The Arab League is not generally portrayed in the media as particularly radical since the West had several allies in the Arab League and could count on some degree of moderation by our allies in the internal machinations of the Arab League. But, the Arab League has always been set against the existence of Israel and has rejected the Post World War II treaties that established the Nation of Israel. But, when you factor in what the media is referring to as the “Arab Spring”, the list of nations in the Arab League that we counted on as allies or moderators is shrinking rapidly. We have recently lost our strongest ally, Egypt, with Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, and Bahrain tacking radical. Even Saudi Arabia is distancing itself from the US in light of Obama’s snubbing of overtures for support from Saudi Arabia on behalf of Bahrain. Today, it is unclear just how Saudi Arabia would vote in the Arab League if an up or down vote was taken to sanction an attack against Israel.
The historically radical elements in the Arab League and the Middle East that include Iran, Syria, Libya (who in 2001 we had neutralized but now will probably end up in the radical camp again due to Obama’s policies) Sudan, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and Somalia, also have declared de facto war and hopes of annihilation of the United States and the West in addition to their cries for the annihilation of Israel. This, if nothing else, should give pause to those who question way we support Israel. Don’t think for a minute that these same radical nations won’t use oil as a weapon, especially now that India and China have increased their demand and consumption to historically high levels. Where we are today and why Obama’s Speech was a death wish for Israel and the US and provides the Arabs with a path to their peace by eliminating the US and Israel.
Arab Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, August 29 to September 1, 1967
Before we review the outcome of this meeting by the Arab League, let’s step back a few months and view some of the events in Israel and the inactions by the UN that set the stage for this meeting of Arab leaders from 8 member nations of the Arab League.
Prior to the end of the “6 Day War“, Israel did not control all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, the Gaza Strip, nor the West Bank. In six days, Israel defeated forces from Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Syria. It was a humiliating defeat of these much larger Arab nations and one that confirmed that Israel could not rely on the post WWII treaties that established their right of existence to protect them from their Arab neighbors. It also cast in stone for the Israelis that control over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Sinai, the Gaza Strip were vital to their survival.
The United Nations had once again had proven ineffective in providing peaceful means to avoid this conflict but could only clamor for a cease-fire during the 6 days of combat. But, they did provide for a cornerstone to be laid regarding the new, post 6 Day War Israeli boundaries. This resolution has been the key to US foreign policy positions regarding Israel and its neighbors until President Obama came along. After months of debate, the ineffectual UN finally adopted a resolution providing for:
- UNSCR 242
- It anticipates that Israel will withdraw to secure borders in exchange for peace guarantees from the Arab parties. Note: there was no mention of the specific borders nor any mandate for Israel to return to Pre-6 Day War boundaries.
- The resolution was worded in such a way to allow the Israelis to determine what borders would be deemed to provide a secure barrier against its neighboring aggressors. The resolution stated the “Israel withdraw from “territories””, not specific territories, ie the West Bank, Golan Heights, etc..
- While the UN resolution was intentionally vague, what it did not say is the key in addition to comments made by the crafters of the resolution. Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador to the UN at the time, stated: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them.” (1)
- Arthur Goldberg, our UN Ambassador at the time and a party to the drafting of the resolution stated “..There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967…” Clearly the architects of the resolution had no intent to force Israel to withdraw to pre 1967 boundaries. In fact, the US and Britain defeated several USSR proposals to do just that.
The 6 Day War ended on June 10th, 1967, UNSCR 242 was adopted on November 22, 1967, with the Arab League Meeting in Khartoum in between commencing on August 29, 1967 and concluding with the 3 NOs Resolution, on September 1st, 1967. The 3 NOs agreement basically stated:
- NO peace with Israel
- NO recognition of Israel
- NO negotiations with Israel
So basically, the antagonists of the 6 Day Warsaid in advance that they would not abide by the UN Resolution in advance of its adoption. The Khartoum resolution actually weakened the arguments that the USSR tried to make in the UN Security Council against the adopted language in UNSCR 242. The fact that the Arab League came out with such a blatant antagonistic stance against Israel, left the USSR without any conciliatory bargaining power against the US and Britain.
While almost 45 years have gone by since the 6 Day War, the strategic value of the lands gained by Israel during this conflict have not. This is especially true of the Golan Heights and the West Bank. If Israel were to give up the lands gained during the 6 Day War, they would place themselves in an indefensible position. The City of Natanya would be only 9 miles from a hostile border, the city of Tel Aviv, the capital, would be only 11 miles from a hostile border and the city of Beersheba only 10 miles from a hostile border. Further, the lands that they would give up are at a much higher elevation than the low-lying areas that would be remaining leaving this narrow remain land subject to easy rocket and mortar attack. Jerusalem would be divided with the old city, the site of Christian Holy lands, would revert to Arab Muslims.
When Obama tried to stong arm Israel into giving up these lands last week, he was promoting their annihilation. Once Israel was annihilated, the US and the West would be next. It is difficult to understand why our media and the left do not believe the words of the Arab-Muslim radicals who are in control of the Middle East and have nuclear weapons, when they call for “Death to America”. Is this somehow ambiguous or unclear? Or, do you really think that if we sacrifice the “JEWS”, like we did with Hitler in the 1930’s and 1940’s, that these people who hate us will suddenly like us? Chamberlain tried that tactic with Germany prior to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, how did that work out for the free world?
Obama is an ideologue hell-bent on sacrificing Israel in some demented hope that this will make the world all better and that the Muslims around the world will love us and accept Christianity and Judaism (without an Israel) as religions that can coexist with Islam. Really?