Obama's "Con" Job

Yesterday, I half-listened to President Obama’s speech on the Middle East — his voice has a droning quality that leave me MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) if I listen to it too much. But then he used one word that my ears have been trained to listen for whenever someone discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That word is “contiguous.”

Obama’s words:

The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Currently, the Palestinians have a bisected land. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are separated by Israel. “Contiguous” means that they are not separated, but connected. And that ain’t gonna happen unless you 1) bisect Israel and give the Palestinians a corridor through the heart of Israel, or B) run a Palestinian territory down to the Red Sea and back up to Gaza, depriving Israel of its Red Sea port.

At that point, I decided that the whole section of the speech needed some attention. Because if there’s this one incredibly dumb thing, there are almost certainly more dumb things in it.

And hoo boy, are there.

 Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks.

Gee, all those Palestinian terror attacks? Rockets, mortars, suicide bombers? Never mind those.

Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.

Barack Obama, border security expert and hawk. Oh, that’s rich.

The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.

Gosh, why hasn’t that been tried before? It’s so simple, so obvious.

Oh, that’s right. It was. In Gaza. And we all know how well that worked out.

Boiled down, it’s the same old same old crap we hear from the anti-Israel side. A healthy dose of moral equivalence between the Israelis an Palestinians, followed by insistence that both sides much make concessions. The Israelis must give up land and ease security restrictions and, in general, make it much easier for them to be attacked; the Palestinians must make promises to try to cut down on terrorism and think about recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

And even when the Palestinians make those promises, they never keep them. And no one ever holds them to them.

Obama is fixated on the “Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist” element. And from I’ve read, the Israelis don’t really care that much about it.

As I understand it, the Israeli attitude is “hey, we exist. We’re here. We ain’t going anywhere. Get used to it.” They don’t need validation from the Palestinians — or anyone — to be a legitimate nation, the homeland of the Jewish people. They simply bring up the issue as a way of pointing out the absurdity of it — what’s the point of opening negotiations with someone who pretends the Israelis essentially don’t exist? Further, so what if the Palestinians say it — they have a very, very lengthy history of going back on promises and pledges and concessions.

To Israel, the recognition issue isn’t a demand. It’s a prerequisite.  It’s a precondition — how the hell can we negotiate with someone who pretends we don’t exist? As such, it needs no concessions, is nothing Israel should bargain over.

Here’s an idea: tell the Palestinians that if they can go a certain period of time (say, six months) without any attacks on Israel, and recognize that Israel exists and will continue to exist, then we’ll start negotiating. What we don’t do is start equating killing people with building houses, equate fences that keep people out with fences that keep people in, and soft-selling the calls for (and attempts to carry out) genocide — which is the end result of the “from the river to the sea, Paleastine will be free.” (The River being the Jordan and the sea the Mediterranean, meaning that the area will be rendered Judenfrei.)

At this moment, President Obama is meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And in that meeting, I strongly suspect that Obama is telling Netanyahu that he really needs to trust the Palestinians, that they won’t pull the football away, and he needs to make a few more concessions as “good will gestures” to get the peace process going.

What he won’t be saying is what concessions he’s going to pressure the Palestinians to make, what promises and pledges he will extract from them, to get them to demonstrate their sincerity.

Which I can kind of respect — I see it as a recognition of reality. The Palestinians won’t be making any concessions, will be very reluctant to make any promises, and won’t keep them anyway.

This is not a good time for Israel. And not a good time for those of us who believe in her right to exist, and think that the world is a far, far better place with Israel in it.
.
Update:
NRO covers much of the same ground, but in some ways better.

A Crappy Solution To A Tough Problem
Hamas to Obama: Kiss my radical Islamic rear-end
  • WildWillie

    This bonehead declaration from our inexperienced president can be traced to Rev. Wright who for 20+ years denigrated the jews and the “zionists” that are keeping others enslaved.

    How about Monday, when the Prime Minister addresses congress he say, “The hispanic community wants the borders redrawn to reflect how it looked before Santa Ana. That will bring true peace to that area.” What would be the difference?

  • GarandFan

    Best thing Netanyahu can say to Barry is “Say hello to Rev Wright for me, now bend over and kiss my ass!”

