It has become the president’s trademark, perhaps, to engage himself inside the comforting realm of The World That Should Be. In that world, the answers to America’s conflicts with the Islamic world become easily resolvable, because we are one peoples with a shared destiny. Living in The World That Should Be, the Enlightenment in Europe came about, in large part, due to the contributions of Islam. In The World That Should Be, Islam has always been a part of America’s story. In The World That Should Be, Muslim communities “in our times” have been “at the forefront of innovation and education.” But while this game of equivalency might be comforting at a base level, it is simply not true. The Enlightenment in Europe had nothing to do with Islam. America’s story is one of Christianity and secularism, not of Islam. Islamic communities in our times are startlingly hostile to modernity.
That’s all irritating, but it’s typical boilerplate fodder. There’s a real scandal beneath all of this.
After today’s much-ballyhooed speech, it should now be blindingly apparent that President Obama is hostile to the cause of Israel. He subscribes to a completely ahistorical leftist narrative of Israeli history. This disturbing development reveals more than ignorance: it reveals utter hostility. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously put it: we’re entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. Anti-Israel forces have continually made up their own facts, and it appears that our esteemed president has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
It is not true that the Palestinian people have aspired to statehood for sixty years. The nationalist PLO, an invention of the Arab League, did not come to prominence until roughly forty years ago. Led by Yasser Arafat, the League transformed Palestinianism from an ethnicity into a nationality in order to legitimize the Arab cause. Before the PLO, virtually all Palestinians considered themselves rightly a part of Jordan or southern Syria. To this day, the majority of Jordanians are Palestinians.
Despite this rewrite of centuries of history, Israel has, in order to put this conflict to rest, accepted the cause of Palestinian statehood. The original 1948 United Nations partition of the Palestine Mandate actually created a Palestinian state — one that was promptly rejected by the Palestinians and all of the surrounding Arab states, all of whom declared war on Israel as soon as it declared independence. This Arab-initiated war was the cause of the Palestinian refugee crisis. There would have never been a refugee crisis if the Arab states had simply accepted Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, this is quite like the situation of blacks in the United States in the 1800′s, isn’t it, Mr. President?
The so-called “humiliations of occupation” that are gone through in the West Bank and Gaza also would never have existed had it not been for the oh-so-helpful Arab states. Egyptian president Gamal Nasser’s crazed mid-century quest for regional hegemony culminated in the lining up of troops on the Israeli border in 1967. Sensibly, Israel read the tea leaves and struck first. Israel’s famous six-day victory over Egypt and the other Arab states resulted in the annexing of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where attacks upon Israelis were taking place. If the Arabs had left well alone, the West Bank and Gaza would still be theirs today.
Ah, but it could have been theirs today, regardless! In the year 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat a stunning peace deal: 98% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a shared capital in Jerusalem, and tens of billions of dollars that would be granted to the Palestinians in return for nothing more than an official declaration of an end to the conflict. Arafat rejected it without putting forward a counteroffer. All parties involved, including Bill Clinton and Saudi insiders, blamed Arafat for the deal falling through. Less than a year later, Arafat was back to ordering suicide bombings again. Prime Minister Olmert offered similar concessions that Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate on at all. Yes, compromise has truly been “elusive to both sides,” hasn’t it?
But if the PLO is awful, then Hamas is pure evil. All sensible people really need to stop pretending that there’s any chance that Hamas will ever “come around” on the question of Israel’s right to exist. The Hamas charter is available for all to read: the official doctrine of Hamas is that the infamous Russian forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, outlines Israeli policy, that the Russian Revolution was a product of Zionism, that the Rotary Club is a Zionist entity, and that jihad modeled after the Prophet Muhammad’s conquests is the only way forward when dealing with Israel. Good luck negotiating a compromise deal with that sort of lunacy.
With this sort of rhetorical appeasement, historical re-write, and moral equivalency, it’s no wonder that Mahmoud Abbas — who has also (surprise!) openly stated that he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state — has a cabinet member who declared just the other day that America finally has a president who is “sympathetic to the Arab cause.” Israel may just do well to ignore America whenever possible over the next four years. We’re not on its side right now.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
June 4th, 2009 at 8:52 am
amen Alex – The Palestinian people are the problem, no matter the name of the organizations they choose. They are a culture of death where generations have been raised to hate the Jews. They celebrate the parents that raise teen suicide bombing children. Yes, no hope for Hamas, but also no hope for Fatah or any other group until they as a people are utterly defeated.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Didn’t see the speech but the commentary from “our side” seems to be overwhelmingly negative…
More Speech, In Brief
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/more_speech_in_brief.asp
“I think the two most significant things about that speech were these: first, the hour-long spectacle of pandering anodynity limning the whole “we are the world” catalogue was delivered from a platform in a police state whose own citizens are routinely imprisoned for saying less; and second, aside from that levelled, as Steve Hayes points out below, against this country, his greatest portion of criticism was reserved for the only nation in that otherwise benighted region that actually does believe in human rights and practices democracy, namely Israel. What a disgrace. He should save the apologies for his own shortcomings and get on with the governing, such as it is.”
