Obama supports Palestinian state cutting Israel in half
--Israel Insider, January 29, 2008
Palestinian refugees do not have a "literal" right of return to Israel, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday. He did not clarify whether that implied they had a moral, metaphorical, legal or other non-literal right to return to Israel.
More controversially, Obama said he supported the division of Israel into at least two parts by a Palestinian state.
The stunning comment came as Obama struggled to articulate his stance on key Mideast issues in dispute. "The right of return [to Israel] is something that is not an option in a literal sense," Obama said, but then went on to say that "The Palestinians have a legitimate concern that a state have a contiguous coherent mass that would allow the state to function effectively."
A land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank would effectively cut Israel in half, making it incoherent and non-contiguous, divided into northern and southern portions by the Palestinian land-mass Obama supports. The Democratic candidate didn't explain why it was legitimate for the Palestinians to have a coherent and contiguous territory at Israel's expense.
"The outlines of any agreement would involve ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state," Obama said, but provided no details about how that would be achieved. He reiterated his support for a two-state solution, but said, "We cannot move forward until there is some confidence that the Palestinians are able to provide the security apparatus that would prevent constant attacks against Israel from taking place." He provided no details on how that would be achieved.
Obama complained that "There has been a constant and virulent smear campaign via the Internet that has been particularly targeted against the Jewish community. It is absolutely false. I have never practiced Islam. I was raised by my secular mother, and I have been a member of the Christian religion and an active Christian." Obama did not deny that he was considered a Muslim as a child, that biological father was a Muslim, nor that he was also raised in his childhood by a devout Muslim. But neither did he mention it, and tried to gloss over his background by separating his later Christian practice from his Muslim origins.
Regarding Iran, Obama called for more pressure on the regime, but didn't mention the possibility of using force if diplomatic pressure failed. He called for "carrots" to be offered to the Iranian regime, which his spokesman said referred to diplomatic contacts between the United States and Iran. He did not mention what the stick would be.
He saw no harm in engaging in talks with the Iranian regime. "Diplomacy is not just talking with your friends, but talking to our enemies," Obama said. "We want to send a signal to the Iranian people that we are reasonable. We are not looking to impede Iran's legitimate national aspirations, but they have to change their behavior."
Iranian national aspirations, as articulated by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, include wiping Israel off the face of the earth. He did not say what he would do if the Iranians did not change their behavior and continued to work for Israel's eradication.
You don't say! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
15 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmmmm. Interesting proposal, but... how many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know... because Obama is notoriously short on details.
Also, why is it Israel that must always give? They've given land to the Palestinians left and right and all the Palestinians have done with it is use the land as staging grounds from which to launch more attacks against Israel. How much land does Israel have to give to the so-called Palestinian people for them to stop their campaign against her? That's a rhetorical question by the way. The answer is "All of it."
Is the memory of Nazi Germany not a legitimate enough reason for fearing another holocaust against them? They know first hand what it's like to live among neighbors who want them dead. The Palestinians, thankfully, are not particularly sophisticated, but with Iran supporting and supplying Hizbullah and Hamas, sooner or later these aggressors are going to need smacking down.
For the US, I think it comes down to this. Do we want to appear hypocritical in OUR war against terrorism by not supporting a nation fighting their OWN war against terrorism. Granted, that's not how our aid to Israel began, but that's where it is now. Besides, a strong Israel used to be a great equalizer to terrorist elements within the middle east. Not so much today, but that's no reason to abandon aid to Israel; militarily OR economically.
They have the strongest air force in the middle east, by the way, because we supported them militarily. They're strong now because we showed them HOW to be. And there's nothing wrong with that. Likewise with their economy. They haven't squandered the aid they've received; they've been industrious and are now the largest exporter of fresh fruits and vegetables in the middle east.
What do the Palestinians export other than terror, antisemitism, and outright hatred?
As for Obama, he belongs to a church that puts Africa first, and a denomination that seeks to limit or curtail what they call, "Christian Zionism", or to put it in layman's terms, Christians who support Israel in their defense against Palestinian terror groups like Hamas.
Obama---the candidate for the unthinking.
Sad, but true.
Whatever happened to putting God first.
I've been to his church's website, and all the right things are said... on the surface, but the Pastor's words in public reflect something altogether different.
Tucker Carlson on MSNBC last April had this to say about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright...
