Abbas is Coming to the Security Council

 

Mahmoud Abbas has been scheduled to address the United Nations Security Council on February 20, 2018, and his plea is easily predicted. Before tackling our predictive abilities, allow that we look at the recent past and what has led up to this coming confrontation, one we revel in anticipation. The chain of events begins on December 6, 2017, with the speech by United States President Donald Trump. President Trump delivered his Jerusalem recognition as the Capital of the State of Israel speech from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room where Trump said, “It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.” President Trump was referencing the fact that on November 8, 1995, the United States Congress overwhelmingly, with rare total bipartisan agreement, passed the JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995 declaring that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and in response to this will move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. This legislation passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-yea with 5-nay and 1 not-voting and in the House of Representatives 374-yea with 37-nay with 5 voting present and 17 not-voting. That results in a total Congressional vote of four-hundred-sixty-seven voting in favor and sixty-five voting against or abstaining in some form which we counted as opposition.

 

The law was signed by President Clinton knowing that there existed what we like to call the ‘Weasel Clause’ which permitted the President to sign a waver covering the next six months stating that there exist security and diplomatic reasons to put off the enactment of the law. President Clinton had no sooner signed the law that he then signed the first six-month waiver and Presidents have been signing six-month waivers every six months ever since with the gleeful backing by the State Department, an anti-Israel department which has never missed an opportunity to deter everything Israel. This has been a consistent stance by the State Department since they advised against American recognition of the nascent State of Israel. Quoting from “President Truman’s Decision to Recognize Israel” published by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote in the first paragraph, “President Truman regarded his Secretary of State, General of the Army George C. Marshall, as “the greatest living American.” Yet the two men were on a collision course over Mideast policy. Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state.” Despite Marshall’s recommendations, President Truman was the first national leader to recognize the new State of Israel on May 15, 1948. Since the passing of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, we figure there have been forty-six waivers signed collectively by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama and even Trump. President Trump has set in motion the initial steps such that he should be the last President signing these waivers allowing the law to finally be realized. But finally, a President has kept the promise that Presidents William Jefferson Clinton, George W. Bush, Barrack Hussein Obama and President Trump had all promised to honor the will of the American people and the Congress and move the embassy to Jerusalem recognizing the capital of Israel. It is unsurprising that President Trump, a unique President as he has no actual history as a politicians but rather a businessman, finally was good to his word and took the initial steps in moving the embassy and recognized the Israeli capital as Jerusalem. Perhaps this stems from the fact that in business one is rewarded for keeping their word and face difficulties whenever they renege on their word.

 

Since President Trump very publically recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, there has been a variety of reactions with an unfortunate number of negative pushbacks. The European Union, United Nations, Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, numerous European and Arab leaders and numerous other leaders and NGO’s all decrying the move by President Trump. Perhaps the most negative reaction came from Mahmoud Abbas who erupted in a fiery speech to the PLO Central Council where he cursed President Trump and his entire family exclaiming, “May your house be destroyed.” This is an old Arabic curse which means that you and all of your extended family be thrown into the street and live homeless begging for scraps and dependent on the generosity of others. There are few nastier ways of condemning a person and Abbas wished the worst of the world to befall President Trump and all around him. Mahmoud Abbas was said to have burned his bridges with his declaring the United States no longer an acceptable mediator for peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

Mahmoud Abbas to President Trump, “May your house be destroyed”

 

His condemnations of President Trump and the United States is an integral part of his plans for going to the Security Council where he has plans to use his speech and cooperation of the current Security Council President, Kuwait, to propose a motion to have Palestine recognized as a real and complete nation using the Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Lines, as the borders with Israel. Such a motion is likely to cause some problems for the United States. The current members of the United Nations Security Council are the five permanent members with veto power who are China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and the United States, plus the ten non-permanent members made up by Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland and Sweden. These nations likely to pass such a motion are China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland and Sweden, a near unanimous vote of fourteen of the fifteen nations. Even should as many as five nations bend to pressures from the United States or even seven, that still would allow such a motion to pass unless the United States vetoes the motion. Mahmoud Abbas is hoping that he can get the full fourteen or at least more than nine thus being able to further isolate the United States and claim the American veto proves they are the pawns of Israel and thus anything done by President Trump will be claimed to be meaningless regurgitation of what Israel dictated for him.

