Op-Ed: Obama's Israel “Auschwitz Borders” Policy
In 1967, it was Abba Eban, the left-leaning Israel Ambassador to the UN, that equated the Green Line or the pre-1967 War armistice lines to “Auschwitz Borders.” In 2012, President Obama has been touted by some as “no better friend of Israel.”
However, President Obama’s current 2012 Israel policy on Israel is unchanged from his famous May 19, 2011 speech at the US State Department where Obama clearly defined his policy was one of pushing Israel back to the Auschwitz borders of the 1967 Green Line.
Obama’s Democratic defenders falsely claimed in 2011, and now, in 2012, that Obama’s “Israel Policy” is “nothing new” and merely a continuation of decades of American policy. America’s decade-old policy has been “defensible borders,” and the 1967 ceasefire lines are “a New Holocaust Borders.”
Now that President Obama faces reelection, and a possible second-term unbridled by the politics of getting re-elected, Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech may very well become Obama’s blueprint for a second term 2013 “surprise.” Therefore it is vital to carefully revisit President Obama’s policy of “Auschwitz Borders” for Israel as defined in his 2011 speech, so as to avoid Obama’s “dream” from becoming America’s and Israel’s “nightmare” in 2013.
The following is an analysis of President Obama’s May 19, 2011 Middle East Policy Speech:
Obama Text May 19, 2011: The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself- by itself- against any threat. . . . The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. . .. (Bold added.)
Obama clearly stated US policy was now that the new Palestinian West Bank/Gaza must have "secure" borders against Israel. But since, Obama also stated that "every state has the right to self-defense," by direct implication, and under any objective legal reading, Obama additionally asserted a new US policy that Palestine, as a sovereign “state,” has “the right to self-defense” against, who else, but, Israel.
A “secure” West Bank Palestine State with a “right to self-defense” against Israel is not only a new US policy, but a prescription for a devastating war against Israel launched from the soon to be created Palestinian State.
Also, if Palestine, as a “sovereign” state, has the inherent and unalienable “right to self-defense,” it most certainly has the inherent and unalienable "right" to arm itself for "self-defense." Obama's explicit “recognition” of the Palestinian State’s "right of self-defense" rendered meaningless Obama's later oxymoronic speech reference to the “assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”
A “sovereign” state and a “non-militarized state” are mutually exclusive and contradictory terms. The very essence of “sovereign” means, as Obama defined earlier: the right to self-defense. Therefore, Obama’s formulation of “non-militarization” is rendered a nullity by his dual assertions of the “right to self-defense” and “sovereignty.” Obama’s empowerment of Palestine of “right to self-defense” and hence arm, explicitly contradicted and derogated the UN Resolution 242.2(c) which specifically calls for the “establishment of demilitarized zones,” not “non-militarized” areas, and half a century of US Middle East peacemaking policy.
As for Obama’s passing platitudes of “non-militarized” Palestinian areas, Hitler's "demilitarized" Rhineland was militarized in one day, a Vietnam’s “demilitarized” zone was violated practically before the ink was dry in Paris.
But assuming arguendo that Obama’s “non-militarized” has some actual meaning, how is Obama exactly proposing to disarm and render “non-militarized” Iran’s Hamas state of Gaza? Is Obama suggesting that the same UNIFIL troops that utterly failed to “disarm” Hizbullah of its 40,000 Iranian rockets in South Lebanon should now be sent to Gaza to utterly fail to “disarm” Hamas of its 10,000 Iranian rockets? Or, is Obama suggesting NATO be charged to disarm Hamas of its 10,000 rockets, anti-air and Russian Kornet anti-tank weapons Gaza now possesses?
Or what is most probable - that Obama is knowingly and purposively planning to leave Iran’s Hamas Gaza state full of tens of thousands of Katyusha and Kassam rockets, and then, nevertheless, force Israel to evacuate and surrender the West Bank to the “1967 lines”. For in the same 19 May speech, Obama explicitly stated the already highly militarized Iranian controlled Hamas Gaza State is going be territorially “contiguous” with the new "West Bank"state.
So in effect, under Obama’s new US policy, the West Bank Palestinian state will be at least as militarized with the over 10,000 Iranian rockets as the militarized Gaza state is now, or even perhaps the 40,000 Iranian rockets that Hizbullah now possesses where Hizbullah isn’t even a “sovereign” state with the “right of self-defense.”
Obama new US Israel Policy, again, is not a prescription for peace, but a guarantee of a Palestinian Islamic Jihadist war launched from the "West Bank" intending to annihilate the 6 million Jews of Israel.
As for the President’s meaningless sop to “Israel’s basic security”, if the Israel is forced to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” Israel’s “basic security” issue has already been resolved. Obama clearly believes that with the ceasefire “1967 lines” Israel had “basic” security for 20 years before the 1967 6-day War.
