Obama, Israel and the Arabs 2009

Obama, Israel and the Arabs 2009

© David Burton 2009

Obama and the Arabs

Is Obama a Friend of Israel?

        Is President Barack Obama a friend of Israel? To date, he and his administration’s actions do not elicit a positive response. His first forays into the Middle East morass “re-warmed the old formula that the ‘settlements’ are the greatest hindrance to peace and that, if they were removed or at least construction of them would completely be stopped, peace would prevail.” Ah, if that were only true - The settlements are not the problem! “The problem is, and has been for almost 100 years, the Arabs’ unwillingness to accept the legitimacy, the ‘right to exist,’ of Israel within any boundaries at all. They have a death wish for Israel. … Whatever Israel might be willing to do, whatever further ‘concessions’ it can be forced or willing to offer, it will not be enough.” (Ref. 1.)

        At a recent G-20 summit, President Obama declared that there would be no more “dictating” to other countries. He further said that we should “forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions” and that henceforth America will “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.” (Ref. 2.)
        “An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone – Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: ‘a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” (Ref. 2.)
        Obama declared in Cairo that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” thereby reinforcing the lie that all the misery and the statelessness of the Palestinians are the fault of Israel and its settlements. What Obama did not say in his Cairo speech was that the real cause of the Palestinians’ misery and statelessness was the result of 60 years of Arab leadership and callousness that gave the Palestinian people corruption, tyranny and forced militarization. The Obama strategy is “not just dishonorable but self-defeating.” (Ref. 2.)

        In Cairo, Obama “pandered to his {Arab} audience. … “What the Brandenburg Gate was for Ronald Reagan in 1987, Cairo University could have been for Obama. Reagan seized the moment, spoke the truth, and helped liberate half a continent. All Obama did was give a speech.” (Ref. 3.)

        “If the goal of the Palestinians were to have their own state and to live in peace, quiet and prosperity alongside of Israel, that could have been accomplished repeatedly in the past 60+ years. But whatever was offered was never enough and was always haughtily rejected.” (Ref. 1.) Our president has either chosen to ignore these facts or he is oblivious to the realities that face him, his administration, Israel and our nation in the Mideast. In either case, he seems to be farther from becoming a friend of Israel than any of our postwar presidents.

        It would appear that Obama has embarked upon a campaign that can only “weaken Israel and force it to make suicidal concessions. … He has decided what will bring lasting peace in the region, and he will impose whatever he has to – despite the fact that the same solution has been tried in the very recent past and has failed miserably.
        "Once Again, Jews are expected to make concrete concessions, dismember their land and jeopardize their existence – in exchange for a repeat (sixth or seventh time …) of {unfulfilled} Arab promises not to use violence, not to incite violence, not to indoctrinate their children with the ideals of violence, etc. Same defective merchandise being sold, this time by a new and charming salesman. … Obama’s Cairo speech will assume it’s proper place with other dramatic Obama addresses – rhetorical , {and} symbols without substance” (Ref. 4.)

        “In his global tours and TV appearances, President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere.
        “But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis.
        “This would seem counterproductive, given the importance the president has placed on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Israel is part of the problem, it’s also part of the solution. Yet so far, neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience, beyond brief statements made at diplomatic photo ops.
        “The Arabs got the Cairo speech; {Israel} got silence.” {emphasis mine}
        “A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli.”
        “… Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naďveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. …And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners …”
        “… as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze.
        “ … in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the 'settlement blocs') will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility.” (Ref. 1. )

        “ The Obama administration’s … efforts to prevent Jews from building houses in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria has resulted in the majority of Israelis believing Obama is biased toward the Palestinian Arab side, with barely a third believing him to be neutral.
        “While presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs and the State Department demand Israel stop building housing in East Jerusalem in order not to prejudice the outcome of final negotiations, The U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem openly treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian Arab territory.”
        “Clearly the Obama administration has no problem prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations on the side of the terrorist groups they continue to fund; what they do have a problem with is Israel asserting its own rights in any way.”
        "Israelis understand Obama’s agenda and its implications all too well. Obama’s sympathies have been all too obviously on display, and while some American Jews may choose to delude themselves, Israelis don’t have that luxury.” {emphasis mine}
        “ … terrorist leaders in the West Bank and Gaza will never be held accountable to any standard.” Instead, Israel will be blamed “for ‘intransigence’ when there are attempts to nail down points in negotiations” and Israel will be accused “of not wanting peace when its diplomats merely ask that Fatah and Hamas recognize Israel and abandon terrorism.”
        The Arabs and the Arab terrorists do not want peace and any concession from Israel is only perceived as another step on the path to the destruction of the State of Israel. Gaza is a prime example. The time for the iron fist has long since passed, even though American diplomats and President Obama refuse to accept the truth. “It is only when Israel stopped making concessions and began building walls, when Israeli tanks smashed into Arafat’s Muqata, and when checkpoints were securely manned that the bloodshed began to diminish. Now Obama is eager to turn back the clock and begin extracting more concessions and empowering the same terrorists who were responsible for so much horror.
        “Obama may be eager to mediate between Israel and the terrorists, but Israel first needs someone to mediate its talks with Obama.” Even before that happens, Obama needs to shed his naiveté (or his biases) and recognize the realities of the mid-East politics. Concessions are looked upon by the Arabs as signs of weakness and indications that more concessions can be obtained. What they do respect is firmness and intestinal fortitude.
        “ If the only use [Obama] has for Israel is as a tool for winning Muslim favor by extracting from it territorial concessions for terrorists - as the Obama administration seems bent on doing - then maybe it’s time for both nations to move on.” (Ref. 5.)

        “The U.S. may be Israel’s closest ally, But President Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze - including those for natural growth purposes - disappoints us. We are equally chagrined by Obama’s lack of pressure on the Palestinians to renounce terror and revoke their charter calling for Israel’s destruction.” (Ref. 6.)

        According to a top Palestinian Authority (PA) official, “The Obama administration made clear to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas … that the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. . . . Jerusalem officials are concerned the Obama administration intends to abrogate written pledges made by President Bush by which Israel would keep main West Bank settlement blocs in a future deal with the Palestinians. . . Obama reportedly is looking to get out of a deal agreed to by his predecessor.” (Ref. 7.)

        One could ask the President what has transpired to change his position expounded at a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago when he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination to the recent position he expounded in Cairo. In his Chicago speech, President Obama said "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States." (Ref. 8.) That’s quite a different position then from the current demand that Israel stop building housing in East Jerusalem and that it should freeze all construction in Judea and Samaria. But, of course, that was then and this is now. A year later, again at AIPAC when campaigning for the presidency, Obama said “any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, secure in its borders, and Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, secure and undivided” (Ref. 9.) {emphasis mine}. Obama’s current demand for Israel to stop building housing in East Jerusalem sounds like a direct reversal of that position. My understanding is that an undivided Jerusalem includes North Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, South Jerusalem, and West Jerusalem, i.e., all of Jerusalem. You are now implying that East Jerusalem may not be a part of Jerusalem, meaning that Jerusalem will again be divided as it was from 1948 till 1967 after Jordan captured East Jerusalem. As one observer has commented, President Obama “specializes in hiding anti-Israel policy under the cloak of ‘evenhandedness.’ ” (Ref. 10.)

        Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate, in a recent interview, commenting on President Obama’s apparent about-faces on his policy toward Israel said that “His {current} position is inexplicable to me. It violates what he said during the campaign. It violates what he promised when he went before AIPAC and gave them assurances that he would not make any major changes in policies that would threaten Israel’s security. … I guess we should just come to believe that everything he said in the campaign no longer can be held to him because he’s not been very faithful so far in keeping his promises. … One of the reasons for my reservations concerning the whole idea of the two-state solution and dividing Jerusalem and ceding land is because as I look at that policy over the past thirty years it simply hasn’t worked. Every time Israel gives away land for peace, they get neither land nor peace. They give up land but they don’t get peace. … That to me is making it even more difficult to explain the Obama Administration on ‘let’s concede more.’ Why concede more to a terrorist group that doesn’t believe Israel should even exist? I am totally bewildered by that point of view.” (Ref. 41.)

        “In stark contrast to the Bush administration, President Obama’s staff is not coordinating its policy on Iran or the greater Middle East with Israel and has not been informing the Jewish state of its plans or recent diplomatic developments in the Mideast.” This is clearly no way for a friendship between our two nations to be maintained. A source in the Israeli president’s office said “Right now there is next to no communication coming to us from the White House.” (Ref. 12.)

        Further evidence of this lack of communication and coordination came as a result of a statement by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller on May 5, 2009, when she bracketed Israel with India, Pakistan and North Korea and called for Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “Gottemoeller’s statement caught the Israelis by surprise. There was no prior coordination, and Israeli officials say they only heard about it on the news.” (Ref. 13. ) “Yet no mention was made in the assistant secretary’s remarks of the fact that Iran – which regularly threatens to obliterate Israel and which, if not already there, is fast approaching nuclear military capacity – is a signatory to the treaty and obviously is not complying. What exactly are the Obama folks thinking … ?” (Ref. 14.)

