Two-state solution would destroy Israel

I like to write about Israel. They are our number one ally. They face the same threat of Radical Muslims as we do, although to a far greater extent than we do. As they try to create peace through strength, they are often criticized, much like George Bush was criticized when he used force against Iraq for harboring and supporting Muslim terrorists.

So Benjamin Netanyahu wins an election in a landslide. Here we are months later and Obama has yet to congratulate him. Instead, he went to the United Nations to undermine our ally, Israel, in favor of our enemies, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Because Netanyahu has promised not to allow a Palestinian State while he is in office, Obama has threatened to go to the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution recognizing a Palestinian State. He is going to block the Israeli vote opposed to a two state solution.

Why? The only reason I can think of is that Obama, as do many liberals, believes that a Palestinian state is the only road to peace in the Middle East.

In the past the White House has worked with Israel to block such a resolution from passing.

Why? Mainly because past U.S. leaders understood that a Palestinian State would basically mean the end of Israel.

Why? Because the Iranian Caliphate was built on the notion of completely wiping out Israel. Likewise, both Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations with charters calling for the complete anihalation of Israel.

In the past, U.S. policy has been to work with Israel, our biggest ally in the world, and the only strong democracy in the Middle East. Yet Obama is planning to completely change course in such a way that would completely undermine our ally and promote Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In the past the U.S. has opposed the formation of a Palestinian nation, or a two state solution -- Israel and Palestine side by side, because it's leaders understood that such a two-state solution is not a two state solution.

Let me put it this way. Muslims live in Israel today, and they shop and enjoy life like any other person in Israel. If an Israelite left the borders of Israel and entered most Muslim territories, that person would likely be killed for being a Jew. So while the Israeliltes would be happy to live side by side with Muslims, the Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbola would not be happy to live side by side with Jews.

This is a fact that too many people fail to realize, even we hear the voices of radical Muslims all the time saying this stuff.  The leaders of Iran say quite often that they will settle at nothing less than a complete annihilation of Israel; meaning they will settle for nothing short of a one state solution.

The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. They want a one state solution. They want a Palestine and no Israel. And history proves this as true, as every time Israel has agreed to a two state solution, Palestinian leaders have backed out time and time again. 

Many people fail to realize this, but the Palestinians were offered their own state of Palestine the same time the Jews were offered theirs.  The Jews accepted, and created Israel.  The Muslims rejected it.  So they are not victims.  They are victims, but only to their own rejection of a two state solution because they want a one state solution.  

The Camp David Accords are another perfect example of this. Jimmy Carter had brokered a deal with the Palestinians giving them everything they wanted from Israel, and their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, refused to sign it.

Why? He did not want a two-state solution: he wanted a one-state solution. He wanted Muslims to live side by side with their brethren in Palestine. The only means to this end is the complete Anihalation of Israel, and the death of all Jews.  The Palestinians don't want part of the land, they don't want to share the land, they want all the land.

So the reason Netanyahu refuses to sign any treaty that would create a Palestinian State is because he does not want to sign a treaty that would result in the destruction of his own nation. The only way that happens if there is a war and Israel loses.

The only other way to peace in the region is an all out war that Israel wins.

Oh, wait, Israel did win an all out war with all the surrounding Muslim nations in 1967. How many people learned about that in history class.  Israel was outnumbered, out equipped, and it looked like it was going to be destroyed.  Israel took quite a few casualties at first, but it drove the Muslim armies out of Israel, and it won the war.  

This is how Israel got the West Bank and the Gaza strip.  They are not occupiers, they won this land in a war they didn't even want to fight. But many nations refused to see this truth, and continued to call the Israelites occupiers and the Palestinians victims.  

But this victory was not recognized by the United Nations. Israel may have been the only nation in the history of the world (besides the Americans, who defeated the Indians) to have won a war and yet were treated as the losers.

So there may never be a solution to this problem. There may never be peace in the Middle East, regardless of what efforts are made by Middle-East Peace Activists.

Further Reading:

1. CNN: Friedman: Netanyahu two-state shift is a win for Iran. 
2. Obama Plots Revenge Against Israel
3. Why Liberals Love the Enemies of Israel
4. Obama may find it impossible to mend ties with Netanyahu
5. Power Line‎: Will Obama Punish Israel for Re-electing Netanyahu?
6. Weekly Standard: US Threatens Sanctions Against Israel, Makes Excuses for Iran

Netanyahu looked very presidential before Congress

Benjamin Netanyahu looked and sounded very presidential during his speech to Congress today. He said, "America's founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad, and states are collapsing across the Middle East."

Yes, he sounded very presidential. He sounded like a person who is making a last minute plea to save Western Civilization; to convince Congress to thwart any plan to give the leading terrorist nation in the world (Iran) a clear path to nuclear methods. He reminded Congress that we must not forget Iran is the world's leading exporter of terrorism.

He reminded Congress of the failures of Neville Chamberlain in his efforts to negotiate with a thug named Hitler. He reminded Congress of the failure of inspectors in Iraq to realize the artful BS Saddam was using to fool the world about his nuclear arms program. He reminded Congress that inspectors in North Korea failed to stop North Korea form getting the Bomb.

He said we need to be aggressive toward Iran and do whatever it takes to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. He said, "Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem anymore than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. ... the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. ... Many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations... We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror."