"But Jeremiah Wright is at least a mixed bag politically. His work to improve conditions in impoverished black neighborhoods may be laudable, but his rhetoric includes attacks against white people and against Israel. Should Obama distance himself from Dr. Wright, and if so, can he effectively do that?
I spent all morning reading Jeremiah Wright online. All the church newsletters are available. The guy is a full-blown hater, actually. This is just pulled at random.
Here is his attack on Natalee Holloway as a slut. "Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months." In other words, she is a slut.
Nine-eleven, he says: "White America got their wake-up call after 9-11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." So 9-11 was payback for white racism."
[...]
Quoting the Reverend Wright: "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."
He compares Israel to South Africa repeatedly. He attacks Israel as a racist state.
The man himself is racist, or leans heavily toward racism.
What did John say?
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."
--I John 4:20-21
If Barack Obama and the Rev Wright were white, with the kind of statements Wright has made, Obama would never have gotten to where he is today. Media would have destroyed him right out of the gate... Can anyone remember David Duke's disastrous presidential bid?
Remember too EL the dire predictions you're conjuring up, come from the same detail less speeches. Try to stop overreacting.
Israel should seek peace first? All Israel has wanted was peace. Who started the Yom Kippur War? Not Israel. Who started the Six Day War? Not Israel. Who started the War in Lebanon in '06? Not Israel. Who HAS been giving land back? Israel. Truth is, Israel instigated not a single war she has fought. How much more should she then do? Pack up all her families and move back to Europe? At what point are Israel's neighbors required to stop pummeling Israel with rockets and suicide bombers?
"My perspective says..." is not a good enough argument here, Ben. Everyone has a perspective. Upon what criteria, rather, is your perspective based? That is the basis upon which your, or my argument should be judged. Perhaps you can provide more detail than the esteemed senator from Illinois.
Finally, the U.S. has recognized the independence and sovereignty of Kosovo, a Muslim nation. How hypocritical of us should we not recognize Israel's right to exist equally as much as Kosovo's. Should the U.S. condemn Kosovo's neighbors for lobbing rockets into its borders? Yes. Should the U.S. AND the world hold Kosovo's attackers accountable for the attacks? Yes. Why then are you specifically-- to say nothing of the world at large and especially the UN --so adamantly opposed to Israel defending herself? Why isn't the UN or the US demanding Kosovo return to preexisting borders? Why aren't we demanding they give land back to Serbia?
After all, if the Jewish state of Israel should be made to give land back, so too should the Muslims of Kosovo.
On 14 May 1948 the State of Israel was proclaimed according to the UN partition plan (1947). Less than 24 hours later, the regular armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the country, forcing Israel to defend the sovereignty it had regained in its ancestral homeland. In what became known as Israel's War of Independence, the newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repulsed the invaders in fierce intermittent fighting, which lasted some 15 months and claimed over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time).
During the first few months of 1949, direct negotiations were conducted under UN auspices between Israel and each of the invading countries (except Iraq which has refused to negotiate with Israel to date), resulting in armistice agreements which reflected the situation at the end of the fighting. Accordingly, the coastal plain, Galilee and the entire Negev were within Israel's sovereignty, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) came under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian administration, and the city of Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan controlling the eastern part, including the Old City, and Israel the western sector.
1956 Sinai Campaign:
The 1949 armistice agreements had not only failed to pave the way to permanent peace, but were also constantly violated. In contradiction to the UN Security Council resolution of 1 September 1951, Israeli and Israel-bound shipping was prevented from passing through the Suez Canal; the blockade of the Straits of Tiran was tightened; incursions into Israel of terrorist squads from neighboring Arab countries for murder and sabotage occurred with increasing frequency; and the Sinai peninsula was gradually converted into a huge Egyptian military base.
Upon the signing of a tripartate military alliance by Egypt, Syria and Jordan (October 1956), the imminent threat to Israel's existence was intensified. In the course of an eight-day campaign, the IDF captured the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai peninsula, halting 10 miles (16 km.) east of the Suez Canal.
A United Nations decision to station a UN Emergency Force (UNEF) along the Egypt-Israel border and Egyptian assurances of free navigation in the Gulf of Eilat led Israel to agree to withdraw in stages (November 1956 - March 1957) from the areas taken a few weeks earlier. Consequently, the Straits of Tiran were opened, enabling the development of trade with Asian and East African countries as well as oil imports from the Persian Gulf.
