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.