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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)