The more I read about Representative Alan West, the more I like him. In an article by Jonathon M. Seidel in the Blaze on May 19, 2011, it is apparent that the Representative is one of the most ardent supporters of Israel that we have in the U. S. Congress. His clear thinking and understanding of history makes him a very strong counter puncher to the President. Those of you who are represented in Florida's 22nd District, should be proud of him.
Anyone who agrees with the President should reflect on history. In the 30's Germany was allowed to annex a part of Czechoslovakia without a whimper from world leadership. The thought was that the Reich would be satisfied with the new territory. Within weeks, the country of Czechoslovakia disappeared. The lesson learned by Hitler is that the world would let him do anything he wanted. Is that what Obama has communicated to the Palestinians when it comes to Israel? I believe that is so.
Many people have thought that the President is a closet Muslim and one can only wonder if that is true when measured against the stand he took on Thursday. This is the first time in the history of Israel that an American President has tried to push the country into a position which would be national suicide. Who but a Muslim would do this? I believe that is something to ponder.
But getting back to Representative West, I wish I would see the same passion from Jewish legislators, especially those from the Democratic Party. Are they so compromised due to their party allegiance? I just googled Senator Carl Levin and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, two leaders of the Democratic Party. and cannot find any mention of opposition to the President's statements. (If Simeon's can point to a statement condemning Obama, please let me know and I will post a retraction.) Am I surprised? Really no, it is apparent that they are political hacks and just because they are Jewish does not mean they are willing to speak up against the head of their party.
In the concentration camps there were Jews who worked with the Nazis, they were called Capos. In many cases, these Jews were more violent and cruel to their fellow inmates than the Nazis. Could our Jewish representatives be the Capos of our generation?
Please read the attached article and Representative West's statement, I believe you will find it enlightening. As usual, your comments are welcome.
Anyone who agrees with the President should reflect on history. In the 30's Germany was allowed to annex a part of Czechoslovakia without a whimper from world leadership. The thought was that the Reich would be satisfied with the new territory. Within weeks, the country of Czechoslovakia disappeared. The lesson learned by Hitler is that the world would let him do anything he wanted. Is that what Obama has communicated to the Palestinians when it comes to Israel? I believe that is so.
Many people have thought that the President is a closet Muslim and one can only wonder if that is true when measured against the stand he took on Thursday. This is the first time in the history of Israel that an American President has tried to push the country into a position which would be national suicide. Who but a Muslim would do this? I believe that is something to ponder.
But getting back to Representative West, I wish I would see the same passion from Jewish legislators, especially those from the Democratic Party. Are they so compromised due to their party allegiance? I just googled Senator Carl Levin and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, two leaders of the Democratic Party. and cannot find any mention of opposition to the President's statements. (If Simeon's can point to a statement condemning Obama, please let me know and I will post a retraction.) Am I surprised? Really no, it is apparent that they are political hacks and just because they are Jewish does not mean they are willing to speak up against the head of their party.
In the concentration camps there were Jews who worked with the Nazis, they were called Capos. In many cases, these Jews were more violent and cruel to their fellow inmates than the Nazis. Could our Jewish representatives be the Capos of our generation?
Please read the attached article and Representative West's statement, I believe you will find it enlightening. As usual, your comments are welcome.
Allen West on Obama Backing Palestinian Demand: 'Could Be the Beginning of the End' for Israel
Jonathon M. Seidl - The Blaze, May 19th, 2011Tea Party Rep. Allen West has just issued a response to Obama‘s announcement that he backs the Palestinians’ demand that Israel redraw its borders to where they were in 1967. Not only did he call the move the “most egregious foreign policy decision” the administration has made, but he also feared this “could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”
“The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism,” West said in an e-mail.
“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.”
He concluded with some harsh criticisms: “President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
West has been an outspoken supporter of Israel in the past. Back in January he delivered a speech at the Americans Against Hate Pro-Israel Conference in Fort Lauderdale, FL:
West wasn’t the only one to respond with harsh criticism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines “indefensible.”
Read West’s full statement below:
“The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism,” West said in an e-mail.
“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.”
He concluded with some harsh criticisms: “President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
West has been an outspoken supporter of Israel in the past. Back in January he delivered a speech at the Americans Against Hate Pro-Israel Conference in Fort Lauderdale, FL:
West wasn’t the only one to respond with harsh criticism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines “indefensible.”
Read West’s full statement below:
(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:
“Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
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.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas
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.
While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: ‘Who will now lead in Egypt?‘ and ’Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?’
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people
West misrepresents Obama's proposal on 3 points:
ReplyDelete1. Part of the deal in returning to 1967 borders would include "land swaps." He does not acknowledge that stipulation.
2. Obama specifically said that Jerusalem would not be part of the 1967 border agreement. It would be negotiated later as a separate matter.
3. Obama does not support the Palestinians going to the U.N. He said on Thursday that Palestinian "efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure," adding that "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state."
The United States will veto the Palestinian petition in the U.N. Security Council, but may not have the authority to block a vote in the General Assembly under General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V) If the U.N. goes that route to override the U.S. veto in the Security Council, the General Assembly vote will be only symbolic and lack the force of international law. That is probably what will happen. It won't affect Israel's plans to expand settlements on the West Bank.
