In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Jewish Groups Try to Muzzle Critics of Obama on Israel

Well this is pretty startling.

Two major Jewish groups are trying to round up others in support of something called the “National Pledge for Unity on Israel,” which seeks to prevent candidates from criticizing each other’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

From the Pledge:

We salute the long line of American leaders who have moved beyond their often bitter policy differences over issues of the day to stand shoulder to shoulder together on the side of a strong and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship.

The Jewish community has had a strong interest in ensuring that American support for Israel is one of the critical strategic issues that unites rather than divides parties and officials. U.S. – Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue.

The intent of the Pledge, produced by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Community, is to immunize President Obama against criticism from Republicans charges his policies have been hostile toward Israel.

Abraham Foxman, who runs the hallowed, was crystal clear in a statement revealing that the intent of the “pledge” was to censor the debate:

We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel. The last thing America and Israel need right now is the distractions of having Israel bandied about as a tool for waging political attacks.

Wow. As a Jewish American who strongly supports Israel, I’m speechless. Well, yes, I’m typing away here. But honestly, I’m having trouble speaking.

Really, really, really – Jewish leaders are seeking to suppress speech? Is this possible? Israel should not be subject to political debate? Is this the Soviet Union?

Gosh, let me check the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for a minute . . . checking . . . checking . . . yes, the foundation of U.S. democracy is indeed political debate.

Obama has given Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the finger in so many ways – even walking out of a meeting with him – while cozying up to sworn Israeli enemies like Iran.

He has ratcheted up the pressure on Israelis in the negotiations, intensified U.S. criticism of the settlements, made the 1967 borders the starting point of negotiations rather than a goal, brought the Palestinian “right of return” into the negotiations, and suggested that Hamas could become a legitimate negotiating partner.

In short, there’s a lot to criticize.

It’s no secret that Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. That’s fine. What’s reprehensible is any attempt to protect a favored candidate by trying to preempt debate and criticism.

H/T to Douglas Feith who wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal today.

Obama’s Deplorable Stance on Hamas

Much of the criticism of President Obama’s remarks last week on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has centered on his call for negotiations to start with the assumption that Israel will return to the 1967 borders, granting the Palestinians a key concession before talks even begin.

But even worse for the Israelis are Obama’s faulty and irresponsible assumptions about Hamas. He thinks Hamas, in the space of a few months, can reform itself from a terrorist outfit into a legitimate and trustworthy negotiating partner for the Israelis. Here’s what he said in a press conference today with British Prime Minister Cameron.

I believe that Hamas, in its own description of its agenda, has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel. And until they do, it is very difficult to expect Israelis to have a serious conversation, because ultimately they have to have confidence that a Palestinian state is one that is going to stick to its — to whatever bargain is struck.

The clear presumption here is that once Hamas starts saying the right things, Israel should negotiate with it. The suggestion that there might be good somewhere inside the beast that is Hamas, of evil that can be changed with a few words or a piece of paper, has an obvious historic precedent.

Speaking before the British Parliament today, Obama referenced Winston Churchill several times. But Obama’s own outlook is that of Neville Chamberlain.

Obama must state that there can be no peace process until Hamas is out of the Palestinian government. To do otherwise is to try to negotiate the Sudetenland with Hitler.

The Israelis, of course, know better than to ever, ever trust the word of a group that sends missiles into its territory to kill innocent people and that foments terrorism within its borders.

Or that makes statements like these, as compiled by the Anti-Defamation League.

“We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood…We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs.”

– Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip commenting on the killing of Osama Bin Laden, May 2, 2011

“The lie of the Zionist Holocaust crumbles with countless holocausts committed by the Zionists in Beit Hanoun, al-Fakhoura school and other places in Palestine.”

– Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar, speaking at a memorial service for Palestinians killed during the 2008 Israeli war in Gaza, January 6, 2011

“Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it, with the exception of those who lived on the land of Palestine before World War I.”

– Hamas official Halil Al-Hayya, Al-Hayat newspaper, November 11, 2010

It’s not as if Hamas is trying to hide what it is.

The assumption that an entity so evil can become something else is not innocence or wishful thinking. It is negligence and opportunism, committed by a president whose greatest sympathy is with the Palestinians, who has low regard for Israel’s leader, and who maintains only a perfunctory commitment to Israel’s safety.

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Plan in Front of Obama

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu today rejected the key proposal in President Obama’s Thursday address on the Middle East, stating unequivocally that Israel will not return to the 1967 borders.

Netanyahu, in deeply personal remarks made in the Oval Office after the two leaders met, called the borders indefensible and said they had created the temptation for past attacks.

While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.

Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide.  It was half the width of the Washington Beltway.

While saying he planned to continue to try to find a peace deal, Netanyahu ruled out negotiating with Hamas and said the Palestinians could forget about the right of return, a key demand that would allow those who left after the 1948 war of Israeli independence to repopulate Israel and effectively end the Jewish character of the state.

Leaning forward as the two men sat in adjoining chairs, Netanyahu seemed to be almost pleading with a physically recoiling Obama to understand that Jewish history had passed the task of safeguarding his people onto him in his role as prime minister.

And now it falls on my shoulders as the Prime Minister of Israel, at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize its survival.  I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don’t have a lot of margin for error.  And because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.

Obama in his remarks did not mention his proposal of yesterday to start negotiations with the assumption of a return to the 1967 borders. He sought to minimize differences that occurred during the 90 minutes of one on one meetings between the two leaders.

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that’s going to happen between friends.  But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal.

Ninety minutes of meetings between world leaders without the crutch of aides is a remarkable testament to the knowledge and confidence of both men. And if the two leaders didn’t know whether to like or dislike each other before, they know now. And judging by Obama’s body language during the session, it doesn’t seem like they suddenly became buddies.

Obama Insists Israel Withdraw to Fantasyland

Sometimes I get the impression with President Obama that his wishes and plans steam forward in one lane, while reality marches along in another altogether separate one.

We see this, for example, on the budget deficit, where the president notes the peril it poses, and then goes right ahead and throws around billions in “emergency” stimulus money that take years to dole out. Or adds a trillion dollars in new spending to make his health care dream a reality.

And we saw it again today, in Obama’s latest Middle East Big Think speech.

Despite the coming new regime in the Palestinian Authority, which will include Hamas, Obama has gone along his merry way and made a key concession to the Palestinians, as if Israel’s peril had some how lessened rather than grown.

By making it U.S. policy that the 1967 borders are the STARTING POINT for negotiations, Obama put Israel on the defensive in its fight for security and for its cultural – and the Christian cultural – heritage in Jerusalem.

The statement overturns assurances by George W. Bush to Israel in a 2004 letter that stated a return to the 1967 borders was in fact NOT the policy of the United States. This assurance was made in return for a concrete step, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. The concrete step cannot be reversed. The assurance could be reversed by an unreliable ally. Today, it was.

It was a DEAL. A deal is a deal, right? Wrong.

Obama today said the status of Jerusalem is up for grabs. But by declaring as the starting point the 1967 border – under which the Old City portion of Jerusalem and its holy sites were in Arab hands – Israel now has to give concessions to keep Jerusalem whole, not get concessions in return for giving it away. And as a practical matter, putting Old City Jerusalem in the hands of the Palestinians at the start of the negotiations means they will never relinquish it.

How well the Arabs will protect Jewish and Christian holy sites there is anyone’s guess.

And by the way, go to Google and take a look at a map of the 1967 borders. It doesn’t take some kind of Napoleonic military genius to figure out that the borders are completely indefensible. Israel, again, will have to bargain from a position of weakness – the ’67 borders – to “swap,” as Obama put it, enough of its land for West Bank land to find a marginally secure arrangement of territory.

Look at what the Gaza giveaway has gotten Israel. Missiles regularly lobbed deep into its territory and a funnel for terrorists and arms. What will happen when it releases the West Bank?

The Palestinians don’t want the West Bank. They want it all. They want Tel Aviv. The West Bank will be a ballast used for pushing the Jews into the sea.

Sure, Obama says the Palestinians will have to find a way to reassure Israel with Hamas now at the table. And he promises Israel secure borders. But these are nebulous words, negotiable stuff. The 1967 borders line he read today is policy.

Hamas, if it is smart, will head over to Men’s Warehouse, pick up a few suits, and act civilized for a few months. That should be enough to convince the president – who came into office thinking he could negotiate with various barbarians around the globe – that they are reasonable people.

But Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu knows his enemies better. He’s already rejecting Obama’s new policy, issuing a statement as he prepared to meet with Obama Friday

Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress . . . Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers [settlements] in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] beyond those lines.

Hamas is headed into the Palestinian government. Palestinians over the weekend stormed Israel’s borders. But Obama keeps rolling along own path. Reality travels a separate road.