I want to start off like Gateway Pundit: Let me be clear, Barack Obama is no Mideast scholar. His learning curve is rather flat, and his instinct is taking him in the wrong direction. He doesn’t care if he’s cornering Israel, he probably doesn’t think Israel is a country. He’s trying to suck up to the Muslim states, and they take him for a fool. But does he care about the outcomes of his policy to his country, and does he want to be reelected? Because, from Gateway Pundit:
Obama today proposed giving half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, The holiest Christian Church in the world, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Hamas-Fatah terrorist alliance.
Whether Jerusalem is a part of Israel is about to be decided in an American court. So our President might find his foreign “policy” opposed by the judicial branch.
The traditional US position called for compliance with Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council aka the “Land for Peace” accord. In Resolution 242, Israel agreed to return lands occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for peace. In and of itself this is unprecedented because Israel occupied the lands in a defensive war. The resolution called for transfer of “land,” not “the land,” and Israel already returned 90% of the land, the Sinai peninsula, to Egypt. Our President is calling for return of “the land” with minor modifications through some sort of land swap, presumably to avoid large scale transfer of Jewish population.
Netanyahu rightly called the ’67 borders “indefensible”. Israel today is still surrounded by enemies, and, in fact, the region is likely swinging towards Islamic extremism in general and Iran and Muslim Brotherhood in particular. Rockets are still raining on Israeli cities, and recently demonstrators staged an invasion of Israel’s border. Israel is bordering on war. It would be far more satisfying it Netanyahu instead of flatly rejecting Obama’s proposal would instead respond with annexation of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria or demand a compensation for Jewish refugees from the Arab lands to be a part of any future settlement (via Point of no Return).
Obama’s speech is so chalk-full of post-colonialist cliches and so hard on our traditional allies, it is guaranteed to embolden American enemies. Obama can take a deep breath, relax and release these dead Bin Laden pix, it won’t make much difference.
I see one sentence of that speech highlighted:
…we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.
Never mind dhimmtude, wars for oil and our national food staple cous-cous or whatever else he thinks connects us to the region. I would like to see more active verbs from the United States President. What do you mean, “bound”? Aren’t you the leader of the free world? Shouldn’t we, the United States of America, show the way and push the region away from tyranny and towards freedom? “Bound”! As if they aren’t the ones falling into an abyss of anarchy, religious extremist and tyranny, and dragging us down with them. On a chain. On a leash.
DH likes to say that it’s customary for an American president to wait until the end of the second term to try their hand at the “Arab-Israeli conflict”. I suppose there isn’t always a second term.
I’m adding another Israel link because it’s cool and because I want to end with something more hopeful. Woman Honor Thyself: Nakba in Israel: Only Wimps.
UPDATES. Lots of updates. All depressing.
Obama will not gain politically by sabotaging Israel; on the contrary. He must know that his re-election is in grave jeopardy, and going out of his way to put his administration at odds with Israel will hurt, not help, his chances. So one can only conclude that Obama is genuinely, as a matter of philosophical conviction, anti-Israel.
Jihadwatch: Obama Calls for Destruction of Israel.
Weasel Zippers: Palestinian “Activists” Plan to Rush Israel’s Border on Friday. Well, we have a truly inspirational President — to our enemies.
Abbas will demand more. Of course.