Connect with us
Our indefensible President calls for indefensible borders. His pledge to protect Israel belies his call for a doomed two-state return to 1967 with the Palestinians.

archive

The Free Must Stand With Israel Against Obama

Our indefensible President calls for indefensible borders. His pledge to protect Israel belies his call for a doomed two-state return to 1967 with the Palestinians.

When he spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Sunday, Barack Hussein Obama struck a conciliatory tone:  “Even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.”  Yet he rendered these words hollow by reiterating the recommendations he made in his speech last Thursday, which, if carried out, would render Israel defenseless before the advancing jihad.

Chief among these recommendations was Obama’s call for the establishment of a Palestinian state.  “The borders of Israel and Palestine,” he said Thursday, “should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

On Sunday, he did his best to make this statement, which had become the focus of a justified uproar, appear benign:  “By definition, it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.  That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means.  It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.  It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.”

What Obama had in mind as to how to deal with those demographic realities was revealed in his Thursday speech, when he called for the creation of a “sovereign and contiguous state” for the Palestinian Arabs, and said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.”  Thus he wasn’t calling for a return to the 1967 lines, but new borders “based on the 1967 lines.”

For the territory of Palestine to be contiguous, that of Israel would have to be substantially reduced.  Israel’s 1967 borders, as Netanyahu informed Obama on Friday, are indefensible, and yet Obama did not back off from his call for Israel to be reduced even further so that a contiguous Palestinian state can be established.  He specified Thursday that the new Palestinian state should have “borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt,” while Israel should have “borders with Palestine.”  The implication is that Israel, in Obama’s vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt—only on “Palestine.”  Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt.  Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.

That would leave a truncated, reduced Israeli rump state, akin to the diminished and defenseless Czechoslovakia that remained after Neville Chamberlain fed the Nazi beast at Munich.  And just as Hitler coveted the Sudetenland in part because it contained the lion’s share of Czechoslovakia’s defenses, such that without it the rest was ripe for the plucking, so the establishment of a Palestinian state would come at the expense of Israel’s security.

Those who assume that a Palestinian state is the key to peace in the Middle East should remember that the same predictions of peace were made about Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.  To those who predicted that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would pacify the Palestinians and normalize their sick society, I responded that Gaza would become just another jihad base for more attacks on Israel.  That’s exactly what happened, and that’s just what a Palestinian state would be too.

The Kuwaiti parliament member Jamaan Al-Harbash summed it up on Al Jazeera on March 29, 2010:  “This is a war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis, or a war between liberators and occupiers.  This is an ideological war, an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad.”

Those who believe such things will never be satisfied by the creation of a Palestinian state.  They will never accept Israel’s existence, even if the Palestinians have a state.  On the contrary:  They will be emboldened to fight on against their weakened foe.

That must not happen.  All free people must now stand against Obama, against the jihadis who wish to destroy the Jewish state, and with Israel.

Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Written By

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

31 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

Trump Finds Agreement from People You Wouldn’t Expect.

U.S. POLITICS

BBC’s Imam: ‘Zionists are Hiding Behind Holocaust’.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

There Has Always Been an American Nationalism, No Matter What Chris Cuomo Thinks.

U.S. POLITICS

Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez’s “Concentration Camps.”

U.S. POLITICS

Connect
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter