Friday, May 20, 2011

Is Obama pent to destroy Israel?

So not only is Obama pent on destroying the United States, he might also be aiding enemies of Israel in both Europe and the Middle East in the complete annihilation of Israel. At least that's one one might come to think after his speech yesterday when he proposed Israel ought to go back to pre-1967 borders.

Every single country surrounding Israel wants to destroy Israel, and that doesn't include just the Islamic nations. considering parts of Israel are as narrow as six miles wide, and the widest area is about 48 miles wide, you can grasp a scope of how difficult it would be to defend such a small nation.

Yet in 1967 several Islamic nations (as I wrote about here) attacked Israel in an attempt to destroy it. Yet even though it was little Israel going against many other nations, Israel won this war in a stunning victory in only six days. As a result of the victory, Israel won obtained land, including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Yet despite the victory, many other nations have failed to recognize Israel as the victors, and have asked them many times to give this land back. Many, including progressives in the U.S. and Europe, hate Israel so much they call Israel the occupiers of this land.

And this is the only time in the history of the world that the winners of a war were called occupiers of the land they won. It would be like Europe saying the U.S. is occupiers of Southern states we won as a result of a war with Mexico. It simply doesn't happen, except when the victors are Jews.

By making this speech yesterday, Obama is basically saying that he supports the Muslims in their quest to destroy Israel, the only stable democracy in that region. He has given credence to the enemies of one of our most ardent allies.

To get a better scope of the history we're dealing with here you can check out this link. This is important, because the enemies of Israel (and this may now include Obama) will tell you that Israel is the bad guy because it forced Palestinians out of Israel and is now illegally occupying Palestinian land.

Yet that's not the truth at all. In 1948 when Israel was formed only 10% of Arabs in that area lived in the land allotted to Israel. And they were welcomed to stay in Israel.

The 1967 conflict caused two problems: one was the creation of Jewish refuges that were later absorbed by Israel, Arabic refugees that the Arabic nations refused to absorb. So now to ask Israel to absorb the grandchildren (most of who hate the Jews) into its borders is absurd.

In fact -- and the Israel haters won't tell you this -- the Palestinians weren't even called the Palestinians until later, when they learned they could use the fact that "Israel is occupying their land and they have no homes," as a means to gain sympathy and financial support from other nations, including suckers in the U.S.

They have since been vying for a Palestinian State claiming that the Israelites stole land that is rightfully theirs, which isn't true even in the slightest.

Yet many Palestinian groups have charters pent on the destruction of Israel. Any attempt by Obama or any other leader to create peace between Israel and those pent on destroying it must not "assume" these people will somehow stop thinking this way. They might say one thing, yet only with their fingers crossed in the hope Israel bites. They want to destroy Israel, and that's the bottom line.

Obama has now acknowledged he wants to destroy Israel. We must accept this as the truth, we must not be blind and think otherwise, and we must stop him from destroying our democratic ally.

Thankfully today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the 1967 Borders are indefensible and it's not going to happen, and he did this right in front of Obama. Good for him!


Josh said...

Clearly you oppose the two state solution. So, you suggest Israel give up nothing and that other mid-eastern countries should simply absorb the Palestinian refugees.

As a libertarian, I tend to disagree with financially supporting either side of the debate. I am not saying Israel should give the land back, I am simply stating that we should allow both sides to hammer the issue out. Not on our terms, but on theirs.

Also, Obama's policy is a very similar proposal to the Bush policy before him. Pre 1967 borders is not a major deviation from U.S. foreign policy.

However, do you really think "our" policy even matters in the debate? How many peace treaties once brought to the table have failed? Personally, this doesn't concern me as much.

Rick Frea said...

I guess it matters as much as Israel is the only Republic, capitalist and free nation in that region, and they are being treated disrespectful because of that. And socialists/progressives in the rest of the world feed into it. When is any other nation asked to give back land it won in war? Why does every "compromise" mean Israel has to give up something? When is the last time an Arab nation was asked to give up land in any deal?

Rick Frea said...

Personally, I agree with you that our policy doesn't matter. I guess BN implied that in his speech in Washington. BN said he's not going to allow Israel's borders to be shrunk to the point they are indefensible. I respect that. I respect that far more than I respect other nations bullying Israel.