Why Iran and Israel should not be linked
Obama's irresponsible policy on Iran and Israel
U.S. President Barack Obama is running on a treacherous path — one that has never yielded and will not yield anything but despair. Obama, the contemporary Chamberlain, is appeasing a maniacal and ominous enemy, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the expense of the United States’ one true ally in the Middle East, Israel — the only state in the region that shares American values of freedom, justice and liberty. He is doing so by pursuing an irresponsible policy of creating a linkage between the curbing of Israeli settlement construction, including natural growth, and the handling of the imminent nuclear threat emanating from Iran.
The notion of exchanging the freezing of growth and construction of Israeli settlements for sanctions against Iran’s nuclear projects is also misguided on Obama’s part. Obama is attempting to build a coalition of odd bedfellows, including Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the Gulf States and the Palestinian Authority, and to normalize the relations between Israel and the rest of the Middle East. This coalition, as noble as it may seem, does not contribute, in any way, to the halt of Iran’s nuclear efforts, which represent a threat to the entire Middle East, let alone the world.
Ahmadinejad is adamant in his pursuit of the development of nuclear weapons, while making no qualms about his desire and willingness to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad and his “Islamic” regime have documented uranium enrichment sites in Natanz and in Qom. Currently, the regime is blackmailing the west in its demands for more fuel by threatening to enrich uranium, which serves as a crucial component for nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad’s Iran has, deliberately and shrewdly, hidden these facilities from the eyes of the world, in violation of international law.
Obama is flirting with a man who has downplayed and even denied the Holocaust. From conferences in Tehran, to speeches around the world, Ahmadinejad has questioned the undeniable and undisputable fact that six million Jews, along with millions of LGBT* people, dissidents, persons who are disabled, Roma and others, were brutally murdered at the hands of the Nazi regime.
Ahmadinejad even has the audacity to compare the tragedy of genocide to Israel’s counterinsurgency operation in Gaza earlier this year, which totaled 1166 deaths, some 709 of which were combatants, according to the Israel Defense Forces .
In addition, Ahmadinejad is using Lebanon as a launching ground to fight a proxy war against Israel via Hezbollah — an Iranian funded and armed terrorist organization, who also funds Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization, considered a terrorist organization by countries such as Israel, Canada, the U.S. and Japan.
Why then is Obama selling out Israel, by demanding a settlement freeze that does not even allow for natural growth? After all, Israel is the only state that has a functioning, vibrant and representative democracy, let alone the sole democracy in the region and the only Middle Eastern state where persons who are LGBT* can parade in the streets without criminal prosecution? It is a state which actually has an army that attempts to minimize civilian casualties — and does so, with enormous success and professionalism. However, Obama is treating Israel in a manner that is disproportionately unreflective of the democratic nature of Israel by tying the cessation of settlement construction with ending the Iranian nuclear program.
The settlements are merely homes and a road built in a disputed territory captured from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan after the 1967 war. The majority of the 500,000 Israeli settlers are people looking for affordable places to live. Settlements do, however, provide logistical problems for Palestinians, due to the fact that some of them are built on expropriated land. They do not violate any international law, however, as Palestine was never a power in this region, according to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Instead, Israeli settlements have been considered a “bad policy” by some, such as the Reagan administration.
Settlements are necessary for self-defense and contribute to the topography and the width of the Israeli land, as dictated in the pre-1967 borders, which allows for its continued survival and prevents it from being attacked. They are also part of a local issue that only affects the parties directly involved in the issue. The Israeli government’s primary right and responsibility should be to defend its citizens. Israel cannot afford to risk the lives of the Israeli public in an ill-timed withdrawal, as evidenced by the 2005 events where Israel suffered rocket attacks, which followed its disengagement from the Gaza strip. In other words, any pursued policy must first comfort the Israeli electorate and reassure its population’s security.
Obama, should direct his efforts towards attempting to curb the Iranian nuclear threat rather than trying to solve the entire Middle Eastern conflicts and intricacies. The two issues do not even compare, in scope and in purpose, and their linkage is a fatal combination that would cause the suffering of Israel, the Western world and the Iranian people themselves.
Robin Super is part of the Jewish Student Association/ Hillel Student Executive Council.
New Comment
The Manitoban reserves the right to edit or remove any comment that:
- is libelous, threatening, obscene or constitutes hate speech
- directly and deliberately insults other posters
- is promotional or commercial in nature
Furthermore, the Manitoban reserves the right to reproduce comments in the print edition of the newspaper.
Discussion
Well done Robin! Obama is a disaster!
The Israeli settlements, all of them including those in East Jerusalem, are illegal under the Geneva Convention. This was the finding of the US state department more than 30 years ago and that opinion has stood the test of time.
Therefore, no expansion of any sort should be tolerated for any reason, in order to remain compliant with Israels responsibility to international law, and to stay in accordance with the tenets of the Road-map, which they agreed to honor quite some time ago.
Regarding those 500,000 "innocents" just looking for cheap housing ( None of the ones whom I ever heard interviewed sounded anything less than utterly fanatical) I would simply say that the majority of the millions of people who benefited from slavery in the Southern US states were simply looking for cheap labor and products as well. It's not an excuse for such horrific behavior.
Reading this article, I think that Robin hit the nail right on the head. And, I don't normally comment, but I have to say something.
John is apparently unaware of several things. First the 'roadmap' was scheduled to expire in 2000 according to the signatories of that accord. Second, any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was null and void when the Palestinians started firing missiles at Israeli citizens that even lived within the 1967 boundaries. Third, the state department stated something 30 years ago does not make it 'stand the test of time' in any way. People thought the world was flat for years, too. Saying something has 'stood the test of time' is merely another way of saying 'it must be true because people still believe it'. It's not some self-evident truth like the sky is blue or fire is hot. Fourth, 'no expansion of any sort should be tolerated for any reason' indicates quite a bit about the writer of such words, especially considering those words are obviously directed at only one side of the dispute. Fifth, It was thousands, not millions, of people that may have benefited from slavery in the American south, pre-Civil War, and yes, that slavery was definitely wrong and a stain on American history. However, not only has every race been enslaved at one time or another, and virtually every country shares the same stain, comparing the institute of slavery to Israeli communities is like comparing apples to raccons. Not even close. Sixth, dropping a live person in a vat of acid or feeding people into a woodchipper, as was done in Iraq before the Americans arrived, is horrific behavior. Being a person living in a house is not. Even if that house is in a community where other people live, and even if that community is an enclave of non-natives, is not horrific behavior. Germans live in Poland, Canadians live in the U.S., Italians live in Switzerland, and sometimes the community is over 90% non-native. This is not horrific behavior. Either John has not bothered to validate the points he makes, or he has been swallowing the liberal junkfood without chewing.
i am no judge,however its obvious to me Presedent obama,is making a huge mistake.ISREAL IS ARE STRONGEST ALLIE,WOULD YOU BE THAT WAY. ARE NATION SARTED UNDER GOD,AND I BELIEVE IF THIS NATION WOULD TURN BACK TO GOD-THE LORD JESUS SHALL SPARE THE ROD OF PUNISHMENT;WHICH WILL BE A DESEASTER;WE WILL BE CUT INTO PEACES.DO YOURSELF A BIG FAVOR&go to www.hallindsey.com
I dont agree with you mr.r.super,in usa there is democracyin israeljust for their citizens and you knowit,building on others land for growth thats not democrcy not leting the palestinan the same right isnot ademocracy asettlement building for asecurity is afarce argument today what security is now after rockets lanching over the bordes like inthe libanese israily past conflict ijust give you now these few points,you are bias becuse your religion made you un democratic in your bias analysis,just be fair.apalestinian goes to visit his home wherehe was born and raised to see what left of his family to tell him wellcom visitor is this ademocracy?.
"All we need is love" as cliche as it sounds!
John, you also are assuming in how you are perceiving what was said in the Geneva Convention. It does not mention that a state in a defensive war has to return any land it annexes. Imagine if that happened that would mean a State can be constantly attacked by another State or group of people without any consequences since according to your belief, the State which is under attack first would have to just continually return land back to the offensive State or people. There would be no deterrent then for the hostile State or group to continue attacking!!! Geneva Convention clause you are referring to could only refer to a situation where the land was taken by the initiator of the war for Imperialistic reasons, it certainly wouldn't refer to the situation in Israel. It is an outdated and ambiguous clause, which is left to one's interpretation. And I believe the Road Map asks for the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, and cessation of terrorist attacks against the State, you forgot to mention all that was breached by the Palestinian leadership. Israel has already returned most of the land they acquired from their defensive wars and what have they received in return,??? Nothing, certainly not peace. If you want to look into the past then you should remember what Arabs said after 1967 War in Khartoum, No Recognition, No Negotiation, No Peace with Israel.