1967 Six-Day War:
Hopes for another decade of relative tranquility were dashed with the escalation of Arab terrorist raids across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, persistent Syrian artillery bombardment of agricultural settlements in northern Galilee and massive military build-ups by the neighboring Arab states. When Egypt again moved large numbers of troops into the Sinai desert (May 1967), ordered the UN peacekeeping forces (deployed since 1957) out of the area, reimposed the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and entered into a military alliance with Jordan, Israel found itself faced by hostile Arab armies on all fronts. As Egypt had violated the arrangements agreed upon following the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the south, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the east and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the north.
At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights under Israel's control. As a result, the northern villages were freed from 19 years of recurrent Syrian shelling; the passage of Israeli and Israel-bound shipping through the Straits of Tiran was ensured; and Jerusalem, which had been divided under Israeli and Jordanian rule since 1949, was reunified under Israel's authority.
From War to War:
The war over, Israel's diplomatic challenge was to translate its military gains into a permanent peace based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for "acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." However, the Arab position, as formulated at the Khartoum Summit Conference (August 1967) called for "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no recognition of Israel." In September 1968, Egypt initiated a 'war of attrition,' with sporadic, static actions along the banks of the Suez Canal, which escalated into full-scale, localized fighting, causing heavy casualties on both sides. Hostilities ended in 1970 when Egypt and Israel accepted a renewed cease-fire along the Suez Canal.
1973 Yom Kippur War:
Three years of relative calm along the borders were shattered on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the holiest day of the Jewish year, when Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise assault against Israel (6 October 1973), with the Egyptian army crossing the Suez Canal and Syrian troops penetrating the Golan Heights.
During the next three weeks, the Israeli Defense Forces turned the tide of battle and repulsed the attackers, crossing the Suez Canal into Egypt and advancing to within 20 miles (32 km.) of the Syrian capital, Damascus. Two years of difficult negotiations between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Syria resulted in disengagement agreements, according to which Israel withdrew from parts of the territories captured during the war.
1982 Operation Peace for Galilee:
The international boundary line with Lebanon has never been challenged by either side. However, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) redeployed itself in southern Lebanon after being expelled from Jordan (1970) and perpetrated repeated terrorist actions against the towns and villages of northern Israel (Galilee), which caused many casualties and much damage, the Israel Defense Forces crossed the border into Lebanon (1982).
"Operation Peace for Galilee" resulted in removing the bulk of the PLO's organizational and military infrastructure from the area. Since then, Israel has maintained a small security zone in southern Lebanon adjacent to its northern border to safeguard its population in Galilee against continued attacks by hostile elements.
2nd my opinions about the US-Israel relationship have had no input from Barack Obama. My opinion has remained the same for several years now.
3rd your comparison is laughably inaccurate. A better analogy might be capuchins flinging dung at King Kong. Israel has the strongest military in the mideast, they are also the only country in the mideast with nuclear capability.
4th the six days war israel began preemptively, they were the aggressor. The proof is that some of the land they took in that action they have yet to return to the other parties.
These are the my reasons for the opinions I hold. You disagree. That's fine. Just be able to defend your opinion.
But tell me. Seeing your enemy mass weapons, armament, and men on your border, knowing they've attacked you more than once before, do you wait for them to attack you again? Or do you take action preemptively? Aggression does not begin with weapons fire. It begins with provocation... provocative behavior. Every police officer in the nation can attest to that.
Your litmus test for justifiable defense of ones people and borders is, to MY perspective, seriously lacking in terms of reason. In your world no one would be able to defend themselves until their attacker had first stabbed or shot them. Everyone agrees that women should not have to be maimed or killed before they can defend themselves from abusive husbands. What about abusive neighbors? When is ANYONE allowed to defend themselves in your world?
You're missing the point of the analogy. Egypt, Jordan and Syria WERE massing troops, armor and weapons at the Israel's border. Jordan and Syria were already conducting both limited raids, and shelling Israeli communities from the Golan Heights.
Israel DID think these nations MIGHT attack them. Two of them already were and one was massing on the border... three fronts of engagement. Israel didn't THINK she was being attacked. She WAS being attacked, with obvious preparations being made by her enemies for escalating the attack.