--David
David's points regarding Representative West's arguments misses the important point that President Obama was declaring this as a"starting point" in the discussions. To put the "pre-conditions" on the negotiations means that only worse things could be coming down the road.
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant by land swaps? Not explained by Obama. Does it mean that the Golan Heights will be swapped with Judea and Samaria? Does it mean the West Bank will be swapped with Jerusalem? No one knows and should never have been said in public.
The bottom line is that Obama tried to put the Israeli Government in a box before their Prime Minister could speak to the President, make his address to AIPAC and make his address before Congress. It did not work and by making a return to 1967 borders a pre-condition, it angered Israeli supporters and will eventually kill any hope for a peace agreement.
Once again Obama shows that his inexperience in world affairs and his retreat to Chicago-style politics does not work in the real world outside that Midwest city.
My point is that if West is going to criticize Obama's proposal, he should not misrepresent what Obama said.
ReplyDeleteObama clarified in his AIPAC speech today that land swaps would be negotiated and mutually agreed. Israel would not agree to any land swap that is not consistent with their security requirements, keep their densely populated settlements on the West Bank, and keep all of Jerusalem and its surroundings. I'd be surprised if the current Israeli government would agree even on those terms.
I don't know what you mean by "precondition." I would call Obama's speech a "suggestion" or "proposal." The United States cannot, and has not, dictated preconditions to negotiation. If you want to talk about real preconditions, both sides have at least one. For Israel, the Palestinians must accept the state of Israel and renounce violence. For Palestinians, the Israelis must agree to suspend further settlements while the negotiations continue. Both sides have refused these preconditions.
Anyway, I want to ask you a question. The previous Prime Minister of Israel (Olmert) supported a plan for Israel to withdraw from all but about 6% of the West Bank. The Likud Party seems to have exactly the opposite objective, as they continue indefinitely to expand settlements on the West Bank, forcing Palestinians out of their homes. Is this not going to increase the number of Palestinian refugees and anger? Today, Israel has decisive military advantage over the Palestinians, so they can do this by force. However, as Obama implied again today, this may be a short-sighted policy, because Palestinians will eventually acquire better technologies. So here is my question: Does the Olmert plan or the Likud plan for the West Bank offer Israel the best prospects for peace and security long-term?
--David
This video shows what is happening now on the West Bank....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaVy42fk_AM&hd=1
I posted the video suggested by anonymous and I did view it. It is Palestinian Authority video which shows their point of view. However, it is propaganda.
ReplyDeleteThe "illegal" settlements are on land that Israel won in the 1967 and 1973 wars. They are not illegal any more than the development of Texas was after the Mexican-American War. In a war one side wins and the other loses. The Arabs must get used to the fact that they lost and accept the loss and move on.
Regarding David's comments on the Obama Speech. When an American President says that the starting point is that Israel MUST retreat to the 1967 borders, that is an pre-condition, it is not a suggestion. The American Presidency carries too much power, carries too much prestige for the participants to ignore what the President says. The Arabs will hang onto that statement like a dog hangs onto his bone. Nothing will happen until Israel agrees to move back to those lines. So that is a pre-condition.
ReplyDeleteShould the Palestinians renounce violence? Can they renounce violence and will that be a precondition. I believe the answer is that they cannot renounce violence because that is part of their lives and if they do it will be only for show. As far as it being a pre-condition, if it is then, nothing will happen because Hamas will not allow it to occur. In that part of the world any Arab who would commit to peace with Israel will be killed or overthrown. So much for that pre-condition.
Anyone who thinks that peace will ever be achieved in the Middle East is smoking funny cigarettes. Yes, it would benefit Israel greatly should there be no war and that they could spend millions on other things and their economy would soar. However, just like the burr under the saddle, Israel bothers the Arabs so much that they will never settle for peace until the country is gone.
Regardless of the which Prime Minister you want to quote, "land for peace" will NEVER work in this area. Sharron unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, did that bring peace? Israel could withdraw to Tel Aviv and the Arabs would want more.
You wrote: "When an American President says that the starting point is that Israel MUST retreat to the 1967 borders, that is an pre-condition, it is not a suggestion."
ReplyDeleteHere is what Obama actually said in his Thursday speech, and this was the only reference to the 1967 borders….
"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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."
I hope we can agree that "believes….should" is a suggestion/proposal and "MUST... retreat" is a demand. Moreover, as he said today, once the land swaps are negotiated, the new borders would, by definition, not be a "retreat to the 1967 borders." That is not at all what Obama proposed, and that would only happen if NO land were swapped to ensure Israeli security and other interests. You are still misrepresenting what he said.
You wrote: "Anyone who thinks that peace will ever be achieved in the Middle East is smoking funny cigarettes." In that case, war is inevitable and it doesn't really matter what Obama or anyone else says, does it?
Regarding the video, the Mexican-American War is irrelevant to the legal dispute, because it occurred before the international laws -- Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions -- prohibiting settlements in occupied territories existed. To take a more contemporary example, since we beat those Arabs over in Iraq, are we legally entitled to settle Iraq with American citizens? If we did that, would the displaced Iraqis fire mortars into those settlements for the next 70 years? That is something to think about, isn't it?
--David