        The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act passed by Congress in 1995 declared that it is “the policy of the United States that Jerusalem continue as the undivided capital of Israel {as} it had been since the 1967 six-day war.” The act further required that the American Embassy be “relocated to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999.” If not, there would be “a drastic reduction on the amount of money the State Department could spend abroad.” However, under the so-called waiver provision of the statute, the president could suspend the spending limitation provisions for six-month periods if he certified that the restrictions “would undermine U.S. interests abroad. … Both Presidents Clinton and Bush regularly invoked the six month waivers- … yet invariably, the certifications included a statement saying: ‘My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.’ … In his first invocation, … President Obama omitted this statement." {emphasis mine} (Ref. 15.) Is this the action of a friend of Israel?

        An Israeli official in Washington reported that “Strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States has faded under the administration of President Barack Obama. … With Bush, we had a firm rule that neither country would surprise the other. … But now there’s not even the basic commitment.” (Ref. 16.) Is Obama a friend of Israel? You be the judge. Time will tell if your judgment is correct. But time may not be on Israel’s side nor on the side of the United States.

        “At the very least, if not fully articulating the notion that he is bent on reading the riot act to Israel, President Obama is certainly allowing that perception to grow. Surely nothing he has said can lead anyone to believe he intends to adopt an approach to Israel that is more supportive than what he has thus far exhibited.
        “To the contrary, the president’s full court press for Israel’s immediate cessation of all settlement activity – While Hamas remains in power in Gaza, Palestinian anti-Israel incitement continues in full force and the Palestinian Authority insists on a full right of return for Palestinian refugees as well as all of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem – is a remarkable departure from agreements reached with the U.S. over the past eight tears and sends a dangerous signal to the Palestinians about the need to negotiate in good faith.” (Ref. 17.)

Can American Middle East Policy Succeed?

        “For decades, American Middle East policy has been set according to a Big Lie; that two sides, Jew and Muslim, were equally desirous of peaceful coexistence. This is demonstrably false. Only Israel desires peaceful coexistence with the Arabs; the Arabs only desire Israel’s annihilation. That’s why the ‘peace’ American policy continually chases can never be more than a ‘process’ - a process, in fits and starts, that comes closer to its own hideous conclusion with every successive Administration.” (Ref. 18.) The current Obama administration has put on its blinders and rose-colored glasses and continues down this failed path that ultimately leads nowhere. American foreign policy with respect to Mid East Arabs must cease to be the carrot-and-stick approach and instead focus on a policy of the stick, i.e., punish the Arab extremists whenever they fail to live up to an agreement, when they refuse to bargain in good faith, and when they demonstrate a distain for the rights of Israel and Jews to even exist.

        For 16 years now, American policy makers have been advocating the 2-state solution with Jews and Arabs living side-by-side in harmony. Bitter experience has proven the idea to be totally impracticable. “In today’s world, the slim sliver of territory between the River Jordan and Mediterranean is just too small for two states.” (Ref. 19.) A divided Palestinian state of Gaza and the West Bank makes even less sense.

        “Today, under the Obama administration – as yesterday under the Bush administration – U.S. Policy toward the Arab war on Israel is largely based on the notion that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction are genuine moderates who reject terrorism and accept Israel’s right to exist, and are therefore committed to building a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
        “But we can no longer ignore the fact that Abbas and Fatah do not accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. The idea that they do has always been an illusion – which Abbas has recently confirmed.”
        Statements made in public by Abbas include: “I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish state, call it what you will.” “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.” Reinforcing the Abbas statements are the remarks of other senior Fatah figures: Muhammad Dahlan - “I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today.” Abu Ahmed – “The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco … There is not change in our official position. Fatah as a movement never recognized Israel.”
        To this very day, the Fatah constitution calls for the “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” (Article 12) and for terrorism as “a strategy and not a tactic … this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished.” (Article 19)
        “How much more evidence is required before Western policy makers – including officials in the Obama administration – and the Western media take notice? . . . There is widespread unwillingness to acknowledge these facts because few wish to face the implications of doing so – the implication being that the Arab war on Israel is not about to end, no matter what Israel or the U.S. does or does not do. . . . Unless this occurs, all the diplomatic flurry for a peace settlement negotiated with Abbas’s PA will simply be an illusion built on sand.” (Ref. 20.)