June 4th, 2009 at 9:59 am
It is very troubling, Thanks for posting Alex.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Alex, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the long-term scenario for how Israel should deal with the West Bank and Gaza? how do you think the map, the demographics, the political system should look 20 years from now? and what policy choices do Israel and the US need to make now to get us there?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Alex, you and I don’t agree on a whole lot, but this is an amazing piece here. Thanks for writing it, and I’ll add a hearty amen.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I think we all know this was theater and showboating.
We should only be angered with Obama if we thought his words were more than just words.
America will still send billions in aid to Israel in return for nothing, Israel will still spy on America and steal our secrets to sell to the highest bidder. Israel may face some uncomfortable rhetoric from Obama but rhetoric isn’t going extend into policy as long as Evangelical Republicans along with Jewish Democrats remain so powerful in the Congress.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Israel will still spy on America and steal our secrets to sell to the highest bidder.
This is a rather bombastic assertion. Do you have any evidence that Israeli is spying on us and selling our secrets to the highest bidder?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Since I don’t believe your third paragraph, Doug, I wish I believed the first two.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
surprised he didnt close the speech by burning an israeli flag.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
In early 1996, the Office of Naval Investigations concluded that Israel had transferred sensitive military technology to China. In 2000, the Israeli government attempted to sell China the sophisticated Phalcon early warning aircraft, which was based on U.S.-licensed technology. A 2005 FBI report noted that the thefts eroded U.S. military advantage, enabling foreign powers to obtain hugely expensive technologies that had taken years to develop.
I can cite many cases of Israeli spying on us. I know for a fact that Israel spies on America more than any other ally.
Since the 1980′s Israelis have become rather aggressive in their espionage toward DOD employees.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am
If that’s the case, then I obviously have a major problem with it. But it’s either the Israelis or the Palestinians, here. And with regard to their conflict, it is unambiguously factual that the Israelis are not at all to blame. That’s the issue, here. And as far as where America should fall, it’s a case of civilization versus savagery. We, as civilized men, must fall down on the side of modernity.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:05 am
So what do you 78% of American Jews who voted for Obama say now?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
11 – OK, I get that you have a pretty strong set of principles on this – namely that Israel doesn’t bear culpability for the current bad situation, but was forced there due to violence and intransigence on the other side, and that the way Obama talks about the crisis is therefore undermining of Israel’s security. I also assume you disagree with Obama (and Bush) that there should eventually be a separate, independent Palestinian state. it’s well-stated and pretty clear.
my question is – and this is me hoping to understand the set of options and beliefs better – what would President Knepper do? what would you say to Israelis and Palestinians in a speech? what would be the set of policies that President Knepper would enact in order to bring about the outcomes that the US and Israel need in the long term?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Excellent article, Alex. I have lived long enough to know that what you wrote is true.
The Palestinians have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot over this issue. When given the chance to have a state of their own,their racial arrogance and stupidity would not let them do the right thing, say that Israel has the right to exist peacefully.
And it appears that our dear POTUS has believed all the lies that has been put forth about Israel being the reason for all the trouble. Obama through his actions and words is leading America to abandon her best ally in the region. May God have mercy upon his soul.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
13 – I’m not against the notion of an independent Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. But there won’t be one because none of the current Palestinian leaders want one.
What would President Knepper do? Well, he for one would say that, first of all, I am not dealing with Hamas. It’s a terrorist outfit that deserves no legitimacy — it needs to be ended, not negotiated with. Second, I’d declare that it is not an option for Abbas to accept Israel as a Jewish state — it is a demand. The Jews, too, have the right to self-determination. It is not Allah’s land — it is Israel’s land. You need to accept Israel. Third, I’d demand that Syria and Jordan start being more cooperative in how they deal with the Palestinian populations, and start accepting some refugees when they can. A lot of Palestinians would like to live there, as that is where their roots are. Fourth, I’d insist that, if the PA wants any legitimacy, it needs to start sowing the seeds of liberty. Free speech, free press, women’s rights, gay rights, Jewish rights, cleansing the schools of anti-Semitism, etc — these cannot be things that we COMPROMISE on. These are MUSTS. And they are musts even moreso because they are essential to having a Palestinian state that respects Israel’s sovereignty.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
“So what do you 78% of American Jews who voted for Obama say now?”
