Obama and Israel: Punishing Your Friends, Rewarding Your Enemies

You are here

Obama and Israel

Punishing Your Friends, Rewarding Your Enemies

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

U.S. President Barack Obama's May 19 Middle East speech was significant in crucial respects.

In the speech he called for Israel to return to the borders it had before the 1967 war (with minor adjustments) so Israel and the Palestinians can finally have a lasting peace.

In rational circles, this is called punishing your friends and rewarding your enemies.

What was life like in Israel before the 1967 Six-Day War? Israel is tiny and vulnerable—that’s why Arab armies have massed against it, threatening Israel with extinction in several wars. Pre-1967 Israel was only about 12 miles wide in some places!

Some of you are old enough to remember the situation in Israel before 1967. Syria held the Golan Heights and regularly used farms and settlements in northern Israel for artillery target practice. The Egyptian-controlled Sinai Desert and the Jordanian-controlled Jordan Valley were sieves through which terrorists regularly infiltrated to carry out attacks on Israel while the Egyptian and Jordanian armies looked the other way.

In May 1967 Egypt blockaded the Israeli outlet to the Red Sea from the port of Eilat, which was an internationally recognized act of war, and Israel had enough. In six days its army captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt.

Those who are terminally naïve and live in a fantasy world believe that if only Israel would return those lands, peace would miraculously blossom in the Middle East.

A brief history lesson is in order.

Some of you remember the PLO—Palestine Liberation Organization—made famous by its terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat. It was founded in 1964—three years before the 1967 Six-Day War.

Question: Which “Palestine” was the “Palestine Liberation Organization” founded to “liberate” when it formed in 1964?

Answer: It sure wasn’t founded to “liberate” the Golan Heights (controlled by Syria in 1964), the West Bank (controlled by Jordan in 1964) or Gaza (controlled by Egypt in 1964).

It was formed to “liberate” all of the Holy Land from the presence of Israel. That has been the unflinching goal ever since.

If you look up the PLO emblem on the Internet, you'll notice that it includes an outline map covering all of the so-called “Palestinian territories” plus the entirety of the land of Israel.

The PLO is a confederation of organizations, the most well known being Yassir Arafat’s Fatah and its chief rival, Hamas. Fatah rules the West Bank and Hamas rules the Gaza Strip.

You can also look up the Hamas emblem on the Internet. You'll notice that it includes crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock (in Jerusalem) and an outline map at the top which again includes all of the so-called “Palestinian territories” plus the entirety of the land of Israel.

Just last month Hamas and Fatah agreed to join forces to form a joint government and present a common front in dealing with Israel. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada and Japan. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, from which rockets and mortar shells have been continually fired into Israel since Israel’s 2005 withdrawal. Their latest outrage was when they fired an anti-tank missile at a clearly marked Israeli schoolbus, injuring the driver and one teenage student (who died of his wounds 10 days later). 

Lest we forget, in the year 2000 Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat about 95 percent of the territory Arafat said he wanted, but Arafat refused. Why did he not take it then? Apparently, we learned later, because Arafat feared he would’ve been assassinated by his own countrymen if he dared to compromise even that little bit with Israel.

And these are the people Israel is supposed to be making peace with? Again, this is called punishing your friends and rewarding your enemies.

The President's speech included one more especially ominous quote. He said, “Israel must be able to defend itself—by itself—against any threat.”

Israel has long been America’s only reliable ally in that part of the world. The only one. It is the only genuine democracy in a region dominated by tyrants of every stripe. In earlier wars when Israel was threatened with extinction, previous U.S. presidents intervened to supply Israel with munitions (but no military personnel) to prevent Israel from being overrun by armies that outnumbered them many times over. Despite this longstanding history and outward assurances of continued U.S. support, this seems to be a clear message that the Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in the vain hope of some fantasy-land “peace” process that will never come to pass in this lifetime.

If these statements in the President's speech stand, and if they truly represent the position the U.S government is taking toward Israel, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of Israel as we know it. It's hard to imagine how the stakes could get much higher.

Comments

  • Durango

    Yep - dontcha know , reasonable people all over the U.S. just pick up and leave their houses..its the latest craze/fad .. I think normal people leave their homes for legitmate reasons of fear - fear of having your house destroyed, loved ones killed, or being killed at gunppoint.

    Do you really believe ppl just pick up and leave thrir homes after having been there for hundreds of yrs? Did the Jews just pick up and leave - no
    They were driven out by the Romans
    Same for the Palestiniamd

  • Durango

    Note - i was reffering to the Jewish commedieane Sarah Silverman regarding anti- Christian hatred...she gives performances where she says "she would do it again! To Jesus" using four letter explitives....look her up on youtube and use her name and search term Jesus. So yiu can see what im refering to if you dont believe me.

    While you're on youtube look up antiChristian violence in Israel - you'll find Jews throwing rocks at Chridtisn tourists, as well as other documentation of hatred.

    Personally I have experienced direct hateful attitudes from Jews in my former college when I had a Jewish girlfriend from Belarusia...when they found out I wasnt Jewish I found out quickly about the dark side...I will never forget it - the exact actions from them - i dont want to give the "goy-ry" gory details but I will say it was shocking to me.

    So - i now acknowledge things i read and am better able to figure out if it sounds true or false.
    And believe anti-christian attitudes run deep even today

  • Durango

    The Palestinian population always outnumbered Jews before 1948 and afterwards according to census conducted by the British government.

    Have you read Jimmy Carter's book "Peace not Apartheid?"

    You write of Arab propoganda but have you considered Israeli/organized Jewish propoganda which is criticized even by other scholarly Jews?

    Didnt Jesus himself criticize organized Jewry of his time - What did Jesus refer to those of organized Jewry that persecuted him and tried to thwart his work.

    Things have not change that significantly since then -- Watch the videos oon youtube one of the clearest examples of violent anti-Christian attitudes. These attitudes are still prevail against Christianity today in Israel and the U.S. by organized Jewry - Asa matter of fact there Haaretz has done articles on Orthodox Christians that are routinely spat upon by Jews in Israel, as well as nuns.

    Is this propaganda also or just staement of facts concerning the true tension and attitudes present in Israel?

    Like I've said in a previous post - I find many of these posts to be one-sided and not in keeping with Jesus Christ's demonstration of impartiality when considering a standard of what is written on the heart - i.e. "The Good Samaritan" bineg the hero not because of any historical claims or tribal connections but because of what was written on his heart for his fellow man.

    I continue to support Jewry and the biblical promises - but I also believe in acknowledging both sides of the story.

    The majority of organized Jewry was hostile to Christianity in antiquity and we can still see that prevailing attiude today-

  • Eric V. Snow

    There are many reasons why the Palestinians left: Many left much more voluntarily than many of the Jews who left Arab countries around the same time to go to Israel. A useful source about all the variations would be the Israeli historian Efraim Karsh's articles in "Commentary" magazine, "The Palestinians and the 'Right of Return'" (May 2001) and "Were the Palestinians Expelled?" (July 2000), and his book "Fabricating Israeli History." One of the more interesting stories that Karsh tells concerns the Arabs who left Haifa that the Israelis asked to stay, but they left anyway! To some degree Arab propaganda building upon (say) the atrocity at Yassin Deir by the Jewish Irgun backfired: Many fled when that was a freak case by an independent group of guerrillas fighting for Jewish independence, not the Haganah of Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister. Others left because they simply didn't want to be in a war zone, when five Arab armies promptly invaded Israel almost the day (May 14, 1948) that independence was declared. Others, a relatively small group, generally the most well off and educated, left before 1948, because they saw the war that was coming, and didn't want to hang around. And, of course, there's still another set of Arabs, the "Israeli Arabs" of today: Around 18% of Israel's population is still Arab. If the Jews were engaged in intentional ethnic cleansing, they obviously didn't do a complete and full job of it. When one looks at the intent of Ben-Gurion and company before the war of independence began, they didn't have the goal of driving out the Arabs, but plainly intended to live with them. For example, in a letter written to his son Amos in 1937, Ben-Gurion said: "All our aspiration is built on the assumption--proven throughout all our activity in the Land [of Israel]--that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs." Similarly, at a Jewish Agency Executive meeting in 1938, Ben-Gurion said: "But the Arab policy of the Jewish State must be aimed not only at full equality for the Arabs but at their cultural, social, and economic equalization, namely, at raising their standard of living to that of the Jews." This is hardly the spirit of Mladic and Milosevek of Bosnia and Serbia. The official Jewish leadership didn't seek to deliberately drive out the Arabs during Israel's war of independence despite they had only a narrow majority of the population in 1947 (about 538,000 Jews vs. 397,000 Arabs in the area that became Israel).

  • Eric V. Snow

    In order for Biblical prophecy to be fulfilled, it was necessary for a certain number of Arabs to end up displaced when the Jews returned to the Middle East as a self-governing entity. Consider carefully such texts as Zechariah 12:9-14; 14:14; Zeph. 2:6-7. They are good evidence that even before the millennium begins, Judah would be restored to the Middle East. No longer would the Jews be merely a small oppressed minority religion under the thumb of the "Sublime Port" in Constantinople. These texts also show that God's promises to Abraham's physical descendants didn't end with the crucifixion, that "replacement theology" isn't sound. It's quite correct, of course, to note that all war is a sin, as per the Sermon on the Mount's teachings about loving one's enemies and turning the cheek (Matt. 5:38-45).

    We are faced with the mystery that God uses people who sin to accomplish His overall will. Rahab's lie demonstrates this. So does Rebekah's and Jacob's scheme to deceive Isaac into giving the birthright blessing to Jacob and not to Esau. Although Rahab, Rebekah, and Jacob all lied and thus all sinned, it's also obvious that God wanted the particular outcomes that resulted from their actions: The Israelite spies should have been protected, Jacob should have gotten the birthright. It's true that (presumably) God would have intervened directly somehow to protect the spies and to transfer the birthright to Jacob (whose name means "Supplanter") had Rahab, Rebekah, and Jacob not lied. Likewise, presumably, God would have used some other means to get the Jews back into the Middle East besides the secularist nationalist socialist Zionist movement of Theodor Herzl, Chaim Weizmann, and company. But the end result would have been the same: X number of Arabs would have ended up displaced. That doesn't mean Christians should lie or wage war, since the end doesn't justify the means, and we should wait on God to intervene when we're called and know better. But we should be wary of harsh moral condemnations of Israel's actions as being really any worse than (say) India's and Pakistan's, or Turkey's, or Poland's, Czechoslovakia's, and Russia's, concerning displaced people. And who argues for the "right of return" of Germans to Silesia?

    It's fine to condemn all wars as sins, including those waged by Israeli Jews, but it's hard to conclude based on the Bible that the Israeli nation is necessarily any more "illegitimate" than any other nation. After all, many awful major population shifts of millions of people occurred during the 20th century, and no one seriously proposed to reverse them, such as Muslims and Hindus switching their homes between Pakistan and India at the time of the Partition, the Greeks thrown out of Turkey shortly after WWI ended, and the Germans thrown out of Silesia, Prussia, and Pomerania when the Red Army marched into Poland and Germany as WWII ended.

    Also, many Jews had to flee their old homes in the Arab world after Israel became independent. Life for them had become dangerous, such as shown earlier by a major pogrom in Baghdad in 1941 that killed 600 Jews. Hence, had the Palestinians' fellow Arabs accepted the Palestinians as citizens of their nations, just as the West Germans accepted their countrymen from the east after 1945, and the Israelis Jews from the rest of the Middle East, the Palestinian refugee problem would have been mostly solved. That problem isn't merely a product of Israel's war for independence against other Arab countries (not the British, who had had enough, and just abandoned the place), but also the policies of Arab countries, especially Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Ironically, the oil rich sheikdoms and Saudi Arabia often more willingly import "infidels" (like from the Philippines) to do menial jobs than the Palestinians, who are mostly their fellow Muslims, and are obviously desperate for work.