The President didn’t say that “Israel’s basic security” requirements are subject to “mutual agreement” by Israel, as Obama did with the West bank land “swaps.” So the exact legal meaning of Obama’s term “Israel’s basic security” is not what Israel thinks is its “basic” security is. Obama’s term “Israel’s basic security” means whatever any other party, other than Israel, thinks “Israel’s basic security” means. Obama’s disconnection of “Israel’s basic security” from what Israel specifically thinks is its own basic security needs is again very new, and bad US policy. We shouldn’t be in the business of second guessing Israel’s security needs where that country has been constantly attacked by its neighbors and by Islamic terrorists for 60 years.
In this regard, Obama, again, has violated another bedrock US principle of US Israel policy: Israeli defensible borders. The West Bank Palestinian State need only obtain the same type of 10,000 rockets (with the Hamas Government’s finger on the trigger) that the territorially "contiguous" Gaza now has in order to be able to put “the bulk of Israel’s population” within easy terrorist phosphorous-tipped katyusha and kassam “range of hostile Arab armies.” (phosphorous rockets violently explode when you pour water on them).
In stark contrast to Obama’s US dicktat of new Auschwitz/Birkenau Israeli borders, in 1982, President Reagan said “I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
As recently as April 14th 2004, President Bush stated “The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders.”
Presidents Reagan and Bush and all US administrations in between have reiterated that the United States was committed to Israel having “defensible borders” against a Palestinian State, not to the West Bank Palestinian Iranian client state having defensible borders against Israel possessing tens of thousands of Iranian rockets. Obama’s three-card-Monte “bait and switch” of committing the US to a Palestinian defense against Israel is not ‘old’ US policy, but a dramatically new, and malignant Obama US policy.
Obama Text May 19, 2011: These principles provide the foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that there basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians. (Bold added.)
Obama clearly stated that US policy is now that the Palestinians do not have to, in any respect, simultaneously agree to the “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency” against Israel as explicitly required under UN Resolution 242, and by the Clinton and Bush II administrations in exchange for a return to the “1967 lines,” but only that Israel must first agree to cede territory to the ceasefire “1967 lines.”
UNRWA estimated that there were originally 711,000 “Palestinian refugees from the 1948/49 War, now the UNRWA number of registered descendants of the original 711,000 is 4.62 Millions “Palestinian refugees.” The Obama’s newly conceived “Phased Plan” bifurcated the ceding by Israel of the West Bank to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” from the “[t]ermination of all claims” of the “Palestinians refugees” against Israel specifically including the 4.62 million UNWRA registered 1948/49 War “Palestinian refugees,”
Obama has buried any chance of peace. Obama has the Palestinians a perverse incentive not to negotiate at all because Obama’s starting point is even more extremely pro-Palestinian than even the Palestinian’s previous negotiating positions.
These 4.62 million UNRWA-registered “Palestinian Refugees” from the 1948 -49 War (not the 1967 War) all claim the “right of return” not to the areas of the West Bank captured in 1967, but into areas of pre-1967 “Green Line” Israel which existed after the 1948/49 War where the entire Islamic world tried to annihilate Israel.10
The 4.62 million “Palestinian refugees” are only the number “registered” with UNRWA, not the real number who will actually make claims of some “Palestinian” lineage and the “right of return” to within the Israeli areas of the “1967 lines.” So in fact, Obama’s explicitly stated new terms of reference to the 1948/49 War ceasefire “1967 lines,” and Obama’s full reservation of rights for the 4.62 Million 1948/49 UNRWA “Palestinian refugees” (and their claims) has so degraded the US’ Palestinian beginning negotiating requirements to terms of reference that even Hamas, whose charter calls for the complete eradication of Israel, could probably agree to them. Obama has changed US policy from being an “honest broker” and ally of Israel, to being “Palestine’s attorney-in-Chief.”
Further, Obama has infinitely empowered the Palestinians to unilaterally not to "mutually agree" to anything other than, or more than, the ceasefire “1967 lines.” Then, and only after Israel has ceded to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” and presumably evacuated to the “1967 lines,” does Obama say there can be a “foundation” upon which there will begin a second, “wrenching” discrete negotiations on the further division of Jerusalem, and the right of return of the 4.62 Million UNRWA 1948/49 War “Palestinian refugees”.
So by very definition, all Obama is actually requiring the Palestinians to “agree” to do to get the entire area of Judea and Samaria is that they merely agree to only to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” and not a simultaneous “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency. . .” against Israel, as is explicitly required under Resolution 242, and 50 years of US policy.
In short, no US President, no US official has ever bifurcated the "Peace Process" into a first "phase," where Israel must first cede the lheartlands of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs, and then in a discrete second "phase" where Israel would have to additionally further negotiate about the rights of return of 4.62 Million "Palestinian refugees" into pre-1967 “Green Line” Israel, and to also additionally negotiate about the “[t]ermination of all claims. . .” of the 4.62 Million Palestinians against Israel.