  • Michael

    Obama is an idiot. Israel is going to no such thing…so all Obma is doing is showing his ignorance and enraging his Jewish supporters.

  • Sep14

    “And even when the Palestinians make those promises, they never keep them. And no one ever holds them to them.”

    Gee, where have we heard this before?

    All promises come with an expiration date. And that date is as soon as it purses there lips. Be it Barry, or Gaza dwellers.

  • Neo

    President Obama’s speech yesterday had a built-in applause line on the May 1 killing of Osama bin Laden.

    And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

    [Pause. Silence.]No one in the crowded Benjamin Franklin Room at the State Department applauded.
    Gutsy.

  • http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com Sabba Hillel

    I should also point out that once they create a “contiguous “Pseudostan” [sic], the next step will be to claim that the Negev (SOuth Israel) is a separate “country” because it is not contiguous with the state of Israel and should be turned over to the “country” that is contiguous with it.

  • Jim Addison

    Obama will crawl over broken glass on his hands and knees to kiss muslim butts and feels newly empowered to do so, having single-handedly killed bin Laden and earned temporary immunity from the “soft on muslims” charge.

    Building apartments in your capital city is, in Obama’s view, a Crime Against Humanity; cutting the throats of sleeping children, not so much.

    At least he managed to at least mention the massacres in the streets of Syria. Remember that much less violence made it imperative that Mubarak step down . . . and what about Iran?

    Worst. President. EVER.

  • BlueNight

    You know, it’s funny how some people joked about how Obama might be the Antichrist.

    This nutjob Harold Camping says the True Christians (ie, only his church) will be raptured tomorrow, while the president of Israel’s biggest ally is backpedaling after suggesting that Israel give up land for “peace, peace.”

    Strange days.

  • 914

    “This nutjob Harold Camping says the True Christians (ie, only his church) will be raptured tomorrow”

    What does this crack pot stand to gain by exposing his psychosis and showing what a fool he is when it does not happen I wonder? Rapture Insurance? Free publicity like the Koran torcher most likely.

    Seems if you make an idiot of yourself and the msm picks up the story nowadays you can become a celeb, retire and write a book.

  • http://jimbeach.net jim x

    Boiled down, it’s the same old same old crap we hear from the anti-Israel side.

    Wanting a lasting peace that works for both Israelis and Palestinians is not anti-Israel. Sorry. You can disagree about whether or not Obama’s or others’ efforts towards peace will work. But it is simply wrong to say Obama is *against* Israel.

  • Murgatroyd

    One thing I’ve never understood about supporters of the Arabs in this dispute is their insistence that Jews in the West Bank absolutely must give up their settlements. Why? What happens if the settlements remain, but the territory becomes part of a Palestinian state? Why can’t Jews live in and be citizens of “Palestine” just as Muslim Arabs live in and are citizens of Israel?

    Are the Arabs just assumed to be bloodthirsty subhumans who are incapable of allowing Jews to live among them?

    On the other hand, Jews currently are not allowed to settle in or to own property in Gaza and in other Arab-controlled areas. In fact, Arabs insist that their states be Judenrein.

    So maybe that wasn’t such a bad assumption …

  • http://jimbeach.net jim x

    One thing I’ve never understood about supporters of the Arabs in this dispute is their insistence that Jews in the West Bank absolutely must give up their settlements. Why?

    Murgatroyd, the reason is probably due to the fact that the Israelis took the land that those “settlements” are on from innocent Palestinians with deeds, in some cases in their families for generations, at gunpoint.

    Some people think this is wrong, as well as completely unnecessary and productive of no larger good whatsoever for Israel or the world.

  • Ryan M.

    Jim. . that is a totally full of it answer and you know it.

    If you want to go that route, the ‘Palestinians’ were OFFERED their own state and REFUSED it instead leaving do the entire Arab world could attack Israel and lose, and then have been whining like hell about the results for half a century, and complaining that they should be treated as if they won their temper tantrum.

    I am sorry but the Palestinians are 100%, completely, in all ways wrong. Most of them are Jordanians anyway, so if there should be a Palestinian homeland, it should be carved out of Jordan.

    Not that you will read or care if it interferes with your canonization of the ‘Palestinians’, but. . .

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    Ryan, if my answer is so “full of it” then please explain any one thing about it that was false.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE