Obama and Israeli settlements

Obama and Israeli settlements

“Iran seems to be hurtling toward nuclear weapons capacity. Hezbullah could win Sunday’s election in Lebanon, and Hamas is smuggling long-range rockets into Gaza, again. So why is President Obama focusing such attention on the building of homes by Israeli Jews in the West Bank,?” asks journalist Ethan Bronner. He says that Israeli PM Netanyahu in effect is asking it, too.



In answer, Mr. Bronner explains that Obama considers settlements the key to the Arab-Israel conflict, because: (1) Settlement suspension would reassure the Arabs that the land they want to take over will be theirs for the taking; (2) This would show “the Arab world that the previous eight years of siding consistently with Israel are over…”; and (3) Then Obama could ask the Arab states to make minor normalization with Israel, to re-start negotiations with Israel. If the Arab-Israel conflict were resolved, he could untie the other conflicts with Islam.



[Sounds plausible, but is implausible: (a) Iran would get nuclear weapons long before diplomacy could end the Arab-Israel conflict; (b) Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas are fanatical, and Iran’s imperialistic view of religion has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict; (c) Jihad is over a religious dogmatism, not territory, so Obama would resolve nothing while favoring the jihadists; (d) I suggest gradual Israeli annexation of the Territories, so the Palestinian Arabs feel a time pressure to end the conflict if they want anything left; (e) The U.S. did not side consistently with Israel, for Pres. Bush and Sec. Rice pressed Israel on settlements, checkpoints, and enemy casualties; and (f) The minor, reversible normalization, if Arab states even comply, would not end jihad.]



A former leftist Israeli cabinet minister, Yossi Beilin, thinks that Obama will change Israeli policy, because, he asserts, most Jews, even in Israel, want to end settlements.



[The Left reiterates such claims, but the polls and elections refute them. Especially polls with clear questions, not loaded ones.]



Refuting Obama’s theory, Jerusalem Post columnist, Sarah Honig reminds us that Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza settlements was taken by the Arabs as a jihadist triumph, boosting Hamas’ ability to take over. [Same for Hizbullah in Lebanon.]



“Zionism began 125 years ago through the Jewish purchase of land in Palestine and the building of settlements on what the Jews saw as their ancient homeland. “…Israel won additional territory in the 1967 war, a conflict it felt was imposed on it…” When Jews started building in the Territories, Arabs resorted to terrorism.



[Considering that the NY Times uses the word, “settlements,” only for Jews and as a pejorative, it is nasty in calling new building in the old country “settlements.” The implication is that Jews have no right to immigrate to their homeland, although the Jews were there when the Arabs first arrived, and in modern times when Arabs immigrated. The NY Times uses a vocabulary with double meanings.]



[Zionism is centuries old. Modern, organized Zionism is what Bronner is referring to. If he admitted that Jews returned to their homeland over the centuries, as they did, he would be strengthening the Zionist case. Is that why he doesn’t admit it? But the Jews didn’t just perceive the Land of Israel as their ancient homeland, it is fact, in the history books and not just legendary in the Hebrew and Christian Testaments. Since the Christian Bible recognizes Judea as the ancient Jewish homeland, why does the Times put it only that Jewish Zionists saw it as their ancient homeland? Christians did, too. This was stated in the Balfour Declaration.]



[Israel didn’t just believe that the 1967 war was imposed on it. It was imposed. The Arabs made these acts of war: (1) Launched hundreds of terrorist raids; (2) blockaded an Israeli port; (3) Formed a unified command and mobilized troops on the Israeli border with the express purpose of conquering Israel.]



[The biggest misconception about the Arab-Israel conflict is that it is territorial rather than religious, and started as a result of Israel building in the Territories. What a falsehood to claim that terrorism started in reaction to that building in the 1970s! Arab terrorism started about 1920.]



The Road Map required Israel to freeze settlement-building, and the Arabs to dismantle terrorist networks. “Neither has done so” (NY Times, 6/6, A1).



Israel has not built any new settlements. Neither has it expanded the boundaries of any. The NY Times’ last statement makes each side seem equally guilty. The Times never takes the same angry tone against Arab terrorism that it takes against Jewish house building, and it defends illegal Arab house-building.



The newspaper asserts a false equivalency, though housing and terrorism hardly are equally reprehensible. From 1993, the Oslo accords required the Arabs to repress terrorism, but the Arabs have never complied. Their autonomous government organized terrorism and still exhorts to religious murder. This proves their insincerity. Israel did fulfill its requirements until it felt like a sucker for making concessions while the Arabs flout the agreements.



In being even-handed about non-compliance, the NY Times was inaccurate and unfair. But the Arabs are worse. They complain about alleged Israeli non-compliance and make up other accusations, without acknowledging their own, deadly non-compliance.