 

Mahmoud Abbas is going to denounce President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem, that is obvious. But that will simply be the introduction and repeated theme, as he will denounce everything Israel and United States. Abbas is going to claim that President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are working together to advance and accelerate the building of settlements beyond the Green Line in order to steal Arab sacred lands which are in a trust for the Palestinian people. Abbas will twist the meaning of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 where he will attempt to quote it as saying, “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all territories occupied in the recent conflict,” When the actual document reads, “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (see map below).” There was great deliberation about the exact word, “all,” and whether Israel, who was fighting a defensive war, would be demanded to return all of the lands gained during the Six Day War. What is most interesting is according to International Law, any lands gained from a defensive war by a nation may be retained as repayment for having been aggressed and for the reason of establishing ‘more defensible borders’ in order to prevent future temptation of attacks. Only when Israel gained territories did the world first call these rules into question which many here find very interesting and telling indeed. Abbas will be adding the word which was fought over and about which the Security council entered very deep and arduous discussions over whether Israel was to be forced back to the 1949 Armistice lines, the borders which Abba Eban referred to as the ‘Auschwitz Borders’ or would be permitted to retain lands. Much of the discussion pertained directly to the area called the Shomron, what Jordan renamed the West Bank so as to remove the Jewish names of Shomron, or Judea and Samaria, the lands which Abbas desires to steal just as Jordan had in the 1948-9 war when six Arab armies attempted to destroy Israel at her birth. Lord Caradon, the British ambassador who submitted to the Security Council what was to become the accepted version of Resolution 242, publicly declared afterward on repeated occasions that there was no intent to demand an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. It was his insistence and refusal to have wording which could ever be interpreted as a demand for Israel to return all lands, only that Israel be required to return lands, any amount of the lands but never all of the lands. Israel was to be permitted to establish for herself defensible borders by which many at that time understood such to mean an eastern border of the Jordan River.

 

Six Day War Beginning and Resulting Positions from June 5, 1967 to June 10, 1967

 

Once Israel made her peace with Egypt and returned the entirety of the Sinai Peninsula, she had met the requirements under UNSC Res 242 and could have simply retained the remainder of the lands. By this time, Israel had only officially annexed the Golan Heights and the remainder of Jerusalem and some bordering neighborhoods unifying the city. After annexing the remainder of Jerusalem, Israel extended limited citizenship where they were permitted full rights within Israel with one simple restriction, they were not yet permitted to vote in national elections, only in local, Jerusalem elections. The remainder of the lands can only be taken from Israel under the condition that Israel officially relinquishes all claims to the land. This is why Gaza is now Hamastan and a terror enclave, Israel relinquished claims to Gaza turning it over to the Palestinian Authority (PA) under a grand plan of President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by which the PA would be granted the opportunity to prove their ability to self-govern. Obviously, the grand experiment failed as the PA lost Gaza in a coup to Hamas and Islamic Jihad with criminal families and other terror groups.

 

Now Mahmoud Abbas will demand, that is demand and not ask, that the Security Council recognize and present him with all the remainder of land including the half of Jerusalem held by Jordan previously and intentionally countering President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas does not expect to actually succeed, he just wants to force the United States to use their veto and appear to be the Israeli savior, or the Israeli puppet. Everyone knows what game Mahmoud Abbas is playing, but that does not matter, as those who wish to destroy Israel will use the American veto as proof that the rest of the world, the ones desiring the destruction of Israel, be those to decide the outcome of Israel’s future. This may even be an idea given Abbas by the European Union when he met with them the other week. They were not exactly the most gracious of hosts and sent him home without granting him the slightest assistance, at least not visibly. It is very possible that the European Union hierarchy told Abbas to take his game to a higher level, to take his game to the highest level, the world stage of the Security Council. The European Union likely informed him that he was wasting his time trying to force Israel to surrender and should simply take his plight to the one place where they could actually make him the President of Palestine with a nation with the grandest of boundaries. Granted, the Green Line to Abbas is still accepting a consolation prize as he foresees his nation replacing all of Israel. Still, to have the Security Council recognize a Palestinian state, even if all they do is order negotiations with Israel with a deadline for reaching an agreement or the Security Council will force an agreement, this would be a tremendous victory as now Abbas would just have to say no to every offer until the deadline and then plead his case again to his friends on the Security Council.

