Posts
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.Anyone familiar with the strategic history of the region knows that Israel's pre-1967 borders were militarily indefensible. Any hostile power that can control the Golan Heights can destroy northern Israel; the West Bank is only 11 miles from Tel Aviv. The demands will not end, but rather increase, once Israel abandons the Golan and the West Bank, and any "promises" to the contrary are lies.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.
Israel's enemies, who have never ceased to proclaim their genocidal objective, will not be content so long as there is a Jew alive and free in the Middle East. And now, with the overwhelming support of American Jews, Obama prepares to hand the knife to Israel's executioners.
UPDATE: Pam Geller is not deceived:
"The better to eat you alive my dear."Meanwhile, Shmuel Rosner calls our attention to a proposal for a "nuclear-free Israel" -- a nuclear Iran is apparently acceptable, however. Just coincidences, like the fact that Obama's buddy Bill Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan.
Jihad Watch offers 21 reasons why Israel cannot "compromise" its way to peace and security.
UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey:
Welcome to Obama 3.0 on Jerusalem. Now he has switched sides to the exact opposite of what he argued at AIPAC. . . .Netanyahu is right, the rest are wrong. If Obama pushes the dismemberment and disarmament of Israel, Likud will come roaring back. And once that happens, Hamas and Fatah will launch another Intifada. Lather, rinse repeat. Saying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.
Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and leading candidate for Prime Minister from Ariel Sharon’s Kadima party, backs the Saudi peace plan in concept, including the division of Jerusalem. The Israeli Left supports it as well, with Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert both endorsing the plan. Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu opposes it entirely.
UPDATE III: Noah Pollak says the Times of London report is probably wrong.
Apocalypse, now?
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Sarah Silverman's grandmother feels now?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk
Here's a reasonable precondition, how about Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt open the refugee camps and allow those poor people to settle in their lands. Just that one humanitarian gesture, a simple decency that the world would demand of any Western nation. How about?
ReplyDeleteOh well.
Watch Obama mix the signals and stall this for about 2 1/2 years, if it looks like he might have a tough election ahead, this would get him a war to run on. If not, he'll string the Saudis along til he's got a hundred million or so hid away for a library and stuff, and leave the mess for his successor. I detest the man, but know he isn't stupid, just petty.
ReplyDeleteThis would be the Saudi plan that many Israelis, including Shimon Perez, consider to be a basis for renewed negotiation and counter-proposal? All the Israeli MK's who are behind that approach are, in your mind, traitors?
ReplyDeleteThese militarily indefensible borders? They would be the ones that Israel managed to defend back in 1967, when it had a substantially less significant military lead over its neighbors, lacked 100% air dominance over the region, and didn't have a stockpile of 200 or so high yield nukes?
These would be the borders that nobody believes would actually be restored, even if the Saudi plan were largely adopted, because land swaps are viewed by every major player (not the least of whom is Israel) as an integral part of any final resolution?
What's your alternative proposal to a settlement of territorial disputes and an end to the conflict? Or is it simply that you, comfortable in the U.S., don't mind that Israelis continue to shed blood to support your political agenda, even if they would prefer peace?
Hyperbole much? Let's try not to get our panties too knotted up, okay?
ReplyDelete