It is not that Obama and the left do not understand the mortal danger to Israel if they were to evacuate the West Bank. No, they just do not care. The liberal LA Times said this: "Israeli leaders of all parties are understandably unwilling to negotiate an agreement with a movement like Hamas that is bent on their country's destruction." (3/18/15 Editorial) The liberal USA Today said: "With Hamas in charge in Gaza and committed to Israel's destruction, it's hard to imagine an accommodation that would leave Israel secure." (3/19/15 Editorial) But Hamas is part of the Palestinian government. It does not matter. These papers still say it is Netanyahu's fault. For Obama and the left their agenda has always mattered far more than the truth. As I have said before, truth is not a value for these people.
So now, Obama is threatening to allow the passage of a UN resolution, by withholding a US veto, that would create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. Those borders are indefensible militarily. Israel would be less than 9 miles wide at one point. The Security Council has enforcement mechanisms, including economic sanctions and even the use of military force. If Israel vacated the West Bank how long would it take for Hamas to take over, and have another area from which to launch their attacks against Israel? They would be within easy striking distance of the Knesset and other government facilities, as well as Tel Aviv and most population centers.
The 1967 borders would even give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, including the Old City. When the Arabs controlled the Old City from 1949 until the 1967 war, others were denied access. Holy sites were destroyed. Under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites. What does Obama think would happen under Hamas (or even Abbas) rule? Answer: He does not care.
Worse even than Hamas taking over the West Bank, would be the likelihood of other Islamic terrorist groups also entering the West Bank - groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Look at all the instability and unrest throughout the Middle East: A Syrian civil war that has gone on for years and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, with over a million refugees; the overthrow of the US-allied Yemeni government by an Iranian proxy government; Egypt has gone from Mubarek to the Muslim Botherhood to military rule under al-Sisi in a few short years; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is a failed state; and Iran is about to have nukes.
It is against this background that Obama says Israel must shrink their territory to the point of committing suicide. It is against this background that the US has now removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups/states. It was against this background that 58 Democratic members of Congress chose to boycott the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, while Democrats who did attend were highly critical of Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, the Europeans are hell bent on imposing their own sanctions on Israel. And the International Criminal Court has agreed to investigate, at the request of the Palestinians, whether or not Israel committed war crimes in last year's war between Israel and Hamas. And the IBD reports that Obama has not renewed the US agreement to guarantee an oil supply to Israel during a time of war. Obama already let the agreement expire in November. (3/20/15 IBD Editorial) During last summer's war with Hamas, Obama slowed the provision of war materiel to Israel.
Obama has been looking for an opening to go after Israel since coming into office. From day one he took on all the Palestinian terms and positions. He used terms such as "occupied territory" and "illegitimate/illegal settlements." Obama has not only sided with the Muslims in every instance; he has often sided with the most radical Muslims. Just as he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. Just as he did in referring to Erdogan (the Islamist leader of Turkey) by saying he was one of Obama's closest allies. And just as he is doing now in allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability.
While Netanyahu may have difficulty in getting access to the White House, the most radical of Muslim groups do not. The Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial regarding the illegal financing of the terror group Hamas) has had access. The Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) has had access. Both are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas. No problem.
Early on Obama expressed his concern about the closeness of the US with Israel. As noted by Max Boot (in a 3/20/15 op-ed in the LA Times) Obama told American Jewish leaders in 2009: "Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
How conveniently Obama forgets - or should I say lies? As noted in Part I, during Bush's presidency (the eight years to which Obama was referring) Israel offered a state to Abbas. The offer was rejected as there was only silence from Abbas. But in Obama's mind, it is only Israel that sits on the sidelines. It was the Palestinians who, more recently, walked away from the discussions with Kerry and Israel. That does not matter either.
I have never discussed in this blog whether Obama might be a Muslim. I have said just look at with whom he aligns himself. In every instance it is the Muslims. It is where his gut takes him. I would also point out that he has no particular affinity for Christians either, as they continue to get slaughtered and displaced from the Arab Muslim world. But he will fight for a Palestinian state at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A correction. I was advised that Hezbollah was not taken off the list of terrorist groups. Rather, the latest "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities" coincidentally (nothing to do with the Iran nuke deal I'm sure) left Hezbollah and Iran off the list of security threats to the U.S. How convenient. However, this same report noted that Iran has "overarching strategic goals and enhancing its security, prestige, and regional influence (that) have led it to pursue capabilities to meet its civilian goals and give it the ability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, if it chooses to do so." (As reported by Newsweek) Well, that's really comforting.
ReplyDelete