Correspondent of the Day: Why Isn’t Israel Supporting U.S. Policy
Why Isn't Israel Supporting U.S. Policy?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Rep. Eric Cantor recently declared to Politico.com that he did not think President Barack Obama was a true friend of Israel. He cited the administration's "disproportionate focus" on halting the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Cantor's accusation is an odd one for an American politician to make in regard to a foreign country. What he should be asking is not whether Obama is a friend of Israel, but whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is a true friend of America.
Obama has more than demonstrated his commitment to the continued existence and security of Israel, repeatedly stressing his support for Israel as a Jewish state, notwithstanding the inferior status this suggests for the 20 percent of Israel's citizens who are Palestinian. However, he also recognizes that the settlements themselves, and the 42-years-long military occupation that supports them, represent one of the most serious threats to Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state. If Israel's settlement activity continues, we will eventually see Palestinians permanently relegated to apartheid-like Bantustans or demanding one state with equal rights for all.
Not only have successive Israeli governments continued to construct these illegal colonies, they have often done so in ways that seem calculated to humiliate the United States, such as timing settlement construction projects to high-level U.S. diplomatic visits.
Settlements, then, represent a key area in which the Obama administration is trying to restore America's reputation as an honest broker after eight failed years during the Bush administration.
Cantor would do well to start asking about Israel's lack of support for the United States rather than suggesting President Obama is not pro-Israel enough because he's occasionally willing to say no to Israel. Responsible friends speak up when they see friends (using their money) making dangerous decisions. Matthew Duss, Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Washington.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Read-
Hamas Covenant
of the
Islamic Resistance Movement
18 August 1988
That is a good place to start.
Then it is helpful to recognize that the Palestinians were offered their own homeland several times and they declined because they did not wish to co-exist with the Jews.
It is the simple implacable fact that will always derail any talk of peace.
They will never accept a two state solution.
See PLO Charter in English:
http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plochart.htm
Does Israel have such an official statement calling for the elimination of any state on the earth?
Read the text of UN Resolution 242. This resolution requires commitment from the surrounding Arab nations and the Palestinians to allow Israel to live in safety. The prerequisite for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied” lands resulting from the Arab offensive war against Israel in 1967 – the Six-Day War – is that the Arabs terminate their claims or states of belligerency. Have the Palestinians upheld their end of the bargain? Do they today allow Israel to live in safety and security? Would they allow Israel to live in safety and security should Israel today withdraw to its pre-1967 borders? Fair-minded people view those borders as being indefensible when Israel’s neighbors desire Israel’s annihilation.
The PLO was formed in 1964, 3 years prior to Israeli “occupation” of disputed territories. The PLO charter, since 1968, calls for the destruction of the Zionist presence (i.e. state of Israel). The Arab nations do not acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel. They still call for its destruction.
As Mr. Duss notes, 20% of Israel’s population is Arab. While some believe their status is inferior, many Palestinian Israelis admit to having a higher standard of living and more rights and freedoms living in Israel than they would have living in an Arab state. The Palestinians were offered a state in November 1947; they rejected a state and chose war against the Zionist enemy instead. (Oh wait, newsflash - they do have a state – Jordan is the Palestinian state!) If the Palestinians were to take over the entire land from sea to sea, how many Jews would they allow to live in their midst?? Not a single Jew – their “state” would be Judenfrei.
The existence of the state of Israel is the thorn in the Arabs side, not the so-called “occupied” territories and “illegal” settlements. The truth is that they believe the entire state of Israel is an “illegal” settlement, and they will continue to fight to remove it.
“Anti-Zionist = anti-Semitism.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mr. Duss - I’d like to pat you on the back and say nice try, but, your position is pathetic. If the United States had to contend with Palestinians blowing up restaurants, launching rocket attacks into this country while being surrounded by countries who wouldn’t have a problem if we were wiped off the globe, we’d be doing things far more aggressively than Israel.
To ask Israel to not act in its own best interest is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard of - I can’t believe you want to be taken seriously. Have you seen who Obama is getting cozy with? Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - and you want Israel to relax and go along with it in good faith? Israel does not have the luxury of blindly worshipping at the Obama-as-Messiah altar. Just because our president is naive, doesn’t mean the leaders of the rest of the world have to be.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement