Barack Obama: Yet Another Roadblock to Zionism

Israelis and Americans alike were aghast this week when Barack Obama announced his policy on Israel's borders and settlements.  He suggests that a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict could result if Israel withdraws her borders to the boundaries that existed prior to the Six Day War, where, in 1967, a clearly defensive Israel repelled attacks from its hostile Arab neighbors.

These are hostile Arab neighbors that longed then and long now for Israel's destruction.  Hostile neighbors who have also suggested that Israel shrink its border to the pre-'67 lines for less inconspicuous reasons.

But where Palestinians and anti-Israel elements throughout the Middle East would welcome Israeli concessions that would leave the Jewish nation more vulnerable to attack and eventual defeat, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel is clearly not keen on the idea, as he rightfully rejected Obama's absurd suggestion.

Of course, some in our media don't agree with Netanyahu and Obama's critics that the suggestion is absurd.  Ever the progressives' lapdog, the Associated Press, is running in circles trying to offer damage control and support to the president.  According to one AP report by Erica Werner, "Obama's stance on the 1967 borders was not a major policy change."  Of course, that's probably news to Israelis, most Americans, and even the pleasantly surprised Palestinians.  Despite Ms. Werner's playful assertions, Obama's suggested policy is a clear deviation from that of George W. Bush, who wrote then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with assurances that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."  In other words, American policy has for some time been steadfast in believing that Israel returning to the pre-'67 lines would be harmful to the peace effort. 

Netanyahu, like Bush and other observant Westerners, knows well that relinquishing all control of Gaza, the West Bank, and particularly the Golan Heights would equate to opening the city gates to the aggressive hordes that have encircled it.  And he fears that if Israel ceases to be vigilant and protect itself against these threats, "history will not give the Jewish people another chance."

Netanyahu is probably onto something here.  Israel, knowing well the cruel and evil ideology that hunts its people, has tempted the Fates by returning its spoils of war to its enemies, only to later witness those same enemies' hardened resolve.  Yet despite past Israeli concessions signifying its dedication to peace, pro-Palestinian spin-doctors in Al-Jazeera and the Western media are working around the clock to ensure that "history" never gives the Israelis a fair chance at all.

One way they achieve this is by referring to the Israeli territories acquired in the 1967 war as Palestinian lands under Zionist "occupation."  Make no mistake, the global media has carefully chosen to contextualize the scenario in this way, exploiting that undefined and subjective delineation between "occupation" and sovereign "possession," most often meant to paint the Israelis as oppressors.

There is an unmistakable assumption in each of these terms: "occupation" indicates illegitimate control, while "possession" might signify legitimacy.  For example, Hitler "occupied" Poland while America "possesses" California, even though both were acquired militarily.  Which term you use is therefore usually not a function of semantic suitability, but clearly one of perspective.  Palestinians probably view Gaza as "occupied," though the Israelis likely see it as a sovereign "possession."  Since it's obvious that the media shares the former's viewpoint, can there really be any doubt that the media is presenting the case from a Palestinian perspective?

And it is from this perspective that Barack Obama obviously views the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But we must wonder if he has even tried to imagine how offensive his suggestion might be perceived by someone who sees himself not as an occupier, but as having sovereign authority.  For instance, would Obama call on the American "occupiers" in California to leave their "settlements" in San Diego or Los Angeles because Mexican leaders and terror cells told the world that this must be done or America would be destroyed?  I'd certainly hope not.  Yet this is what he would ask of Israel?

In fact, Obama asking Israel to relinquish its territories to Palestinians is even more absurd than asking Californians to hand their land over to Mexicans.  The means by which Israel acquired their "occupied" territories could be considered more honorable than the territorial disputes of the Mexican-American War that gave America sovereignty over the Southwest.  There can be no doubt: Israel earned her lands in stalwart defense against the conquest-driven aggressors that surround her, and Israelis are owed at least as much right to the spoils of their war as we enjoy of our own.

For Obama's policy suggestion to be found reasonable, one has to view it from a singularly Palestinian perspective.  When told from the disinterested or Israeli perspective, it is wildly bizarre.  This explains why Netanyahu and Obama don't see eye to eye, and provides evidence of a hard truth that we now have to come to terms with as Americans: Obama is more concerned about the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Many of us have suspected this for some time.  And Israel is rightfully very concerned by Obama's pro-Palestinian audacity and his disrespect for their rights as a sovereign nation.  Even more troubling is that we, the American people, are somewhat implicated in Obama's statements by proxy.  But I would say to the children of Zion that this man does not speak for the American people.  We, unlike our president, support your right to self-determination in your lands and your right to defend your current borders.  And we hope that any concessions you give in your admirable contributions to the peace process will be verifiably in the interest of Israel.

And I would also tell Benjamin Netanyahu to beware of our president who would feign support of Israel while advancing policies that support Palestine.  Such are the machinations of a Quisling.
William Sullivan blogs at: http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com.

Israelis and Americans alike were aghast this week when Barack Obama announced his policy on Israel's borders and settlements.  He suggests that a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict could result if Israel withdraws her borders to the boundaries that existed prior to the Six Day War, where, in 1967, a clearly defensive Israel repelled attacks from its hostile Arab neighbors.

These are hostile Arab neighbors that longed then and long now for Israel's destruction.  Hostile neighbors who have also suggested that Israel shrink its border to the pre-'67 lines for less inconspicuous reasons.

But where Palestinians and anti-Israel elements throughout the Middle East would welcome Israeli concessions that would leave the Jewish nation more vulnerable to attack and eventual defeat, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel is clearly not keen on the idea, as he rightfully rejected Obama's absurd suggestion.

Of course, some in our media don't agree with Netanyahu and Obama's critics that the suggestion is absurd.  Ever the progressives' lapdog, the Associated Press, is running in circles trying to offer damage control and support to the president.  According to one AP report by Erica Werner, "Obama's stance on the 1967 borders was not a major policy change."  Of course, that's probably news to Israelis, most Americans, and even the pleasantly surprised Palestinians.  Despite Ms. Werner's playful assertions, Obama's suggested policy is a clear deviation from that of George W. Bush, who wrote then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with assurances that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."  In other words, American policy has for some time been steadfast in believing that Israel returning to the pre-'67 lines would be harmful to the peace effort. 

Netanyahu, like Bush and other observant Westerners, knows well that relinquishing all control of Gaza, the West Bank, and particularly the Golan Heights would equate to opening the city gates to the aggressive hordes that have encircled it.  And he fears that if Israel ceases to be vigilant and protect itself against these threats, "history will not give the Jewish people another chance."

Netanyahu is probably onto something here.  Israel, knowing well the cruel and evil ideology that hunts its people, has tempted the Fates by returning its spoils of war to its enemies, only to later witness those same enemies' hardened resolve.  Yet despite past Israeli concessions signifying its dedication to peace, pro-Palestinian spin-doctors in Al-Jazeera and the Western media are working around the clock to ensure that "history" never gives the Israelis a fair chance at all.

One way they achieve this is by referring to the Israeli territories acquired in the 1967 war as Palestinian lands under Zionist "occupation."  Make no mistake, the global media has carefully chosen to contextualize the scenario in this way, exploiting that undefined and subjective delineation between "occupation" and sovereign "possession," most often meant to paint the Israelis as oppressors.

There is an unmistakable assumption in each of these terms: "occupation" indicates illegitimate control, while "possession" might signify legitimacy.  For example, Hitler "occupied" Poland while America "possesses" California, even though both were acquired militarily.  Which term you use is therefore usually not a function of semantic suitability, but clearly one of perspective.  Palestinians probably view Gaza as "occupied," though the Israelis likely see it as a sovereign "possession."  Since it's obvious that the media shares the former's viewpoint, can there really be any doubt that the media is presenting the case from a Palestinian perspective?

And it is from this perspective that Barack Obama obviously views the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But we must wonder if he has even tried to imagine how offensive his suggestion might be perceived by someone who sees himself not as an occupier, but as having sovereign authority.  For instance, would Obama call on the American "occupiers" in California to leave their "settlements" in San Diego or Los Angeles because Mexican leaders and terror cells told the world that this must be done or America would be destroyed?  I'd certainly hope not.  Yet this is what he would ask of Israel?

In fact, Obama asking Israel to relinquish its territories to Palestinians is even more absurd than asking Californians to hand their land over to Mexicans.  The means by which Israel acquired their "occupied" territories could be considered more honorable than the territorial disputes of the Mexican-American War that gave America sovereignty over the Southwest.  There can be no doubt: Israel earned her lands in stalwart defense against the conquest-driven aggressors that surround her, and Israelis are owed at least as much right to the spoils of their war as we enjoy of our own.

For Obama's policy suggestion to be found reasonable, one has to view it from a singularly Palestinian perspective.  When told from the disinterested or Israeli perspective, it is wildly bizarre.  This explains why Netanyahu and Obama don't see eye to eye, and provides evidence of a hard truth that we now have to come to terms with as Americans: Obama is more concerned about the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Many of us have suspected this for some time.  And Israel is rightfully very concerned by Obama's pro-Palestinian audacity and his disrespect for their rights as a sovereign nation.  Even more troubling is that we, the American people, are somewhat implicated in Obama's statements by proxy.  But I would say to the children of Zion that this man does not speak for the American people.  We, unlike our president, support your right to self-determination in your lands and your right to defend your current borders.  And we hope that any concessions you give in your admirable contributions to the peace process will be verifiably in the interest of Israel.

And I would also tell Benjamin Netanyahu to beware of our president who would feign support of Israel while advancing policies that support Palestine.  Such are the machinations of a Quisling.
William Sullivan blogs at: http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com.