 

There is one thing which will be interesting is what each of the Ambassadors have to say during any deliberations. We know pretty much what most of them will be claiming, that Israel has stonewalled the negotiations and time has come to end the entire fiasco. The entire Security Council escapade Mahmoud Abbas is about to choreograph will closely resemble the Durban Conference of 2001 which devolved into an anti-Semitic orgy of dumping on Israel specifically and the Jewish People in general. Still, there will be one scathing retort to be delivered to the assembled should our fears be realized, and whatever United States Ambassador Nikki Haley will say to the assembled Security Council will be epic, we just pray it will also be stated publically.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Two States for One People Solution

 

The world through governments, leaders, politicians, statesmen, reporters and editorialists all tout the “Two States for Two People” as the agreed upon mantra for the solution of the Arab Palestinian-Israel Conflict. As an example, under the heading “What is the two-state solution?” New York Times journalist Max Fisher defined the two principles as being the same: “The two-state solution would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — two states for two peoples.” Would but such be true the conflict would have very long ago been settled. Unfortunately, this is the side taken by only one of the sides in the debate, the Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leadership has a very different set of parameters for a solution. Perhaps a short list of their favorites would be in order. There is their “River to the Sea, Palestine must be free” solution in which there is one Arab state named Palestine founded upon the graves of over six-million dead Israeli Jews. Even then the Arab Palestinians would have another set of problems, what to do with these Jewish bodies and what to do with the Jewish bodies which have been interred within these borders throughout history back into antiquity. One need understand that when the Arabs claim there must not be one Jew on their precious and pure lands that includes on top, alive or dead, or beneath it no matter how long dead. When Israel surrendered Gaza they were forced to reinter their dead which only added to the calamity and sociological shock suffered by the Jewish communities which were uprooted even unto their dead friends and relatives. Imagine being forced from your home, your place of work being destroyed and having to dig up friends and family from their resting places and rebury them locating them sometimes a great distance from where they resettled making their graves now difficult to visit and tend. That was part of the horror of the plan to solve everything by simply giving the Arab Palestinians the Gaza Strip so they could prove how they could be productive and live peaceably beside Israel. Simply stated, that experiment was a dismal failure.

 

The New York Times once again in an article, “The Two-State Solution: What It Is and Why It Hasn’t Happened,” would have one believe that the Palestinian Authority government fully supports the idea of “Two States for Two People” solution to the conflict with Israel. But what do Arab Palestinian leaders have to say on the Two State Solution? Back in July 2011, Senior Palestinian Official Nabil Shaath slammed the French peace initiative because it called on them to recognize the Jewish State, so he told ANB TV that the French Initiative had,

reshaped the issue of the ‘Jewish state’ into a formula that is also unacceptable to us — two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of ‘two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this — not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative.

Additionally Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also was quoted in 2011 stating, “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’” Both of these were statements directly contradicted what French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in 2012 where he clearly underscored this difference between the statements made by Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership and the generally accepted beliefs of the Western World when he posited,

It is not enough to have two states; there must be two states for two nations. I know very well that there are two ways to destroy Israel: from without and from within. This is why the two-state solution is not enough. We need to have two states for two separate nations. One for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinians.

There is an additional slander which claims that Israeli complaints about the PA instigating violence have no basis in credibility. This has been the mantra of many reporters, editorialists, and largely European political leaders. This can be proven ridiculous simply by playing this now infamous video of Mahmoud Abbas and others speaking in the language nobody outside of a select few Westerners are capable of translating, Arabic (see videos below). These two videos are but a small example of the horrific statements almost always stated in Arabic knowing full-well that the European and American leftist and mainstream medias will pretend they are unable of making heads or tails of such statements only quoting that which these leaders of the Arab Palestinians feed them in English. We wish we could attribute this to their being lazy except with the proof of what was said already translated by MEMRI, they have no excuse other than a severe anti-Israel and thus anti-Semitic bias. Finding the lies could not be easier either, simply visit CAMERA and read almost any coverage they show about Israel and the Palestinians. Be prepared for news you may not have seen before and for much of what the nightly news has fed you to be upended with quotes and references.

 

 

 