        The current American (and European) policy of trying to force unrealistic concessions from Israel while demanding essentially nothing from their Arab counterparts continues to be doomed to failure. When Israel is threatened by The European Union’s foreign and security chief with the following statement: “let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an [Israeli] government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very different.” and which is very similar to a statement expressed by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on her recent visit to Israel, one can only scratch one’s head and ask what have these people been smoking for the past half century? Who gives them the right to attempt to dictate Israel’s borders and demand that Israel voluntarily turn over parts of its homeland to foreign intruders? Wake up: “…the aim of the Arab nations is not to create a new state of Palestine, rather to destroy the Jewish State in its entirety.” To support the Arab demands is to be a “party to an effort to destroy Israel.”
        As an alternative to the unrealistic European and American demands on Israel, it is suggested that “the United States and the European Union … open their countries to provide homes and occupations for the foreign Arab elements that live in” {the Land of Israel}. These countries can then re-educate those whose lives are dedicated to terror and destruction to accept citizenship … and become loyal and productive citizens therein. Only when they are forced to give up on their dream of destroying Israel will there be the hope for true peace.” (Ref. 21.)

        How can any sane person expect Israel to hold meaningful negotiations with a political party and its leader who proclaim that they do not recognize Israel at all and whose constitution declares their intention to uproot and demolish Israel completely? Articles 19 and 22 of the Fatah constitution declare that “ … this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated …” and “We oppose any political solution offered …” (Ref. 22. ) Remember that Fatah is the political party which runs the Palestinian Authority (PA) and that Mahmoud Abbas is both the Chairman of Fatah and the President of the Palestinian Authority. Does anyone believe that it’s possible to negotiate with this man - someone who does not permit any school, organization or entity within the PA to include the State of Israel on any map, and someone whose official stationery shows all of Israel as Palestine?

        American foreign policy towards Israel and the Arabs needs to be rethought and the following fundamental questions re-examined: “Are we empowering those who despise Israel and the united States? Are we purchasing good will for the United States by tossing Israel to the wolves? Do we grasp the Middle East psychology that interprets accommodation and compromise as weakness?” (Ref. 23.)

Will More Israeli Concessions Solve the Middle East Problems?

        “ ‘An end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not solve the problems of the Middle East,’ says former Israeli chief of staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon. ‘Israeli concessions will only strengthen extremist Islam.’ ” Some wrongly believe “ ‘that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will bring stability to the Middle East.’ … ‘Some also believe “that the core problem is Israel’s occupation [of Judea and Samaria] and that a two-state solution will solve the 100-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ ” These are two mistaken assumptions. “The Palestinians have no interest in a two-state solution with Israel … ‘They have never agreed to any partition of the land. They objected to the Peel Commission proposal in 1937, and to the UN’s plan in 1947, and again in 2000 in Camp David. Arafat’s rejection then of Ehud Barak’s generous offer [of 95-98 percent of Judea and Samaria] and the war he launched instead showed that his goal was to prevent a two-state solution and, especially, the recognition of Israel.
        “ ‘The fact that Kassams continue to fly from Gaza also prove this. Hamas has made it quite clear as well: they are interested in one Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.’
        “Similarly, ‘The objective of Hizbullah is not the liberation of southern Lebanon - but rather the destruction of Israel. World War III is currently underway; a clash of civilizations between the West and radical extremist Islam.’ ” {emphasis mine} (Ref. 24.)

Where does Obama’s Policy Towards Israel Leave American Jewry?

        American Jewry has a history dating back to FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and earlier of very liberal, leftist leanings. Since the New Deal, America’s Jewish voters have been solidly in the liberal Democratic camp.

        American Jews also have a history of supporting idealistic Utopian dreams even when the dream becomes a nightmare. A very large number of American Jews bought into the Soviet Communist message of universal socialist equality and blindly followed the Communist Party message and Joseph Stalin throughout the 1930’s and most of the 1940’s, even after most clear-eyed persons came to see the lie of Communism and the evil that was Joseph Stalin. It takes a very long span of time and an enormous amount of irrefutable evidence to make American Jewry change direction.

        “As individuals, most Jews who voted for Obama last November are content to ignore Israel’s agony in the face of U.S. pressure because they still trust the president on other issues.” However, there is beginning to be erosion of that trust as the American people express concern over Obama’s health care plan and the enormous and growing fiscal debt. “They ignore the threats to Israel’s safety and security and are blind to America’s infringing on Israel’s sovereignty as a free and democratic nation. … If this continues – and there’s little to indicate it won’t – {American} Jews will have to make painful and difficult choices between their support for Israel and their preference for other policies of this administration. This choosing will play out during the 2010 congressional elections.” (Ref. 25.)

