President Obama's speech at the State Department today has confirmed three things:
1 He is going to blindly send more American money to the Middle East in the name of furthering democracy in a region that has never known it.
2 He is using bluster to try and push Syrian President Assad to step down. It didn't work against Ghaddafi, and it won't work here. His comment about how many Libyans would have been killed had he "not acted" is a joke. Ghaddafi is still in power, the US has withdrawn in favor of the French, and Libyans are still dying in a ridiculous stalemate.
3 He is no friend of Israel.
Obama's statements about the security of Israel ring hollow. His call for Israel to withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 borders is along the lines of Neville Chamberlain giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. (Within a year, Germany had occupied all of Czechoslovakia.) Obama, perhaps, naively, perhaps maliciously, expects Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders and negotiate with people whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
Bibi Netanyahu has wisely rejected that call.
Congressman Alan West wasted no time in reacting to this absurd speech.
Congressman Allen West Response to President Barack Obama's Call
for a Two State Solution in Israel
(WASHINGTON) --- Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:
"Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: 'Who will now lead in Egypt?' and 'Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?'
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West sees the world the way it really is. I really wish he would decide to run for president.
Israel must come to the realization that they presently do not have a reliable ally in Washington. They will have to go their own way in order to defend themselves until such time as Obama is no longer president. Hostile forces in the Middle East are probably calculating at what point they should resort to military action to achieve their goals while this man is still in the White House and they can act with impunity and not have to worry about the US helping Israel.
Many have lost sight of the fact that wars do change borders. (Just ask Germany.) In 1967, with Arab armies poised on the border to strike Israel, the Israelis launched a preemptive strike and finsihed off their enemies in the 6 Day War. As a result, borders changed. If Israel really had sincere adversaries who wanted peace, those borders could be adjusted, but not now considering the nature of Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and the changing leadership in Egypt. Isreal is virtually surrounded by bad neighbors.
And Obama wants them to withdraw to the old pre-1967 borders?
What Obama does not recognize or want to admit is that this conflict is not about who owns what land in an area the size of New Jersey. The reason why the issue is so intractable is because it is really about religion not land. The Arabs cannot and will not accept a Jewish state in their region. Only Israeli military might has kept them at bay.
At the end of the day, I predict that this so-called "Arab Spring" will be nothing less than the creation of new Mullah-run Islamic regimes along the model of Iran. The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel and will remain Israel. Meanwhile, Obama prattles on about the coming democracy in the Arab world while selling out the only democratic state in that region.
If Israel is destroyed, it will happen while Obama waves a piece of paper and proclaims, "Peace in our time".
Thanks for posting the speech by Lt. Col. Allen West, I'll be forwarding that on to my friends and ACT for America.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your hard work in exposing Islamofascism for what it is Gary.
BTW, I saw a report on the UCLA symposium over on Atlasshrugs. I wish I could say I liked the subject matter of your report.
Have a good weekend Gary,
An Act for America fan.
Allen West is a demagogue worthy of Joseph Goebbels, and Gary Fouse, an often sensible man, has given way to a knee-jerk reflex that could be characterized "Israel Uber Alles." That said, Israel is still a parliamentary democracy, and it is not practicing either apartheid nor a variant of Nazi party rule. The analogy concerns mendacity and propaganda, not political philosophy in any comprehensive sense.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama has taken a courageous and important step toward decoupling U.S. foreign policy from being held hostage to anything the Israeli government of the moment wants, and affirming that ALL the people of the region, and ALL the people who trace their descent from residents of the former British Mandate of Palestine, need an acceptable resolution.
An independent Palestine need not be a Hamas-ruled state. President Obama has taken the best possible step a U.S. president could take toward insuring that it will not be one. Hamas feeds on the paranoia that "all the world is against us, all the world supports Israel." The basis of a prosperous, well-police Palestinian polity and economy are taking shape under the current prime minister (not a Hamas member), and Israel should either take the opportunity to solidify this, or kiss the aid of the rest of the world good-by.
President Obama did NOT say the 1967 borders should be THE final borders. He said they should be the BASIS for negotiations. Whatever land Israel wants to keep, they should compensate with a land swap. No doubt a reasonable land swap would provide both nations with defensible and rational borders.
Obama didn't say the borders should be the exact 67 borders.
ReplyDeleteObama said,"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
What Obama said was not really that controversial. In 2008, Israel under Olmert proposed a Palestinian state be created on 100% of Gaza and 93% of the West Bank and 5.8% of Israel proper would be swapped to be part of the Palestinian state. And this state would have an area with safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank.
In 2000/2001, Clinton proposed 100% of Gaza and over 90% of the West Bank would be used to create a Palestinian state.
Israel needs secure and recognized borders. Most Israelis are for giving up almost all of the West Bank and Gaza for peace. The borders being based upon the 67 borders is not really that controversial if Hamas accepts them and recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces violence.
Did you watch/listen/read Obama's speech in its entirety?