  • Kathleen Hoffart

    I am not justifying bloodshed.

    But to understand the Middle East, one must study the historical background and the dynamics of tradition, culture and religion in the region.

    Only Christ's return will start the healing process but in the meantime we live in a world of escalating problems. The Arab/Israel conflict is one of those problems.

  • Durango

    @ Eric V. Snow -- according to what I've been told by a relative who majored in Middle eastern studies, the Palestinains were driven out by gunpoint -- they did not just pick up and leave...so

    Are you aware of any authors that write from an objective point of view. Belief can taint the interpretation of events.

    Yet I would like to be clear in stating in holy writ it is inn fact clear that land is promised to descendnants of Jacob. The implementaion of it however is another matter, as to taking matters into one's own hands

  • Durango

    Thats disengenuous because that's not what is going here. The very fact that there are arguments over who was the dominant population is being used to form a basis to justify actions by the respective parties....

    If a reference point of dominannt population is discussed its probably to assert and establish who has the right to live there in peace according to that justification of property rights.
    Even from a secular reference point that leads to a certain outcome that will be acted upoon. If one were to use both secular and religious reference points to establish who has the right to live there in peace, it will have another outcome -

    and from a strict religious reference point from the first five books or the Christian Bible - still another outcome that relies on waiting for divine intervention - even in the viewpoint of some Haasidic sects of Judaism in Israel; their point of view premised upon holy writ of the promise, and the faithful in the end prevailin by divine intervention.

    Do you really believe that engaging in such debate will result in more peace?
    Further there are those who label some Christians sympathetic to Jewry as " Christian Zionists" which would be supportive of a man-made Zionist political movement ... That to me seems to attach a tacit agreement by such as being supportive and taking sides with that man-made political movement- in turn supporting the fruits of that movement - bloodshed.

    I dont believe those sypmathetic to Jewry by virtue of the directives of the Bible make clear the distinction of supporting Jewry but not supporting the fruits of the political movement of Zionism or the the fruits of PLO also.

    Hence it comes across generally to observers as tacitly justifying violence.

    Clear distinctions must be made between those who support Jewry but decry violence...especially killing.

    To me i can see why some label some Christians in the former manner when vehement arguments are clung to, it gives that impression or "mis-impression" to any observer if it is not qualified or fully explained ...

  • Roger Christiansen

    I don't think anyone is trying to justify bloodshed here.
    This issue is like a cancer, it is not going to go away by ignoring it. It's not just a religious issue, but a historical, political, and activist one.
    It's not about entitlement, but simple human right to live in a land peacefully.

  • Durango

    I dont get the point of the posters here in regard to these disputed contentions over who was the dominant population in what was called Palestine... Apparently this is disputed. And to me it seems obvious that most people have some sort of non-objective opinion which in effect tacitly gives the impressionof excusing bloodshed. The fact is the Jews were made to leave in antiquity and that fact in itself shows they had to return in modern time.

    The land and who it belongs to is based on religious worldview but there are even religious Hassidic Jews in Israel that criticize and condemn their own government for human rights violations.
    Regardless of whatever view one takes on these topics, the irrational killing based on religious, ethnic, hatred and territorial disputes cannot be justified in any way from Christian perspective. And the hatred that exists cannot be swept under the carpet or justified regrardless of who one favors in this dispute.

    I recall reading an article on the internet where Herbert Armstrong stated that the manmade forced implementation of territorial ownership, notwithstanding that is was based upon holy writ would only end in even more bloodshed. And that it will not succeed through human man made force...

    So i cannot see the point in getting too invested in who was where first, and who is entitled to what from a non secular perspective. It gives the impression of justifying this bloodshed in a place where Christianity is not well tolerated and even where there is evidence of hatred against Christians and Christian theology.