        This past July, “President Obama sat down for a highly orchestrated meeting with some leaders of Jewish organizations.” Comments from these leaders gave the “impression that they, and by extension the Jewish community were acquiescing in the administration’s” Mideast policy. “Conspicuously absent in the aftermath of … {the} meeting … was any reference to past commitments made by the U.S. regarding permissible Israeli construction – commitments on which Israel relied in making decisions of state. … It behooves Jewish organizational heads to take stock of what their warm and fuzzy relationship with Mr. Obama has wrought – and to keep in mind that a president’s fortunes can fall as quickly as they rise.” (Ref. 26.)

        “American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama, the Candidate of Change, despite credible warnings and ample evidence that he would obsessively seek to create a Palestinian state at Israel’s expense and ‘engage’ nuclear-arming, Islamist Iran.” Well Change has come and still, “Obama’s support in the Jewish community seems rock solid.” But, “The time is fast approaching for American Jewry to decide between loyalty to a political party that bears no resemblance to that which their parents and grandparents adored for generations and their professed love of Israel whose security, along with the security of the United States, is being undermined by everything Obama is presently doing, has done, and plans to do.” With whom will American Jews stand – “America and Israel or Obama and the Democratic party? (Ref. 27.) “The question remains: What will be the tipping point for Jewish Democrats at which it will be impossible for them to go on pretending they did not elect the most hostile president to Israel since the first George Bush?” (Ref. 28.) Obama has not turned out to be a conventional liberal Democrat who is also willing to be a faithful friend of Israel as many, if not most, Jewish Democrats expected when they pulled the lever for him. … Obama is not a man who understands or respects mainstream Jewish sensibilities” (Ref. 29.)

Do the Arabs Really Want Peace?

        Do the Arabs really want peace? My answer to this question was given previously in two articles on this website: Do the Arabs really want peace with Israel? (Ref. 30.) and in Middle East Reality. (Ref. 31.) I urge those interested to read both of these articles. Little if anything has changed since I wrote them in 2005 and 2008.

        President Barack Obama’s apparent policy toward Israel and its Arab neighbors has been long on rhetoric but short on reality! Obama’s Peace Plan won’t work! Why? Because the Arabs are not truly interested in peace with Israel, except maybe in terms of the peace of the grave. His peace plan won’t work because “it assumes that Arabs are interested in accommodation. No matter what concessions Israel makes, … they will not be enough as long as Israel itself remains in any form.” History bears out the truth of this fact. As President Obama has done, “Focusing on eliminating settlements is not the real issue.” “The struggle is not over dividing territory, but whether Israel deserves to exist at all. The reason that issue is not on the table is because no Arab leader has or will accept Israel’s right to exist …” {emphasis mine} The next war will not be over settlements, or Jerusalem, or a second Arab Palestinian state of any kind. It has been and will continue to be over Israel’s right to exist altogether.” (Ref. 32.) Until president Obama understands and accepts this basic truth, his attempts to broker a peace accord are fruitless, but perhaps even more important, he is endangering the peace and security of the Israeli nation.

        Can’t the Arab moderates instill the desire for peace into the Arab peoples? The “ ‘moderate’ Palestinian ‘partners in peace’ are still openly dedicated only to a single Arab state. Israel does not even exist on the ‘moderate maps of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah. As for the still unrevised Fatah constitution, Abbas’ … intentions for Israel are clearly identifiable as Crimes Against Humanity. … Like Hamas, Fatah has plans for Israel that constitute genocide according to authoritative and unassailable standards of pertinent international norms. … Mahmoud Abbas’ only solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict is therefore the all too-familiar ‘final’ one.” i.e., the elimination of Israel and its entire Jewish population. His Palestine and the entire Arab world would then be essentially Juden frei. The Arabs only want more and more. “As should have been learned long ago, the smell of carrion only inflames the vulture.” ‘Palestine’ will only lead Israel to the peace of the grave. (Ref. 33.)

        Arab extremists have demonstrated that peace with Israel and the West is not worthy of their consideration. American and Western idealists cannot and will not accept the fact that these Arab extremists have a view of life and the world that is not in agreement with Western ideals and mores. “Instead of attending to the more difficult responsibility of facing the challenges of a living world, the terrorist indulges in a ritual of martyrdom with the intention of being rewarded for doing so … in the afterlife.” Arab terrorists do not act and behave in what westerners consider to be a rational fashion. Unfortunately, too many politicians and diplomats cannot or will not accept this reality. For the westerner, preservation of life is a primary goal. “For the Islamo-Fascist, death is the ultimate goal.” - whether theirs or ours is irrelevant. (Ref. 24.)

        The media “has long promoted Fatah — in contrast to Hamas — as the party of Palestinian political moderates seeking peace with Israel, while glossing over evidence to the contrary. … The {recent Fatah Congress} conference provided ample evidence that Fatah members have not abandoned their founding mission:

  • They still refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state and insist on the right to resettle millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants within Israel's pre-67 borders.
  • They insist on the evacuation of Jews from Jerusalem and land captured by Israel in 1967.
  • They adhere to the option of waging armed attacks against Israel if peace negotiations do not yield what they want.
  • They continue to endorse the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – responsible for numerous suicide bombings and terrorist attacks– as their armed wing.
  • They continue to glorify terrorists and vilify Israel.”
        At the Congress:
  • The hall was plastered with images of Palestinian ‘martyrs’ (those who had been killed in the process of carrying out violent attacks against Israelis) with such slogans as ‘The right to resistance is a legitimate right’ and ‘The right of return is a sacred right which will not be ceded.’
  • Opening the conference, former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei … warmly hailed the Fatah terrorists who perpetrated the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre which killed 38 civilians (including 13 children and an American photographer) and wounded 71. Dalal Al-Mughrabi, the female leader of the attack, was applauded as a heroic martyr and role model. (Al-Mughrabi and her gang murdered civilians on and near the Tel Aviv beach, and on a bus of vacationers that they hijacked.)”
        “It was clear that Fatah had no intention of abandoning their founding principle of armed struggle against Israel.”
        PA leader {Mahmoud} “Abbas was definite in his insistence that he views Palestinian ‘resistance’ as a legitimate right and ‘reject[s] stigmatizing [the Palestinian] legitimate struggle as terrorism.’
        “The Palestinian Ma'an News Agency reported” the Conference “vowed to continue with ‘resistance’ until Palestinian ‘inalienable rights’ were restored.
        “The declared preconditions to a peace agreement with Israel include:
  • the release of all Palestinian prisoners
  • opening up of Gaza borders to Israel
  • the resettlement of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Israel
  • the handover of Jerusalem to Palestinians and
  • the removal of Jewish residents from Jerusalem.”
        “Israel Radio and the Jerusalem Post both reported that Fatah adopted a position paper demanding Palestinian sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, including outlying villages. There was no distinction between the eastern and western parts of the city. The paper calls for violent tactics until Jerusalem is relinquished to Palestinian control:
        “Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned [to the Palestinians], clean (void) of settlements and settler.” (Ref. 34.)

With Whom Can Israel and the West Negotiate?

        Is there a Palestinian leader with whom the West and Israel can negotiate? If there is, he certainly hasn’t stepped forward and shown himself to be a trustworthy partner in the search for peace. Yasser Arafat “never really recognized Israel’s right to exist. The PLO and all major organizations affiliated with the ‘struggle’ have all of {Israel} on their symbols, not just Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.”
        After Israel had “labeled Arafat illegitimate,” Mahmoud Abbas took over as his successor. Abbas has denied the Holocaust, funded the Munich massacre, and provided “funds for the families of terrorists just as Arafat did. Abbas has been wrongly viewed as ‘soft’. However, he has referred to Arab terrorists who serve in Israeli jails as ‘our heroes.’ Abbas is the head of the PLO, PA, and Fatah and has promised to follow in Arafat’s path.” (Ref. 35.) Is Abbas the man anyone would trust to negotiate with to establish peace in the Mideast? I certainly wouldn’t!

The Palestinian Myth

        “Contrary to a well-orchestrated myth propagated by the Arab world as well as by Western opinion-makers, the self-styled ‘Palestinians’ do not comprise a people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian language or a Palestinian culture.” The so-called Palestinians are loosely organized under the ‘Palestinian Authority’, “a consortium of terrorist groups whose constitution explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction.” Why do the Arabs in question have a right to assume that they are qualified for independent statehood? It can legitimately be argued that “No people have a right to form a state or elect a government that threatens the peace and security of another people. As Abraham Lincoln put it: ‘[One] cannot say any people have a right to do what is wrong.’ ” (Ref. 36.)

        President Obama speaks of two people living side-by-side in the land of ancient Israel. “it would be interesting to know the identity of the second people.” In 1977, PLO leader Zahir Muhsein revealed the truth. He said:
        “The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, … As a Palestinian, I can … demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem.”
        In 1970, Yasir Arafat said, “The question of borders doesn’t interest us … Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it … The PLO is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism” {not in the name of a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state}
        As a PLO founder openly declared, “The Arabs who live in” the land of Israel “are precisely the same Arabs who live in Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. They are not a separate country, but a fragment of the enormous Arab nation divided among the many Arab countries. In their identity they are Arabs, and the invention of Palestine is just a transparent bluff - a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity.” (Ref. 37.)

        The Arab world very clearly understands this - why doesn’t our president, his administration and our State Department?

        Arab leaders have long stated the proposed Palestinian state is (and will be) nothing more than an extension of Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. This is in keeping with the fact that there is no historical basis for a Palestinian nation. From 1947 until 1967, Jordan occupied and controlled the West Bank while Egypt occupied and controlled Gaza. There was no push for these areas to become a Palestinian State and neither Jordan nor Egypt granted the areas under their control any measure of independence or self governance. Interestingly, only since these areas came under Israeli control was there suddenly an emergence of a so-called Palestinian people and a demand for their own nation. There is a much stronger precedent for concluding that Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza, and Jordan are legitimately part of the State of Israel. The basis for this is the promise by the League of Nations in 1922 to make these lands a home for the Jewish people. In violation of this promise, Great Britain took 78% of the Land of Israel and turned it into the country of Jordan. The Arabic nation is today comprised of some 21 (mostly dysfunctional) countries. Do they need a 22nd country? In the entire world, there is but one State of Israel, the historic homeland of the Jewish people, consisting of less than one fifth of one percent of the land under Arab control. It is essential to the Jewish people that Israel continues to survive in this hostile region of the world.

        Some comments from Rupert Murdoch upon receiving the American Jewish Committee’s Nation Human Relations Award on March 4, 2009 in New York City are of interest. Mr. Murdoch said, “we see a growing assault on both the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel.
        “This assault comes from people who make it clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state - no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reason they hate us.”
        “In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States. Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.”
        “The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.
        “In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom, and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.” (Ref. 38.)

What Claim do the Arabs have to Land of Israel?

        Do the Arabs have any legitimate claim to the land of Israel? In the centuries that they have lived there, have they cultivated and developed it? The overwhelming evidence says no. In the two decades preceding World War II, Sir Winston Churchill wrote and said that, “When the Mohammedan upset occurred in world history and the great hordes of Islam swept over these places, they … smashed it all up. You have seen the terraces on the hills which used to be cultivated, [but] which under Arab rule have remained a desert. … it is for the good of the world that [Palestine] should be cultivated, and it will never be cultivated by the Arabs.” In contrast to the Arabs living in Palestine, Churchill noted that “the Jews have developed the country, grown orchards and grain fields out of the desert, built schools and great buildings, constructed irrigation projects and water power houses, and have made Palestine a much better place in which to live than it was before they came a few years ago. The Arabs are much better off now … To Jewish enterprise, the Arab owes nearly everything he has. Fanaticism and a sort of envy have driven the Arab to violence …” Asked whether the influx of Jews into Palestine constituted an injustice to the Arabs then living there, Churchill replied, “Why is there harsh injustice done if people come in and make a livelihood for more, and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is not injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be a desert for thousands of years.” (Ref. 39.)

        In reality, Israel has a basis for claiming the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the entire West Bank, Jordan and part of Iraq, which at that time was called Palestine and which were all supposed to comprise the State of Israel, whenever it came into official being. However, in 1921, Great Britain’s Colonial Office, led by Winston Churchill, unilaterally severed 80% of Palestine to create the emirate of Transjordan, now called Jordan. (Ref. 40.) “The British … set up monarchies for the offspring of their former ally, the Hashemite Sherif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca, who had been deposed during the consolidation of Saud family rule in Arabia. They established a protectorate called Iraq and enthroned one son, Feisal, there. They also split off Transjordan (later Jordan), the portion of Palestine that lay east of the Jordan River, from the western part between the river and the Mediterranean Sea, and installed Feisal's brother Abdullah on the throne. In the western portion the British committed themselves to establishment of a national home for Jews.” (Ref. 41.)

        The appellation "Palestinians" can more objectively be applied to everyone living west of Iraq to the Mediterranean and the western end of the Sinai Peninsula, and from the northern border of Lebanon to Eilat in the south. In thinking of "Palestine" as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and of the "Palestinians" solely as the Arabs living there, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed and we have ignored the historical reality. As has been said before, if you repeat a lie often enough, the lie will acquire the mantle of fact.
  1. Why Won’t Obama Talk to Israel?, Aluf Benn, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/, July 27, 2009.
  2. Israel undeserving of Obama’s contempt, Charles Krauthammer, Boston Herald, Page 19, June 5, 2009.
  3. Obama Revisionism, Editorial, The Jewish Press, Page 5, June 5, 2009.
  4. Time To Start Worrying About Obama’s Mideast Vision, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, The Jewish Press, Page 4, June 12, 2009.
  5. Who Will Mediate Between Israel and America?, Daniel Greenfield, The Jewish Press, Page 7, September 11, 2009.
  6. Israel’s Dilemmas, Menachem Porush, The Jewish Press, Page 9, September 11, 2009.
  7. News From Israel You May Have Missed, Aaron Klein, The Jewish Press, Page 12, June 5, 2009.
  8. In AIPAC speech, Obama repeats support for Israel, peace talks , Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz, March 3, 2007.
  9. Obama at AIPAC, Laura Rozen, Mother Jones, June 4, 2008.
  10. Eye Of The Beholder, Scott Italiaander, The Jewish Press, Page 6, July 3, 2009.
  11. Better For Israel To Be Respected Than Loved, Sarah Lehman, The Jewish Press, August 26, 2009.
  12. New From Israel You May Have Missed, Aaron Klein, The Jewish Press, Page 2, May 15, 2009.
  13. U.S. Statement on Nukes Pact Stirs Concerns In Israel, Leslie Susser, The Jewish Press, Page 18, May 15, 2009.
  14. An Administration In Search Of A Policy, The Jewish Press, Page 77, May 15, 2009.
  15. The Obama Imprint, Editorial, The Jewish Press, Page 5, June 12, 2009.
  16. Israel-U.S. Strategic Cooperation Fades Under Obama, MENL, The Jewish Press, Page 3, May 15, 2009.
  17. Obama’s missed opportunity in Cairo, Jeff Jacoby, Boston Sunday Globe, Page K9, June 7, 2009.
  18. Combating Good Faith Effort?, Diana West, Washington Times, Forbes, Page 30, December 24, 2007.
  19. Why A ‘Two-State Solution’ Can Never Work, Rabbi Shmuel M. Butman, The Jewish Press, Page 74, April 10, 2009.
  20. An Illusion Built On Sand, Morton A. Klein, The Jewish Press, Page 7, May 15, 2009.
  21. A Jewish Road Map for Lost American and European Leaders, Gary M. Cooperberg, The Jewish Press, Pages M45, March 27, 2009.
  22. Facts and Logic About the Middle East, FLAME, August, 2009.
  23. Playing With Fire, Sarah H. Stern, The Jewish Press, Page 4, May 15, 2009.
  24. Combating The Cult Of Islamo-Fascism, Barry Krakow, The Jewish Press, Page 7, January 5, 2007.
  25. The Silence of the Jews, N. Richard Greenfield, The Jewish Press, Page 7, June 26, 2009.
  26. The Obama Fallout, Editorial, The Jewish Press, Page 5, July 24, 2009.
  27. Will U.S. Jews Stand With Israel – Or Obama?, Jonathon Braun, The Jewish Press, Page 7, June 5, 2009.
  28. Obama’s Jewish Enablers Can’t Keep Quiet Much Longer, Jonathon S. Tobin, The Jewish Press, Page 7, July 24, 2009.
  29. Mere PR Will Not Make A Successful Mideast Policy, Jonathon S. Tobin, The Jewish Press, Page 7, August 14, 2009.
  30. Do the Arabs really want peace with Israel?, David Burton, www.sonofeliyahu.com, November 8, 2005.
  31. Middle East Reality, David Burton, www.sonofeliyahu.com , March 8, 2008.
  32. The Real obstacle To peace, Moshe Dann, The Jewish Press, Page 6, September 11, 2009.
  33. The Latest Chapter of Israel and Palestine Not Tragedy, But An Absurd Drama of Many Acts, Louis Rene’ Beres, The Jewish Press, Page M46, September 11, 2009.
  34. The Myth of Fatah Moderation, Ricki Hollander, CAMERA (COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA) web site, August 14, 2009.
  35. Destroying Arafat’s Legacy, Daniel Pereg, The Jewish Press, Page M56, March 27, 2009.
  36. The Palestinian Myth, Prof. Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish Press, Page M46, September 11, 2009.
  37. Hadrian’s Curse: The Secret All The Arabs Know, Tsafrir Ronen, The Jewish Press, Pages 20-21, May 16, 2008.
  38. Israel’s Fight is Our Fight, Rupert Murdoch, The Jewish Press, Page 4, March 27, 2009.
  39. Churchill, The Jews, And The Arabs, Prof. Paul Eidelberg, The Jewish Press, Pages M4-M5, May 16, 2008.
  40. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Middle East Conflict, Mitchell Bard, Alpha Books, Pg 22, 1999.
  41. Background to War, From www.army.mil/cmh/books/www/www1.htm, Chapter 1.

  11 September 2009 {Article 58; Politics_10}    
Go back to the top of the page