Saturday, August 19th | 27 Av 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
June 28, 2011 10:50 am

The Real Damage to Israel in Obama’s Plan

avatar by Bezalel Fixler

Email a copy of "The Real Damage to Israel in Obama’s Plan" to a friend

President Obama addresses AIPAC.

Most analysts of the Obama Mideast peace plan are discussing 1967 borders; the right for Arab “refugees” to return to their pre-1948 homes; withdrawal of Israeli Armed Forces from the Jordan Valley; and the need to evacuate over 100,000 Jews from the “occupied territories. ”

But there is one, seemingly innocuous, word in Obama’s plan that the commentators failed to notice – “contiguous.” Quoting Obama from his address to AIPAC: “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

The simple meaning of contiguous is, of course, continuous.  However in a broader sense the word  “contiguous” has far-reaching consequences. What Obama wants is for Israel to cede a stretch of land, between the West Bank and Gaza, to the Palestinians so that their future state will be continuous.

In other words, Obama wants that Israel should give up land, cut itself off completely from the Negev, and  lose its own contiguity in order to facilitate the Palestinian contiguity. Absurd!

Related coverage

August 18, 2017 4:12 pm
0

Let’s Talk About Sex: The Aftermath of Charlottesville

JNS.org - The scene is Paris in the late 19th century. At a glittering ball, a handful of eligible gentilhommes eagerly circled the...

In his address to AIPAC, Obama reiterated previously-made assurances to Israel about the strong bond between the two countries. Among other conciliatory statements, he stated:”The bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the U.S. to the security of Israel is ironclad.”

Are not these statements hypocritical in view of Obama’s vision of a Mideast peace? How “ironclad” can the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security be if Obama advocates that the defenseless 1967 borders be the basis of a Mideast peace?

How could a “strong and secure Israel” be in the national security interests of the U.S. if Obama is asking Israel to commit suicide by absorbing Arabs who fled the new State of Israel, in 1948? In a press conference on peace talks held with Prime Minister David Cameron on May 25, 2011, Obama again raised the issues of resolving the territorial boundaries of a new Palestinian state and the return of Arab inhabitants of pre-State of Israel to their homes. This would mean squeezing out more Israeli concessions.

How can “the bonds between the U.S. and Israel be unbreakable” if Obama is asking for “full and phased withdrawal of military forces” from the West Bank?

We should not be surprised by these inconsistencies in Obama’s policies. Obama’s tilt towards the Arab view was evident from the get-go. Whom did Obama invite to his Cairo speech?  The notorious Muslim Brotherhood, which has a hand in many conflicts involving radical Muslims and jihadists.

Whom did Obama invite to the White House when he addressed the major Jewish organizations?  None other than J-Street, that anti-Israel group of quislings and fifth columnists, the same people that pose as  friends of Israel, while stabbing her in the back at every occasion. The invitation bestowed legitimacy upon the organization.

In the last few weeks we have witnessed that with one flowery speech, Obama threw 63 years of a hard-won special relationship between the U.S. and Israel under the bus.

This special relationship was endorsed by eleven bi-partisan presidents. It was enthusiastically and consistently sanctioned by both Houses of Congress throughout all these years.

Furthermore, the American people overwhelmingly and consistently support, with great enthusiasm, a strong and secure Israel with defensible borders.

Let Barak Obama be on notice that the American people love justice and fairness, and therefore will never abandon their only true ally and only genuine democracy in the entire region.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jim S

    The 1967 boarders have been the basis for every peace proposal, by the US and every other nation who has tried, ever since 1967. Israel SAYING that they are indefensible does not make this true any more than me SAYING that the world is flat. Israel SAYING that the Arabs fled denies the fact that they were driven out from their homes by Israelis. And “more Israeli concessions”?!? There has not yet been a single one. There have been nothing but preconditions that no illegally occupied nation could possibly accept without signing their own extinction warrant. There has NEVER been a more one-sided, unfair excuse for “negotiations” in the history of mankind!

  • JohnWV

    No country is invulnerable. With Israel, it isn’t the borders, its the confrontation. Only basic character change can meaningfully stabilize the Jewish state’s security.

Algemeiner.com