    I dont believe Christian perspective justifies ANY killing from either side..."Hate is never conquered by hate"

  • Roger Christiansen

    Yes Joan Peter's scholarly material has lead to some real debate on this issue, hence the Norman Finkelstein, Alan Dershowitz confrontation over this work.

    From that standpoint the debate is heated. I do not wish to into it hear.

    The historical record speaks for itself.

  • Kathleen Hoffart

    Quote from Mr. Christiansen, "Reality: Christians, Jews, and Muslims had been living together in peace for hundreds of years."

    Bat Ye'or, as does Bernard Lewis, addresses Jews and Christians living under Islam. Yes, there was 'relative' peace as long as Jews and Christians remembered their status as dhimmis and obeyed strict laws which dictated their behavior.

    The Palestinian Christians are not faring well under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank nor under Hamas in Gaza.

    And look at the figures for the growth of the Palestinian Arab population - I would question the 400,00 Arab population for 1870. "Palestine" borders shifted through the centuries. For example, the borders of the British Palestine Mandate included modern day Jordan, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.

    People living or traveling in the area known as the Holy Land during the 19th century wrote of how desolate and uninhabited the land was.

    Colonel C.R. Conder observed that "so far as the Arab race is concerned, it appears to be decreasing rather than otherwise." The Ottomans, to counteract the situation, would transfer people into the area.

    It wasn't until the Jews began to buy land, reclaim it and build that Arabs from other regions moved into the area. They knew their standard of living would improve if they went where the work was.

    Under the British Mandate, Arab immigration was allowed, Jewish immigration curtailed. Many, if not most, of the Palestinian Arabs can not claim to have lived in the area before mid-19th century. Mr. Snow commented on that situation.

    I recommend reading "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters for documented background on the origins of the Arab and Jewish conflict over Palestine.

  • ucgadmin

    Durango - it looks like you edited your comment. We put it back into the approval queue so that people can't sneak in something inappropriate. Sorry for the confusion!

    -Tom Disher
    Senior Web Developer

  • Roger Christiansen

    In reality, there are historical maps, books, photos, in reference to Palestine. One such is Baedecker's famous guidebook (1876) named Palestine & Syra

    Palestinian population 1870, 400,000, Jewish population 7,000. Palestinian population 1900, 550,000, Jewish population 10,000.
    Palestinian population 1920, 600,000, Jewish population 75,000.
    Palestinian population 1940, 1,400,000, Jewish population 400,000.

    If Palestinians/Palestine never existed why are there resources (pre. 1948) referencing Palestine and it's people.

    Palestinian villages demolished and depopulated between 1947-1949 419, that's 4 villages a week.

    Myth: This is a religious war thats been going on for thousands of years

    Myth:There has never been peace in the Middle East.

    Myth: Since it has been going on for thousands of years, there is no chance for it to end in a short time period.

    Reality: Christians, Jews, and Muslims had been living together in peace for hundreds of years.
    Difficulties started only with an exclusive religiously pure apartheid system.
    Americans feel there is no hope - Why put pressure on Israel to change.

    If it is a religious war. How come we rarely hear about the Palestinian Christians? Where do they fit in.

    Some famous Israeli's who have made bias statements that has promoted the Zionist cause.

    Former P.M. Menachem Begin: Palestinians are Vermin.

    Former IDF Chief Rafael Eitan: We need to keep Palestinians like "drugged roaches in a bottle.

    Former P.M. Yitzhak Shair: Palestinians are like grasshoppers.

    Golda Meir: There is no such thing as a Palestinian.

    "In our country there is only room for Jews, we say to the Arabs:
    Get out! If they don't agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force." Israel's First Minister of Education, Professor Ben-Zion Dineir. From History of the Hagansh

    Let us be real in our thinking.

    Sure, the Palestinians are no angels in all of this, nor are the Israeli's, if peace is to come we must be fare and have clear non biased thoughts and true peaceful intentions.

