Thursday, May 19, 2011

Obama is no Friend of Israel

Obama took another giant step towards making sure our allies are treated worse than our enemies.
Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem.

...The Israeli government immediately protested, saying that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would leave it “indefensible.” Mr. Netanyahu held an angry phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning before the speech, officials said, in which he demanded that the president’s reference to 1967 borders be cut.

So many things wrong with this. First, it goes against long standing support for defensible borders for Israel. It gives away the high ground of the Golan Heights and bringing virtually all of the country into mortar and rocket range of its enemies.

Second, why 1967? What gives the president of the United States the right to demand what territories a sovereign and democratic state must cede to its neighbors and, truth be told, enemies based on a purely arbitrary determination? The claims of Israel on what has been called the Promised Land go back literally thousands of years. Why 1967?

It is interesting that for many years liberals accused conservatives of wanting to "turn back the clock" on any number of issues. Why does Obama want to "turn back the clock" on Israel? And compared to thousands of years of Israeli history, 44 years is but a tiny fraction. Why not add a couple of decades and take the borders back to the 1947 borders? What's that you say? The modern state of Israel did not come into existence until 1948? Reducing Israel to a country eight miles across will go far in returning Israel to its 1947 borders...

And just for giggles, what if the President of Mexico demanded that the US return to it's pre-1848 borders before it would negotiate any new treaties with us? If Obama can void the Six Day war, why can't Mexico void the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything


  1. “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong”

    — Stephen Decatur

    Elections have consequences. Obama won the Presidency. He is our President. Not saying that this shouldn't be an issue in the 2012 campaign. Sure it should be.

    But until then America needs to support the President and this policy. EVEN IF IT IS WRONG!

    To do less makes one a traitor!

  2. Support wrong policy or be a traitor? I'm sorry, but lemming like adherence to our President, right or wrong is unmitigated nonsense. (Especially, I might add, this one!)

    If one is to follow the president and his policies right or wrong, or be a traitor, does that mean that the Constitution brands every member of Congress a "traitor" who might lawfully impeach the president?

    You need to re-examine your definition of traitor.

    "You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you tink it means."

  3. "Craft for cash", complete with spam link said this:
    "This may get me in trouble with people who otherwise would ordinarily agree with me, but:
    I’ll sign off on the Palestinian state (something that’s taken me a while to come around to) and I’ll sign off on the ’67 borders with some exceptions — not for large settlements of right-wing extremists, but if there are a few little bumps on the map here and there that would make Israel more militarily defensible. I would hope to see those as last-minute inclusions in the negotiating process.
    Assuming there is going to be a negotiating process, of course."

    We don't tolerate spam here, but I will respond to the comment when I have some time later today.

  4. I'm sorry if the President's comments cause some bunched panties for those who blindly support Israel, but it's about fricking time that we try something different to move forward the prospect of peace. Both sides are going to have to make plenty of sacrifices in order to finally bring about stability. I don't often commend Obama, but he said what needed to be said. If it matters, I'm a Jew. I think America Jews too often get outraged when anyone suggests that Israel is going to have to make concessions. Over the last half decade, Israel has done as much, if not more to derail the peace process as the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors have.

  5. "those who blindly support Israel" Good first entry in the conclusion jumping contest!

    "it's about fricking time that we try something different" How about "surrender"? Surrender would be different! Different isn't always better. (How's that "hope and change" working out for you?)

    Would the US going back to the borders of 1848 improve our relations with Mexico as far as illegal immigration and drug smuggling and crime? It's about fricking time that we try something different, right?

    Here's your first clue: it isn't going to happen. Obama is picking a fight he cannot win.
    But, thanks for playing!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.