Obama's Israel Policy

I have one thing in common with the State of Israel.  We were born in the same year.  More correctly though, Israel was born in the death camps of Europe half a decade earlier.  Otherwise few European Jews would have torn up their deep roots and migrated in support of an incredibly daunting effort to make real the promise of the return to Israel.

Over the past sixty years, Israel has had the benefit of a steady in migration from groups of Jews everywhere but particularly from the remnants of the old soviet bloc and it now boasts a healthy population of 7.5 million and the next twenty years will see it rise to over 10 million.

That means that its war making capacity approaches one million under arms with full modern industrial capability supporting it.  It faces no creditable state enemy and for that exact reason, its neighbors have chosen to settle and get on with their internal affairs.  The only apparent hold out has been Syria, but that has been about having a settlement opportunity.

The conflict today is strictly between Israel and a viciously factionalized Palestinian polity.

This article asks the question of just what does Obama think he is doing by sticking his hand into this party.  We have had a series of actions that amount to beating up on their ally in the press.  This could have been done if done at all behind closed doors.  In fact it is almost as if a group of sophomores have been led into a large room full of arrays of breaker switches and been told that these turn things on or of and to go ahead and play.

It is easy to push the Israeli leadership and perhaps generate some plausible response.  So they went ahead and pushed.  Hillary has been doing this in other arenas besides.  It will swiftly become unconvincing and irritating.

What is egregious about the process is that we obviously have no leverage whatsoever with the bulk of the Palestinian polity.  The two state solution was possible when we had a pretend coalition prepared to usher in the Palestinian state.  Today we have the Hamas state of Palestine, the Hezbollah state of Palestine and lest we forget the Fatah State of Palestine.  We are barely talking to the latter.

The most trivial review of the Palestinian history reveals a deeply internalized genocidal impulse nurtured by ideology and education not unlike that of the Nazis.  Until this disease is stripped out of the society, it appears that no accommodation is possible.

It is impossible to have a two state solution when one side will immediately reconfigure overnight into a fascist war machine.

We also go on pretending Hamas and Hezbollah claims of military success have any credence whatsoever.  When Rome marched into a city and largely burned it to the ground and then marched out sparing the locals their lives and an opportunity to spend vast sums on reconstruction, they did not call it a defeat.  These last two events were punitive raids whose aim was to locate centers of resistance to destroy and to cause as much material damage as possible.

The hurry up solution is to massively intervene and operate de-islamification programs and to suppress all militarism.  We are not there yet.  We can accept the status quo and make sure that all Palestine gets a broad exposure through television and the internet to alternative Islamic visions.  Over time this may undermine the hatreds.

In the meantime, a two state solution is now too little too late.

Obama’s Two-State Delusion

Posted by Moshe Dann on Apr 2nd, 2010 and filed under FrontPage.

Let there be no mistake: President Obama’s attack on Israel’s right to govern in eastern Jerusalem has nothing to do with American national interests, and nothing to do with a “peace process.” Other American leaders may have disagreed with Israeli policy, but none of them made it a casus belli.

No other prominent politician sought to impose the “two-state solution,” based on 60-year-old cease-fire lines with Jordan, instead of a negotiated agreement. Obama’s move leaps beyond all previous “accords,” plans and “road maps.” Never before has the United States sought to dictate the terms of Israeli surrender, thereby undermining its only reliable ally in the region.

Obama’s obsession with the establishment of a second Arab Palestinian state might be understandable if it were based on a realistic appraisal of conditions as they are, instead of what they might be. The warning signals are there.      

Two dramatic shifts have made the “two-state solution” irrelevant: the stand-off victory of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the hegemony of Hamas in Gaza and many areas of the West Bank, nominally under the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah. One has to be ignorant, and/or blind not to appreciate what these situations mean – especially given the threats from Iran.

The developments have led to the widespread recognition, especially among Israelis, that the so-called “Oslo process” (“land for peace”) has failed, that Israel has no “peace partner,” and, therefore, that a second Arab Palestinian state is no longer relevant.

Today, unilateral withdrawal from Yehuda and Shomron (“the West Bank”) and the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state is a “clear and present danger,” not only to Israel, but to the entire region.

Refusing to consider any alternatives to the “two-state” model, however, the United States and EU countries focus on an “end to the conflict,” without necessary pre-requisites.

During the last 40 years, Israeli leaders conveyed the message that “the Palestinian problem” is ours and we can fix it. This was the motivation behind various proposals: Labor’s offers to exchange “land for peace,” Likud’s autonomy plan, confederation with Jordan, the First Lebanese War against the PLO, Rabin’s recognition of the PLO and the establishment of a Palestinian state, Barak’s offers at Camp David, Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Northern Shomron, and the current government’s failures in Lebanon and Gaza.

All of these policies failed because they were not reality-based, but clung to a desperate Israeli desire for an end to the conflict. Each time Israel paid the price and made concessions, however, the price rose, and the conflict continued.

The “two-state” proposal based on Israel’s 1949 borders is also doomed to fail for several reasons:

(1) Palestinians’ opposition to any solution; their refusal to recognize authentic Jewish rights and claims and their refusal to accept Israel’s existence.

(2) A negotiating process confounded by terrorism. Israel demands an end to terrorism before making broader concessions; the Palestinians demand concessions first and reducing terrorism later – perhaps, if that is at all possible or their plan (which all evidence suggests it isn’t).

(3) Political/demographic reality is that Israel cannot return to the 1949 Armistice lines.

(4) UNRWA continues to support the “Palestinian right-of-return;” it is part of the problem, not a solution.

(5) Even if all of the above could be resolved, a stable Palestinian state is unlikely.

Rather than abandon vital national interests, the only practical and rational policy for America, the region, and Israel, is one based on security and reality: Islamic terrorism, Jihad, is and will be a persistent threat. That should be Pres. Obama’s main concern.

In comparison, issues such as definitions of Israel’s borders and demographic predictions are irrelevant. “Political horizons” can only have meaning when there is a stable government that is accountable and responsible. Otherwise, such proposals are recipes for disaster.

At the least, the Obama administration must present not only a realistic, coherent policy, but an explanation of how and why it will work. Slamming Israel is not a substitute for reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment