Today’s headlines in Israel might teach us something about US President Barack Obama. The lesson comes from two headlines, both from this morning’s news.
The first headline involves US President Barack Obama. It appeared on Arutz Sheva at 0213 hours, Friday, May 15, 2015 (Eldad Benari, “Obama: 'Two-State Solution' Best for Israel's Security”).
In this story, President Obama continues to push Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the "two-state solution". Obama pushes because, he says, a ’two-state solution’ is vital to Israel’s security (ibid). Therefore, he expects Netanyahu to “work towards the ‘two-state solution’” (ibid).
On the surface, there appears nothing much wrong with what Obama has said. His words are not entirely inappropriate for a powerful world leader supposedly interested in peace between two parties caught in conflict.
But two hours after this story appeared, Arutz Sheva published a second story, this one about the Arab ‘Nakba’ Day, which commemorates the Arab ‘Catastrophe’ of having failed to destroy Israel in 1948 (Dalit Halevi, “PA Parliament: Jews Have No Right to Even 'One Inch' of Israel, Arutz Sheva, May 15, 2015, 0412 hours). This news story raised serious questions about Obama’s beliefs about Israel. This second headline suggests that, perhaps, Obama may have no real interest in ‘peace’ for Israel.
It seems that, for this year’s Nakba Day, the Palestinian Authority (PA) Parliament held a special session in Gaza (ibid). At that meeting, the Parliament declared that “the entire ‘land of Palestine’ is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it” (ibid).
This isn‘t just a rejection of ‘peace with Israel’. It’s the complete rejection of Israel.
How is Israel supposed to make ‘peace’ with those who claim that all of Israel is theirs? How does Israel get ‘peace and security’ by placing such people next door to it? Do you want such a neighbour next to you?
In case you don’t know, the ‘land of Palestine’ for ‘Palestinians’ is today’s Israel. ‘Palestinians’ are very clear about that. They produce maps of ‘Palestine’ that are maps of Israel, with ‘Palestine’ replacing ‘Israel’. The Fatah Party logo has an artist’s rendering of Israel-is-‘Palestine’. PA schoolbooks teach children that Israel-is-‘Palestine’ (David Bedein, Roadblock to Peace: How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict—UNRWA Policies Reconsidered, Israel Resource News Agency, Jerusalem, 2014, pp 54-68).
What the PA Parliament has just announced is a reiteration of what every PA resident has been told countless times: Israel has no right to one inch of its own land. That land, the current land of Israel, is Islamic. Israel itself is not a sovereign state. The land belongs only—and exclusively--to Arabs.
Such language creates a problem. Arab leaders have drilled these words into their people for 67 years. After such drilling, how is an Arab leader going to sign a peace treaty with an entity Arabs have repeatedly proclaimed doesn’t exist and has no right to exist? Answer: he can’t. He won’t.
US President Obama has never spoken in public about these anti-Israel claims. Why has he been silent?
The PA Parliament also declared from Gaza that the ‘right of return’ is “a sacred collective and private right that cannot be given up” (ibid). That ‘right’ means that, for any ‘peace’ agreement, Israel must open its doors to more than 5 million Arabs, many of whom have been living in squalid and humiliating ‘camps’ run by the United Nations on behalf of the Arab League. Through the UN, these refugees have been educated for 3 generations to hate Israel. There is no way Israel, with 6.1 million Jews and app 2.1 million Arabs, is going to allow 5 million more Arabs into Israel who hate Israel and don’t speak Hebrew. Yet, the PA Parliament declares that, without that ‘return’, there’ll be no peace!
That’s the main obstacle to peace, not Israel. But Obama never questions the PA about it. He never confronts the PA over these statements. Since a person doesn’t question what he agrees with, does that mean Obama agrees with the PA?
Think about Obama’s silence in the face of such statements. Consider how he pressures and threatens only Israel—which simply wants to stay alive. That silence and those threats are consistent--if you posit that Obama agrees that Israel shouldn’t exist.
Think again: If Obama agrees that Israel must be pushed off the cliff so as to satisfy Arab demands, his hostility to Israel and acceptance of PA hate will be perfectly aligned. His core value won't be peace. It'll be that Israel must be destroyed. Why else would we see that silence and those threats?
Sometimes, our headlines teach a lesson. Unfortunately, these two headlines suggest an ugly truth: today’s US President, using silence and threats, endorses the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.