Now prepare yourself for our small dose of food for thought. In the December of 2000 as President William Jefferson Clinton was desperately attempting to solve the unsolvable Arab-Israeli Conflict he held a series of meetings. The crux of these attempts to bridge the gap between Yassir Arafat and Ehud Barak led to an interesting turn of events during the desperate days in Paris. President Clinton met for hours with Yassir Arafat finally getting him to actually state what terms he would accept believing the Israelis would never in a million years meet these demands. They were for Israel to turn over 90% of the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) and all of the Gaza Strip as well as half of Jerusalem to become the Capital City for Palestine. Late in the evening President Clinton visited Ehud Barak and set forth the terms which Arafat had given him. It took some time and arm twisting but in order to make peace Ehud Barak agreed to returning 95% of Judea and Samaria along with all of the Gaza Strip and dividing Jerusalem. Once receiving Barak agreement, President Clinton sent word to Arafat’s delegation that they were to meet early the next morning for a joint session to negotiate face-to-face. Yassir Arafat smelled that he was a rat trapped by his own admissions and ordered secretively for his car to be brought around to the front entrance fully packed, door open, and driver ready to hit the gas as soon as Arafat was in the vehicle. When President Clinton presented copies of the agreement to the two leaders, Ehud Barak reached for a pen while Yassir Arafat bolted out the long corridor. Immediately afterward, Madeline Albright dashed after the fleeing Arafat in an ungainly and borderline hideous limping gallop never closing the distance. She cleared the door to have the cameras of the news reporters recording over her shoulder the black limousine circling out of the drive with Arafat seated in the back seat. A subsequent offer was tendered from Taba later that week which was not even dignified with a response and thus ended the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. But wait, there’s more.

 

Next comes along President George W. Bush and the ending of his term. He has successfully forced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to turn the Gaza Strip over to the PA in exchange for some sweet words and fourteen promises written in a letter as an understanding between the two offices. This was supposedly an agreement between governments and this one won overwhelming affirmation from both houses of Congress garnering a total of comfortably over five-hundred votes from the combined Congress. These were the fourteen conditions under which the release of the Gaza Strip was performed and their refutation could have led to Israel retaking all of Gaza or some sections thereof. President Obama did indeed crumple up this agreement and trashed it completely with his assisting the passage of UNSC Res. 2334 during the closing days of his administration. This act will likely leave an unpleasant taste in any world leader’s mouth and be seen as a dire warning against accepting the world of any American President for the foreseeable future, especially one would hope Israeli leaders if no others. So, in late 2008 President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were pressing Israel once again to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. Again an Israeli Prime Minister, this time Ehud Olmert, made the supreme sacrificial offering of dividing Jerusalem and again over 90% of Judea and Samaria with land swaps for the remaining lands. This time they were dealing with Mahmoud Abbas, presumably a more reasonable and honest broker simply because instead of wearing fatigues and having a revolver strapped to his side, Abbas wears a business suit. Well, the apple did not fall far from the tree and Mahmoud Abbas proved to be a suitable (all inferences to a pun intentional) follow-up to Yassir Arafat as he officially received the offer and never even bothered to reply or make a counter offer. Instead he simply closed the negotiations with no further communication except to threaten to take the entire matter to the United Nations and the Court of The Hague and internationalize the conflict.

 

Division of lands between Israel
and Semiautonomous Arab Zone

 

With the ample assistance proffered by President Barack Hussein Obama, Mahmoud Abbas has done exactly that, internationalized the conflict such that any European nations, the United Nations in any of its near infinite capacities and anyone or anywhere else can jump in and demand Israel make concession after concession receiving nothing but threats and violence in return. The world is internationalizing the conflict quite adequately with city after city in Europe and numerous colleges conducting some level of boycott against Israel, often all Israel claiming all of Israel is responsible for there being no solution. Technically, from the Arab point of view, they are correct; the fact that there is an Israel which makes the statement that it is the Jewish Homeland, that is sufficient to make peacemaking impossible as the Arabs of the PA and the Arab World demand the end of Israel as Jewish. They will accept an Israel provided the Arabs rule and the Jews, if permitted, remain as Dhimmis, second class citizens with restricted rights who may be executed at any time by whim of any with the authority to do so, often meaning any Muslim. Since this United Nations Security Council Chapter Six Resolution 2334 which blames Israel, particularly the “settlements” which are simply Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, legal under International Law, for blocking the path to peace, the Arab Palestinians are free to demand anything while doing nothing and the world gets to blame Israel for not appeasing the Arabs sufficiently through boycotts and calls for “Kill the Jews.” What is surprisingly illegal are any claims made by the PA and other Arab representatives as while they have legal rights to their property, they have no legal leg to stand upon claiming self-rule or requiring an independent state. The reality, as we have stated near endlessly, and are working on endlessly, is the lands all belong to Israel for use as the Jewish State and that the only means by which any of the land can become an Arab State is if Israel signs a treaty relegating our claims and rights to these lands. And one does not need believe us, but one might feel inclined to take the wording of a decision made by the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles in a case brought by the PA against the French companies Alstom and Veolia for building Jerusalem’s light rail system. Their final decision was also a warning to the PA that Israel has the sole claim to all of Judea and Samaria and that they would do best not to take this into any court of law. The fact this came from the friendliest court system the PA was able to find makes this all the more impressively important. Please take our kind invitation to read for yourself a copy of the Court Ruling. Furthermore, in an earlier case brought before Egyptian Judge, Justice El Araby, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who sat in judgement as part of the panel which heard the case where the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sought an advisory opinion in 2003 from the ICJ on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel; the Honorable Justice El Araby warned the UNGA and others, including Mahmoud Abbas and the whole of the PA, that filing further ran some risks, as he stated,

