An Open Letter to President Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President:
I'm sure you learned a lot of things while sitting in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church. Anti-Israelism seems to have been foremost among them.
During your electoral campaign, you offered to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who refers to the Holocaust as a "myth" and has sworn to annihilate every Jewish man, woman, and child living in the Holy Land (or, as he euphemistically puts it, to "wipe the Zionist regime off the map.")
Shortly after you became President, you lashed out at Binyamin Netanyhau for the "crime" of building homes in the capital of Israel.
And this past Thursday, you called for an end to the Zionist "occupation" of Judea and Samaria, repeating the rhetoric of Israel's most vehement enemies. You endorsed the establishment of a HAMAS-Fatah state on the 1949 armistice lines - also known as the 1967 Auschwitz borders. That phrase was coined not by an arch-Zionist right-winger, but by the leftist Knesset member Abba Egan. Even he understood the indefensibility of these borders, which you do not. If your proposal for "peace" came to fruition this September, a tourist landing at Ben-Gurion Airport for the Rosh HaShanah holiday would be nine miles away from enemy fire and Palestinian rockets. Nine miles away from the valley of death.
 |
| "God damn America!" |
Mr. President, you fancy yourself a man of great wisdom, a man who associates with such scholarly minds as Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. But no matter your great intelligence, it seems that you are desperately in need of a refresher course in history.
The Jewish people have endured unspeakable suffering at the hands of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Spanish, the Crusaders, the Russians, the Germans, and - yes - the Arabs.
In 1929 - when there were no "occupied territories" or "illegal settlements" - the Arabs of Hebron managed to massacre sixty-seven Jews in a single day. Surely, this cold-blooded murder had nothing to do with the 1967 borders of which you spoke on Thursday.
The Hebron Massacre was provoked by an idea - Zionism - the idea of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel. And that idea alone was enough to provoke the massacre of 67 Jews already living in that land.
Last Sunday, when hundreds of Arabs invaded the State of Israel on their annual Nakba day, they weren't protesting the "occupied territories" or "illegal settlements." They were complaining about the very existence of the Jewish State, a state that they opposed in 1929, a state that they invaded in 1948, and a state that the President of Iran has sworn to obliterate from the face of the earth.
Not the "West Bank," not East Jerusalem, but all of Israel - "from the river to the sea," from the Jordan on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.
But, of course, you are a well-intentioned man. You care about the oppressed Palestinians and long for them to have self-determination. You may not know this, Mr. President, but there are already twenty-two Arab states in the world today. And only one Jewish state. Only ONE.
Many of these Arab regimes are crumbling before your eyes, but the Jewish State is a stable democracy. Do you wish to inject the instability and terror of the Arab world into the one democracy of the Middle East?
***
Let me tell you about the history of modern Israel.
In 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Arabs didn't like this idea, so they turned down the offer, invaded the State of Israel as soon as it was established, and launched a war that killed 6000 Jews.
This invasion took place long before the "occupied territories" of 1967, and long before there were any "settlements" in those territories.
After the war, Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank," as you like to call it), while Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip.
In 1964, a man by the name of Yassir Arafat founded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Mr. President, do you know what Arafat was trying to "liberate" in 1964?
In 1967, the Arabs again invaded Israel with the intention of destroying it, and again they lost. As a result of this war, the Jewish State came into control of certain land that had previously been controlled by Arab countries - among them was Jordan's West Bank, Egypt's Gaza, and Syria's Golan Heights. These are what you call the "occupied territories."
As you know, the United States came into possession of many of its current territories as a result of war. Not only that, but the Cherokee Indians were once expelled from Georgia. (Yes, Georgia - the home state of Jimmy Carter.) Do that mean that all this land should be returned to the Indians? Should the United States go back to its 1492 borders?
Of course not. No sane person would ever dream of returning any land in the United States to the Indians, or to Mexico, or to any other people. But in 2005, Israel - a country the size of New Jersey, mind you - did take the path of appeasement in an attempt at peace.
