Imposed Solution
Is Obama preparing to sacrifice Israel? Is he planning to impose a "solution"? According to Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times:
"Evidence is mounting that President Obama will unveil a new Middle East peace plan in the coming months. While a desire for peace is indeed admirable, such a move should be welcomed only by the enemies of America. Not only would such an attempt inevitably fail, but it would directly harm U.S. security by shifting our national focus away from very real - and far more dangerous - threats in the region. Nearly two weeks ago, the New York Times and The Washington Post reported on the same day about a high-level meeting two weeks beforehand in which National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones had lobbied Mr. Obama to craft an American peace plan. Last Monday, J-Street, a left-wing Jewish group with close ties to the White House, ran a full-page ad in the New York Times urging Mr. Obama to impose "concrete plans for a two-state solution." Mr. Obama himself further signaled something was in the works by stating at the close of a news conference last Tuesday that resolving the Middle East conflict was "a vital national security interest of the United States." Likely at the prodding of White House officials, the New York Times ran a front-page story two days later suggesting that an Obama peace plan could be drafted over the next few months and introduced this fall." -more
Labels: America, Bible, J Street, Middle East, Obama
25 Comments:
There is a two state solution !
The British imposed it as soon as they got the Mandate for Palistine. They gave the Muslim Palistinians ALL the land EAST of the River Jordan(well over 70% of Palistine) where JEWS were forbidden to settle. The other (less than 30%) were open to the Jews AND Muslims. Now president O-Bamba wants to make a third Muslim state and it to will be forbidden for JEWS to live in. Then, I suppose, the Muslims in Israel will want another two state solution,,, etc,,,etc,,,etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
#1, Your counting is off. There are already 3 states: Jordan, Hamasistan, and Israel. (I won't even go into the area ruled by the PA.) Jews can only visit or live in one of those countries.
America’s special relationship with Israel should ensure your fears are not realized.
America's commitment to the future of the Jewish people extends over 90 years and began when President Woodrow Wilson declared on 3 March 1919 :
“I am persuaded that the Allied Nations, with the fullest consent of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth”
The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine subsequently became accepted at the San Remo Conference on 25 April 1920, was confirmed by Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres on 10 August 1920 and adopted by the unanimous approval of the League of Nations in the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922.
America was not a member of the League of Nations but on 30 June 1922 a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the Mandate.
On September 21, 1922 President Harding signed the joint declaration of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Two days later a Memorandum was presented to the League of Nations by the British Government denying the Jews the right to establish their national home in 77% of Mandatory Palestine - today called Jordan.
This left the remaining 23% of Palestine west of the Jordan River - today called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza - as the only remaining location available for fulfilling the Mandate’s Jewish National Home objective
The Mandate was clear in stating that:
1. The Jewish National Home was to be established in Palestine whilst safeguarding the civil and religious - (but not any political) - rights of “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” irrespective of race and religion.
2. Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes was to be encouraged.
The demise of the League of Nations in 1945 did not mean an end to these rights vested in the Jewish people. They were preserved by the introduction of Article 80 - known as “the Palestine Clause” - in the United Nations Charter. America took a leading role in the drafting and inclusion of Article 80.
(to be continued)
(continuation)
At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed a new State of Israel. 11 minutes later the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31, 1949).
On 15 May 1948 six Arab armies invaded Palestine.
At the conclusion of hostilities Egypt had occupied Gaza and Jordan had occupied the West Bank. Both continued to do so until Israel assumed control of both areas on 10 June 1967 following the conclusion of the Six Day War.
America led the drafting of Security Council Resolution 242 - passed on 22 November 1967 - which did not require Israel to return to the armistice lines existing since 1949 - but only to secure and recognized boundaries.
The conditional acceptance by Israel of President Bush’s Roadmap issued on 30 April 2003 led to Israel proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - but only after it had received the following written assurances from President Bush on 14 April 2004 :
* The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.
* The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.
* The United States understood that after Israel withdrew from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza would continue.
* The United States was strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.
* It seemed clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
* As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion. It was realistic to expect that any final status agreement would only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:
“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President's letter.”
(to be continued)
(continuation)
President Bush’s letter of commitment to Israel was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.
At the Annapolis Conference convened on 27 November 2007, Israel made its future negotiating stance clear when Israel’s then Prime Minister - Ehud Olmert - said in the presence of President Bush:
“ The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”
For President Obama to now
unilaterally seek to impose a settlement contrary to these American commitments extending over 90 years would be a complete abnegation of America’s credibility in the international arena. America would be exposed as a nation whose commitments are not worth the paper they are written on. America’s proud record of standing by and honouring the commitments it makes would be shattered forever.
liked both the cartoon and david singers excursion in history.
David Singer's concise history is wonderful. I'll send it off to lots of people who need to read it. But his last paragraph is a little off:
"America would be exposed as a nation whose commitments are not worth the paper they are written on." America has shown in a number of cases that her commitments & honor don't mean much. For one thing, look at the results of the plea agreement made between the American government and Jonathan Pollard.
Europe - not Hussein Obama - will impose their "solution" on the Middle East.
As Hitler clearly outlined his plans in Mein Kampf (and furiously put them into practice his first opportunity), so the United Nations passed an ominous resolution in 1947 concerning the fate of Jerusalem: UN Resolution 181 demands the Holy City submit to the status of an "international city." That's a glorified term for ENEMY OCCUPATION!
