Obama is claiming his announced major change in U.S. policy toward Israel is no real change at all. In some ways he is right, at least with regard to Democratic Presidents. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had the same failed strategy to achieve peace in the Middle East. Enormous pressure is put on Israel to give up concession after concession, to which the Arabs offer nothing in return. Bill Clinton talked Israel into giving up almost everything. But Arafat turned down the deal because he would not committ to the existence of a Jewish state. He was also commited to his terrorist activities. This was never really about borders or even a Palestinian homeland. One must study history to understand the problems in the Middle East. The following is the map of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is what it looked like prior to World War I:
After the end of World War I, it had changed to the following:
Note what is missing. There there were no real countries in the Middle East. The current maps of all those countries in the Middle East today do not represent historical nations. Palestine is not a race or even a religion, it is a place. Prior to World War II there were few people in the whole area, and these included Arabs, Christians and Jews. All of them called themselves Palestinians which means someone from Palestine.
Then, in 1947, the following borders were drawn by the UN.
As you can see, the Arabs got the biggest chunks of real estate. The Jews got next to nothing. Since all of Transjordan was given to the Arabs, they ended up with over 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. The Jews were happy with the deal, they were glad to get anything, but the Arabs were outraged. They didn’t want the Jews to even exist. Almost as soon as this decision was announced, the Arabs attacked in force and tried to destroy Israel. Although out-numbered, and with little outside support from anyone, including the United States, the nation of Israel beat back the Arab invaders and actually gained terrritory.
In 1967, the Arabs attacked again and got whipped again. Following is the map following the six day war in 1967:
The pattern with each war against Israel was the same. There was no call for a cease fire, as long as the Arabs were winning. But when Israel started to win, there were immediate calls for a cease fire. The U.S. typically delayed supporting the cease fire to gain Israel a little time.
Note: Israel latter gave up the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with Egypt. They were rewarded with Hamas taking over Gaza and using it as a base for terrorist attacks on Israel. As the old saying goes: “no good deed goes unpunished.”
The concept of Palestinians being forced out of their natural homeland is a myth. The Jews were more than willing to let the Palestinian Arabs stay and live in freedom. But it was the Arabs who demanded the Palestinian Arabs leave Israel, while at the same time, making it clear that they weren’t wanted anywhere else. That is the “Palestinians” have been living in refugee camps for decades. The Arabs want them there to use them as an excuse to destroy Israel.
Netanyahu explained this to the U.S. congress in a clear and unambiguous speech:
our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state…
He reminded everyone that Israel, unlike any other nation, is fighting for its very survival:
Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously.
Then Netanyahu said all that is necessary to start the process of peace is the following:
It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”
George W. Bush understood that. That is why he refused to negotiate with Yassar Arafat. What was the point? Bush told Arafat he would not ask Israel for any concessions until Arafat agreed to the existence of a Jewish State and agreed to stop terrorism. History shows us that as a result, George W. Bush probably got more real concessions from the Arabs than anyone else. But, ultimately, the Arabs, other than Egypt and Jordan, have never been willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State. Egypt signed a peace treat in 1979 and Jordan signed one in 1994. Now, thanks to the brilliant handling of the uprising in Egypt, by Obama, that has changed. Egypt just opened up the border with Gaza, which means they have opened up the supply routes to Hamas. The odds of a war has just increased exponentially.
Netanyahu got it right. The proposal of Obama to redraw the borders is utter nonsense. Until the Arabs agree to accept a Jewish State, nothing else could possibly matter.
There are several reports that Netanyahu chewed out Obama when they met in the White House. But, as always, the liberal left totally missed the point. Juan Williams talked about this incident and expressed outrage that Netanyahu did not show sufficient respect for Obama. But, if Netanyahu was telling the truth, then he believes that the survival of Israel is at stake. Apparently Juan Williams thinks that showing proper respect for Obama should be more important to Netanyahu than Israels own survival. I doubt may Jews agree. What’s another holocaust, really, compared to embarrassing the annointed one by pointed out his stupidity?
The only good news is that finally the liberal Jews in congress are showing signs of standing up to Obama. I have always wondered why anyone who is Jewish would support obviously anti-semitics like Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carte and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton sat on a stage and listened to Yassar Arafat make lies about Israeli atrocities and said absolutely nothing. Jimmy Carter has been openly hostile toward Israel. No Jew in his right mind should trust Obama with regard to a confrontation with Islam. I suspect that a lot of liberals Jews are saying: “with friends like this, who needs enemies.”
This is more serious than you think. It is hurting Obama more than you can imagine. At best, he looks incompetent. At worse……?
TDM
The UN must be dismantled. It is a criminal enterprise.
As an example of the way in which the principles of pan-Arab national self-determination then applied to Israel, Stone cited:
a letter dated February 20, 1980 to the Secretary-General, transmitted for UN circulation to the General Assembly and the Security Council in connection with item 26 of A/35/11000-S/13816 (Situation in the Middle East) [which] declared a propos of inclusion in the Charter of a principle of non-use of force:
“The principle of non-use of force shall apply to the relations of the Arab Nation and Arab States with the nations and countries neighboring the Arab homeland. Naturally, as you know, the Zionist entity is not included, because the Zionist entity is not considered a State, but a deformed entity occupying an Arab territory. It is not covered by these principles.
I am primarily amazed that anyone read an article I wrote so long ago. Thanks for reading and commenting. The first step to solving any problem is often just acknowledging the truth.