Doc's Talk: The Speech Obama Should Make

Thursday, May 19, 2011

The Speech Obama Should Make

Elder of Ziyon

Here is what Obama should say in his speech tonight about the Middle East (crossposted from NewsRealBlog):

During these past few months, we have seen a real change in the Arab world. We have all watched the dramatic protests, first in Tunisia and then in Tahrir Square, protests that have effected a real change in the Arab world and that have brought hope to tens of millions of people who had lived under decades of crushing, autocratic rule.
We join in the celebrations of freedom for the Arab people. We wholeheartedly support freedom and democracy all around the world, and we are cautiously encouraged by what has happened. The United States stands by everyone who wants freedom and liberty. President Roosevelt listed the Four Freedoms and they are just as necessary today as they did in the dark early days of World War II. As he stated them, they are: Freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
Freedom from want — securing to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants —everywhere in the world.
And freedom from fear — everywhere in the world.

These are not just slogans, and these goals are not unrealistic. These are the primary foreign policy goals of the United States.
The Arab Spring shows that all people want, and deserve, real freedom.
My commitment is to do everything possible to bring that freedom not only to the Arab world but to every country on the planet.
Unfortunately, freedom is not free. One cannot just wave a magic wand and expect nations to embrace real freedoms on their own. Elections alone do not make a democracy. It takes time to build up the institutions of democracy, to give people a real choice in who they want to govern them. People must be exposed to the entire marketplace of ideas before making their own decisions. The process can be bumpy, and rushing it can be as counterproductive as not doing it at all.
Three times in the last century has the world been threatened by vicious, evil, totalitarian movements. The first two were communism and Nazism. Even though both of them used the terminology of freedom and civil rights, both of these movements were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.
They were fundamentally against freedom and they brought with them a swath of destruction and genocide.
There is a third, equally dangerous movement, and it is especially worrisome in the Arab world. That movement is Islamism.
Make no mistake–I am not talking about Islam. In a democratic, free world, everyone has the choice of which religion they want to follow, or not to follow one at all. That freedom is sacrosanct. Islam is a major world religion and it deserves as much respect as any other personal religion.
But Islamism is a political movement whose goals are no less destructive than Nazism and Communism were in the 20th century. Political Islamism seeks nothing less than domination of people, subjugation of women, cessation of freedom of speech, and little choice in how people worship.
Islamism’s principles are antithetical to each of the Four Freedoms of President Roosevelt. It is an inherently evil movement that creates an environment of fear among those who are unfortunate enough to live under its strictures.
Islam, as a personal religion, needs to be protected. Islamism, the political movement, needs to be destroyed.
Only when this occurs can there be truly an Arab Spring. Only when the hundreds of millions of Arabs feel free to express themselves without fear, to change religions without fear, to elect women as their leaders without fear–only then can we say that spring has come to the Arab world.
Any government that is based on Islamic law is, by definition, a government that rejects the basic tenets of human rights, of true equality before the law.
This must change. The sooner that Islamism is defeated, the sooner than Arabs can enjoy real freedom and security.
This is the main reason why the recent unity agreement in the Palestinian Arab territories is so problematic. Hamas is an Islamist, terrorist group. It is not interested a free, democratic Palestinian state–instead, it is dedicated to creating a pan-Islamist nation stretching across three continents. Gaza is a regime of fear, and people there have suffered greatly as a direct result of Hamas’ aggressive, violent, anti-freedom agenda. While unity may be a laudable goal, it can only work as long as all of the parties agree to the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Hamas is not an organization that is even capable of such thoughts.
While American policy has been to create a Palestinian state, statehood itself is not a right. It must be earned. The Palestinian Arab people must elect, and be led by, leaders who truly understand the necessity of these four freedoms, and the importance of real peace.
Unfortunately, this has not yet happened. The Palestinian Arab Fatah leadership has consistently chosen incitement over true peace and cooperation with Israel, the Jewish state. They have adamantly refused to continue peace negotiations. And now they have chosen to partner with a terror group instead of move toward a real, permanent solution to Arab-Israeli peace.
Let me be clear. Israel exhibits all of the freedoms we are discussing, even while under a constant state of war. It is a strong, reliable ally of the United States. America will never abandon Israel nor will we endanger it.
Israel’s freedoms should be the model that the Arab world follows as it moves toward a true spring. And when the Arab world is ready to make a real, true peace with the Jewish state, the payoff will be tremendous for everyone, as all of the artificial fear and hate that has been stoked over the decades will melt away.
I am not talking about a detente, or a paper truce with Israel. I am talking about real peace, where Jewish doctors can come to Arab countries to treat Muslim children, where poets from Syria can recite their works in a Tel Aviv concert hall, where Arab and Israeli researchers can work together to solve shared problems such as water, energy and the environment.
This is my vision for peace and my vision for the Middle East. We have spent too much time missing the forest for the trees. Real peace will not come from endless meetings haggling over borders, nor from using human rights terminology to push a hateful agenda. A true peace will only exist where Arab and Jew alike can feel free to travel, speak and laugh in the entire region, without fear from their cousins. I want to see a train line running from Jerusalem to Amman, a highway from Haifa to Beirut, commercial airliners flying from Riyadh to Tel Aviv.
This is what an Arab Spring must result in. It is not merely a dream, but it is a vision that everyone needs to work toward. As the president of the United States, I intend to lead the way toward this vision. I urge you you help me in this task.
Thank you, and God bless you.

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