversed President Bush's policy. His refusal to say anything at all on the topic allowed him to claim that there was no change in policy, when actually the Bush policy regarding the "right of return" was reversed by Obama.
But not only was it reversed, Obama's policy is to require the negotiators to discuss the territorial concessions that Israel will make -- and Obama has demanded that Israel meet the fullest territorial concessions demanded by the Palestinians (apart from some minor corrections in the form of swaps of equal value), without simultaneously allowing a negotiation on refugees. This takes away Israel's ability to trade Israeli concessions on territory for Palestinian concessions on the right of return. Obama requires Israel to make the maximum concessions on territory, in advance of the negotiations, by accepting the Armistice Lines as Israel's border as a basis for negotiations before they even begin, and also takes away the possibility of Israel linking it to Palestinian concessions on refugees. These lines would give Israel a width of only 9 miles from the enemy to the sea, and would give Israel indefensible borders, and the risk of being defeated militarily. But this non-linkage by Obama also means that the problem of the Arab refugees would never get solved. Israel cannot risk allowing millions of hostile Arabs immigrating into Israel, causing a civil war, multiplying, and ending the existence of the Jewish state. And by Obama's taking away Israel's negotiating cards, and removing all leverage it could have, the Palestinians would not agree to end their demand for a "right of return". In this way, the casus belli would be maintained, and there could not possibly be peace.
Terms of Surrender
I watched the president speak to AIPAC today, and I heard him set out terms of surrender for Israel to agree to. He spoke about this topic as if he were selling the idea of "surrender now" to an audience of fools and cowards. He told them how powerful the Arab world and the Muslim world was becoming, how numerous the Arabs were becoming in the West Bank, how the acquiring of peace is becoming more and more difficult for Israel because now there is not one autocrat per country to convince but millions of people who will have a voice in the Arab governments (he assumes they will become democracies), and how the other countries of the world were all lining up against Israel. He told them that peace would be a wonderful thing. He told them that if the terms of surrender were not agreed to by Israel now, they would only get more difficult for Israel as time went on. As a good salesman, he said, in effect, buy now, because what is being bought is a wonderful product and later the price will get higher.
He didn't address the question of whether Israel actually has a peace partner. These terms were set down by President Obama days after Mahmoud Abbas announced that Fatah would be partners with Hamas, and would seek to be internationally recognized as a state of Palestine, on 1967 lines (meaning on the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan). Hamas is a terrorist organization, and has been recognized as such by the US State Department. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its charter is judeophobic, calling the Jews responsible for all of the evils of the world for all time, reading as if it were a part of Hitler's Mein Kampf in its slanders of the Jews. Its charter also features a statement saying that in the end of days, the Jews will all be killed; but it doesn't treat this as some sort of allegory, the context of the charter's hostility to the Jews and calls to kill the Jews show that this is offered as support for a genocidal program against the Jews. While Fatah's constitution also calls for the destruction of Israel, and the PLO's charter also calls for the destruction of Israel, Abbas was thought to be a moderate because he kept his distance from Hamas. That is no more, with the Hamas-Fatah partnership. And Hamas brings a religious zeal to their calls for Israel's destruction, appealing to religious reasons for doing so, so they turn the dispute into a religious war, a jihad. Israel is faced with genocidal terrorist jihadists, who are not offering any peace, but only a hudna, a temporary cease fire until they are strong enough militarily to wage warfare.
Israel does not have a peace partner, so it cannot consider terms supposedly of peace, when there isn't going to be any peace.
What President Obama offered is a chance to define the end result of the negotiations, as far as territory is concerned, before the negotiations begin. Then what is the point of the negotiations, when the end result, according to President Obama, would be a return, essentially, to the Armistice Lines of 1949 (which held only until 1967, and he calls them the 1967 lines). Yes, there could be some slight modifications, but only if agreed upon (and the Palestinians are not interested in any modifications), and only with Israel as a supplicant deprived of its negotiating cards, and forced to slice and dice the country to try to get some relief. The Armistice Lines would give Israel a width, for its populous region along the Mediterranean, only 9 miles wide. For the entire Mediterranean coastal region, the average width would hardly be any more than this, roughly around 10 miles average width.
This would be dangerous for Israel. As P. David Hornik pointed out on the blog at www.frontpagemag.com on May 21 (yesterday):
"gravest of all would be Israel's radical strategic vulnerability in the situation envisaged by Obama. Even a Palestinian state that more or less complied with 'nonmilitarization' could allow -- or be forced to allow -- Arab armies from the east to traverse the short distance to Israel's coastal plain, where a mere nine-mile push by tank force would suffice to sunder Israel and put an end to Jewish sovereignty. Would Israel's large, capable army be able to stop the invasion? Very likely not -- because the bulk of that army consists of reserve forces, which require 48 hours for a full mobilization. An Arab force could cross the West Bank in much less time. Meanwhile the reserve forces rushing along exposed arteries to exposed mobilization centers would be subject to various forms of debilitating fire -- very likely including missile barrages from states and terror enclaves bordering Israel."
What is being offered is not peace that Israelis can live with at all. It is a situation that could lead to the direst situation for Israel, even the end of Israel, the end of the Jewish state. The product that Obama is selling is not the peace of life, but the peace of the grave.
Also, Obama has not mentioned the casus beli of the Palestinians, their demand for millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Arab refugees to immigrate into Israel. These would produce a civil war in Israel, and would multiply, and would end the existence of the Jewish state. It is conquest by immigration, which the Arabs have kept as another approach to ending the existence of Israel. Obama would have Israel make suicidal concessions on territory, without calling for negotiations at the same time or earlier on the casus beli, so that having obtained territorial concessions the Palestinians would not see the need to make any concessions on their casus beli. This would preserve the state of war, and the reason for the endless warfare. In effect, this would take away Israel's ability to have any leverage for negotiation. That is why Israel requires that all topics be open for negotiation, not merely the ones that Israel is expected to make concessions on, but also those that clearly require Palestinians concession like the demand for a "right of return" of millions of those claiming to be descendants of Arab refugees. This omission tilts the balance entirely away from Israel and makes it a supplicant at the negotiating table, with everything stacked against it.
There would not be any relenting on the part of the Palestinians in such a situation.
In other words, Obama is setting up conditions for defenseless boundaries leading to the conquest by the sword, plus conditions for massive immigration of millions of hostile Arabs into Israel setting up conditions for conquest by immigration. This is not a good product that Obama is selling, or trying to sell to Israel and to its supporters in America.
He claims that there is nothing different about it from what has gone on in the past. But in the past there were negotiations that were not restricted to Israeli concessions at the start. And to prove that this is a vast change from what came from the previous administration, Obama has so far refused to endorse the letter that then-President George W. Bush sent to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. So much for pretend-continuity., a pretense made to lower resistance to this plan for Israel to take the gravest of risks with an enemy that is tied to genocidal terrorist jihad -- Hamas -- that makes it clear it does not even want to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
Obama spoke to the AIPAC audience as if they were an audience of fools and cowards, telling them that his product is "peace", that it is great, and that the price will go up if Israel doesn't accept it. He told them that countries of the world are getting more hostile to Israel, so Israel has to surrender now or the price will go up. And he will be leaving on a trip abroad, soon. The purpose of this is to get other countries to sign on to his plan, to get them to pile onto Israel, to try to force a surrender of Israel on these very bad terms that would lead to the gravest of risks.
As Netanyahu pointed out, Israel cannot afford to take risks on which the existence of the Jewish state depends. History will not offer the Jews a second chance.
And what about the fate of the more than 500,000 Jews living in land which the Arab ethnic cleansers want to be made judenrein, and who under Obama's plan would find themselves in a foreign country surrounded by genocidal terrorist jihadists?Why hasn't said a word about the situation of these people, including some 300,000 children? This is a plan that is suitable for the dustbin of history.
Obama said that Jerusalem would not be discussed at this time. But his plan would divide Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice Lines, which would leave 200,000 Jews of northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, a sizable chunk of the 500,000 mentioned above, in a new country, with the Temple Mount in a foreign country, and the Western Wall in a foreign country, and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in a foreign country.
Obama said that he wants to give congruity to the new Palestinian state he is seeking to create. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank. That means he wants to take congruity away from Israel, by slicing it and dicing it further, to end Israel's congruity and give congruity to the Palestinian state.
This is not a plan that will in any way benefit Israel, as it promotes war, produces exile and humanitarian crisis for 500,000 Jews targeted for ethnic cleansing, ends the religious rights of Jewish pilgrims to ancient Jewish holy sites, and slices and dices the country -- without even having a peace partner. This is a plan for the dustbin of history, and that is where it deserves to remain. And why is a supposed "progressive" trying to get up an international mob to pressure Israel to accept a reactionary plan that seeks to return to the bad old days of 44 years to 63 years ago, when Israel faced maximum danger and disability, and then make it worse for Israel by slicing and dicing some more?
He didn't address the question of whether Israel actually has a peace partner. These terms were set down by President Obama days after Mahmoud Abbas announced that Fatah would be partners with Hamas, and would seek to be internationally recognized as a state of Palestine, on 1967 lines (meaning on the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan). Hamas is a terrorist organization, and has been recognized as such by the US State Department. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Its charter is judeophobic, calling the Jews responsible for all of the evils of the world for all time, reading as if it were a part of Hitler's Mein Kampf in its slanders of the Jews. Its charter also features a statement saying that in the end of days, the Jews will all be killed; but it doesn't treat this as some sort of allegory, the context of the charter's hostility to the Jews and calls to kill the Jews show that this is offered as support for a genocidal program against the Jews. While Fatah's constitution also calls for the destruction of Israel, and the PLO's charter also calls for the destruction of Israel, Abbas was thought to be a moderate because he kept his distance from Hamas. That is no more, with the Hamas-Fatah partnership. And Hamas brings a religious zeal to their calls for Israel's destruction, appealing to religious reasons for doing so, so they turn the dispute into a religious war, a jihad. Israel is faced with genocidal terrorist jihadists, who are not offering any peace, but only a hudna, a temporary cease fire until they are strong enough militarily to wage warfare.
Israel does not have a peace partner, so it cannot consider terms supposedly of peace, when there isn't going to be any peace.
What President Obama offered is a chance to define the end result of the negotiations, as far as territory is concerned, before the negotiations begin. Then what is the point of the negotiations, when the end result, according to President Obama, would be a return, essentially, to the Armistice Lines of 1949 (which held only until 1967, and he calls them the 1967 lines). Yes, there could be some slight modifications, but only if agreed upon (and the Palestinians are not interested in any modifications), and only with Israel as a supplicant deprived of its negotiating cards, and forced to slice and dice the country to try to get some relief. The Armistice Lines would give Israel a width, for its populous region along the Mediterranean, only 9 miles wide. For the entire Mediterranean coastal region, the average width would hardly be any more than this, roughly around 10 miles average width.
This would be dangerous for Israel. As P. David Hornik pointed out on the blog at www.frontpagemag.com on May 21 (yesterday):
"gravest of all would be Israel's radical strategic vulnerability in the situation envisaged by Obama. Even a Palestinian state that more or less complied with 'nonmilitarization' could allow -- or be forced to allow -- Arab armies from the east to traverse the short distance to Israel's coastal plain, where a mere nine-mile push by tank force would suffice to sunder Israel and put an end to Jewish sovereignty. Would Israel's large, capable army be able to stop the invasion? Very likely not -- because the bulk of that army consists of reserve forces, which require 48 hours for a full mobilization. An Arab force could cross the West Bank in much less time. Meanwhile the reserve forces rushing along exposed arteries to exposed mobilization centers would be subject to various forms of debilitating fire -- very likely including missile barrages from states and terror enclaves bordering Israel."
What is being offered is not peace that Israelis can live with at all. It is a situation that could lead to the direst situation for Israel, even the end of Israel, the end of the Jewish state. The product that Obama is selling is not the peace of life, but the peace of the grave.
Also, Obama has not mentioned the casus beli of the Palestinians, their demand for millions of Arabs who claim to be grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Arab refugees to immigrate into Israel. These would produce a civil war in Israel, and would multiply, and would end the existence of the Jewish state. It is conquest by immigration, which the Arabs have kept as another approach to ending the existence of Israel. Obama would have Israel make suicidal concessions on territory, without calling for negotiations at the same time or earlier on the casus beli, so that having obtained territorial concessions the Palestinians would not see the need to make any concessions on their casus beli. This would preserve the state of war, and the reason for the endless warfare. In effect, this would take away Israel's ability to have any leverage for negotiation. That is why Israel requires that all topics be open for negotiation, not merely the ones that Israel is expected to make concessions on, but also those that clearly require Palestinians concession like the demand for a "right of return" of millions of those claiming to be descendants of Arab refugees. This omission tilts the balance entirely away from Israel and makes it a supplicant at the negotiating table, with everything stacked against it.
There would not be any relenting on the part of the Palestinians in such a situation.
In other words, Obama is setting up conditions for defenseless boundaries leading to the conquest by the sword, plus conditions for massive immigration of millions of hostile Arabs into Israel setting up conditions for conquest by immigration. This is not a good product that Obama is selling, or trying to sell to Israel and to its supporters in America.
He claims that there is nothing different about it from what has gone on in the past. But in the past there were negotiations that were not restricted to Israeli concessions at the start. And to prove that this is a vast change from what came from the previous administration, Obama has so far refused to endorse the letter that then-President George W. Bush sent to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. So much for pretend-continuity., a pretense made to lower resistance to this plan for Israel to take the gravest of risks with an enemy that is tied to genocidal terrorist jihad -- Hamas -- that makes it clear it does not even want to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
Obama spoke to the AIPAC audience as if they were an audience of fools and cowards, telling them that his product is "peace", that it is great, and that the price will go up if Israel doesn't accept it. He told them that countries of the world are getting more hostile to Israel, so Israel has to surrender now or the price will go up. And he will be leaving on a trip abroad, soon. The purpose of this is to get other countries to sign on to his plan, to get them to pile onto Israel, to try to force a surrender of Israel on these very bad terms that would lead to the gravest of risks.
As Netanyahu pointed out, Israel cannot afford to take risks on which the existence of the Jewish state depends. History will not offer the Jews a second chance.
And what about the fate of the more than 500,000 Jews living in land which the Arab ethnic cleansers want to be made judenrein, and who under Obama's plan would find themselves in a foreign country surrounded by genocidal terrorist jihadists?Why hasn't said a word about the situation of these people, including some 300,000 children? This is a plan that is suitable for the dustbin of history.
Obama said that Jerusalem would not be discussed at this time. But his plan would divide Jerusalem along the 1949 Armistice Lines, which would leave 200,000 Jews of northern, southern, and eastern Jerusalem, a sizable chunk of the 500,000 mentioned above, in a new country, with the Temple Mount in a foreign country, and the Western Wall in a foreign country, and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in a foreign country.
Obama said that he wants to give congruity to the new Palestinian state he is seeking to create. But the Gaza Strip does not abut the West Bank. That means he wants to take congruity away from Israel, by slicing it and dicing it further, to end Israel's congruity and give congruity to the Palestinian state.
This is not a plan that will in any way benefit Israel, as it promotes war, produces exile and humanitarian crisis for 500,000 Jews targeted for ethnic cleansing, ends the religious rights of Jewish pilgrims to ancient Jewish holy sites, and slices and dices the country -- without even having a peace partner. This is a plan for the dustbin of history, and that is where it deserves to remain. And why is a supposed "progressive" trying to get up an international mob to pressure Israel to accept a reactionary plan that seeks to return to the bad old days of 44 years to 63 years ago, when Israel faced maximum danger and disability, and then make it worse for Israel by slicing and dicing some more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)