May 23, 2011

Origins

Hatched by Dafydd

We pass lightly over the Obamic demand that a so-called state of "Palestine" be contiguous. I suspect that President Barack H. Obama doesn't even know what the adjective "contiguous" means (all parts connected to each other)... nor the impossibility of making the West Bank of the Jordan river and the Gaza Strip "contiguous" without either (a) bisecting Israel, or (b) creating a corridor -- comically thin, perhaps a dozen feet wide -- that runs the gauntlet around the southern borders of Israel to connect the two areas with a sort of geographical bicycle lane, snaking hundreds of miles between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt.

(By the way, the name Palestine comes from "Philistine." It was a Roman poke in the eye of the rebellious Jews, renaming their homeland after their bitter ancient enemies. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam... which didn't even exist until more than half a millennium after the Romans dubbed it with that insulting moniker.)

So forget the contiguity quandry; it requires a Dr. Seuss solution. I'm more interested in the borders controversy.

I wonder how many people understand what President Barack H. Obama really meant, whether he understood it or not, when he suggested -- pronounced is the better word -- that any final settlement of Israel's borders must be based upon the "1967 lines":

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

To begin with, he certainly didn't mean post-June 10th, 1967 "lines" (borders), as that would actually be larger than the land currently controlled by the Jewish state! In the years since the Six Day War, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula and from the Gaza Strip. Clearly the Obamacle meant -- and Arab and Palestinian leaders certainly heard -- that the borders should be based upon the pre-Six Day War lines.

But what does that mean? If we're honest, that means Obama did not call for Israel to retreat to the "1967 lines," but rather the 1949 lines: The borders of Israel when the Arabs, losing badly, hastily offered an armistice to freeze Israel's borders in situ. That is, Barack Obama wants Israel to return to the indefensible borders it held a year after striking the Union Jack and hoisting the Israeli flag, declaring themselves an independent state.

It's hard to fathom, so here's an analogy: Suppose radical Aztlan boosters in Mexico were to demand that the United States readjust its borders... to where they were in 1788. Thirteen states, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to -- the Appalachians.

Yeah, that's what President B.O. proposes as his "peace plan."

Just bear it in mind: The only conclusions a reasonable person could draw from this declaration are that (a) Barack Obama hates Israel enough to want to see it buried, or (b) he is a complete nitwit. Or (c) both. Take your pick.

Any Jew who votes for Obama in 2012 must believe that the Jews, alone among all cultures on the planet, deserve no homeland, not a single country they can call theirs. Talk about the self-loathing...!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 23, 2011, at the time of 3:05 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

A Townhall columnist today demanded that the US return to its pre-1959 borders. Hawaii would not be a state, Obama would not be a citizen, problem solved.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2011 9:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Both. Always both.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2011 1:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Both. Always both.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2011 1:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: mdgiles

Obozo is asking Israel to give up the Wailing Wall. It's definitely c)both. With the emphasis on Nitwit. How would the Arabs feel about giving Mecca away?

The above hissed in response by: mdgiles [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2011 1:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

To be fair, Obama did call for "mutually agreed-upon swaps" to modify the 1967 borders.
The problem there, of course, lies in getting the Palestinians to agree to any swaps. Except, of course, swapping Israeli land with equal portions of the Mediterranean Sea.

The above hissed in response by: Karl [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 23, 2011 4:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: mdgiles

Assuming that Obozo isn't an idiot (and that's a hell of an assumption) perhaps he's calling for an end to The Gaza Strip, with the entire Palestinian population being moved to the West Bank. Give the Palestinians a piece of the Negev and clear out Gaza.

The above hissed in response by: mdgiles [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2011 1:45 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved