Obama's Principle of Faith

When Obama weighed in on the Ground Zero Mosque, he said Muslims have the right to build their mosque wherever the like.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Unfortunately, not everybody has that right, as Caroline Glick explains.

But for Obama, there are some groups who must be denied the same civil rights he upholds as absolute in his defense of the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. As Obama has made clear since his first days in office, he believes that Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews.

OBAMA IS so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel's capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything - synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools - in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews - Israeli and non-Israeli - should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved "in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

Meanwhile,

In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, "I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil."

The notion that an inherently anti-Semitic Palestinian state, predicated on Jew hatred that strong, could possibly live at peace with Israel is simply ridiculous. But tellingly, in all the American pressure that has been placed on Abbas to begin direct negotiations with Israel, at no time has the administration been reported to have insisted that Abbas abandon his anti-Semitism.

This, of course, is the true nature of progressive enlightenment.

Comments

[CaptDMO]

And who's "administration" eliminated the conscience clause for medicos
whose religion deems abortion-on-demand, especially for minors,(sorry, "wellness") as murder?

[Tom Bowler]

That would be the Obama administration.

On Thursday, April 9-- Holy Thursday-- the US government will close the 30-day period allotted for public comment on President Obama's proposal to eliminate the "conscience clause" that protects health-care workers.

The American bishops have asked all Catholics to make their voices heard on this proposal. Although the Obama administration appears determined to make the change, citizens can go on the record in support of the rights of health-care workers who do not wish to be involved in immoral procedures.

[Blake]

I am not aware of Jewish residents in Israel showing an interest in applying for Palestinian citizenship. Should they do so, they would have to agree to become Palestinian citizens and vote in Palestinian elections.

My understanding is that Abbas actually said:

"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”

and that

"no Israeli citizen will be allowed to set foot inside."

Even these statements can be taken out of context as by "set foot inside" he meant permanent residence.

I think you'll find that Abbas has no problems with Israeli citizens visiting the country of Palestine as long as they do what any non-American visitor does when visiting America -- get a passport and agree to go through customs.

[Tom Bowler]

My understanding is that Abbas actually said:

"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land”

and that

"no Israeli citizen will be allowed to set foot inside."

Blake, though I'm sure you are correct, I'm not sure those are meaningful distinctions, given that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are Jewish.

[Blake]

Well, I think it might very well be a valid distinction if Abbas was speaking about citizenship issues and Israeli settlement policy.

As an American, I am extremely concerned about non-American citizens who have, for all intents and purposes, set up permanent residence in the United States. I am speaking of the illegal immigration issue.

Because of these concerns, I have been called a bigot who is prejudice towards Hispanics by certain segments of the population.

So when Abbas expresses concerns about non-Palestinian citizens, (in particular Israeli citizens due to the Israeli settlement policy)setting up permanent residence in a possible Palestinian state, I think it unfair to claim he is bigoted for doing so.

[Tom Bowler]

I share your concerns about illegal immigration in the United States, which I recognize as a political strategy intended to add voters to Democratic Party rolls. Promotion of that strategy quite unsurprisingly involves branding anyone who shares your concerns as a bigot.

It is interesting to note that liberal immigration strategy is a small scale model of the Palestinian "right of return" in which all Palestinians and their descendants, wherever in the world they may be and regardless of how many generations removed, have the right to property in Israel that they willingly abandoned in 1948 -- even though they were invited to stay. Return of the Palestinians at this point would so dramatically alter the demographics that Israel would effectively cease to exist.

Which has been the aim of Palestinians since 1947. For 63 years a central goal of Palestinian leaders has been the destruction of Israel, even while publicly espousing peace. Palestinian bigotry is not hidden or disguised. So while the enlightened path might be to give Abbas the benefit of the doubt over his statements, I remain skeptical.

[Blake]

Can't really argue with any of that.

I have a couple of other concerns about Glick if you don't mind indulging me.

She has made powerful arguments in the past as to why it was necessary for Israel to seize land in the '67 war, why it was necessary to occupy that land with troops, and why it was necessary to deny the people living on that land full political autonomy.

I can't really argue with any of it. The problem is the she, and others like her, then insert an issue unrelated to any of the issues just stated -- settlements. And they act as if the arguments for the issues stated above somehow validate settlement policy. In fact, it's almost impossible to find someone who will write an article on settlement policy alone -- without any other issues to couch it in.

Anything other than a 2 state solution is going to be disaster for Israel. And the settlements have made such a solution almost impossible.

I was also offended by a sentence in her article related to settlement policy:

"Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews."

No. Anybody, including Jews, can build on land for which they have title. And anybody, including Jews, cannot build on land for which they do not have title.

I believe that everybody should be treated like everybody else -- as is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The implication the Jews or anybody else should be given special preferences is something I must reject. And I do not expect to be called an anti-Semite for doing so.

[Tom Bowler]

I wouldn't consider you an anti-Semite, Blake. I think we might disagree on the facts. My understanding is that Israelis have been in East Jerusalem since the 1967 war, and since then have refused to consider making Jerusalem a divided city. As far as I know they haven't kicked the Palestinians out of East Jerusulem, but the Palestinians don't want Israelis building there. They expect it to be handed over to them to be their capital when the two-state solution is implemented.

Meanwhile Israel considers the areas where the building projects are going forward to be "neighborhoods," while the international community likes to call them "settlements." With her mention of title to property, I think Glick was referring to the fact that approvals and permits from city officials were just issued for an East Jerusalem building project, and that drove the Obama administration off the deep end, demanding that Israel halt to all construction. The issuance of city approvals would imply that Israelis held title to the property, but there they were, getting pressure from Obama and the international community over the fact that they were going to build on it.

Israelis see themselves as subject to special treatment -- like getting treated to periodic rocket attacks -- and somehow they always come out of it as the villains. Press coverage hasn't always been favorable for Israel. Professor Richard Landes of Boston University has a web site devoted to the kind of coverage Israel has gotten from the international press. You might find it interesting.

[Blake]

I certainly didn't mean to indicate that you were implying I was an anti-Semite. But I do get that feeling from people like Glick at times.

It is also not clear to me that we disagree on most of the facts since you didn't really write about the settlement issue. Nor did you disagree with me on a very important observation that has nothing to do with berating Israel -- anything other than a 2 state solution is going to be disaster for Israel.

I am in full agreement with you that people lambaste Israel without noting that their own countries are not in much of a position to do so. America, with its treatment of native-Americans is in no position to be casting stones on this kind of issue.

But the situation for Israel is far more dire than the native-American issue was for us. Decedents of native-Americans are now American citizens and vote in American elections.

Israel can't afford to do that with the Palestinians. At some point, Israeli officials will have to be willing to draw a present day map of Israel and allow everyone who lives within the borders of that map the ability to vote. And it will have to be a real contiguous map, not some pock-marked map with little islands of sovereignty planted here and there. At some point, if they keep putting it off, there will be a de facto map that will exist whether they acknowledge it or not. If people inside that de facto map can't vote, you have, for all practical purposes, an apartheid state.

Incidentally, I don't want to imply that there is any problem with you referencing articles by people like Glick. A good blog needs a variety of sources.

But I can't help but note that your articles and comments are more informative and helpful, in substance and tone, than most of Glick's articles.

I have to assume, since your writing is more informative and helpful, that you recognize that difference as well.

[Mike]

I don't really have a problem with Israel annexing Jerusalem. But then everybody in Jerusalem has to be able to vote in Israeli elections. My understanding is that didn't happen.

[Tom Bowler]

At some point, Israeli officials will have to be willing to draw a present day map of Israel and allow everyone who lives within the borders of that map the ability to vote.

...everybody in Jerusalem has to be able to vote in Israeli elections. My understanding is that didn't happen.

Interesting points, both. Here again, I think a good analogy might be the illegal immigration controversy here in the US, and in the case of Palestinian "right of return," Israel is wise to resist a huge influx of new citizens. Arab citizens of Israel do have the right to vote.

There are Arab members of Israel's Knesset.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Kenneth Bandler
Special To The Jewish Week

Some Arab members of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, are stepping up their belligerent approach, openly siding with Israel’s enemies. While representing a small minority of Israel’s 1.3 million Arab citizens, their actions could endanger Jewish-Arab relations in Israel.

Knesset member Haneen Zoabi, of the Balad party, was on the Turkish vessel that tried to land in Hamas-ruled Gaza on May 31, seeking to break the Israeli blockade. Earlier that month, six Arab Knesset members traveled to Libya to meet with President Muammar Gaddafi.

Engaging Arab leaders who are at war with Israel is not a new phenomenon. Twenty-two years ago, Knesset member Abdulwahab Darawshe flew from Ben-Gurion Airport to Cyprus, where he intended to catch a flight to Amman to address the PLO’s Palestine National Assembly. He returned home after Jordan refused to issue a visa.

But there was a key difference. Darawshe aspired to be a bridge-builder, to overcome the paradox that bedevils Israeli Arabs — their country, Israel, is at war with their people, Palestinians.

I had always supposed that "Arab" in this context could be equated to "Palestinian," and this article seems to confirm that. At any rate, the existence of Arab members of the Knesset serves to highlight the vast difference between the way Israel treats Palestinians and the way Palestinians treat Israelis. Israel "persecutes" Palestinians that shoot rockets at them, while those that don't... Well, they may get elected to parliament.