Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Herman Cain on Israel

It sure would have been nice to have had Herman Cain be the first black President.  We would have a man who knows finance, has run a business (Godfather's Pizza) and knows who are America's friends.  Israel would have been treated like an ally and our only real friend in the Middle East. Yes, things would have been different.

Here is what Mr. Cain says about Israel. Will you tell me how it differs from our President.

If You Mess With Israel, You're Messing With the USA

Herman Cain - FoxNews.com,  September 20th, 2011

As the United Nations takes up a vote on a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood this week, Americans need to understand what a Pandora’s box this opens – and how it’s a threat to both American and Israeli security.
First, U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state simply throws away years of peace talks with Israel and sets both peoples on a collision course for violent conflict.
We’ve all seen the results of intifadas, loosely translated as “uprisings” in the early 1990s and early 2000s. When Palestinian hard liners didn’t get their way through the Oslo peace process – waves of suicide bombers blew up buses, cafes, markets and shops, tearing apart two societies.
Like any sovereign state, Israel has a right to defend itself. It vigorously did so, taking out family homes of suicide bombers and tightening a variety of restrictions in the West Bank and Gaza. In the process Palestinians who truly want peace have had to face the consequences along with those who are bent on destroying Israel.
Second, such a move by the U.N. would only embolden radicals and add internal legitimacy to their attacks on Israel.
U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would in all probability lead to a third Intifadah, meaning the deaths of thousands and cycle of violence playing itself out on television sets and newspapers every day throughout the world.
Let’s recall that one of Usama Bin Laden’s main beefs with America has been our support for Israel – Al Qaeda propagandists have relied upon images of Palestinian casualties as a chief recruiting tool in their war against us.
And as we saw on September 11, Islamic radicals don’t just target Israel – they have a bulls-eye painted on America’s back as well.
Speaking of September 11, President Obama ought to remember who our friends are.
I remember watching news reports of the Twin Towers falling, a smoldering Pentagon, and the remains of United Flight 93 in a Shanksville, Pennsylvania field – and feeling even more outrage witnessing TV coverage of Palestinians dancing in the streets as we were attacked.
As president, my top foreign policy priority would be to stand united with Israel. I will not allow the Arab Spring to be the fall of Israel.
A nation that shares deep spiritual bonds, our love of democracy, freedom and personal liberty, Israel has been one of our strongest allies for decades – at least until President Obama took office.
On a visit to Israel, last month, I met with the country's deputy prime minister about the many security challenges threatening the country’s existence – from Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons – to the prospect of U.N. support for a Palestinian state. His somber message was this, “Israel will defend itself.”
The Obama administration’s insistence that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, which are militarily indefensible – shows its enemies that the United States may not stand with Israel in times of crisis.
The lack of clarity towards Israel shown by this administration demonstrates weakness and only invites attack, which makes the situation more volatile.
And when Iran’s leaders say that Israel should be wiped off the map, we ought to take them at their word. Hitler said things like that about Poland when he came to power – and guess what — he wasn’t bluffing.
Finally let’s remember how the U.N. has singled out Israel for punishment in their new world order, so its support for Palestinian statehood is just the latest blow.
Resolutions condemning Israel have become pro forma, notably with 22 coming in the 61st General Assembly (2006-07), during a time in which none were passed against the genocide in Sudan's Darfur.
My message for the U.N., Iran, Palestinians and anyone else is this: “If you mess with Israel, you’re messing with the U.S.A.”
And I’ll add, growing up in Georgia during the civil rights movement and graduating from Morehouse College, following in the footsteps of our most famous alum – Dr. Martin Luther King, the Palestinians could stand to learn a lot more from Reverend King than Malcolm X.
It’s the radical element among Palestinians that is keeping peace out of reach. If extremists lost internal legitimacy and their people took the path of non-violence — both societies would be able to co-exist.
They could start by not electing Hamas — a terrorist organization, to power in Gaza as they did in 2006. By not sending their sons and daughters out to blow themselves up in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, taking with them as many innocent Israeli civilians as they can.
I believe long term peace is achievable between Israelis and Palestinians – we just need to identify the right leaders to get it done.
And from the American perspective, by turning away from Israel when the going gets tough, President Obama is not only failing to get the job done, he is doing more harm than good.
So much for hope, it’s time for a change in Washington.
Mr. Cain, a Republican is running for president of the U.S. He is the former Chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and past President and CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

6 comments:

  1. Yark!! Here it is again…

    "The Obama administration’s insistence that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, which are militarily indefensible – shows its enemies that the United States may not stand with Israel in times of crisis."

    You keep putting out articles with this misstatement of Obama's proposal, and I guess your ethical position is still that, since this is a blog post, readers are obliged to research the truth of what you post on their own, even when you know (and have previously admitted) that this characterization of Obama's proposal is false.

    I hope you will go watch his speech to the U.N. He said the U.S. is opposed to the U.N. resolution to recognize Palestine as a state. He has asked Palestine to withdraw their request.

    He said the ONLY solution must come from a negotiation between the two parties. He has said that over and over. I guess some people just don't what to hear it. He spoke specifically about the needs for Israel security in the negotiation, although he didn't mention mutually-agreed land swaps, we both know that is his proposal -- not a return to 1967 borders with the 9-mile strip, etc.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, Israel has no one who they can negotiate with. Abbas does not speak for Gaza, has never in recent years been to Gaza, and would be killed if he did go there. He is not someone who could negotiate. Who else is there? I know of no one who can speak for Gaza, the West Bank, Hamas and the Palestinians which is what is needed if there is going to be a peace agreement.
    So what Obama is talking about is ridiculous and impossible to do unless Israel just folds up shop and leaves the area (which is what most of its neighbors would like to see.)
    Each time Obama speaks our influence in the world goes down. He looks and acts ineffectively and the "oratorical skills" about which we heard so much have lost their gilding.
    So when it comes to his proposal, we see governments and people around the world ignoring him and his ideas.
    He is becoming a major embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Hamas’s opposition to the UN bid is pretty soft,” said Talal Oukal, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University in Gaza City. “They’re not really trying to do anything to stop it and their criticism hasn’t been very strong.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-22/palestinians-in-gaza-defy-hamas-to-support-un-recognition-bid.html

    ---------------
    So here is a local Gaza political scientist who does not share your opinion. No matter. My point is that you may criticize Obama's proposal as unrealistic (or whatever), but I find it irritating that you persist in posting these articles that factually misrepresent what Obama has said.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, the reason I keep posting the same point on the Obama proposal is that the Palestinians have essentially the same position. Both say that the Palestinian state should be the pre-1967 borders. Obama does add "with land swaps" whatever that means. The big issue is that the Palestinians disregard the caveat.

    Here is what wikipedia says: "The current position of the Palestinian Authority is that all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip should form the basis of a future Palestinian state."

    Israel will never give up Jerusalem which was not part of the country in 1967. This would be a total non-starter.

    Additionally, the 7 or 8 mile wide strip of Israel is not defensible. The Palestinian State as they are proposing would be require this undefensible size. Additionally, all the areas in Samaria and Judea would be given back to the Palestinians.

    However, why should Israel be required to give up any land? They won the war!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Palestinians are no more guilty of misrepresenting Obama's proposal than are all these articles you post.

    Israel can ask for whatever they think they need for security purposes, and the Palestinians can either take it or leave it. Obama thinks "mutually agreed land swaps" is the way to expend the 8-mile strip to as wide as the Israelis think they need it to become for their security in exchange for some land concessions elsewhere. But, as he said again in the U.N. speech, it is up to the parties to negotiate this. The U.S. and the U.N. can't do it. The U.S. will veto the Palestinians in the Security Council.

    On your other article, there is nothing unusual about the U.S. under any administration selling bombs, warplanes, etc. to Israel. It is just business as usual. The Israelis have a very strong lobby in Washington, D.C. with both parties. The Palestinians have virtually none.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. David, I am not as sure as you are with what Obama will or will not do. I think there is a possibility that over the upcoming months as the request goes through the General Assembly and then onto the Security Council, that there might be some way of pleasing the Palestinians that we do not see now. If I were to bet it would only be a 55% chance of the US vetoing the proposal. Time will tell.

    As far as a lobby goes, the media is a very strong ally of the Palestinians as well as CAIR, so I would disagree with your assertion that they have no lobby in DC.

    Furthermore over the years there has been many times when sales to Israel have been delayed, postponed and denied. It is not business as usual and the timing is very circumspect.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.