After Arafat 10

These mugs, showing Obama dressed in Arafat’s signature headgear, are on sale in Gaza.

On May 19, 2011, President Obama made a speech that condemned Israel to extinction by declaring its borders should be more or less the 1948 armistice lines, within which Israel was highly vulnerable. These he called the “1967 lines” – meaning the lines as on June 4, 1967, just before Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel defended itself, won by hard fighting, and established more defensible “borders”. Its offers of negotiation were refused by the Arab aggressors. For Israel to go back to the 1948 lines could be suicidal.

Obama demanded nothing from the Palestinians: no recognition of Israel’s right to exist; no stopping of rocket attacks, suicide bombing, or their constant and  intense propaganda of hate and genocide.

He sided with the Palestinians. In their eyes, he has inherited the mantle – or rather, the keffiyeh of Arafat, famously shaped as the “State of Palestine” he hoped to see on the map.

Posted under Arab States, Commentary, Egypt, Israel, middle east, Palestinians, Syria, United States by Jillian Becker on Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Tagged with

This post has 10 comments.

  • Alejandro

    It is important to be accurate in your depiction of history. Until now, there has been continuous failure to create sustainable peace in the middle east as the result of other nations’ unwavering support for Israel. Obama wants restraint and concessions from both sides, a new and original policy pressing the reset button in the middle east. We must give peace a chance by asking some demands from Israel to promote peace, which until now, it has not felt pressured to do.

    • Jillian Becker

      Welcome back, Alejandro – if you’re the same Alejandro who posted comments in the past, and it would seem you are. Who else could aim so reliably wide of the mark on every point?     

    • George

      Alejandro , I’m trying to objectively analyize your comments but it appears to me in my OPINION that you may possibly have some form of anti-Israel sentiments.  I have never been to Israel but I have spoken to both Israeli and Middle East friends and associates who have given me both sides of the issue for me to discern the situation in a broader scale as well as my independent investigation and rsearch on these matters. 
                           I don’t want to engage in any pro &   con debate regarding the Middle East but I can say one thing from a realistic perspective.  I don’t see  Israel going around talking about wanting to destroy their neighbor countries.  I don’t see Israel talking about any other nation in the Middle East doesn’t have a right to exist.  I don’t see Israel exporting terrorism.   Furthermore , exactly what makes anything presented here on this blog NOT a true depiction of history ?  Please present to us verifiable and substantiated information data on the contrary.  When I see news reports placed on this blog ,  I always take it a step further to do my own independent research to check the validity. I don’t agree with everything Israel has done and I certainly don’t agree with everything America has done but I can say for a fact that the number one counrty in the Middle East that affords more freedom, justice, civility and also affords a high standard of living and an industrious and advanced infrastructure as a model for the free world (particularly in that region )  is indeed Israel.  I say this from an unbiased observation of what is happening in the widespread massive Middle East chaos  .

    • Wow Alejandro – you sound like Obama himself.  Just kidding.  First, I agree with everything George has written.  Additionally, I would like you to explain your statement “Until now, there has been … [no peace in the middle east] … as the result of other nations’ unwavering support for Israel.”

      What nationS (plural) substantially support Israel besides the USA?  (I really don’t know the answer to this one).  If not for external support, all of the Muslim nations’ unwavering animosity towards Israel would have easily led to Israel’s demise!

      You also wrote that until now, Israel has not felt pressured to promote peace.  Wouldn’t you think that being surrounded by countries and a religion that calls for your destruction causes enough pressure to want to promote peace?

      Your statements are certainly contradictory to what is typically thought of as a conservative viewpoint.  But, I am happy to listen to you, if you have anything to back up these statements.

  • This pic of Obama on a mug being sold in Gaza does not surprise me.  I do agree that Obama has shown himself to be as pro-Islam as an American President can possibly get away with without an uproar from the American people.  I am intentionally implying that I think he would be MORE pro-Islam if he could.

    But, the statement: “Obama demanded nothing from the Palestinians: no recognition of Israel’s right to exist…”

    I thought that he did mention that the Palestinians need to recognize this?  Am I mistaken?  I will rarely defend Obama (I don’t need to, his legions of fans and the media will typically defend him all day long).  But, I do want to make sure our criticisms of him are factually correct.

    • Jillian Becker

      Thank you. PareshK. You are right to want criticism to be factually correct. 

      I’ll check out his speech again and make a correction if I’m wrong.

    • Jillian Becker

      Further to my last reply: PareshK, here’s what Obama said on the issue of Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. … Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”In other words, he raised the issue, and expressed an opinion (“Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist”), and mentioned a question “for Israel” (“how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist”). What he did not do was tell the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Or even request them to do so. Or tell the listening world that the Palestinians ought to, or – as would have been best – that they absolutely must do so. Typical Obama slithering round an issue he doesn’t want to deal with directly.

      • Thanks for posting this Jillian.  Yes, I now do agree with your original assertion that Obama has not demanded the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist.  I have read the quoted passage over and over again, and each time it disgusts me more.  As you said, he is VERY SLYLY “slithering around an issue he doesn’t want to deal with directly.”

        This is so typical of Democrat politicians, and to be fair, Repubs too – but I think to a lesser extent.  Clinton was a master at this.  Recall the statement, “That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

        Why can’t Obama plainly say that the Palestinians MUST recognize Israel’s right to exist?  I just don’t get it.  To say it’s a question for Palestinian leaders to answer over the next few months is a total cop-out.  That’s like a father dealing with two bickering kids saying to them: “You kids will never get along if you don’t resolve your issues!”  Wow, how profound.  I think we all know this.  When one party has unreasonable demands, that party must be called out on those demands directly, otherwise there is no point in speaking at all.

        But why tip-toe around the issue at all?  I can only infer from this that Obama is either 1) trying to appease Islam in the hopes that they will like him and the USA (complete joke and utterly futile) or  2) he is secretly siding with Islam over Israel (even worse)

        • George

          Simple answer- Obama is pro-Islam and anti-Israel and definately  anti-American in ALL of his actions and agendas.  It’s NOT rocket-science.  The sad part is how many gullible Americans fell for his deceit and dubious agendas and put him in office. Remember , Hitler didn’t take over Germany by a coup , but rather he was voted into office and we know what the result of that became. Gullible IS what gullible DOES !  

        • Yes, George, I agree that #2 (Obama is secretly siding with Islam over Israel) is the correct answer.  I guess I tipped my hand by sort of making that statement in my comment from a few days ago.