  • Durango

    Did my comment get deleted for some reason - seems like it was removed

  • Durango

    Hmmm why is this version so important to you? How do you know the real account? From my experience you can always find one author or another to promote a particular view but whatever the case may be in regard to "facts" of history - how does this help the situation? The only resl way to convince oneself of the real facts of a region is to live in that region and experience it first hand.

    Do you know the story of the Good Samaritan ? He was not Jewish - i believe this indicates that Jesus looks at the heart of a man, not his ancestry. How can we determine the the truth of a matter in a dispute if one has a pressuposition of who is already at fault...isnt that " prejudging.". The Samaritans were viewed as not being worshipping in truth as the Jews Yet Jesus made the Samaritan the hero in his story....Sometimes I find this such a powerful story it moves me deeply almost to tears bc i see how Jesus looks on the heart, looks at one's compassion toward our fellowman. I also find the account of the woman caught in adultery very moving as well as the account of Mary Magdalene, being the first disciple to see Jeus risen to be deeply moving; her story of forgiveness, redemption and the honor she received is very touching and hope filled.
    But i digress, I guess im trying to say, the important thing is that regardless of what the true facts of history are , focusing on whichever narrative wont resolve anything and does not entitle either side to be unjust...there is only one real and lasting solution

  • Eric V. Snow

    It's a major historical mistake to believe that the Palestinians' forefathers had been in the land of Judea for many centuries. Indeed, many of those who became refugees had only lived in what became "Israel" in 1948 for a few decades, if that. They had moved in because the Zionist movement created jobs and new economic opportunities after the British Mandate had been established following World War I's conclusion in 1918. Many had moved in from Syria in the thirty years preceding the 1948 war. A useful book that analyses this history is Randall Price's "Unholy War: America, Israel, and Radical Islam." Efraim Karsh's "Fabricating Israeli History" is also interesting for how it takes on the Jewish revisionists who rewrite history to favor the Arabs' cause.

    After all, the native dirt-poor tenant farmers and Bedouin nomads didn't have "self-determination" either: They had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks, i.e., another empire, before the British Empire got control of this troublesome spot of the world in 1917-18, thanks to General Allenby. Furthermore, if one looks carefully at what happened when the Romans closed in to conquer Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (which led to the death and expulsion of so many Jews, and helped to create the Diaspora as it became known), the surrounding non-Jewish people willingly helped the Romans against the Jews. Hence, if their descendants come back roughly 1900 years later, and start buying poor quality land at outlandish prices (which was typical during the Mandate/"White Paper" years, after the Balfour Declaration), how is that such an injustice? As Netanyahu said during his recent speech to the American Congress, We Jews are not the Belgians in the Congo or the British in India, since they had had an organic connection with the land for many centuries before the modern Zionist movement. Zionism isn't yet another form of Western colonialism. Of course, since when have any Muslims ever felt guilty about the great imperialist jihads that spread their faith and created the Arab and Turkish empires? If the modern Israelis should feel guilty about their victories on the battlefield, shouldn't the Muslims feel guilty about their own aggressive military past as well?

  • Durango

    Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord;

    I hope one day all the horrible suffering in this world will come to end....may G_d have mercy on us all until that time because not one of us righteous ....

  • Roger Christiansen

    Blessed are the peacemakers. (Matthew 5:9)

    **Link removed to comply with comment policy.**

  • Durango

    What does the Bible indicate will happen?

    I dont think it indicates a resolution will happen by "men" unless men change with G_d's grace ...that doesnt seem like a solution that will be chosen by the parties involved...and our President Obama is not really helping in the meantime...I think you are underestimating the ingrained attitudes of both sides from the cultural perspective and the deeply wounded hearts and minds of those involved from the track record of past wrongs. Its not easy to forgive the killing of a brother, mother, or son etc.

    Look at the world in general - it doesnt look like those in power have any interest in the welfare of their fellowman...especially when you see all the exploitation that exists by powerful forces and how individuals treat oneanother with maliciousness...this has been and still is the way of man.

    Blessed be G_d, Jesus Christ for His loving mercy on all mankind