President Obama’s UN Speech: The Palestinian/Israeli Crisis

Part 2: Thoughts on President Obama’s UN Speech

As I parsed through the part of President Obama’s speech to the UN that focused on Israel and the Palestinians, I thought it was appropriate to highlight the following:

1. President Obama continues to try to position himself as a neutral and fair mediator rather than Israel’s ally with the following words,

“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

To casually characterize the thousands of Palestinian/Hamas rockets that were launched into Israeli cities and their civilian populations as “incitement” is outrageous. Incitement is a minimizing understatement. These were acts of war and no nation would put up with it, including the US. Obama then turns on Israel in specific and in my view harsh terms and states;

“And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

So let me get this straight.

Thousands of Palestinian rockets launched into civilian populations is merely “incitement” (aggravating) while Israeli settlements are “illegitimate” thus implying Israel is pursuing a policy that is illegal by international law and thus criminal. In my view, “incitement” is a mild rebuke and the “illegitimate settlements” constitute a harsh indictment of Israel.

2. He states that the second pillar of his speech is the pursuit of world peace.

In the President’s view, one of the keys to world peace (which he so badly desires to be the inspiration for) is the resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli crisis. In Obama’s view, the way to resolve the Middle East conflict is to divide Israel into two nations, ie the two state solution.  In his own words…

“The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”

So I guess Mr. Obama believes the Palestinian assertion that Israel’s dominance of Holy Land taken in wars the Arabs started and lost is “occupation” and not the legitimate spoil of war. Compare that to the way the US forcefully appropriated so much land from the Native Americans Indians. A little hypocritical wouldn’t you say? Are we “occupying” Indian lands?

3. He accuses Israel (in front of an increasingly hostile world) of not respecting legitimate Palestinian claims and rights.

“The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of Palestinians”.

Israel has been a close ally to the United States for 50 years. This statement amounts to a betrayal of that relationship. Even if he believes this statement it is wrong to expose little Israel to worldwide condemnation when she is already unfairly reviled by so many nations in the UN. Shame!

Conclusion

Judging by what Obama is saying in this speech coupled with his Cairo speech,  Obama continues to pursue a strategy that puts the onus for the Middle East crisis politely but clearly on the doorstep of Israel.

May God have mercy on the United States.

Joel Chernoff

U.S. vs Israel – Colliding Agendas

Thoughts on President Obama’s UN Speech

“First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.”

These are the words defining President Obama’s agenda concerning nuclear weapons not just for the US but also the world. He goes on to say that he believes that all nations should have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy but not to use  nuclear weapons.

True to his globalist ideology, he also asserts that the UN and its nuclear agency the IAEA, should have more authority and that all nations should have to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and be forced to live up to it.

He says,

“All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which the IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nations’ demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure…The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

Sounds good…but isn’t the US being hypocritical?

In all fairness how can the US insist on non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons when the US has more nukes than any other nation. President Obama knows this, so he is determined  to lead by example and reduce our nuclear capabilities, unilaterally if necessary, to demonstrate his sincerity. In other words he will try to convince the world that he/the US means business and that Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc. should do the same.

Why this is dangerous for Israel?

Our Arab/Moslem brothers know that these are not  empty words and have seized on a new strategy to weaken Israel. They have begun to confront Obama with an argument that goes like this,

We will stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons on the condition that Israel is forced to reveal the true extent of her nuclear arsenal, destroy her nuclear weapons, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and agree to  IAEA inspections.

If they can pursuade the US President to accomplish Israel’s nuclear disarmament then they would have succeeded in weakening the Jewish state to such an extent as to make Israel a very tempting target for an all out conventional war where the numbers are clearly in the Arab nations favor.

If they can’t achieve this then at least they can force a confrontation with the US and hopefully damage Israel’s relationship with the US thus further isolating Israel within the world community.

To the surrounding Arab/Moslem  nations, Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal acts as a serious deterrent. They know that Israel could very possibly  destroy them if she felt that her national sovereignty was threatened.

What if Israel were to say no to President Obama’s strategy?

Already President Obama has pressured Israel in this direction and Israel has resisted him as nicely as possible.  If Israel rejects Obama’s instruction to comply with his nuclear weapons agenda (which he thinks is in Israel’s and the world’s best interest) he could begin pressuring Israel by cutting military aid and/or not vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions amongst other measures.

In others words President Obama may see Israel as an obstacle to peace. If he could only get Israel to comply with his nuclear agenda, the Arab/Moslem world would then feel more safe and be forced to acknowledge that his path to peace is the one to take.

Surely Israel can understand this…he thinks.

And if they can’t, then the US will just have to assume the role of “tough love” administrator and force Israel to do what the President knows is best for her, the Arabs, the US, the world… and himself.

What does Israel understand?

Israel understands that she lives in a sea of hostile Arab and Moslem nations who have a stated goal of destroying this tiny Jewish state.

What Israel understands is that she wants to survive and giving up her nuclear weapons in the current hostile environment is inviting a national disaster.

What Israel understands is that she cannot – must not – give in to US pressure on this matter.

The next blog will take a look at what he had to say in his UN speech to the world about the Palestinian/Israel crisis.

Joel Chernoff