Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama's betrayal of Israel

While Barack Obama looks like a moderate guy in many respects, and his successful execution of Osama bin Laden is a recent example, there are also situations in which he turns out to be a largely uncontrollable threat for the democratic civilization.

He wants Israel to return to pre-1967 borders.

Between June 5 and June 10th, 1967 (the Six-Day War which was both pre-emptive and helpful for Israel), the yellow Israel on the map manage to win the Golan Heights (still controlled by Israel but the population is just 40,000; international deniers of reality consider it a part of Syria), Judea (South) and Samaria (North; in combination Judea and Samaria are known as the West Bank, currently under military control of Israel but administered by the moderate Fatah's Palestinian Authority), Gaza Strip (currently controlled by the Hamas terror group, but still somewhat unofficially supervised by Israel), and the Sinai Peninsula (peacefully returned to Egypt shortly after the 1967 war).

Just try to impartially ask the question: is the yellow region defensible? I find it totally silly. To return to pre-1967 borders means to probably return to pre-1949 borders - i.e. to eliminate Israel off the map - within another decade. It's crazy that someone may propose something of the sort while calling himself an ally of Israel. In this sense, the difference between Obama and Ahmadinejad may be just a few years. Make no doubts: the democratic consensus among the "Palestinians" is that the Jews should be pushed to the Mediter. sea. Obama clearly agrees.

As Bibi Netanyahu correctly said, Obama doesn't understand reality.

Obama's proposals will either quickly die, showing that Obama is just a loser and crazy kibitzer who is disconnected from reality and whose big words don't mean anything; or they will not quickly die and Obama will work to realize them. In that case, I would find it pretty natural for Israel to try to assassinate Obama and any other future U.S. president who will threaten Israel's existence in a similar way.

And that Israel's existence is clearly what is at stake is completely obvious. Golan Heights, currently controlled by Israel, would become mountains from which you can easily get to the Galilee - the adjacent part of Israel. Or shoot at them. It's crazy. This is something that the Czechs know a lot about. The loss of the Sudetenland - the mountains naturally bounding the Czech kingdom for centuries - has made the smaller Czech lands (the "Second Republic", as the castrated territory is known to us) indefensible and, indeed, Hitler took the rest of the Czech lands within half a year, too.

Now look at the yellow strip on the Western side of Judea. It's about 20 kilometers thick in the thinnest parts. Tel Aviv, the formal international capital of Israel, is somewhere in this thin strip. You gotta be kidding, right? If forces that are hostile to Israel are allowed to thrive in Judea and Samaria, and allowed to exchange "goods" with other hostile Muslim countries, Israel (or maybe I should call it just "rae") is going to be destroyed soon.

The situation is even crazier in the case of Jerusalem. This de facto capital of Israel is located in the Western "hole" in the West Bank - it separated Judea from Samaria; look at the map. It's almost completely surrounded by the "Palestine" and if you run 3 miles on the West side of Jerusalem, you will encircle it completely. The same easy Palestinian access exists in the case of the local airports etc., too. That makes a siege about 1,000 times easier than the Siege of Leningrad.

It's just crazy.

Now, would the small indefensible Israel be protected by the U.S. in the case of trouble? I don't think so. What's happening today is enough to predict how the U.S. led by someone like Obama would react to a "purification" of the region by some Muslim powers. When Obama came to power, America ceased to be an ally of Israel and it may be pretty correct to say that it became an enemy yesterday.

Obama's plans represent the most threatening plan by a top global politician for the existential interests of the Jewish people since the 1940s. Needless to say, Israel haters across Europe - not only Angela Merkel - have endorsed Obama's idiocy, too. But that's not unexpected; after all, Germany has been the birth place of some worse plans how to treat the Jews and Merkel is much less anti-Semitic than some of her most famous predecessors. But America used to be an Israel's ally. As socialism spreads over America, so do anti-Israeli policies.


  1. 1. Should be :
    Judea (South) and Samaria (North)

    2. Is Israeli borders pre/post 67 defendable ? (an "experimentalist" point of view)
    - East : Israel fought 2 wars on its east border, one startet at the pre-67 borders and the other was in the 48 borders (even more narrow then 67). Both eneded with Israel wins. Currently with a peace with our eastern neighbor the question is less relevant then ever.
    - North-east : Israel fought 3 wars on its north-east border. All ended with win, the worst was the 73 war when Israel lose the Golan heights in a few hours. That is the only war where Israel had the Golan heights.
    - South : Israel fought 4 wars on its south border. The worst was the 73 war when Israel lose land near the Suez Canal, that is the only war where Israel had the Sinai before the war.
    - North : (border with Lebanon), there was no exchange of territories after the 48 war.

    Your political view is very naive, even for a right-wing author.

  2. Mr. Motl, by your logic, Israel should have been doomed by the return of Sinai in the 70s. Do you doubt that opponents of the accord with Egypt said so at the time? And yet, decades later, Israel still exists.

  3. Dear Dana and/or Dori, I fixed the South-North flip.

    Your comments are totally naive and irresponsible. At those times, it was easier to defend Israel because there was no organized global terror and countries like Persia were led by progressive pro-Western folks such as Shah who kept the Islamist primitives in their holes where they belong.

    The same Shah who brought progress to the Persian nation has also made his primitive successors emerging from the Islamic Revolution stronger. Add all the local proxies that are being supported by these jerks and many other jerks and it's just not the same thing.

    I don't claim it's clear that Israel would lose. But it's more much likely than before.

    Ybretty, your comment makes no sense. Since 1967, Israel had a defensibly thick territory, whether there was Sinai or not. Before 1967, it hadn't. That's why it was constantly in the state of war. Indeed, the readjustments of the borders in 1967 helped to strengthen peace in the region.

  4. Mr. Motl, Israel was never in more mortal danger than when Egypt and other Arab states were Soviet clients. Why to you is the huge buffer between Israel and Egypt represented by the Sinai irrelevant while the very existence of Israel seems to depend on a few square miles of Jerusalem neighborhoods?

  5. Dear Luboš,

    Actually, at those times it was harder to defend Israel, these was real wars fought with tanks between armies. Since 48 the military size of the Israeli force grew stronger compared to it's neighbors and the peace agreements takes many possible foes out of the battle field. In 21st century warfare ground to ground missiles make the size of the territory much less as issue for defense (since there is no longer tanks that need to cross large distances). Iran is happy to provide missles that cover all of Israel's height so a few extra miles in width make no difference.

    But that is not really important. Anyone who actually know Israeli politics recognize "defendable boundaries" as a code word for we don't want to negotiate right now. At least two Israeli PMs (Olmert and Barak) was willing to give up over 90% of the occupied territories, it was never an issue of "defendable borders".
    (and I am not getting into the issue, whether Israel should negotiate or not).

  6. There is no such think (or organization) as global terror. Simply because terrorists don't have similar goals. Israel have stronger weapons than the Arabs, it can defend itself.

  7. The so-called '1967 border' is simply the cease-fire line agreed with Jordan in April of 1949, after Israel had fought off attack by its Arab neighbors, an agreement Jordan then violated in 1967. It has never had the status of a border...

    And speaking of Jordan, it's funny, isn't it, since the British used about 80% of the League of Nations mandate for a Jewish national homeland to instead create Jordan for their Arab clients, that none of the ‘peacemakers’ ever suggests Jordanian land contribute to the geography of a Palestinian state.

  8. Control of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights came about as the result of a war pressed upon Israel by enemies who outnumbered them by more than 10 to 1 and who declared an intent to annihalate them as a nation. The overwhelming victory of Israel in a war forced upon it makes the occupied territories a legitimate spoils of war.

    In view of a repeatedly stated desire to destroy Israel, a return to less defensible borders would seem to be more an invitation to further war than to any increased prospect for peace.

  9. Dear ybretty, concerning the Soviet threat, it wasn't the case. The Soviet Union has never had any interest to threaten Israel's existence - and its negative attitude to Israel were just a diluted artifact of the Soviet negative attitude to the U.S. which was an ally of Israel.

    Don't forget that it was really the Soviets who liberated the key concentration camps etc.

    A Soviet-assisted attack on Israel would be a part of the cold war that would be very dangerous for USSR.

    Concerning the Sinai buffer, it's great. But one obviously needs a buffer from all sides - or most sides - to be kind of safe.

    Dear Dana, you get the whole causal relationship wrong. There were real wars before 1967 and the borders were making Israel vulnerable. But the former is a consequence of the latter. There were wars exactly because it was easy for the Arabs et al. to ignite them. It became harder after 1967 which is why there was relative peace. Of course that if one returns to the pre-1967 borders, one will restore the concentration of tanks in the region etc.

  10. Mr. Motl,I agree Russia had no interest in destroying Israel. But its military aid and patronage of states that did increased the risks to Israel enormously. I don't think Egypt would have launched its 1973 surprise attack without the security against backlash afforded by its Soviet ties. Never had Israel come closer to being "driven into the sea" than in 1973; it could have gone either way. Looking at the course of Israeli history, wouldn't one say that the two decades following 1967 were just as fraught with war, terrorism, and threats to Israel as the two preceding?

  11. Just to set the record straight the "Palestinians" have no legitimate grievances so talking about giving them anything is irrelevant. They could have stayed in Israel as many did but instead chose to side with those wishing to drive the Jews into the sea. In short, they got what they deserved.

    They can have their right of return when all of the Jews and Christians who have been driven from Muslim lands can have theirs and can be assured they will not be persecuted or killed for practicing their beliefs. This day will of course never come due to the inherent barbarous nature of Islam.

    The "Palestinians" have worked very hard to insure they deserve their suffering and that it does not end. Jordan even tried to take them in and we all know how that turned out. No Arab state will take them in or claim the territories because they prefer to use them as proxies against Israel. Some in the West who are not very bright can be duped into thinking that the people who strap bombs to their bodies or who slit the throats of children and push old men in wheelchairs off the decks of ships are somehow victims.

    These are the people who assure that the conflict does not end and they bear the largest portion of the blame. The people in the West Bank and Gaza will give up their violence when naive and immoral people in Europe and elsewhere stop rewarding them for it and when it is no longer useful for Middle Eastern tyrants to play the game anymore.

    But even so the wind down will be a long one. The "Palestinians" teach their children to hate and kill Jews in their schools and on their TV shows. They have cartoon characters whose only goal is to kill Jews and be martyred. They are an ignorant and barbaric people who have chosen to have constant conflict when they could have their own country and a peaceful existence merely by disavowing their desire to kill Jews. They wouldn't even have to mean it. They could merely bide their time and plan for war in the interim but they are too stupid to figure that out for themselves.

    As for Obama, I would like to assure everyone that he in no way speaks for the US. He was an affirmative action hire who turned out the way all such hires do. He doesn't know the first thing about the US, its people or the principles it was founded upon. We get an idiot like him or Carter about once a generation or so but don't think for a moment that they represent the American people in their attitudes or policies. Feel free to ignore Obama's insane prattle. We won't back him up on it. We are a good and principled people and are very much behind Israel. Obama will be rotting in the ground before that changes.

    Finally, to get back on topic, I think it goes without saying that ceding land to an enemy whose charter calls for your destruction is not something any sane country would do. Whether the Israelis can beat back another Muslim invasion with one hand tied behind their backs is irrelevant. The point is that they shouldn't have to. And no decent human being would ask them to. Only the sort of mind that caused the first holocaust thinks in such a manner.