A U.S. president elected in 2008, whose foreign policy experience consists of voting "present" 129 times in the Illinois Senate, has sucked America into a widening war in Afghanistan in support of a tin-pot dictator who labels the American forces "invaders". At the president's side is a jilted, power hungry secretary of state, whose foreign policy experience, by the president's own admission, consists of sipping tea with ambassadors, and who is famous for fibbing to the U.S. electorate about a would-be corkscrew landing at a would-be sniper-infested airport in Bosnia.
The president, who in the past maintained personal ties over the course of decades with leftist hate mongers such as his pastor, was elected on the basis of a slick media campaign, which presented him as a moderate. One of his key communications advisers, who acknowledges that Mao, the murderer of 70 million people, is one of her favorite political philosophers, states that during the campaign they controlled press reports by not talking with reporters (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-anita-dunn-had-said-two-of-my.html). Although the president's association with known Israel-haters evoked concern, persons suspected of harboring hostility toward Israel temporarily disappeared from the president's entourage during his campaign, and the president amassed 77% of the Jewish vote.
March 24, 2010: Obama meets with six former national security advisers and General James Jones, who currently holds the job. Among the six former national security advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has called on Obama to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. General Jones is known for his past antagonism toward Israel and has long favored sending NATO troops to the West Bank to maintain security. They discuss imposing a "peace plan" upon Israel, premised upon NATO or U.S. troops stationed on the West Bank.
April 7, 2010: A report of the March 24 meeting has been leaked to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, and Ignatius reports that "the real strategist in chief [of the imposed "peace plan'] is Obama himself." Ignatius further reports:
"A political battle royal is likely to begin soon, with Israeli officials and their supporters in the United States protesting what they fear would be an American attempt to impose a settlement and arguing to focus instead on Iran. The White House rejoinder is expressed this way by one of the senior officials: 'It's not either Iran or the Middle East peace process. You have to do both.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040602663.html
That same day, Helene Cooper of The New York Times, to whom the story has also been leaked, reports:
"The fact that Mr. Obama was willing to have such an impromptu discussion with former advisers illustrates his increasing frustration with the foot-dragging over Middle East peace talks, and a growing sense that he may have to present a specific plan, rather than wait for the two sides to come to any sort of agreement.
. . . .
[A] consensus appears to be growing, both within the administration and among outside advisers to the White House, that Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving.
. . . .
What that [solution] would be remains up in the air, but most Middle East experts draw the same outline for a peace deal. First, Palestinian officials would have to accept that there would be no right of return for refugees of the 1948 war that established the Israeli state, and for their millions of descendants. Rather, the Palestinians would have to accept some kind of compensation. Second, the two sides would have to share Jerusalem — Palestinians locating their capital in the east and Israelis in the west, and both signing on to some sort of international agreement on how to share the holy sites in the Old City.
Third, Israel would return to its 1967 borders — before it captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War — give or take a few negotiated settlements and territorial swaps. Fourth, the United States or NATO would have to give Israel security guarantees, probably including stationing troops along the Jordan River, to ease Israeli fears that hostile countries could use the Palestinian state as a springboard for attacks. And finally, Arab neighbors like Saudi Arabia would recognize Israel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/middleeast/08prexy.html?hp
A return to the 1967 borders with territorial swaps, compensation but no right of return for Arab refugees of the 1948 war, and the sharing of Jerusalem is little different from the solution proposed by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert and rejected by Palestinian leaders Arafat and Abbas. Radically different is the expectation that Israel will depend upon NATO troops to control Palestinian terror and will no longer be responsible for its own security.
But why should this be any different from Lebanon, where U.N. troops, who do not speak Arabic, have befriended Hezbollah and turned a blind eye to Hezbollah's weapons smuggling and attacks on Israel's northern border. With NATO troops responsible for the West Bank, how long will it be before an El Al 747 landing at nearby Ben Gurion Airport is brought down by a shoulder-launched missile? How long will it be until Qassam rockets fall on Tel Aviv? How long until West Jerusalem is paralyzed by sniper fire?
What Obama fails to realize is that Israel is the homeland to millions of Jewish refugees, who learned bitter lessons in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East that they cannot expect anyone but themselves to protect their families.
Israel should place its faith in Obama, who is unable to stand up to Iran, who bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who has been stared down by China and Russia, who smiles warmly at Libyan and Venezuelan despots, who has sought to appease Syria and Myanamar, who has undermined U.S. allies in Europe, Latin America and Asia, whose support of human rights throughout the world amounts to nil?
Please forgive me, President Obama, if I prefer to continue to shoulder the burden of safeguarding my family's existence without your "assistance" or that of NATO troops. Or a simpler response to your imposed solution:
No way in hell!
There are important distinctions between two articles.
ReplyDeleteIgnatius is sure that Jews will not like the plan, and the Palestinians will not object. Knowing that the Palestinians did not accept anything which was proposed to them so far, one may wonder: what is in the plan? It may not be so benign, as the NY Times hypothesizes.
If the plan will be acceptable for Palestinians, probably, Obama will need to use a military force against Israel to implement it. I would not expect anything less from Brzezinski and Obama.