Obama Attacks Israel

         In the midst of the "Arab Spring” (converting quickly into an Arab Winter), in a major speech delivered at the State Department, President Barack Obama focused on the tiny democracy known as Israel, the one nation in the Middle East absent the civil unrest that plagues nearly all others.  It is odd in a way, although entirely predictable, because Israel alone, among the long suffering despotisms of the Middle East, provides for its citizens, Jew and Arab alike, the blessings of freedom, liberty, and an open economy.  But this would not deter our President who operates by a well-defined code impervious to realities on the ground. 

         That the current turmoil engulfing Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and Syria, for example, has nothing to do with Israel did not seem to enter the thoughts of our Commander-in-chief. 

         That the source of Arab discontent is not the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict at all, but the Arabs themselves: the regressive aspects of their own culture and religion, the tyrannical regimes governing them, and the economic backwardness that leaves so many destitute and frustrated; this also did not seem to weigh heavily on our President.

         That Arabs and Muslims have been killing one another with great relish on a routine basis throughout the Muslim world, including most recently the one thousand or so unarmed citizens assassinated in Syria by its own government, seemed an afterthought. 

         That Jihadists have declared war on people of all faiths, murdering Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Pakistan; Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand, and, of course, their fellow Moslems everywhere, also did not find expression in our President’s words. 

         Rather, at this unprecedented juncture in Middle East history, with revolution and upheaval sweeping the Arab world and a perilous future for the region, Obama decided to laser in on little Israel (the region’s one success story) by attempting to revive the moribund Middle East “peace process” and suggesting that – drum roll – Israel make further concessions; risky concessions, mind you, that would leave Israel dangerously exposed. 

         Does the President have a death wish for the Jewish State?

         The critical phrase in Obama’s speech involved his call for a two state solution “based on the 1967 lines.”  These lines, as almost everyone has noted, are indefensible and would cut Israel down to nine miles at its waist, an all-too appealing target for its enemies.  They are, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted, the borders of war not of peace. 

         It also asks Israel to continue doing something no nation in history has ever done, which is to give up land it won in war to the vanquished, a defensive war in this case that it did not start.          

         Israel, remember, has already returned more than 90% of its ’67 gains, including the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt and Gaza to the Palestinians.  And even now, many in Egypt, after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, are demanding the repeal of its treaty with Israel, while from Gaza, Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group, has launched thousands of missiles against civilian centers in Israel.  With this in mind, why would Israel risk returning more land to its sworn enemies so close to its heartland?

          And why is it Israel’s borders that are always up for grabs?  Most of the nations of the Middle East are newly conceived with arbitrary borders established after World War I.  Many of them have restive minorities eager for autonomy.  What about Lebanon’s or Iraq’s borders?  Or Kuwait’s?  Will the US entertain demands to return California and Texas to Mexico?         

         Obama also chose to ignore the 2004 letter from George Bush to the government of Israel under then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recognizing demographic realities on the ground including existing major Israeli population centers that would make it unrealistic to return to pre ’67 borders; this, too, was subsequently endorsed by both houses of Congress. 

         Obama’s timing is also suspect.  He released his bombshell the day before Netanyahu was scheduled to arrive in Washington, completely undercutting our friend by acceding to maximal Arab demands.  Is this anyway to treat a trusted ally?

         Then there is the question of the Palestinians themselves, easily the most radicalized and extremist community on earth. Particularly, in light of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction: why should Israel even negotiate with them?  Further, after ridding the world of two terror-sponsoring states in Iraq and Afghanistan, should the US involve itself in the midwifing of a third?

         But this little stunt by Obama is only the latest of a series of questionable policies and demands imposed by him against the Jewish state. 

         In Obama’s Cairo speech, he used terms disturbing to Jewish sensitivities.  He endorsed Arab demands for a complete construction freeze and had a tantrum when a low level bureaucrat announced plans for Israel to build apartments in Jerusalem.  He chooses to “engage” Iran as it pursues nuclear capability, even as it threatens Israel with nuclear annihilation.  The US also endorsed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference resolution condemning Israel, while ignoring Iran.

         So the question remains, why does Obama have it in for Israel?          

         The reason is that he a man of the left with a predetermined agenda and belief system.  As a leftist, he views the “West” as imperialistic, and as having attained its wealth unjustly.  The left (in general) is hostile to capitalism and Christianity and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  As the dominant paragon of Western Civilization, the left in particular despises the US.  And as a close ally of the US and an outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East, Israel is also despised.  Arabs and Moslems, though, regardless of egregious behavior, are seen as victims of Western aggression, deserving of “protected” status and in need of redress. 

         In an ideal world with a leader grounded in reality, devoid of political correctness, multiculturalism, and leftist ideology, President Obama might have offered the following comments and admonitions in regards to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, emphasizing the prevailing flaws and deficiencies in Arab conduct, attitude, and governance that prevent any possibility of resolving differences.  Some of these are so obvious as to be absurd even to have to mention.  Yet, there they are.

         Arabs must stop wanting and plotting to kill Jews and annihilate Israel (how’s that for stating the obvious?).  Arabs must recognize and accept Israel as a sovereign Jewish presence in the Middle East.  Arabs must trade with Israel and give up their decades long boycott; they must also begin cultural and diplomatic exchange with Israel, and open their borders for tourism.  Arabs must end all incitement of hatred for Jews in their schools, camps, mosques, and state-run media.  Arabs must dismantle their terrorist infrastructure.  Arab societies must develop the institutions of freedom and democracy including a free press, opposition political parties, an independent judiciary, and governing transparency; they should develop a bill of rights that permits and encourages free expression, debate, and protest, and begin moving towards separation of mosque and state.  For these latter recommendations, Arabs are urged to emulate their neighbor, Israel.

         Such a realistic and honest statement would establish guidelines for the Arab world to reform itself and pave the way for a peace settlement with Israel, the democratic model par excellence for the Middle East. 

         But we will not hear this from our President who prefers the universe of illusion, victimhood, and moral equivalence.

         Netanyahu and Israel should by pass this administration as hopelessly ideologic and anti-Zionist, and appeal directly to the American people and their representatives in Congress who overwhelmingly support them.