Mark Steyn on Obama’s Cairo, Part 2 speech:
…[You] have two parties to a negotiation, one party wants to kill the other party…That’s why there was no peace in 1948, no peace under the British mandate in the 1930s, no peace at the time of the 1922 partition because one party to the dispute wants to kill the other. So, if they are wedded to that, then you got to put pressure on the party that doesn’t want to kill the other, to make concession – to keep throwing concessions in the face of the beast that wants to devour it and I think that’s – if you look at where [Obama’s] applying the pressure, I think that tells you a lot about the fundamental fraudulence of these negotiations.
Obama’s “changing the status quo” assertion that negotiations should resume with the 1967 borders as a starting point is a big concession to the Arabs since Arafat rejected that plan at the end of the Clinton administration, and his supposedly more compliant successor rejected a similar plan put forth by Ehud Olmert during the Bush administration.
From a news report at the time:
Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control.
“I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he told a conference at Tel Aviv University.
Why doesn’t Obama demand that the Arabs give up the “right of return” of Arabs to pre-1967 Israel as a starting point for negotiations? Every sentient observer knows (even if some won’t publicly admit it) that such a thing would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish state and almost certainly the violent end of Israelis themselves. No one believes Israel would ever willingly agree to a “right to return,” so why not get it off the table right now?
Obama seems to have a compulsion to tilt the playing field toward the Arabs, despite reports that some Jewish Democrats (almost a redundancy) are warning Obama not to be too hard on Israel if he doesn’t want to lose Jewish votes (and money).
I suspect that Obama and the Democrats believe, with a good deal of justification, that all but a few renegade members of the American Jewish herd are emotionally incapable of voting for a Republican.