ReplyDeleteVery good analysis! Obama finally shared his animus for Israel, which he has harbored for many years. He got that way from listening to his past mentors, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and Ms. Dorhn and Jody, his bundler and Code Pinko leader. There are others. Hopefully, the American Jewish community, who cares for the the Jewish state of Israel, will see Obama for what he really is. Barack has given hundreds of millions to the P.A and Gaza right after the Dorhn/Evans flotilla failure. Now he will commit more billions of our hard earned tax dollars to the "region". How do we afford this?
ReplyDeleteAllen West was very fast to respond to this insanity and I am glad. After I called his office to congratulate him, his communications person stated he is coming to California in the next few weeks. I am going to express my thanks and suggest he run for the Presidency.
Squid
Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. There will be no peace through negotiation with terrorist organizations that call for the destruction of Israel (and America as the next step) The American people must wake up to the reality of the evil unfolding in Mideast- the Arab Spring will lead to a desolate winter.
ReplyDeleteWould the United States allow "right of return" to all indigenous tribes within their country?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that what Obama really meant is not clear. Did he mean that the 1967 lines were before or after the war? Does he mean that negotiation for final land swaps come from the West Bank that Israel conquered in 1967 or out of Israel proper? Is he reneging on the deal Sharon made with Bush in exchange for Israel leaving Gaza? How come right of return that has been off the table is now back on the table? Does he expect Israel to negotiate with a Government that at least half of which is sworn to its destruction? What happened to the 3 previous requirements on Hamas ... renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, and abide by previous agreements? Unmentioned!
ReplyDeleteBy his selection and priority of Palestinian demands as the primary issues ... settlements (which was a minor issue before him); status of Jerusalem; right of return he shows his animus toward Israel. He probably got that along the way from Rev Wright and his college roommate.
What happened to his concern about the threat from Iran; peace accord; renunciation of terror; stop teaching hate in the schools, and all the other Israeli issues?
Obama is an unmitigated disaster for Israel, our ally, and the US, our homeland. He is rewarding terrorism and creating yet another anti-American terrorism state.
.
Foreign Language,
ReplyDeleteThe indigenous people, while having suffered injustice for sure, are still here and free to live wherever they want in this country. Staying on reservations has not been helpful in my view.
All the indigenous tribes that lived in the U.S., if they have any living members at all STILL reside within U.S. borders. Members of these tribes have full U.S. citizenship AND a degree of retained sovereignty as the original inhabitants who treated with the USA as sovereign powers. If "Foreign Languages" was seeking an analogy to prop up Israeli resistance to a "return" of Palestinians, that was a VERY BAD analogy.
ReplyDeleteIt might not have been a bad idea in 1948, if conditions had allowed for such a relationship to develop, but unfortunately, the Grand Mufti and the Hashemite Brothers rendered that impossible.
No, Israel does not need to allow hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to settle within the borders of Israel. Too late for that.
The battle of the anonymouses is indeed amusing. I would cry schizophrenia, but perhaps it is two people making use of the same cover. Anonymous 1 speaks accurately. Anonymous 2 didn't say anything of substance at all. Perhaps 2 could detail WHAT s/he saw in the speech which s/he considers signficant.
Miggie, if conquered territory does not provide the basis of a Palestinian state, then there is none at all. Don't be obtuse. If Israel wanted to keep that territory, it should have been annexed in 1967. At this point, Israel doesn't WANT all those Arabs to be part of Israel. The problem is, Israel doesn't want to keep them OR let them go, so it keeps them in limbo. That, as we have seen, breeds terrorism.
Nations have gained territory and sovereignty over that territory by conquest throughout history. It is not the only way, but one of the ways.
ReplyDeleteThe Palestinians do not have any claim to sovereignty over that land on this right of conquest count because they never conquered anything.
Re: "If Israel wanted to keep that territory, it should have been annexed in 1967."
Israel conquered that land (West Bank) in 1967. It had been administered by Jordan at that time. Jordan formally gave up all claims to the West Bank. Israel expected to negotiate a peace treaty after the war which would establish borders and end in a peace accord. This offer was rejected by the Arab League at the Khartoum conference with the famous resolution (third paragraph): No peace, no recognition, no negotiations.
I agree, Israel, in hindsight, should have officially annexed it then but they didn't. Now it is DISPUTED territory. Nobody has a better legal right to it than Israel. Legally, Israel has the best claim. Israel is more than willing to give back substantial portions of it (as they have offered several times already) in exchange for a peace agreement. The dispute has been too useful to the surrounding country kleptocracies to deflect criticism from their internal problems.
.
Siarlys bleated:
ReplyDelete"Or did you want Israel to annex the territory, expel all non-Jewish people from it, and let them make their way in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt? That would isolate Israel, and give a veneer of plausibility to the "right of return" that 1948 does not really sustain."
The above kinda sounds like what the Islamonazis did to their Jewish populations (and Hindu and Sikh and Bahai) over the last half of the 20th century and what they're doing to their Christian populations now.