For many years, we have not been able to express pride in our central government and its leaders. This week was one of those rare occasions. Oh! Wait a minute! That was not our government or our leaders. It was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyuhu! In fact, the same set of facts that distinguished Netanyuhu, demonstrated to us yet again, that there is no basis for pride in the United States government or our Feckless-In-Chief.
It seems it was not enough during the “Arab Spring” that our President routinely threw our friends in the Arab world under the bus, frequently referring to them as being in the same league with Libya and Syria. As Israel watched as one friendly Arab government after another was trashed, leaving Israel’s security evermore tenuous, they likely were concerned. Were I in Israel’s position, I would wonder if there was some special punishment we could expect from the current U.S. Administration. At least Israel did not have to wait too long. And, likely, they were not too surprised.
While Prime Minister Netanyuhu was winging his way to the United States to meet with its closest ally, Obama was preparing to demonstrate that Israel could not be certain of our support or intentions. In a speech of enormous stupidity, Obama laid out the game-plan for peace between Israel and the terrorist organization, Hamas. His suggestion was that the talks would begin on the basis of borders that existed before the 1967 War. Obviously, it is difficult to know how stupid this suggestion is without a bit of history.
Ever since the armistice of Israel in 1949, they have been subjected to attack from organized forces and terrorists, housed in their neighboring nations. As the Prime Minister mentioned to the Congress assembled, they live daily with warning signals followed by bombardment. Would we live with this?
Would we be willing to give back the Golan Heights, 3000 feet high, which were used for years by the Syrians to fire upon Israeli settlers below? Even in 1949, many argued that Israel should have included Samaria and Judea. When both were largely made a part of Israel in 1967, Israel continued to complete its state and security. Would we be willing to give these areas back? As mentioned, Israel has been subjected to daily attacks on their people. Going back to the 1967 borders, giving up lands they won after being attacked by their neighbors, would substantially change the borders of Israel, reducing its width to 8 miles in some areas. With this substantial increase vulnerability, would you give up these lands?
Inexplicitly, our President said that the starting point for discussion of peace involved accepting the 1967 borders. Unfortunately for him, he is not used to people of the fiber and character of Netanyuhu. In front of a crowded Oval Office, Netanyuhu, in a very dignified fashion, dressed down the President, explaining to him that under no circumstances would Israel consider going back to the 1967 borders. He also, in a dignified fashion, explained to the President the real first step in seeking peace would be finding a Palestinian government with which to negotiate. He likened negotiating with Hamas to the United States negotiating with al Qaeda. Both are terrorist organizations pursuing the avowed principle: the destruction of both peoples. Both pursue the radical principles of Islam that the world must be rid of infidels. Would we negotiate with those who have no interest but our destruction? Why should Israel? They won’t.
The Prime Minister spoke to the Congress and received numerous standing ovations and a clear demonstration of support. Despite political differences, virtually all members of Congress agreed wholly with the views of Netanyuhu. It was a gratifying experience. The Congress is clearly in agreement with and proud of the Prime Minister. The American people should be as well, and summarily reject the views of the President, again.
Israel is and has been our most supportive ally in the Middle East and, perhaps, the world. They deserve better than they received from this Administration.
