The Palestine Peace Distraction

Why is Obama so intent on demanding what Israel needs to do to make peace with the Palestinians? The suicide bombers who are going into Israel to kill Jewish people come from the radical terrorists groups of the Palestinians. Yet, Obama wants the Israeli's to make all the concessions? Obama has zero right to tell the Israeli's where they can and cannot build. Israel is not a protectorate of the United States but an independent country.

How can Obama possibly think he can demand peace between Israel and the Palestinians and it is going to happen? It is naive to think a peace settlement dictated by Obama would last. We also have yet to figure out why Obama thinks a settlement to the Israel and Palestine impasse would have a broad reaching affect in the Middle East so all the Middle Eastern countries would have no more problems.

Richard Haas, who is an expert on the Middle East, has a timely editorial this morning in the Wall Street Journal that looks into how a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine might not bring the peace dividend to the Middle East that Obama touts.

APRIL 26, 2010
The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.
Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Excerpt: Read More at Wall Street Journal

Members of Obama's own party are beginning to question openly his attacks on Israel in speeches. The liberal Senator from New York, Chuck Shumer, didn't mince words in going after Obama yesterday on his verbal attacks on Israel.

Sen. Chuck Schumer takes new shot at President Obama's tactics on Israel
BY Simone Weichselbaum
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, April 26th 2010, 4:00 AM

Sen. Chuck Schumer threw another punch Sunday in his verbal bout with the White House over Israeli expansion into Palestinian East Jerusalem.
The staunch supporter of Israel says President Obama shouldn't have scolded Israel for approving 1,600 new Jewish housing units in the Arab half of the divided city.

"What we disagree on is tactics," said Schumer about President Obama.

"When the United States sets out conditions on Israel, the Palestinians then say we don't want to come to the table, [thinking] the United States is doing our negotiation for us."

The building project has stalled "indirect" talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians led by U.S. special envoy George Mitchell.

Palestinian officials have said they would join the negotiations only if Israel halts all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Schumer first voiced his anger at the Obama administration for siding with the Palestinians during a radio show on Jewish affairs on Thursday.

"You have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do," Schumer told host Nachum Segal.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs shot back a statement at the senator the next day.

"We don't agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks," Gibbs said.

Read more: New York Daily News

Is the real answer that Obama deep down wants Israel destroyed in favor of the Muslim countries that surround the State of Israel? That is the way it is beginning to look. Recently Obama had Prime Minister Netanyayu come to the White House for a short time and then Obama leaves to go to the family quarters. No honors to the head of a foreign state, no pictures, nothing except being scolded by Obama. Yet, Obama bows to the King of Saudi Arabia. What does that say about Obama? Think everyone by now has pretty much put 2+2 together after witnessing Obama's words and actions against Israel versus his actions and words for the Arab world have come to the conclusion that Obama is NO friend of Israel.

Over 400 members of Congress (78 Senators and 333 House Members) signed a letter to Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, protesting the words and actions against Israel by the Obama Administration.

It doesn't seem to matter to Obama what members of Congress think as he carries on his mission which looks to be to destroy Israel and be hailed by his Middle Eastern 'brothers' throughout the Arab world. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks destroying Israel is going to bring peace to that region. There was no peace before Israel was established in 1947.

If this is an example of Hope and Change touted by Obama, then it seems to be Obama is siding with the Arab countries against Israel which is a reversal of long time ties the United States has had with Israel since 1947 when State of Israel was founded. The vast majority of American people stand with one of our closest allies Israel against any and all attempts by Obama to destroy Israel as a strong country including Obama not selling more military weapons systems to Israel to protect themselves.