Bodily metaphors warning: Obama puts the blow torch to Israel's feet, but gives just a slap on the wrist to the Palestinians.
Any two-state settlement must be based on 1967 boundaries, he says, thus giving away a key bargaining chip of Israel, unilaterally. And in return from the Palestinians? Nothing. Save for a throw away mention that Palestinians should not deny Israel its right to exist, a line that's in there to show "balance", but which is false balance. O-balance.
Why no mention of UN Resolution 242? The resolution that set the conditions for peace and for the giving back of territories (not "the" territories) in return for iron-clad security:
"... (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Why not quote that, again? And then quote it again? How many times, and times and times, has that been breached by the Palestinians? Yet is only Israel held to the torch over some settlements.
But why not quote this? Why not raise it? Why not make it the benchmark? It is, after all, the international community's resolution. One which, at the time, Israel was willing to accept. But the Palestinians, never ones to waste an opportunity to waste an opportunity, did not. But there's never any heat on the Palestinian side, for that failure, for their failure to adhere to Res 242, either from the current US administration or the bien pensants in Europe. Let alone blow torches.
Why not raise and raise again the Hamas Charter: with its genocidal, pathological jew-hatred? Hamas has said that it welcomes Jews coming to Israel, so that it will make it easier to wipe them out. This is given a pass. It is ignored. Instead, it's Israel who has to make all the concessions.
Why is it accepted that in any two-state solution, in which the Palestinians get the west bank, it is taken as read, it is accepted without question, that the jewish settlers there now would be expected to leave. Why? Is ethnic cleansing now ok, if its' done by Palestinians?
Why no mention of Resolution 242?
Why no mention of Hamas hatred charter?
Why no real balance? Why only pretend Obalance?
Why approval of proposed ethnic cleansing?
In any case now, it's too late for the 67 boundaries. They are indefensible against enemies who have made their intentions all too clear. It was only ever going to be a solution if the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries had accepted item (ii) above. They have not done so and cannot be trusted to do so.
If Israel shrank to the '67 boundaries, they would only be about 9 miles wide at the narrowest. That's about the distance from here in DB to Central Hong Kong, a 25 minute ferry ride. That's the distance a mortar, let alone rockets, could land.
As Dick Morris said this morning:
Either you think that the Palestinians, on gaining the west bank, became peace-loving flower children; or you are throwing Israel under the bus, to use the metaphor du jour.
Any two-state settlement must be based on 1967 boundaries, he says, thus giving away a key bargaining chip of Israel, unilaterally. And in return from the Palestinians? Nothing. Save for a throw away mention that Palestinians should not deny Israel its right to exist, a line that's in there to show "balance", but which is false balance. O-balance.
Why no mention of UN Resolution 242? The resolution that set the conditions for peace and for the giving back of territories (not "the" territories) in return for iron-clad security:
"... (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Why not quote that, again? And then quote it again? How many times, and times and times, has that been breached by the Palestinians? Yet is only Israel held to the torch over some settlements.
But why not quote this? Why not raise it? Why not make it the benchmark? It is, after all, the international community's resolution. One which, at the time, Israel was willing to accept. But the Palestinians, never ones to waste an opportunity to waste an opportunity, did not. But there's never any heat on the Palestinian side, for that failure, for their failure to adhere to Res 242, either from the current US administration or the bien pensants in Europe. Let alone blow torches.
Why not raise and raise again the Hamas Charter: with its genocidal, pathological jew-hatred? Hamas has said that it welcomes Jews coming to Israel, so that it will make it easier to wipe them out. This is given a pass. It is ignored. Instead, it's Israel who has to make all the concessions.
Why is it accepted that in any two-state solution, in which the Palestinians get the west bank, it is taken as read, it is accepted without question, that the jewish settlers there now would be expected to leave. Why? Is ethnic cleansing now ok, if its' done by Palestinians?
Why no mention of Resolution 242?
Why no mention of Hamas hatred charter?
Why no real balance? Why only pretend Obalance?
Why approval of proposed ethnic cleansing?
In any case now, it's too late for the 67 boundaries. They are indefensible against enemies who have made their intentions all too clear. It was only ever going to be a solution if the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries had accepted item (ii) above. They have not done so and cannot be trusted to do so.
If Israel shrank to the '67 boundaries, they would only be about 9 miles wide at the narrowest. That's about the distance from here in DB to Central Hong Kong, a 25 minute ferry ride. That's the distance a mortar, let alone rockets, could land.
As Dick Morris said this morning:
Either you think that the Palestinians, on gaining the west bank, became peace-loving flower children; or you are throwing Israel under the bus, to use the metaphor du jour.
