President Obama, in what only be characterized as a flight from reality, suggested that "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." But it gets better. "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." Would that be the "Palestinian security responsibility" that has long countenanced the firing of several thousand missiles into Israel? Would those be the same Israeli forces confronted on three sides by Arab protesters attempting to cross the border from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza as recently as a week ago, when they were "celebrating" Nabka, aka the "day of catastrophe," as it relates to the creation of the Jewish state in 1948?
How is this possible? A big hint came from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney after the following events which, like the one above, occurred within the last eight days: 350 people were injured in a protest outside Israel's embassy in Cairo; thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets of that city, Alexandria and El-Arish last Friday, carrying Palestinian flags chanting for their government to help Palestinians; their fellow countrymen attacked Christians who were protesting earlier clashes that left 15 dead and a church burned to the ground; and Hamas Prime Minister Ismael Haniyah urged his Muslim worshippers to pray for the end of Israel last Sunday.
Jay Carney's reaction? "We encourage maximum restraint on all sides," he said, echoing the sentiment of the Obama administration.
Surprising? Only if one is totally clueless regarding the foundation of modern-day progressivism. For progressives, there are no "sides" because there is no good and evil. Everything is relative. Only a man as thoroughly steeped in such relativity as Mr. Obama could say the following: "Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home."
If it's hypocrisy you're criticizing, take a good look in the mirror, Mr. President. Only a hypocrite of the first order could chastise the same Iranians he refused to "meddle" with when they were murdering their own, via the tactics of suppression that followed the rigged election of 2009. And only an utter naif would actually believe Iranian interests are served by the toppling of puppet Bashar Assad.
If one wants to add shameless to the list, try this: "In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security."
That's fine. Only if it were up to Mr. Obama, Saddam Hussien would still be running the show in Iraq. From 2006: "Month after month, and then year after year, I've watched with a heavy heart as my deepest suspicions about this war's conception have been confirmed and exacerbated in its disastrous implementation."
If Americans wish to add infuriating to the list, it's hard to go wrong with this part of the president's speech: "Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress--the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect."
Prosperity in the Middle East? How about prosperity in America, Mr. President? "Tearing down the walls that stand in the way of progress?" You mean like the Keynesian economic theory that's killing our chances for a decent economic recovery? "The corruption of elites?" You mean people like George Soros and Job Czar Jeffry Immelt? "Red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business?" You mean like Obamacare, an out-of-control EPA bypassing Congress, or the NLRB telling Boeing where it can build airliners? "Patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect?" You mean like waivers for ObamaCare for favored constituencies, a trillion dollar stimulus package aimed primarily at government unions, or bailouts for Wall Street banks?
As for the economic components of the speech involving U.S. "investment" in the region, who does the president think he's kidding?
With a 2011 deficit approaching one and one-half trillion dollars, any investment can be reduced to this: we're borrowing money from the Chinese to lend to the Arabs--80 percent of whom "detest America," according to a Pew Global poll.
As for the Jews, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already rejected the president's plan, calling the pre-1967 borders "indefensible." So is the president's speech, best expressed by freshman House representative Allen West's (R-FL) rebuttal. Some excerpts:
"Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital…In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world's 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative…Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in the year 73, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people…It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions."
This is one American who believes the Obama administration itself has been a blunder of epic proportions. It embraces a moral relativism which is so bankrupt, the president can move seamlessly from his rejection of American exceptionalism two years ago, to the current idea that Arabic aggression and Israeli self-defense are two sides of the same coin.
Today is a sad day for Israeli-American relations. Perhaps the only thing sadder is knowing that Jewish American liberals will continue to support this administration for reasons beyond this writer's comprehension.
Whatever happened to "Never again?"