Nothing, I am sure.
They wouldn’t have voted for Obama in the first place if the survival of the State of Israel was high on their priority list.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
from twitter:
can someone find the youtube of the “Heavy silence” and post it on every blog on the planet?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
While Obama remains myopically fixated on the Roadmap’s call for freezing settlement activity, he conveniently glosses over the Palestinians’ failure to fulfill their initial obligations in the very first phase of the Roadmap, which require the complete disarming and dismantling of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations (Islamic Jihad, Popular Front, Democratic Front, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades).
June 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Wow, glad there’s no President Knepper. So you’d make a lot of un-enforcible demands, piss off everyone in the region but Israel, and so nothing would happen to solve the problem, and the sides would be even more radicalized and divided?
Regardless of how and who started things, you have to deal with the realities on the ground. Bluster gets you nothing.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Rasmussen Reports: 74% Say Peace between Israel and Palestinians Not Likely in Next 10 Years
June 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Gallup: Americans Remain Skeptical About Middle East Peace
Just 32% think Israel and Arabs will ever live in peace
June 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Support for an Independent Palestinian State by Party ID
June 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
American Ideals, the first two points Alex made (1. No Hamas, and 2. accept Israel’s right to exist) shouldn’t be considered negotiating points, but rightly demands. The other two (3. Syria and Jordan accept some of the refugees, and 4. implement some basic rights for the people), while certainly important and the right thing to do (for us and them), shouldn’t be demands. None of what he’s calling for is what I’d consider very inappropriate. What’s your objection?
June 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
What do those who oppose favor instead? Perhaps the 43% Republicans opposed should talk to Brent Scrowcroft and Colin Powell.
Another take on the speech: An American president went to the heart of the Arab world, told them the US-Israel bond is unbreakable, that calls to destroy Israel have to stop, that America is in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the extremism of 9/11 left us no other choice, that we will relentlessly confront extremists who threaten us. And got a standing ovation. Communication goes a long way.
Will it win over radicals hellbent on violence? No. But if you think we shouldn’t be making an effort to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims to try to isolate radicals, puncture a hole in their influence, and maybe even capitalize on warmer relations to lay the groundwork for a better human intelligence network to protect ourselves… what else you got?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Rock solid agreement with you #24
June 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Very enjoyable read Alex
June 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
a very interesting discussion here. i don’t disagree with much of what “President Knepper” would have said but then i think Obama wouldn’t either – he made a lot of the same statements today: Palestinians and the Arab states *must* recognize Israel, Palestinians *must* renounce violence and violent rhetoric. he didn’t say “this is an option we’d like to see,” just as you said you wouldn’t.
i do think there’s a difference, though, between the things you would *say* and the things you would *do*. “demanding” and “insisting” are statements, not policy – in what way do they get you closer to the goals? what do you do if they don’t?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You seem to be very passionate about this issue Alex. Have to say I thought it was a fine speech.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Personally, I think Israel would be a lot less hated if they weren’t perceived as America’s lapdog, and American would be less hated if we weren’t perceived as Israel’s nanny-protector. I think the hand-in-glove relationship does damage to both of us and hurts our credibility. But suggesting our foreign policy deviate an inch from Likud’s and your an anti-Semite.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
All the anti-Semites say this: “But suggesting our foreign policy deviate an inch from Likud’s and your an anti-Semite.”
It’s never “The Jews.” It’s “Likud” or “the Zionists.”
June 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
U.S. Reduces Aid to Jordan, Egypt
http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/03/05/us_reduces_aid_to_jordan_egypt/1914/
$50$60 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypthttp://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html
In Egypt, Souring Attitudes Toward United States
Egyptians’ negative attitudes toward the United States persist despite the levels of foreign assistance funding Egypt received from American agencies, including more than $1.3 billion in military aid annually and more than $5 billion in development aid between 2000 and 2008.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113422/Egypt-Souring-Attitudes-Toward-United-States.aspx?version=print
Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?
http://www.meforum.org/1926/does-foreign-aid-fuel-palestinian-violence
U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf
June 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Wilders big winner of Dutch EU elections
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2261576.ece/Wilders_big_winner_of_Dutch_EU_elections
Nationalists Gain Ground in Dutch Vote
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124415574886086871.html
Dutch far right gains in EU vote: exit polls
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5526H020090604?sp=true
June 5th, 2009 at 10:56 am
[...] observations by Alex Knepper: It has become the president’s trademark, perhaps, to engage himself inside the comforting realm [...]