Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama May Sign Israel’s Death Warrant
For the past eight years, President Obama has insulted, denigrated, criticized and condemned Israel and its leaders. By taking these steps, he has alienated our best Western ally in the Middle East. In his 2015, as the Free Beacon reported, Michael Oren listed the many ways that Obama and his administration damaged the US relationship with Israel.
But it appears that Obama isn’t finished. He may be planning a final blow against Israel as part of his legacy. In his syndicated weekly column in National Review, Charles Krauthammer cites John Hannah of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who believes that Obama may go to the UN to force a two-state solution on Israel. (Hannah’s article is behind a fire wall.)
UNESCO has already tried to deny that the city of Jerusalem belongs to Israel. As Krauthammer says,
It refers to and treats it as an exclusively Muslim site, a deliberate attempt to eradicate its connection — let alone its centrality — to the Jewish people and Jewish history. This Orwellian absurdity is an insult not just to Judaism but to Christianity. It makes a mockery of the Gospels, which chronicle the story of a Galilean Jew whose life and ministry unfolded throughout the Holy Land, most especially in Jerusalem and the Temple. If this is nothing but a Muslim site, what happens to the very foundation of Christianity, which occurred 600 years before Islam even came into being? This UNESCO resolution is merely the surreal extreme of the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel.
Obama’s proposal for a two-state solution could have devastating consequences. First, there is no agreement that creating two-states is in Israel’s best interests. Even Israelis don’t agree on this possibility. Worse yet, the proposal would create borders based on the pre-1967 Six-Day War. Krauthammer points out how this approach would be disastrous:
Granting the Palestinians an officially recognized state in advance makes peace all the more unachievable — it removes any Palestinian incentive to negotiate. There is a reason such a move has been resisted by eight previous U.S. administrations: It overthrows the central premise of Middle East peacemaking — land for peace. Under which the Palestinians get their state after negotiations in which the parties agree on recognized boundaries, exchange mutual recognition, and declare a permanent end to the conflict. Land for peace would be replaced by land for nothing. Endorsing in advance a Palestinian state and what would essentially be a full Israeli withdrawal removes the Palestinian incentive to negotiate and strips Israel of territorial bargaining chips of the kind it used, for example, to achieve peace with Egypt. The result would be not just perpetual war but incalculable damage to Israel.
To understand the territorial implications, you can view the following maps. As you can see, Israel would once again be vulnerable to Arab attacks if they went back to pre-1967 borders. And with no interest in recognizing the right of Israel to exist, the Arab states could ensure that Israel would once again be fighting for its very life.
I think Obama is determined to aid the Middle East in destroying Israel.
Published in Foreign Policy
Israel is free to ignore the UN, and will certainly do so. Obama has made the US irrelevant around the world (witness the Philippines deciding to become a Chinese client state – Japan may not be far off).
Israel needs to stop being apologetic, and go on the diplomatic offensive.
Saudi Arabia may be a better friend than we are to Israel under Obama. They’re afraid of Iran and view Israel as an ally. Up is down and down is up in Obama’s fantasy world.
I hope Israel realizes how little support our President has for this imbecility.
A two state solution can’t be forced on Israel. An attempt by the UN to force a solution on Israel might push Israel over the edge. They could very likely respond with a massive attack retaking the territory they occupied after the six day war. Responding to future attacks with overwhelming force.
The UN would have no hope of forcing a two state solution on Israel with out major forces being provided by the US. Such an action would not be tolerated by Israel and would likely result in a nuclear war.
Right. Count me with the others here. Obama might well do it, but what would it matter? Even if the UN were to pass such a resolution, I’m not even sure it would affect the world -Israel is already formally supportive of a two-state solution working from the 1967 borders, with some alterations for the security of Israel. The proposed language Krauthamner discusses would leave that in place. Israel would be perfectly able to say “we are already complying -talk to the PA. Have a nice day.”
The diplomatic and moral damage would be incalculable, and there are serious potential side effects that could be very bad for the US; but the actual policy would be less than a blast of wind. Making it like a lot of other Obama policies.
I agree about not being apologetic. But what would a diplomatic offensive look like? Almost no one but the US wants a diplomatic relationship with Israel?
Hillary will continue Obama’s work too.
Do you think so? With all the sanctions that have been imposed on Israel over the years, do you think others would not get behind the president?