The final revival of the unholy Roman Empire is being forged in Europe today and it will wage a New Crusade under the guise of peace. Europe's New Crusade will dispatch wolves in sheep's clothing - "peacekeepers" - that will brutally betray both Arabs and Jews for their German-Jesuit masters (whose evil eye has been on Jerusalem throughout history).
Warning Jews
Pope's Evil Eye on Jerusalem!
UN Resolution 181: Blueprint of the Beast?
Shalom.
This particular strip does more to insult the account of Abraham and Isaac as recorded in the book of Genesis in the Torah.
Abraham was obeying God and this account was a demonstration of his faith. Many question which, if any, "god" that Obama follows.
Abraham was Isaac's father. Obama, which I guess refers to USA, is not the father of Israel.
In the Torah account, it is clear that Abraham expected God to restore Isaac after the sacrifice. Abraham was confident that both of them would go up on the mountain and both of them would return.
Instead, what I think you are trying to represent is how the USA, particularly Obama, is sacrificing Israel. The key is why? Clearly one of the reasons is pragmatics - sacrifice Israel in the hopes of gaining some benefit with the Arabs. In this case, the better examples from the Tanakh would be the sacrifices to Baal and other pagan gods of the sons of Ishmael. The Book of Judges records how the people would kill their own children on the alters of the pagan gods to obtain economic gain and how God Almighty hated this and would pour His judgment on them until they repented and turned back to Him.
May the USA and especially Obama learn from Scriptures these lessons, repent and turn back to God and love His chosen people again.
That could be done even in today's situaition. But I oppose that kinda idea.
We have been appalled and our spirits sickened by this administrations treatment of Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. We pray HaShem defangs this administration. Obama is a Muslim at heart, I don't care what anyone says. I believe he would love to see Israel thrown to the wolves. But he won't succeed. Turning America's collective back on Israel is only going to destroy America..not Israel...
Pragmatically tossing Israel under the bus, as with many supporters is entirely possible. I have hope that G*d will provide a spotless ram for sacrifice on that mountain top, though as I recall, Obama will have to move a mosque to properly use that mountaintop for a sacrifice, nu?
Dears:
Anyone who trusts BO not to sacrifice Israel to get what he wants is sadly naive. This man who allows no real criticism, no honest debate and laughs at his own citizens who question him has some real character flaws. He bows to militant Muslims and snubs friends. He is admired by leaders such as Chavez who embrace Iran..need I say more?
Imposed solution? No way!
Michaelbeefree: Ironically, that would have solved the whole thing back in 1922. If the Palestine Mandate was the entire area we are discussing and 77% was removed to form Transjordan, then we had the Arab Palestinian state then. Therefore, the other 23% should have been the Jewish Palestinian state. Unfortunately, we probably will not be able to go back.
David Singer: There may still be a chance that this government will recognize the long tradition regarding America's special relationship with Israel. Unfortunately, I don't trust that Obama will do the right thing here and that's why we're concerned.
Anonymous (10:54 AM): Sad to say, you may be right with respect to Obama's dismantling of our standing in the world. He is reversing long-standing policies, and I hope we don't pay the price for that eventually.
M. Russell: Of course, the cartoon doesn't say that the USA is the "father" of Israel, but it does convey the idea of "sacrifice" that Obama is trying to force upon Israel.
I think it is evident that this kind of imposed solution is a non-starter, no matter what Obama and the rest of the world say. They can propose that Israel withdraw to the 1967 lines, but in practical terms it would be a logistical nightmare. Eventually, the Palestinians will have to realize that they have something to give up too (namely a reasonable percentage of the West Bank and Jerusalem as a "shared capital"). Sadly, I don't think we're going to see peace anytime soon.
A brilliant analogy. Abraham, at that point, did not expect an Angel to intervene. The question is-- who is the new angel??
It looks like Netanyahu (and the rest of the Likud) from here in Florida.
How can a "son" over 3,000 years old have been fathered by a 48 year old?
everyone's focused on Obama, when the real traitor is Rahm Emanuel and family and are the real muscle behind any move that the White House makes.
if no other solution maybe i can say go obama.
Where is GABRIEL when is NEDDED!!!!????
Hopefully Dry Bones and some of the contributors to this page who have worried about President Obama's reported intention to impose a settlement may have now have had their concerns put to rest.
See the following article:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=173646
Gee Dry Bones - Maybe President Obama actually reads your cartoons!
Keep up the good work. You can't beat cartoons for getting the message across.
"Not only would such an attempt inevitably fail, but it would directly harm U.S. security by shifting our national focus away from very real - and far more dangerous - threats in the region. "
I don't think this is true at all. Why would it inevitably fail? And why would it harm US security?o
Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants
http://www.breitbart.tv/obamas-national-security-advisor-tells-joke-depicting-jews-as-greedy-merchants
I thought the joke had a great moral - that Jews do have opinions that should be seriously considered before denigrating and hurling abuse at them for the message that is being delivered. Ignoring the message can come back to haunt you.
Hopefully Obama understands this moral when his National Security Advisor tells him the joke.
Obama hates Jews.
He is a modern day Hitler. And he might indeed help to destroy Israel.
He and the Jews that have supported him.
Thanks for your post and welcome to check: here
.
Post a Comment
Back to Current Posts