This is the second part of a two-part article about Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech: how the speech was even worse than many people realize, and demonstrated Obama’s longstanding anti-Israel agenda and hostility.
Part 1 last week described how Obama long ago revealed his anti-Israel agenda to those who understand “Middle-East-speak,” by repeatedly voicing his support for the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative.” Obama’s Middle East special envoy put it succinctly: “full implementation of the Arab peace initiative” is “the objective set forth by the president [Obama] and the Secretary of State.” (1/6/10 interview)
The aim of the “Arab peace initiative” is not peace; it is the destruction of Israel. The initiative doesn’t even promise peace; in exchange for giving up everything, Israel merely receives an unenforceable promise of “normal relations.” The Arab Peace Initiative calls for Israel’s retreat to indefensible pre-1967 borders (the 1949 Armistice lines where the fighting stopped after six Arab countries invaded Israel, seizing Israeli land); a so-called “right of return” for millions of Arabs who never lived in Israel to go live in Israel and overrun the country; a Palestinian State whose capital is Jerusalem; and evicting hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, among other things. The API is actually akin to Yasser Arafat’s infamous “plan of phases”: namely, take whatever you can through negotiations, and then go to war to completely wipe out Israel.
I also listed some of Obama’s numerous anti-Israel statements and policies last week. I then began describing how Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech follows his anti-Israel “Arab peace initiative” (“API”) agenda.
Like the API, Obama called for Israel’s retreat to indefensible pre-1967 borders. Obama’s wording also made such a retreat official U.S. policy, which is unprecedented.
Like the API, Obama’s speech called for the establishment of a Palestinian state (just after the Hamas-Fatah unity pact – which makes it certain that any such state will be a terrorist state committed to Israel’s destruction).
Also like the API, even the retreat to indefensible borders and establishment of a Palestinian State was insufficient. Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech also called for Israel to retreat first (to “move forward now on the basis of territory” so that Palestinians would “know the territorial outlines of their state”) and to then face additional Palestinian demands for Jerusalem and a “right of return” to overrun and destroy all of Israel.
Such absurd “it’s never enough” concessions were never American policy in the past. America’s prior policy, outlined in former President Bush’s 2004 letter to former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, was that any establishment of a Palestinian state must be in the context of a “final” agreement, and must settle Palestinian refugees in their own state, not in Israel. In other word, the Palestinians must accept that there is no so-called Palestinian “right of return” that permits them to destroy Israel. (Of course, after the Hamas-Fatah pact, and continued Palestinian incitement and terrorism, further Israeli territorial retreat and a Palestinian state make no sense at all.)
Obama’s May 19 speech also called for a “contiguous” Palestinian state. A “contiguous” Palestinian state would cut Israel into two separate pieces. In other words, Israel – America’s ally – will no longer be “contiguous” in order to make way for a contiguous Hamas-Fatah terrorist state!
In his May 19 speech, Obama also falsely claimed that Palestinians were “pursuing their interests at the United Nations” because of growing “impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one.” Obama’s statement failed to place the blame for the absence of a peace process where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian leadership.
In truth, the Palestinian Authority is seeking a state from the United Nations in order to avoid making peace with Israel. Palestinians admit that U.N. recognition will be a springboard for “lawfare” (war through abusive lawsuits) and “phases plan” actions against Israel. In a May 16, 2011 New York Times Op Ed, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas wrote that U.N. recognition would enable Palestinians to pursue “human rights” claims against Israel in numerous international legal courts, and to continue to pursue “a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194.”
The latter item refers to a Palestinian “right of return” to all of Israel, pursuant to the Palestinian one-sided misinterpretation of U.N. Resolution 194, which, it so happens, every Arab country voted against. (An honest implementation of Resolution 194 would allow Jews to return to the homes Jews had to flee from in East Jerusalem and throughout the Middle East.)
By contrast to UN action, a negotiated peace (which the Palestinians have studiously avoided) would require the Palestinians to finally recognize the Jewish State.
Obama’s statements also ignored the long history of broken Palestinian promises. In five written Palestinian-Israeli agreements, commencing with Oslo I in 1993, Israel made enormous territorial concessions, in exchange for promises that the Palestinian Authority would end violence and incitement against Israel, and turn over terrorists and illegal weapons.
Israel kept its end of the bargain, conveying half the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, while the Palestinian Authority violated every one of its obligations. The Palestinian Authority repaid Israeli generosity by continually inciting terror and deadly intifadas against Israel, which killed and injured thousands of Israeli civilians.
Obama’s pledge in his May 19 speech of $1 billion of loans forgiveness plus $1 billion of loan guarantees to the new Egyptian government was another outrage. In its short existence, the new Egyptian regime has already been punctuated by: wholesale murders of Christian Copts; increased arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza (for use against Israel); the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border; obvious involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood; the brokering of the Hamas-Fatah pact; potential Egyptian president Muhammed el-Baradei’s April 4, 2011 threat to declare war on Israel, and more. Shouldn’t American promises of assistance at the very least be conditioned upon better behavior?
On May 19, Obama also explicitly demanded that leaders of friendly regimes (Yemen and Bahrain) must step down, but failed to insist that the leaders of enemy regimes Syria and Iran must do so. Obama also failed to mention Iran’s mounting nuclear threat or effective counter-measures.
Obama’s horrendous May 19 speech again demonstrated our president’s anti-Israel agenda and lack of regard for other American allies. Hopefully, everyone who cares about Israel and/or America’s relationships with our allies – Republicans and Democrats alike – will remember this when it counts.
Elizabeth (Liz) Berney, Esq.
Great Neck