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

 

Mandate of San Remo for French and British including actual treaty demarcations for each nation

 

Things are not only not as they are portrayed by far too many in the Western Media Enterprise, but actually quite the opposite. Israel is not the occupier; the Arab Palestinians are the actual occupiers. International Law which is constructed from treaties, conferences, agreements and other contracts between men and nations is usually understood to have some leeway or allowance for differing opinions. The fact that Israel is defined on her east by the Jordan River and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea is an exception as it is delineated and spelled out with diagrams and maps in several agreements, conferences, treaties, Mandates and even Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. As the border of Israel is accepted as stated above in the United Nations Charter Article 80, the recent UNSC Res 2334 is invalid as the United Nations individual bodies cannot overrule the Charter thus in any instance where there might be a conflict, such as the statement that the Jewish communities defined as “settlements” due to their location east of the 1949 Armistice Line, also called the Green Line, is invalid as these communities are all west of the Jordan River and thus legally on Israeli lands. All of Judea and Samaria by default are Israeli lands unless Israel gives them away in a treaty, not agrees to talk about the possibility but actually agrees, until then the lands remain as an integral part of Israel. Those are the hard and true facts and the only lands that Israel signed away has been Gaza. How anybody can even think for a second after the catastrophic results of the Gaza giveaway that repeating the same motions this time with Judea and Samaria including the tactically significant Judean Heights and the Jordan Valley and its overlooking mountains has to be suffering from some severely debilitating mental disorder or actually desire to plot the end of Israel and her Jewish population. Gaza has proven that once the land has been signed away, no matter how severe the resulting rocket barrages and other acts of warfare committed against Israel, any reaction by Israel will be condemned by the world bodies and numerous governments where the best Israel can expect is half a dozen friendly nations, possibly the protection of the United States Veto in the Security Council (not an automatic despite what anybody says as Presidents change) and the great sacrifice some European nations and a few others might take by abstaining from a vote to condemn Israeli defense of her citizens from attacks. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Abba Eban said it best stating, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” Abba Eban, having resided for a period in New York City, was able and took the opportunity to enlighten and grant the New York Times a singular piece of literary brilliance along with a moment of fresh air in the form of actual truth concerning Israel when he was quoted stating,

“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ”right to exist.” It is disturbing to find so many people well-disposed to Israel giving currency to this contemptuous formulation. Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement by the royal house in Riyadh. Nor does a group such as the Palestine Liberation Organization have any juridical competence to accord recognition to states, or withhold it.
A majority of the 155 states in the modern international community are younger in their sovereignty than Israel, which was the 59th member of the United Nations. There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ”right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
What Israel is entitled to have in return for the increase of its territorial vulnerability is not verbal recognition but an effective security system, to be arrived at by negotiations.
Back in 1967, when the world community adopted its unanimous policy for the Middle East in Security Council Resolution 242, some members suggested that Israel should be satisfied with a solemn declaration of the right of all states to exist. They added that Israel might, if it chose, regard itself as included in that definition. At that time, hardly any responsible government in the Western world or elsewhere accepted that definition of Israel’s rights as adequate…”

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Israel’s Jewish Problem and Other Ramblings

 

This past week United States President Barack Obama went to great lengths to establish his argument for his not holding any shred of anti-Semitism and then transgressed his own standard. His definition for one being an anti-Semite included people denying such items as recognizing that Jews have had a difficult history, been plagued by hatreds of all varieties, have an ancient and valid claim to their lands where the historic lands of the Israelites existed and one last and special quality of holding Israel to a different standard than one holds other nations. As Carolyn Glick stated in her article Barack Obama’s anti-Semitism test “As Obama reads Israeli history, the state’s founders didn’t only seek to build a Jewish state. They set out to build Utopia.” This alone might lead one to ponder how any person could be so deeply compartmentalized in their thinking processes that they could clearly see Israel and her governance intending to build a Utopian society and still treat them as they would any other nation, or does President Barack Obama view every nation as setting out to build a Utopia. One might be capable of arguing that every nation set out and has attempted to build their nation to be a utopia even if that utopian vision does not wander too far from the ruling elite. That would permit the leaders of a nation to sentence the entirety of the previous government to death after taking power by force and not the voting will of the people, or even with the voting power of the people. Utopia can be interpreted in many and varied ways. Still, claiming a nation is going all-out to build a Utopian Nation one could then hold that nation to your perceived notion of how a utopian society would act and not view them as a nation acting solely in their own best interest but instead seeking where they might sacrifice for the benefit of others even to the point of placing their nation in peril.

 

That is exactly what President Barack Obama did when addressing the Adas Israel congregation, a Jewish congregation following the Conservative branch of Judaism, located conveniently in Washington D.C. where most of the congregants are either liberal Democrats or extremely liberal Democrats, but their being in Washington D.C. makes noting their liberal bend to be repetitive. When President Barack Obama explained his views and definitions on anti-Semitism the attending congregants were enthused. When he then proceeded to state that as an Utopian State Israel would, in his judgement and from what he learned and what formed his view of Israel and the heart and soul of the nation from “Moshe Dayan, and Golda Meir, and the sense that not only are we creating a safe Jewish homeland, but also we are remaking the world. We’re repairing it. We are going to do it the right way. We are going to make sure that the lessons we’ve learned from our hardships and our persecutions are applied to how we govern and how we treat others.” He subsequently added the altruistic view and concern he believed Israeli leaders should consider, “The rights of the Jewish people… compel me to think about a Palestinian child in Ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity. That’s what Jewish values teach me.” This led President Barack Obama to believe that in order to make a Utopian offer and placing the Palestinians’ needs above their own, Israel should pull back completely within the Green Line, the 67 lines, the 1949 Armistice Line also labeled the Auschwitz Borders as Abba Eban spelled out for the United Nations as quoted by the Jerusalem Post of August 18, 1995 by columnist Moshe Kohn:

“We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history.”

My thoughts upon reading in several articles what President Barack Obama had stated both as his definition for anti-Semitism and then on all items concerning Israel he made assessments and judgments which placed Israel at the maximum disadvantage, facing the utmost threats and claiming all these compromises and surrenders were to be forced out of Israel in order to allow Israel to repair the world. From what President Barack Obama stated he must be reasoning that the existence of Israel is the greatest problem thus the Israeli government must take all steps possible and allow the empowerment of even Israel’s worst enemies while forcing Israel into the most vulnerable position possible. If that is not a duality of treatment and expectations then I have no idea what one might call it.

 

Here is a quick review across the board on items concerning Israel and the Obama response and what we think Israel should do within legal structures by treaty and other binding international agreements.
Boundaries and expectations for the state of Israel, President Obama’s Ideas versus Our Responses.
President Barack Obama: President Obama insists that Israel be forced to pull back to the boundary lines from before the Six Day War and establish a terror state armed to the teeth on the high grounds overlooking the most vital and densely packed areas in Israel and also perched to cut Israel in half by a simple nine to twelve mile advance anywhere on a front which runs one third the length of Israel and perfectly centered on Tel Aviv.

BTC: If Israel desires to survive and have strategic advantages on the ground then Israel must retain the Judean Heights which run one third the length of Israel making all of Israel vulnerable. Israel must have control over the entirety of the Jordan River where it meets their current positions in all of Judea and Samaria. Finally, the Arabs claiming to be Palestinians should be granted their own autonomous zone where they provide the police and govern their areas completely but Israel maintains control of these lands in case of an attack and the autonomous Arab entity will not be permitted heavy weapons or other tools of war and if there should be terror attacks, the autonomous region may be dissolved by a vote in the Knesset.
President Barack Obama: President Obama has a grand plan which lasts ten, twelve, twenty, twenty-five, and forever all depending on which clause one is addressing. This plan will prevent Iran from actually producing nuclear weapons though they may continue all efforts to design and improve the nuclear weapons they might potentially build in the future but not for at least ten, twelve, well, depends on how you define nuclear weapon. The agreement promises that Iran will not build any nuclear weapons for ten years and there is no possibility they might break the treaty and produce weapons in secret and away from the agreed imposed inspections.

BTC: Again, should Israel intend to survive beyond the ten, twelve, whatever number of years your cumbersomely structured agreement leaves most everything open to several different interpretations. Technically Iran could produce all the required parts to form a nuclear warhead or bomb and simply not fully assemble them and have instant nuclear warheads after minor assembly. Even ten or twelve years is not all that long and the Iranian leadership will not leave willingly and thus all the treaty actually does is place certain steps as outside the agreement and Iran could be all ready to assemble the first of numerous nuclear weapons within a few hours after informing the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) that they are no longer bound by the agreement with the United States as President Obama made this deal and is no longer the President so the deal is now worthless as we did not get the word from the new President as to whether he would meet the United States obligations.

 

All this aside, there is a deeper problem for Israel, the average American Jew defines their Jewishness by their support for the Democrat Party because that is what liberals do. It does not matter if the Democrat is anti-Israel or anti-Zionist or even anti-Semite because these Jews believe that if the time returned for the Jews to be rounded up for the slaughter that surely they are of particular value and will thus be spared. These are the ‘It cannot happen in my country’ and ‘even if it does, I will be excepted as I am assimilated and value being a good little democrat than I do Israel or Judaism.’ The bad news is not only can it happen again, and happen in your country or spread to your country, but is already starting to happen. The BDS boycott divestment and sanction protesters are having such an influence in the United States that some of the Bible Belt states, counties, cities and municipalities are invoking new laws to expressly refuse to give contracts or have any business which supports the BDS aggregation and their demands while in some of the largest cities certain retailers now refuse not only products which may have come from a factory in Judea or Samaria but just to be safe, they stopped carrying anything Israeli. What is so ridiculous about the BDS craze is that for many Arab Palestinians, their employment despite working in the same enterprise and often sharing work space with Israeli Jews, they actually love their jobs and working conditions as they are superior to anything else available to them and the insurance and salaries are vastly superior and these are the companies and factories the BDS crazed and glazed eyed useful idiots are trying to destroy. The leaders of some of the BDS chapters, if you can credit them with that much organization, are actually Jews who are through and through pro-Arab Palestinian and tout the Israel as the colonial oppressor of the indigenous Arab population who have a written and proven history as the mythical nation of Palestine. Then there is the lobbying groups J Street headed by Jeremy Ben Ami who is a Jewish self-hater who despises everything that makes Israel the Jewish state. His drive is to flood Israel with as many as five or even ten million refugees with at their core is a sizeable group who entertains any demand or concession the Israelis could possibly make and additionally they desire to allow the right of return of five or maybe ten millions of Arabs into Israel within the Green Line and not simply into the Arab entity making Israel a binational state which will set to repairing that situation and taking Israel on a wholly, or should we say unholy, future with the eradication of those Jews unable or clueless enough to remain in Israel for any longer than the first elections, or should we say the truthful term of last election, especially if the new citizens forced Israel along with the world, including if not led by Jews living outside of Israel, the right to vote. As soon as they get organized, that will spell the end of Israel and with that the end of Judaism within our lifetimes.

 

There was a time when it could have been claimed and evidence provided that many Jews voted with a concern for Israel that was or rivalled their most dearly held political beliefs. The vast majorities of those Jews no longer vote in their former nation’s elections as they became Israeli citizens and viewed voting as such in their previous nation to be fraudulent. Even if these Jews were to vote in their former nation’s elections they would hardly make much of a difference. The last two elections for United States President had the highest total of formerly American Jews living permanently in Israel and being Israeli citizens, but are able to vote as dual-citizenship between Israel and the United States is recognized, voted in the Presidential election and voted well above 80% against President Obama. That should give anybody a hint as to how President Barack Obama is viewed here. In the United States the Jewish vote was 70% give or take a little for President Barack Obama. That plainly tells one of the differences between the views of these disparate sets of Jewish populations. The American Jews often support financially groups which work directly against Israel but have a devious manner where they use catch phrases such as “justice”, “fairness”, equality”, “equal opportunity” and “Tikkun Olam” which they interpret as “repair the world” which is accomplished, in their minds, as supporting every leftist cause, the more extreme the better. They give donations to the New Israel Fund which they defend by questioning accusingly how you could ever doubt their sincerity when it comes to supporting Israel as after all the New Israel Fund helps many groups and there are very supportive groups and they can usually list at least three or four. When anyone brings up that the New Israel Fund or J Street and numerous other charitable or political action groups and criticizes these groups the chorus is almost dutifully the same almost singing their response where they claim that these groups support Tikkun Olam, which they conveniently define as repairing the world and that means taking an active role and even trying pathways and making the hard choices required to repair the world and make the world more peaceful and diverse, never mind if diverse does not include Israel. One would never last ten seconds in a discussion should they point out that Tikkun Olam is not a banner one waves to forgive and forget what they were supporting as it is the supporting that is important, not to whom you give support as long as they claim to be for peace, the two state solution, respecting the dignity of the Palestinian cause and opposing that dreadful Prime Minister who oppresses Arabs, destroys their homes, refuses to enforce the law and arrest those Jews who destroyed olive trees during the harvest when the trees are cut back to a point where they appear dead but is necessary to have them produce fruit more rapidly and a better grade of olives and then there is the constant use of the IDF destroying homes and lives in Gaza so often. These are people who are truly Israel’s friends according to their assessment, after all they read the New York Times which is owned by a prominent Jewish family and they read Haaretz which they renew their subscription every year so they are getting all the real news. That is their closing argument and it works because hearing this given in such a condescending way as if to dismiss anything you say as invalid as it has never appeared on the front page of either the New York Times or Haaretz therefore it does not exist. As has been said before, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

