Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Obama warns of pressure to be applied on Israel

By Arlene Kushner

Obama’s speech was filled with platitudes and undeserved back-patting.  Consider (emphasis added): “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan,having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.”  Really now? So, as long as al Qaeda has moved on to other places, that’s OK?
I’m going to skip over that part of his talk.  His major topics, both of which require a careful look, are Iran and Israeli-Palestinian Arab relations.  In the main, I want to table the Iranian topic for now — with intention to pick it up in my next post — and focus on what he says about Israel/negotiations/a Palestinian state.  (All emphasis is added.)
Danon’s comment about pressure was surely a response to this:
We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.”
What happened to Obama’s position that “we cannot want it more than the parties themselves do.”  Just precisely how do “they” intend to resolve a conflict between other parties?  This sets off loud alarms regarding implied coercion.
And how does he come to this:  “I believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state.”
First, that word, “occupation,” used pointedly, and erroneously, here and elsewhere in his talk.  There is no occupation.  Just today I had a discussion with a reader regarding my intention to provide further information on Israeli rights.  There is no way to do full justice to this here and now, with the length of this posting.  But it is coming — and soon. 
What Obama calls “the West Bank,” which is Judea and Samaria (Yehuda v’Shomron), represents the ancient heritage of the Jewish people — the core of what we are as a people.  How can we “occupy” this?  We are talking about Hevron, with the Machpela, which cave our father Avraham purchased.  And Shilo, where the Tabernacle rested.  And Jerusalem, where two Temples stood.  And more and more and more…
There is also our historical/legal right in modern times — the San Remo Conference and the Palestinian Mandate, conferred on Britain by the League of Nations, so that a homeland for the Jewish people could be established in all of Palestine (with human rights but not national rights accorded other groups).  Legally binding in international law, this has not been superseded.
There is the fact that Israel acquired Judea and Samaria in a defensive war, and that there was no legal sovereignty in that area prior to Israel’s liberation of it. There is UN Security Council Resolution 242, which does not require Israel to return to the ’49 armistice line (i.e., the Green Line). 
What is clear here is that Obama adheres, still, to the Palestinian Arab position: that everything beyond the Green Line is part of a “Palestinian state.”  And that spells trouble.
He also has it wrong regarding “growing recognition within Israel” regarding “the occupation” being destructive.  He likes to do this — to set what he claims is the “Israeli view” against the view of an Netanyahu administration represented as being obstinate and out of touch.  Fact is that more and more Israelis see that a Palestinian state is not in Israel’s best interest. 
“…the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state.”
Aaron Lerner’s comment here: President Obama juxtaposed America’s commitment to Israel’s security with the requirement of Palestinian “dignity.’ Israel has many critical security requirements that the Palestinians assert do not jibe with Palestinian ‘dignity.’“This raises another interesting question: what of Jewish ‘dignity’? Do we Jews also have the right to ‘dignity’ or is our ‘dignity’ something that can be forfeited?”
So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace.”
More loud alarm bells. Translation: folks, come help me apply the pressure.
“Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.”  Give me a break!  I’ve amply demonstrated just how willing Abbas is.
All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region…”
This man is a clown!  Hamas is waiting, with ill-disguised eagerness, to take over a Palestinian state. The ONLY thing that keeps terrorists at bay now is the conduct of Israeli security forces in Judea and Samaria.  Above, I gave two examples of Israeli security raids to capture suspected terrorists.  My friends, this goes on nightly.  If there is a sovereign Palestinian state (Heaven forbid!) and the IDF cannot move in, those extremists will have a field day.
In Gaza right now, Hamas is the most moderate of the Islamic movements — much worse (including al Qaeda) is present. The same would adhere in a Palestinian state:  It would be a headquarters, a training ground for radicalism.
Short-sighted, biased fools in the world, some of whom head governments, refuse to acknowledge that it is Israel that keeps the peace. 
Lastly for now, this:
Real breakthroughs on these two issues — Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace — would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.”
How dare he?  How dare he juxtapose these two issues, implying that they are of the same import and that each is equally a threat to the Middle East? 
© Arlene KushnerThis material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution. 
Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:12 am