Obama’s new bi-furcated scheme is a total refutation of UN Resolution 242 itself, and a mockery of 50 years of US peacemaking. Again, Obama's phased, “1967 ‘ceasefire’ lines first, 4.62 Million UNRWA ‘Palestinian refugees’ later” scheme is not an old US policy, but a new unimaginable Obama US policy which is a prelude to a New Holocaust.
By Obama explicitly endorsing Israel’s return to the “1967 lines” first, while explicitly leaving open the “emotional issues” of the “right of return” of the unsatisfied 4.62 Million Palestinians, Obama is giving the Palestinians the very pretext to the “self-defense” of their rights of the “Palestinian refugees” they need to fire from the West Bank thousands of their missiles into the pre-1967 Israel which will unquestionably bring the annihilation of Israel of 6 Million Jews.
Obama Text May 19, 2011: Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.
From White House counsel Clark Clifford, in 1948, who said Israel “is important to the long-range security of our country” through Secretary of State General Haig who stated that "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk, ... and is located in a critical region for American national security" to Admiral Mullen, who recently testified before Congress that Israel is "of extraordinary value," three score years of bi-partisan US administrations have reiterated the obvious fact that Israel was a vital US national security interest to the United States.
Nevertheless, seemingly overnight, and without hearings or any Congressional oversight, Obama has officially adopted the Walt/Mearshirer "theory" that Israel is a US strategic liability, and the cause of ME instability (and of high gas prices for the "ordinary people" in the US). In fact, Obama’s “Larger Cost” world view is an absolute locked goose-step with, and intellectually indistinguishable from Iran’s Ahmadinejad’s world view where he recently stated “As long as the Zionist regime exists,. . ., the region will not see tranquility.”
From 1948 to 1967 when Israel didn’t possess the West Bank, Obama’s “larger cost” existed just as much as from 1967 to the present. The only “final solution” to Obama’s “larger cost” is that there is no Israel at all.
One need only look at the map of the Middle East to realize that if Israel were destroyed, the Middle East with 60% of the world’s known oil reserves would implode in an Islamist terrorist death spiral. Apart from the massacre and murder of 6 million Israeli Jews, such an Islamist al Qaeda maelstrom wrapped in Iranian black hole would hyper-inflate world oil and US consumer gas prices to stratospheric levels. Such a calamity would be in the absolute worst national security interests of the United States and the Western World, and the best national security interests of Iran.
Apparently, Obama was and still is desperately seeking a political scapegoat for his failed energy policies, and his grossly bungled anti-democratic foreign policy of the empowerment and protection of murderous and destabilizing Iranian/Syrian axis (at the irreparable expense of our critical Saudi allies). Under Obama’s world view: Ditch US long-time allies like Mubarak and Israel in a heartbeat, but protect US enemies and terror states like Assad and Ahmadinejad from their popular revolutions as they slaughter there citizens by the thousands.
Obama is not seeking peace, but appears to be maliciously planning a future 2012 Presidential debate sound bite where he can falsely deflect the true cause of $4 a gallon gasoline US gas prices away from his own unmitigated failures onto the easy scapegoats of the our true ally Israel, and onto loyal American Jews who support Israel.
Obama is not seeking peace, but appears to be maliciously planning a future 2012 Presidential debate sound bite where he can falsely deflect the true cause of $4 a gallon gasoline US gas prices away from the unmitigated failures of his own “signature” foreign and energy “policies” onto the easy scapegoats of the our true ally Israel, and onto loyal American Jews who support Israel. Obama’s “larger cost” speech line is nothing but grotesque, base anti-Semitic baiting vitriol to mask Obama’s policy failures.
Israel is not the cause of instability in the Middle East, but the bulwark of its stability. The Arab Spring did not start in January 2011 as Obama claims, or even in 2009 as PM Netanyahu asserts, but in May 1948, when US recognized the only true democracy of Israel which was planted in a sea of Islamic tyrannies in the Middle East. No number of extra, impossibly expensive, (which would be highly exposed to Iranian Noor 65km anti-ship missiles from the new Iranian client state of Palestine that Defense Sec. Gates says Hizbullah now possesses in Lebanon), US aircraft carrier battle groups deployed in the Eastern Med could possibly replace the IDF's order of battle available to a US president, on a moment's notice, in case of a military emergency in which the US' ME strategic interests, and US soldiers’ lives were at stake.
In conclusion, a closer read of Obama's 19 May speech proves that is not only a betrayal of Israel, but also, if left unchecked, a betrayal of vital American national security interests and of American values. No amount of Democratic Orwellian “doublespeak” can hide the plain anti-Israel, anti-Semitic text of Obama’s speech proves that Obama’s new Israel policy is a mortal danger to Israel, and to the United States.