Now, I assure you, any police officer who sees two men firing into a home, and another getting a rifle from his pickup, can and should arrest them. And, under the laws of many states, a homeowner CAN, and has the right, to defend himself and his home from attackers. He should first dial 911, but if the police ignore the beleaguered homeowner, as the U.N. has on numerous occasions, the homeowner has no choice but to preemptively [ie; overrun ones enemies positions before they overrun ones own] engage his attackers.
What about a bank? A police officer driving by sees two men begin to fire upon bank security stationed at the bank entrance while another approaches with a weapon in his hand. The guard at the bank has the right and the responsibility to fire back to protect the bank's resources and its customers. The police officer is obligated to engage as well.
The U.N., however, has repeatedly failed in its responsibility. Here is a group ostensibly dedicated to peace in the world, who on May 14th of 1948, CREATED the problem by creating Israel. Their responsibility now is VERY clear. The created the nation of Israel. They have to defend her. If not for all the lives their decision has placed in jeopardy, then for enforcing their decision. If they can't make the world adhere to the decisions it makes, and defend their decisions, then they should disband. Their existence is pointless.
Same with the police.
But let's tweak the analogy...
An armed security guard stationed out front of a bank notices three men with guns moving toward the bank entrance. What does he do? At the very least, and if he's smart, he'll pull his own weapon in preparation for a gun battle. Two of the men approach from the east and one from the south. He sees the two east of his position raise their weapons. One of the men fires. What then should our intrepid bank guard do? Run inside and cower? Allowing these armed men to enter and kill innocent customers and rob the bank?
I'll tell you what he does: He fires back at the two coming from the east, and because the man from the south keeps advancing, weapon raised with clear intent, the guard fires upon him as well even though the man to his south has yet to fire or declare his intention. It was clear to the guard that the man's weapon was pointed at the guard and NOT the other two attackers.
When the police arrive on the scene... IF the police arrive... are they going to arrest the bank guard? Question him certainly! But arrest him? With a plethora of evidence to attest to the hostile intent of the three men the guard has shot?
Only in your world.
Israel has sought only to defend herself from aggressors who have publicly stated to the world that their intent is to destroy Israel... drive her into the sea... wipe her off the face of the map. THAT is clear intent.
That you and others insist Israel show restraint [ie, to not fight back to the best of her ability, insuring a swift end to hostilities and lessening the toll in lives lost], shows the prejudice you hold toward Israel. In your world it's okay for Arabs to daily attack and kill innocent Israelis, but not for Israelis to defend themselves.
Antisemitism has many faces. You may not see or think of yourself as antisemitic, but your argument certainly is. There is one set of rules for Jews, and another set for the rest of the world. As long as they jump through the hoops the antisemitic world erects for them, Israel gets a pat on the head, a biscuit, and a clean blanket.
Barack Obama is no different. His words suggests a preference-- and a bias --for one over another. The scenario he suggested has already been suggested by others: a strip of land given by Israel to the Palestinians to link Gaza and the West Bank, thereby splitting Israel in two. That is unacceptable. The Negev is Israel's and has been Israel's from the beginning, per the UN's original partition plan.
Obama spouts off about Hope, and Dreams, and a new day... but not for everyone. Some people will be asked to give away what is theirs by right so that others can enjoy the Candy Land he's promising to build.
Dude. That is precisely what you want to preserve, at all costs, apparently. The one set of rules that Israel follows, that no other country in the world CAN follow, is the one that says the United States is its ally NO MATTER WHAT.
And that is dangerous diplomacy for US, as well as unrealistic in the region -- as anything other than a "permanent" stopgap. And that set of rules certainly needs work.
Unless, rather than the U.S. Constitution, and present global-political-economic realities, one looks to, say, the Book of Daniel for clues as to how the United States, right now, should act on the world stage. But surely you don't do that.
And I guess it's unrealistic to expect Israels neighbors to stop lobbing missiles and sending in suicide bombers?
And I can separate what I believe the Bible says about what's going to happen and what we can do legally under the Constitution. Israel, nevertheless, has a right to defend herself. How hypocritical of us to insist our elected officials pledge to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, but not accord the same right of defense to another country. They have a right to defend themselves. Period. Whether we like it or not.
Remember that song by Sting? Russians?
I'm not saying it's going to escalate to nuclear exchanges, but that IS a very distinct possibility in the near future.
"I hope the Arabs love their children too..."