Supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, are angry that President Obama changed the longstanding U.S. policy on the legitimacy of Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
That policy under Democratic and Republican presidents before him was that those settlements, while “impediments to peace,” were legal. The State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now refers to such settlements as illegal. Why is it reasonable for Arabs to live in the state of Israel and not acceptable for Jews to live on the West Bank?
I believe in the two-state solution, and when that takes place, the Jews living in the area constituting the new Palestinian state will have to decide whether to relocate back to Israel or continue to live in their towns as citizens of the new Palestinian state or as resident aliens.
Arab countries and their supporters have savaged Israel at the United Nations year after year, because of the power of oil and fear of Islamic terror. Few nations have been willing to vote “no” on Arab resolutions denouncing Israel. The most that many nations will do is abstain from voting, because they realize how unfair and hypocritical those resolutions are.
The state of Israel would have been overwhelmed long ago if it had succumbed to fear and desisted from protecting itself with a security barrier that keeps terrorists at bay and military strikes at those who allow terrorists to use their territory as bases for their terrorist activity against Israel.
A Nov. 26 New York Times article noted the positive effect of Israel’s willingness to defend itself when many other nations deserted it. Ethan Bronner reported: “Through relentless commando operations and numerous checkpoints, the Israeli Army ended suicide bombings and other terrorist acts from the West Bank; since its 2006 war with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, widely dismissed as a failure at the time, the group has not fired one rocket at Israel; and Gaza last December has greatly curtailed years of Hamas rocket fire, returning a semblance of normality to the Israeli south. Two years ago, Israeli fighter planes destroyed what Israel and the United States say was a budding Syrian nuclear reactor; and last year in Syria, Israeli agents assassinated Imad Mugniyah, the top military operative for Hezbollah and a crucial link to its Iranian sponsors, a severe blow to both Hezbollah and Iran. Diplomatic efforts, whether the Oslo peace talks of the 1990s or the Turkish-mediated negotiations with Syria last year have, by contrast, produced little. Every Israeli military operation of recent years — including the December invasion of Gaza that was condemned Friday by the United Nations Human Rights Council by a vote of 25 to 6 and referred to the Security Council following a report by a committee led by Richard Goldstone — has come under international censure. Today all are viewed here as having been judged prematurely and unfairly but having delivered the goods — keeping Israel safe through deterrence.”
What if Israel had not destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility in 1981 and the Allied nations invading Iraq in 2003 had been met with nuclear bombs? What would our casualties have been then? What if Israel had not destroyed, as the Times reported, “what Israel and the United States say was a budding Syrian nuclear reactor” two years ago? Who would be in danger now?
Islamic terrorism has cowed much of the world — fearful of the suicide bombers who have struck in other countries, e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Britain, and Russia. These terrorists seek to bring those countries to their knees.
Israel knows that it must be willing to fight for its very life and freedom every single day. Its young men and women, while cherishing life and not wanting to die, are willing to do so in defense of their country. For Israelis, there is no other choice.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.