 

The problem is Israel has more than sufficient enemies or nations who would actually celebrate if Israel was ever defeated. This was made obvious during the Yom Kippur War which had it started from the borders currently being demanded there would be no Israel today. There were no calls for the Arab forces to stop their advance at a certain spot and not go further than the Green Line. Fortunately Israel still held the Sinai Peninsula which allowed just barely enough time as those troops placed on the eastern side of the Suez Canal bought Israel the necessary time with their lives. They knew that every minute they held their ground that gave many troops the needed gathering time which was made more complicated as many soldiers were in synagogue and not near their home phones as this was well before cell phones were even in use so they had to go from synagogue to synagogue and interrupt the service and announce the general call up as a war had been launched on Israel. The world saw an almost defenseless Israel and nobody lifted a finger while they watched news broadcast after news broadcast waiting for the fateful news that the Egyptians had taken Tel Aviv and were well on their way to devouring Israel erasing it from the map. There was not a single attempt to prevent Israel being overrun, something which appeared inevitable in the first hours of the war but Israel regrouped, got her aircraft into the air and their tanks rolling and soon the tide changed and the Israelis not only thwarted their attack but had chased the Egyptian army back across the Suez Canal and were heading straight for Alexandria and Cairo when the world let loose with a mighty clamor demanding that this horrific assault by Israel stop immediately, not try to reach any major city nor advance any further and for the Israeli troops and armor be returned to the east bank of the Suez Canal. Egypt overrunning Israel, good for them according to the civilized world out there but have Israel routing Egyptian units and crossing the Suez Canal, horrific war crime, stop and retreat immediately, how dare Israel think they can be permitted to advance on Cairo or Alexandria.

 

It is no different today as the Arabs can riot and even murder Israelis, men, women, children, the elderly and even the three month old Hadas Fogel who had her throat slashed and her chest stabbed and opened removing her heart which was never found. She was brutalized along with almost the whole family with Rabbi Udi Fogel age 36, Ruth Fogel age 35, Yoav Fogel age 11, and Elad Fogel age 4. The father and infant Hadas were found by the terrorist Arab cousins asleep so they first slit the Father throat and finished killing him before he could react and then initially leaving the infant but one of the cousins returned after they had left the house to kill baby Hadas and brutalizing her corpse in an inhuman mutilation. Thanks to threats from across all of Europe as well as the United Nations and the United States, Israel is the only place on the planet where policies have been enacted and enforced sometimes up front and outwardly so the population of Israel understands these restrictions on the Jews and some quietly, almost silently so nobody will be upset. Some of the worst of these are that Jews may not build a house to live or even add a deck to their existing home as all building must cease or else. Jews are not permitted to defend themselves any further than the minimal amount required to escape as Jews when confronted are expected to surrender and run away. Jews are not permitted to pray on the Temple Mount. It is a law passed by a Muslim council and enforced by Israeli police. Jews are forbidden the right to pray at the holiest of all places upon this planet for Jews, the place where the First Temple and Second Temple stood. What can be ever so absurd as Jews being forbidden to pray not only in Israel but at the holiest of sites to Jews anywhere on Earth and Jews are forbidden even to move their lips as that might be payer, not allowed to bend their knees too much and especially both at the same time while stopped as that might be an act of prayer, not permitted to read from a book as they might be praying, and every group of Jews, sometimes every individual Jew will be accompanied by an Arab representative of the Waqf, the committee which forbade Jewish prayer within Israel on their holiest of sites, who makes judgements as to if one is perceived as praying and should this official claim you attempted prayer there is an Israeli police officer present to arrest them for praying. I think if I ever get a chance to visit the Temple Mount I am going to get arrested and there will little doubt as to whether or not I was praying as I will likely pray out loud, not loudly, simply out loud.

 

Beyond the Cusp