I think the damage could be very bad for the U.S., too, but that potential won’t stop Obama; it would be just one more wound to our reputation.
I think it’s important to remember that Israel is seen as the perpetrator in an ugly situation, and the poor Palestinians need to be supported. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some countries support this type of proposal.
I’d be surprised if many countries did not get behind such a move. The American public is less likely to be friendly to it. On the other hand, in our new and improved, fundamentally transformed country, who knows? I’m afraid to make any firm assertions.
Regrettably, there are many countries-probably a substantial majority- who would be only too happy to throw Israel to the wolves, who don’t care what would be the consequences of weakening and isolating that great bastion of democracy in the Middle East. And equally regrettably, many Democrats would support Obama in betraying Israel yet again.
I completely agree with this. For some, if Obama does it, it must be right. The god-king cannot be questioned.
All the more reason to do everything we can to make sure the next President is not Clinton or Kaine.
“Anti-Semite” still hurts the feelings of a few of them. We need to do a better job of teaching the youngsters about the real history of the area.
I think it’s worth pointing out that although the UN can’t force anyone to do anything, they can make life difficult for Israel just in negative press. I was also just thinking that the Arab countries might not be thrilled at the idea of “settling things” between Israel and the Palestinians; if they did, who would they blame for all the problems in the Middle East? Then again, that might be too logical to consider . . .
On some things, yes. However i don’t think she will follow the Obama doctrine on Israel. Having to deal with the middle east is a headache that she won’t want to deal with since she will have so many other problems. A strong Israel will help to stabilize the region and give her peace of mind while she is running the White House as a B&B.
I agree. There will be an unending stream of court challenges in the international courts that will distract from the real issues in the region.
If you’re right, and Obama anticipates that his move might be ignored, maybe he’ll back off. He doesn’t want his legacy to be that he was irrelevant. We can only hope that his ego is bigger than his hatred.
As Carolyn Glick wrote last week, when this happens we get a Security Council veto from Russia. That gets Obama even madder, but it serves our purposes.
Then we’ll see what support we have from the American people.
Susan,
If Obama tries to pull this Israel will just stiff him. However, it has occurred to me that something else is in the cards. Once the Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is delegitimized, this will open the door to the full and complete control of the Temple Mount by the State of Israel. Jews will be free to pray. Al-Aqsa won’t be torn down but the Waqf’s authority will be no more.
If they push too hard they will get the reverse of what they wanted.
Regards,
Jim
How do you see that happening, Jim? Is something in the works?
Susan,
No, there is nothing in the works but there is something in the cards. If they overplay their hand it is they who will look like fools. This will allow many people to acknowledge Israel’s claim. The Pope being a great example. If they make it the issue then they set themselves up to lose on the issue.
Regards,
Jim
Well, there’s Ezekiel Chapter 40 and Revelation Chapter 11.
As some famous person said in a different context,
“How many divisions does the UN have?”
Also, Israel has the Maxim Gun and the Arabs do not.
Putting agreement on borders before a just settlement for refugees doesn’t seem to have worked. Imho working out a just settlement for refugees first may result in easier talks re borders. Put the welfare and rights of people before the existence of a state, people are more important.
Tell Hamas and the PLO that.
I would think the potential negative consequences of such a move would be even apparent to Obama and his administration, though he does love to disappoint. I would think this unlikely because Obama seems very intent on not rocking the boat anymore and keeping his slow roll back of ISIS going. This would just be a huge distraction. Right now things are going relatively well for him in the Middle East what with ISIS being pushed back in Iraq. Granted things got very bad so this slight improvement still means we are in a deep, deep, hole. But, just as we got the Arab duck in a row, we would rip of this old scab? Plus if Hillary wins I don’t think he would want to make such troubles for her on the way out at least not without her approval, and I don’t see Hillary as the kind of gal to do something like this.
If it’s a good idea (I think it is), sincerely implemented, it might make many of their factions irrelevant.
And some of their factions, otoh, are keeping the peace to the extent that they can – given the situation. Nobody says it (not them, not Israel) but they’re already working with Israel.
The thing you are referring to is not pre-1967 borders. That is a leftist term concocted to make Israel seem to be the aggressor.
The lines in question are properly considered the 1949/50 armistice lines. They generally represent the lines where a genocidal invasion by most of the Islamic world was stopped (only temporarily if the left gets its way).
I’ll take it!