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
But there’s his ego. He has such a high evaluation of himself, V, that he probably thinks that BECAUSE things are going well, he’ll have the creds to push it through. Bizarre thinking, but what’s new?
Well said, ctlaw.
This was a fascinating article, Israel P! I recommend it to everyone. I’m not sure that I agree with all of it, but the idea that Israel has to work harder to get the support of others in the UN makes sense. Thanks for the link.
There is nothing more important to me politically than the safety of Israel.
When GW in his second term advocated for establishing a Palestinian state, I was shocked, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made to me.
First of all, it exists anyway. It is not a territory of Israel. It is a separate state.
Second, it is a way of insisting upon legal responsibility from the Palestinian state. I think the Palestinians need to be treated like grownups instead of like helpless dependent children of the United Nations.
I’ve been trying to find Krauthammer’s article cited in the OP, but I’ve been unable to find it. (I’m getting a “Page Not Found” on NRO for some reason.)
What am I missing?
He’s syndicated so I was able to pick it up at the Washington Post .
Got it. Thank you. That is appalling:
Someone mentioned that Israel supports a two-state solution, but that’s not entirely true. The Jerusalem Post explains.
We have a de facto two state solution. What the argument about is borders.
I don’t think the Palestinians have an incentive to work out an acceptable settlement.
The article said, if I’m reading it correctly, that while numbers now were 50% or less supportive of ‘the deal’ among both Israeli Jews and Palestinians, this would change to something like 75% support if:
For Israeli Jews – if the peace deal included a broader normalisation of relations with the Arab Wirld; and
For Palestinians – if the deal included Israel acknowledging responsibility for creating the refugee problem.
So: glass half full, if you want peace.
But it also clearly sets out the levers that people who don’t want peace have to stymie their own side.
You’re from Islamic Jihad and are opposed to peace and a two state solution? Do your best to prevent Arab states from agreeing to recognise and have good relations with Israel. Easy to appeal to the sense of guilt people have re abandoning the Palestinians so it politically blocks the governments.
You’re a settler on the West Bank and don’t want a Palestinian state there? Make sure Israel never officially acknowledges its role in the Nakba. Easy to do by appealing to the natural desire to think the best of one’s country’s founding.
Easy to manipulate your own side to play the other.
Yah, ego is a thing to weigh in but I think he is also lazy. So he will probably not do anything but he may wax poetic on the subject, which will be bad enough on its own. So Obama going to give a farewell UN address and he makes this one of his bullet point urging people to do it, but he in fact does nothing to make it happen would be even more classic Obama.
Point taken. I hope you’re right, Valiuth.
Speaking for my neck of the woods (southern evangelicals) – Obama has zero support for such idiocy.
The evangelicals are Israel’s strongest supporters, outside of conservative Jews. Of course, the liberal Jews in this country discount that support. Another sad commentary of the Left.