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!

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.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.