It’s more like Obama is deeply concerned about realizing his own vision for Israel’s future.

Imagine the historical legacy Obama would create for himself, if he was instrumental in realizing  the “holy grail”  2 state Israel-Palestinian peace solution that has eluded his predecessors and all  world leaders.  Don’t think that thought has not crossed Obama’s mind.

Obama  states his vision as being a 2 state peace agreement whereby an independent sovereign Palestinian state would be created from territory Israel now occupies and both states would thereafter exist side by side in peace and security. 

Nice, but platitudinous.  

Exactly what then  does Obama’s  vision really mean?   For that, one must look to Obama’s words, deeds and policies in his zealous efforts to make his vision a reality.

First however, it is instructive to consider a bit of history.

UNSCR 242, November 1967,  called for Israel to withdraw from territories, not necessarily all, but only as part of an overall peace agreement with all her Arab enemies and which yielded Israel secure and recognized borders.  No word about Palestinians.

Pres. Bush in  2003, declared America’s support for a peaceful end to the Israel-Palestinian  conflict and called for an independent Palestinian state. 

Next came  the Quartet’s 2003 Road Map to Peace solution, that paid lip service to UNSCR 242 by foreseeing a peace agreement not only with Palestinians and the emergence of an independent Palestinian state, but with all of Israel’s neighbors and Israel having secure and recognized borders.

It was a phased performance based approach towards the end peace goal.  See:  Israel’s take on the  Road Map, A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/A+Performance-Based+Roadmap+to+a+Permanent+Two-Sta.htm

The two primary criteria of the Road Map concept were: (1)  Both sides must have a sincere desire to compromise for the sake of peace and (2) only successful performance of any interim agreements would enable the parties to advance to the next phase of the process.   Failure in either of these respects would impede the peace process and those impediments had to be addressed and rectified before the parties could move forward. 

Obama’s vision for a 2 state solution, endorsed by the free world, is a significant departure from the Road Map solution.

Gone is the Road Map’s requirement of mutual sincerity to compromise, performance based phased advances towards the end goal and that end goal that Obama has leapfrogged to, does not see Israel making peace with all her enemy neighbors.

With that, let’s take a peek at Obama’s specific words, policies and deeds in his pursuit of his vision for a 2 state peace solution to better understand what Obama’s vision really means.    

Obama has ignored Palestinian intransigent demands that reveal their unwillingness to compromise, their intractable  Jew/Israel hatred fomented by the very leaders Obama and the world expect Israel to deal with, the Hamas factor, Abbas’s inability to deliver on virtually any agreement, interim or final,  ignoring his own cautionary advice that negotiations must be directly between the parties and that no one should pre-judge the outcome of a peace deal, which is belied by his practically advocating that East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians and the list goes on and on and on. 

Add to that, Obama has led the world in singularly damning Israel for changing facts on the ground by his declaring all post 1967 settlements illegitimate, by his treating Netanyahu last March, like a pariah over announced plans for Israel to build a few houses in Jerusalem, ignoring the intense Palestinian building efforts in Judea and Samaria,  blaming only Israel for the peace process stalling,  damning Israel for not making concessions big and fast enough to suit his agenda, damning Israel for being the root cause of terrorism, Middle East turmoil and anti-American sentiment and that list too, goes on and on and on.

And what about Obama’s concern for Israel’s growing isolation in the world?

Obama is just too astute not to have noticed that Israel has been sorely feeling and sometimes reeling from the weight of growing world isolation.  It has resulted in  Israel’s own vision for her future fogging up and it has forced her to retreat  bit by bit, ever closer to realizing Obama’s vision for her future. 

Those who can still believe what their own eyes tell them, have reason to worry that Obama’s concern over Israel’s increasing isolation in the world, is only with the extent that it serves his purposes. 

Added to the factors hereinbefore referred to, is the most recent evidence that suggests that Obama is not only capitalizing on that growing isolation to pressure Israel further, but he is actively feeding it. 

The U.S. recently vetoed the latest UN Security Council Resolution declaring all Israeli settlements illegal and calling for a complete cessation in that regard.  The Resolution, widely reported on, put forward by Lebanon on behalf of the Palestinians was strongly supported by the OIC,  by 2/3 of UN membership and by the other 14 members of the UNSC,  including Britain, France and Germany, three  of Israel’s other self declared friends and allies.

Obama’s UN Ambassador Rice before casting the U.S. veto which she justified by stating it could impede the peace process however, made clear the U.S. agreed with the Resolution, save for the U.S. calling Israel’s post 1967 settlement expansion into occupied territories “illegitimate” as opposed to “illegal”.    In diplo-speak that is a distinction which in the real world, is a distinction without a difference.

You can bet that notwithstanding his veto, Obama’s endorsement of the Resolution will energize the world to redouble  demands on Israel to leave all territories it came to occupy in 1967, as if their recent resolution had passed. 

Ignored of course is the fact that Israel only came to occupy those territories, because she was forced to wage a defensive war against Jew hating genocidal Arabs.

But there is more. 

UNSCR 242, the relevant current statement of international law, clearly says that Israel’s going out of occupation of territories, but not necessarily all territories, need only be done in conjunction with an overall peace agreement with her enemy neighbors that will  yield Israel secure and recognized borders.

This latest UNSCR Resolution to declare all post 1967 Israeli settlement expansion as being illegal,  if passed, would have effectively repealed and replaced UNSCR 242 with new international law club that could then be used to try to beat Israel into submission to withdraw from all post 1967 occupied territories. 

As it is, the world already pretty much ignores the lawful effect of UNSCR 242.

Following the veto, Obama met with many Jewish leaders at the WH to assure them of his good intentions regarding Israel and that Israel will retain Jewish areas in any eventual peace deal. Doubtless, he called for land swaps to compensate Palestinians for any territories Israel retained.   Land swaps are not a lawful requirement of UNSCR 242.

H. Krieger reports on that WH meeting, noting a mix or reactions from encouraging, to cautious optimism to concerns with Obama’s thinking and policies and deeds seen as negatively impacting Israel. 

One gathers these doubters would also question whether Obama’s stated support and vision for Israel and what he really thinks in that regard, are the same thing.  See:  Obama assures leaders Israel will retain Jewish areas http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=210733

Indeed Obama has declared America’s rock solid support for and friendship of Israel.  Given the foregoing, one rightly asks whether Obama’s support and friendship of Israel is as rock solid as that of America’s?

That Obama has used various pressure tactics, including threats to push, pull and drag Israel ever closer to his vision for peace,  more than hints that Israel’s vision for peace with the Palestinians, is not the same as Obama’s.

Faithful Obama lovers, the left,  those who are naïve enough to think that anti-Israel world opinion must be right, because that opinion (more accurately mob mentality) per se, evinces the highest standards of  morality, truth and justice or any one or more of these people,  deliberately ignore or are willfully blind to all these foregoing factors which would only get in the way of what they want to believe.

Those who do not ignore these hard realities, are very concerned that Obama’s platitudinous stated 2 state peace solution vision and deep concerns for Israel’s future and growing isolation,  do not mean exactly what he says.

More to the point, what they fearfully see in Obama’s stated vision and words of support and concern for Israel,  are ominous signs that portend serious and menacing implications for Israel’s future.    

Bill Narvey