In 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expelled nearly 10,000 Jews from Gaza and gave it over to the Arabs. By 2006, HAMAS has taken over.
And you, Mr. President, have the chutzpah to urge more territorial concessions, more appeasement, more capitulation, and more Neville Chamberlainism. You have the chutzpah to tell Israel that it should go back to the Auschwitz borders of 1967, where it once was BEFORE it was attacked by four Arab armies screaming "Itbach al Yehud!"
And this, you say, will lead to peace. There was no peace in 1929, when the Arabs of Hebron massacred sixty-seven Jews in a single day. There was no peace when the Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, or in 1967, or in 1973. There was no peace when Yassir Arafat was offered 97% of the land he wanted and he turned all it down, preferring to launch an intifada against the Jewish State. There was no peace when 10,000 "settlers" were expelled from Gush Katif, and HAMAS terrorists took over their homes a year later and started launching rockets and mortar shells all over the place.
But, now, if only Israel were to go back to the Auschwitz borders and allow for the establishment of a HAMAS-Fatah state, there would be peace. It is the two-state solution, the way to solve all the world's problems, the means of establishing 'peace in our times.' If only there were to be a HAMAS-Fatah state on the 1949 armistice lines, there would be no more suicide bombings, no more beheadings, no more hijackings, and no more terrorism anywhere in the world. Just like there was no 1929 Hebron Massacre, just like there was no alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler, just like there were no Arab riots in the 1930s, and just like there was no invasion of the Jewish State in 1948 - well before the "occupied territories" of the Six-Day War.
Mr. President, whenever I hear the idiotic phrase "two-state solution," I am reminded of another interesting "solution" - the Final Solution to the Jewish question.
Indeed, this is what the Arabs of Eretz Yisroel want. As the HAMAS Charter states, "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
Now is the time for you to decide, Mr. President, whether you will stand with the Jews of Israel or the genocidal murderers of HAMAS. There is no in-between, and there can be no two-state solution. Not a day goes by that the terrorists of Gaza do not pray for the elimination of the Jewish State. Giving these savages a sovereign nation would be the first step to a second Holocaust. If you succeed in turning a murderous enclave into a murderous country, you will go down in history as the worst president ever.
Please understand that the Middle East conflict is not about land: The Arabs have 22 countries, and the Jews have but one. The conflict is about ideology. On the one hand, you have the most persecuted people in human history who simply wish to live on the land of their forefathers. On the other hand, you have bloodthirsty barbarians who cannot accept the presence of a non-Muslim state on land that was formerly Muslim. With whom will you side, Mr. President, those who value life or those who pray for death? The choice is yours, but I fear that its consequences will be grave.
UPDATE:
Some have suggested that Obama's pro-Palestinian speech was a way of apologizing to the Arab world for the assassination of Osama bin Laden - an assassination for which the President was widely condemned.
Indeed, Obama has previously bashed the Jewish State in order to ingratiate himself with the citizens of Egypt and, by extension, the Muslim world. As such, I would not be surprised if this were one of the hidden purposes behind Thursday's address.
Obama bows to the Saudi king, he apologizes to terrorists, he tells Jews that they cannot build homes in Eretz Yisroel, and now he has the chutzpah to call for the establishment of a HAMAS-Fatah state on the 1949 armistice lines - fulfilling the Talmudic prophecy that he who is merciful unto the cruel will one day be cruel unto the merciful.
One can only hope that the President will learn to distinguish between our allies and our enemies before it is too late. There is a great deal of difference between the vibrant democracy of Israel and the misogynist tyranny of Saudi Arabia. Obama would never think to oppose the face veil that Saudi women are forced to wear, but he has no moral compunctions about condemning the building of Jewish homes in Israel. What is the reason for his hypocrisy?
We know that fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were of Saudi origin. We know that Saudi Arabia decapitates homosexuals and prohibits women from driving. It is diametrically opposed to the "progressive" and "tolerant" ideas of the liberal left. So why on earth would Obama bow to the Saudi monarch?
Was it a way of appeasing the Muslim world? Was it a way of showing American subservience to a country that engages in the most brutal practices of shariah law?
Israel, on the other hand, is tolerant of both gays and women. Israel is not a monarchy; it is a democracy that gives a voice in government to both Arabs and Jews.
If evangelical Christians had decapitated gays or stoned women, the left would be outraged beyond belief. But when a Muslim country does just that and an American president bows to its monarch, the left is silent.
When some Americans opposed the construction of a mega-mosque near Ground Zero, the left was outraged by this manifestation of "bigotry" and "intolerance." But when the President of the United States told Jews that they were not allowed to build homes in their own country, the left sided with him and condemned Israel as an apartheid state.
Now, when Binyamin Netanyhau gave Obama a lesson in reality, the left reproached him for being disrespectful. Ha!
In the late 1960s, anti-war protestors went around singing: 'Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?' Today, these leftists and their descendants reproach Netanyhau for simply stating the truth.
Let's compare. On the one hand, you have the Prime Minister of Israel saying that his country will not go back to the indefensible borders of 1967. On the other hand, you have a bunch of drugged hooligans accusing the President of being a cold-blooded murderer. Where was the outrage over "disrespect" then?
Oy gevalt, my friends, double standards are a terrible thing.
Some have suggested that Obama's pro-Palestinian speech was a way of apologizing to the Arab world for the assassination of Osama bin Laden - an assassination for which the President was widely condemned.
Indeed, Obama has previously bashed the Jewish State in order to ingratiate himself with the citizens of Egypt and, by extension, the Muslim world. As such, I would not be surprised if this were one of the hidden purposes behind Thursday's address.
Obama bows to the Saudi king, he apologizes to terrorists, he tells Jews that they cannot build homes in Eretz Yisroel, and now he has the chutzpah to call for the establishment of a HAMAS-Fatah state on the 1949 armistice lines - fulfilling the Talmudic prophecy that he who is merciful unto the cruel will one day be cruel unto the merciful.
One can only hope that the President will learn to distinguish between our allies and our enemies before it is too late. There is a great deal of difference between the vibrant democracy of Israel and the misogynist tyranny of Saudi Arabia. Obama would never think to oppose the face veil that Saudi women are forced to wear, but he has no moral compunctions about condemning the building of Jewish homes in Israel. What is the reason for his hypocrisy?
We know that fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were of Saudi origin. We know that Saudi Arabia decapitates homosexuals and prohibits women from driving. It is diametrically opposed to the "progressive" and "tolerant" ideas of the liberal left. So why on earth would Obama bow to the Saudi monarch?
Was it a way of appeasing the Muslim world? Was it a way of showing American subservience to a country that engages in the most brutal practices of shariah law?
Israel, on the other hand, is tolerant of both gays and women. Israel is not a monarchy; it is a democracy that gives a voice in government to both Arabs and Jews.
If evangelical Christians had decapitated gays or stoned women, the left would be outraged beyond belief. But when a Muslim country does just that and an American president bows to its monarch, the left is silent.
When some Americans opposed the construction of a mega-mosque near Ground Zero, the left was outraged by this manifestation of "bigotry" and "intolerance." But when the President of the United States told Jews that they were not allowed to build homes in their own country, the left sided with him and condemned Israel as an apartheid state.
Now, when Binyamin Netanyhau gave Obama a lesson in reality, the left reproached him for being disrespectful. Ha!
In the late 1960s, anti-war protestors went around singing: 'Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?' Today, these leftists and their descendants reproach Netanyhau for simply stating the truth.
Let's compare. On the one hand, you have the Prime Minister of Israel saying that his country will not go back to the indefensible borders of 1967. On the other hand, you have a bunch of drugged hooligans accusing the President of being a cold-blooded murderer. Where was the outrage over "disrespect" then?
Oy gevalt, my friends, double standards are a terrible thing.
UPDATE II (6/3/11 at 5:14 PM)
I just wanted to link to this wonderful article by Louis Rene Beres published in FrontPageMag, which reiterates many of my statements about the Israel-Arab conflict.