Now Obama and Kerry and other democrats believe they do not have the right to tell other nations what to do, regardless that they are lead by a totalitarian dictator thus or not. So they are trying to negotiate with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program for ten years. They believe that will give them ten years to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

To this, Netanyahu said, "This deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb, it paves Iran's path to the bomb." To this he got a standing ovation. "So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years. Or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal."

He got a standing ovation because he is right: all that ten years would do is buy them time. While we are busy negotiating, while inspectors are in and out of their nation, Iran's leaders will lead them in one direction with one hand, while leading their nuclear program in another direction with the other.

He offered one final promise: “I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

Yes indeed!  Netanyahu looked very presidential.

Further reading:

• Netanyahu Courts Congress
• Netanyahu is everything Obama is not
• Netanyahu to Congress: 'We are better off without the emerging U.S. deal with Iran'
• Video: BiBi Speach

America is no longer alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends

The Economist has an interesting article that challenges Americas desire, and even its ability, to be a leader on the international stage.

As we have witnessed over the past several months, as Russian has set troops in Crimea, Obama has threatened sanctions, yet has done little else.  His threats had little influence over Putin's efforts.  As Russian annexed Crimea, Obama's America stood on the sidelines, leaning up against a tree.  For that reason, I find this cartoon very fitting. You have the sheep (Ukraine), and the wolf (Russia), and then you have Uncle Sam just leaning against a tree watching.  That said, does the U.S. have any influence at all on the international stage?  In other words, is the U.S. willing and able to defend its allies against aggressors like Russia?

The article starts out by asking:

AMERICA’S allies are nervous. With Russia grabbing territory, China bullying its neighbours and Syria murdering its people, many are asking: where is Globocop? Under what circumstances will America act to deter troublemakers? What, ultimately, would America fight for?

The article continues

The answer to this question matters. Rogue states will behave more roguishly if they doubt America’s will to stop them. As a former head of Saudi intelligence recently said of Vladimir Putin’s land grab in Ukraine: “While the wolf is eating the sheep, there is no shepherd to come to the rescue.” Small wonder that Barack Obama was asked, at every stop during his just-completed four-country swing through Asia, how exactly he plans to wield American power. How would the president respond if China sought to expand its maritime borders by force? How might he curb North Korea’s nuclear provocations? At every press conference he was also quizzed about Ukraine, for world news follows an American president everywhere.

While conservatives chant things like "peace through strength," Obama disagrees.  He said, “Very rarely have I seen the exercise of military power providing a definitive answer,” he told an audience in Seoul."

So it appears apparent that Obama's strategy of using words and sanctions as opposed to military mite will not change.  Because of this, some reporters are asking Obama questions along the lines of "are your actions, or non-actions, emboldening American enemies?"

Yet Obama's answer to this question was that we “haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade.” In other words, American hawks did not learn the lesson of Iraq.

Yet, as the article notes, Obama's strategy does not appeal to voters, who say defending America is "very important."  However, most Americans do not want U.S. troops in Ukraine, with only 6% saying they would use force, according to polls. And, of course, most people don't want action in Syria either.

Of course this makes sense considering no one wants war.  In fact, even hawks don't want war.  Just because troops are put into a country doesn't mean the U.S. wants to go to war.  In fact, just the opposite is true.

U.S. troops in Ukraine would make sense for two reasons:

1. We promised during the Clinton administration we'd defend them if they disarmed.  So, we'd be honoring our word.
2. Putin doesn't want to go to war with the U.S., and so U.S. troops in Ukraine would disuade Putin from taking action there, allowing Ukranians the opportunity to create a democracy

As far as for the Middle East, U.S. influence isn't any better: 

In the rest of the region the story is not much cheerier. The new government in Egypt ignores American finger-wagging about human rights and buys lots of Russian weapons. In Syria President Bashar Assad was caught red-handed last year gassing his own people, an act that Mr Obama had specifically warned would trigger American punishment. Yet this “red line” was crossed almost with impunity.

There were sound arguments for all these apparent American retreats. Yet the widespread impression in the Middle East is that the lion has turned into a pussycat. Its foes rejoice; its allies bewail their perceived abandonment.

Iraq’s leader, Nuri al-Maliki, is chummier with Iran than America. Iran jauntily backs militias and political parties in Iraq. It sends bullets and “advisers” to Syria via Iraqi airspace. It sponsors Iraqi Shia volunteers to fight American-supplied Sunni rebels in Syria.

Of late, America has sometimes taken a back seat to other countries, as with France’s intervention in Mali and NATO’s in Libya. Or it has simply shied from doing anything much, as in Syria.

The article does note some successes in the Middle East, however.  For instance, "
oil prices are stable, Israel has never been so prosperous or secure and Iran has agreed (under intense pressure) to curb its nuclear ambitions somewhat. Terrorism now poses far more danger within the Middle East than to the rest of the world."

I think the key words per this article are "Lion" and "Pussycat." While the U.S. was once a Lion with a lot of influence around the world, we are now a pussycat, good for nothing more than our cute looks.  As a lion, we were able to protect ourselves and our allies.  As pussycats we have little or no control over what our enemies do or don't do.

In other words, a pussycat military strategy has made it so "America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends." Since defending our nation and our freedom is the number one responsibility of our government, this is a serious issue, and one that I hope is addressed by republicans during campaign season.

References:

1. The decline of deterrence: America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends