Doc's Talk: BREAKING THE CODE: OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL MESSAGE

Sunday, July 27, 2008

BREAKING THE CODE: OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL MESSAGE

RAND H. FISHBEIN, Ph.D.

Guest Comments:This is only for those concerned with the long term existence of the Jewish State of Israel. Knowledge and facts can be power, if one uses it wisely.
This is intended to be an examination of what has occurred for the purposes of clarity. We have a lot at stake.

http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID

If words are a window onto the soul, then Barack Obama’s comments before a recent gathering of more than 7,000 delegates at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 2008 Policy Conference reveals much about his true attitude towards Israel and the not-so-secret agenda of his foreign policy advisors. Here was an opportunity for the great orator to set the record straight and to disabuse his critics of the widely held notion that his sympathies lie not with Israel’s enemies, but with the safety of the besieged Jewish State. "Let me be clear," Obama declared to his pro-Israel audience, "Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders."

For most of those in attendance, the statement by the Illinois Senator was nothing short of a ringing endorsement of Israel and its security requirements, an unambiguous declaration that if elected, the new President would not pressure Israel into making life-threatening concessions in the name of peace. So convinced was the AIPAC audience of his sincerity that he received rapturous applause from a crowd long accustomed to lofty pro-Israel declarations by aspiring candidates.

But what was Obama hinting at? A careful parsing of the passage suggests that either he was calling for all Palestinian towns on the West Bank to be linked territorially, something that already exists, or more likely that in any final peace deal Hamas-controlled Gaza must be connected to the West Bank via a land bridge.

In fact, the Obama statement was a sinister reformulation of a key Palestinian demand that if implemented, would erode not only the geographic continuity of the Jewish State, but could fatally undermine its security as well.

By asserting that "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive," Obama implicitly called for the partitioning of Israel, the break-up of a U.N. member state and U.S. democratic ally, and the sacrifice of its territorial integrity in the face of unrelenting terrorism. This is surely not what the AIPAC audience understood and certainly not what the American People expect of a possible future President.

Nonetheless, the erosion of Israeli security is the logical consequence of any proposal that would press for a contiguous Palestinian state between 'Hamastan' and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank. Hamas, after all, is committed to the destruction of Israel and has demonstrated this fact by firing over 4,000 rockets into Israeli towns and cities since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. The U.S. Government has branded Hamas a terrorist organization and has noted its links not only with terrorist groups in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, but also its close association with Al-Qa'ida.

Surely those advising Obama on foreign policy matters are aware that what their candidate is asking of Israel is nothing short of national suicide. Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Susan E. Rice, Lawrence J. Korb, Joseph Cirincione, W. Anthony Lake and David Bonior boast long resumes opposing Israel security interests and challenging the extent of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Today, neither Egypt nor Israel is able to stem the flow of guns, rockets and explosives from the Sinai Peninsula into Gaza. How then will it be possible to stop this weaponry from migrating over a land bridge and into the West Bank? Setting aside the fact that Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah are today implacable foes, such a corridor would only facilitate terrorist infiltration of the West Bank and bring Hamas terrorists closer to Israeli population centers. A corridor would complete the encirclement of the Jewish State by hostile Arab forces, something that no sane Israeli government could willingly accept.

Obama’s call for Palestinian territorial continuity contradicts all mainstream notions of Israeli defensible borders and security, effectively nullifying his pledge to safeguard the well-being of the Jewish State. It also invalidates his declaration that "We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements," something they have pledged never to do.

Troubling, as well, is the use of the word "need" in the Obama declaration: "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive…" It demonstrates not only a conspicuous break with longstanding American policy, but also a striking ignorance of the historic realities that brought the Palestinians to this point in history. The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 gave the Arabs a contiguous and cohesive portion of Palestine upon which to build their state. That portion is called Jordan and constitutes 77 percent of historic Palestine. But the Arabs rejected that generous offer preferring, instead, to attack the nascent Israeli state in the hope of stealing the entire loaf.

Senator Obama should understand that the Palestinians do not "need" more land. They may desire a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, but a "desire" is not a "need." Such a corridor is no more a requirement of self-sufficiency than was a land corridor running through India and connecting Muslim Pakistan and Muslim Bangladesh following the partition of India in 1947. If the island state of Malta is able to prosper with a land area of 122 square miles then the Gaza Strip, at 146 square miles, should be able to do the same. In fact, there are 17 countries that are less than 200 square miles in size. All are economically and politically viable.

History has taught us that appeasement and intimidation should never be the basis for American policy. What the Palestinians deserve is a leadership that cares more about the welfare of its own people than in its unremitting obsession with the destruction of Israel.

If adopted by a future Obama administration, the candidate’s proposal would nullify any pretense that the U.S. backed safe and secure borders for Israel. Without geographic and economic continuity, the main population centers of Israel would be divided, the security services would be further strained, Israeli military mobilization would be severely impaired, military training bases would be isolated, traffic from the port of Eilat would be slowed, and the cost of exploiting the Negev’s mineral wealth probably would rise significantly.

Shorn of platitudes, the Obama speech to AIPAC was a sober warning to all who support the Democratic candidate for president. The subtext was clear: under an Obama administration Israel's security is not "sacrosanct." Everything is "negotiable." And the Jewish State will be "pressured" to concede its very territorial continuity to satisfy an Obama vision of peace in the region.

After all, it took only twenty-four hours following his AIPAC speech for Obama to repudiate his own declaration that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." After senior Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders condemned the statement, he retreated, telling CNN’s Candy Crowley in an interview that "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be a part of these negotiations."

Could this new approach to Israel signal the emergence of an "Obama Doctrine," one that calls for the weakening of democratic states that do not capitulate to the relentless assaults of terrorist insurgencies? Hopefully, it is not. America can ill afford to abandon a stalwart democratic ally in the Middle East any more than Israel can afford the price of many more concessions.

Other countries facing local insurrections are watching to see if the formula Obama has sketched for Israel will be their fate as well. The clock is ticking. It is time that Israel and the American voting public carefully reexamine Obama’s words. Thankfully, he has helped us to break the code before it is too late.

Obama told his AIPAC audience: "…(W)e know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security." Sadly, Senator, by your words and your associations, you already have.

RAND H. FISHBEIN, PH.D., President of Fishbein Associates, Inc., a public policy consulting firm based in Potomac, Maryland, is a former Professional Staff Member on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, and Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI).

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk