Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Recently, in his new Middle East policy speech, President Obama insisted that Israel help create a “contiguous Palestine.”

Contiguous is an interesting word; Obama wants the borders of Gaza and the West Bank to be joined together. But this raises an interesting question: If Israel allows the Palestinians to have their contiguous state, will Israel be contiguous? Anyone familiar with a map of Israel knows that if Gaza and the West Bank become contiguous, then Israel has effectively been cut into two.

Obama also mentioned he wanted to see the Palestinians and Israelis agree on a “land swap.” Does he realistically believe that the Palestinians would ever cede East Jerusalem to the Israelis? Granted, the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem is under Jordanian jurisdiction, but does the President really think Israel is going to trade land that has always belong to the Jewish people? In 1948, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and annexed it—despite the fact it was an original part of Israel as defined by the United Nations in 1948. In 1967, King Hussein of Jordan personally gave Israel the keys to Hadassah Hospital, because it was obvious the rightful owners of Jerusalem had returned home.

When President Obama speaks about a land swap, he makes it sound like the Israelis and Palestinians are much like farmers exchanging animals. Jerusalem is not a piece of ordinary “real estate.” However, Obama has already gone on public record in declaring East Jerusalem as “occupied territory” (see my earlier blogs on this matter). Are we to go back to the good old days when the Jordanians used Jewish cemeteries as latrines? Are we to go back to the times when Jews and Christians were denied entrance into East Jerusalem? Does he think we’re stupid or something?

Obama acts as if the Arabs never started the 1967 war, when Arab armies attacked Israel from Gaza Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Since the “Arab Spring” has unfolded in the Middle East, we have seen how Obama abandoned President Mubarak of Egypt, a man who more than any other individual in the Middle East has kept peace between Egypt and Israel. Every change the President has encouraged in the Middle East has strengthened the hand of Iran. Yet, despite Iran being the most oppressive country in the Middle East, Obama treats the mullahcracy with respect; he offered absolutely no support to the pro-Democracy movement in 2009 when the people took to the streets, hoping that the American president would give support to their cause.

It was a golden opportunity for the President to shine, and yet he preferred to remain blind, deaf, and dumb when it came to confronting the mad mullahs of Iran.

One must wonder whether President Obama seriously thinks his plan will serve the cause of peace or not, and the answer is obvious. He is determined to weaken Israel to the point that it will be incapable of defending her borders. He is willing to sacrifice Israel to placate the Arab world, who will most certainly view such a victory as a sign from Allah that the West will also collapse under the weight of Muslim intimidation.

Does it ever occur to Obama the kind of mayhem legions of suicide bombers would do to Israel if the people were at their mercy. Think of what Hitler did to the Jews. Think of what happened in Rwanda. Obama’s hatred of Israel is obvious; his mannerisms are duplicitous. There is no room for error. Israel could very be easily defeated in a new war based on the 1967 boundaries-or worst-as Obama envisions.

Most of my liberal Jewish friends who campaigned for Obama are now disillusioned and petrified with fear; they have abandoned their support of Obama.

If Obama really wanted to make a meaningful statement about his policy in the Middle East, he would have made the following points:

(1) There will be no two-state solution, but a three state solution that will be contingent upon Hamas recognizing Israel’s right to exist. The same applies to the West Bank government of Abbas as well. Without recognition of Israel’s right to exist, there will be no peace agreement, and certainly no Palestinian statehood.

(2) Any degree of financial or military support for Egypt is contingent upon Egypt keeping the Camp David Accords. Obama, to date, has never made such a proclamation. Should the Muslim Brotherhood win big in Egypt, they have said the first act of legislation will be the repudiation of the Camp David Accords. If Egypt can renege on its peace treaty with Israel, why shouldn’t the Palestinians do so as well? It will take more than a piece of paper that says, “Peace on it . . .”

(3) There will be no “Right of Return” to Israel from the Palestinians displaced by their Arab leaders who refused to accept them.

(4) To the Palestinians, “Grow up and take responsibility for your peoples’ misery. You are largely responsible for your own wretchedness.”

(5) There will be no ‘Arab Spring” that does not respect human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of minorities-regardless who they are. There will be free press and the right to dissent . . .

(6) Not a nickle will go any Palestinian government that teaches its children hatred of Jews, or supports terror.

Not since the days of Abba Eben have I felt so proud of an Israeli leader. Bibi Netanyahu made every Jew proud when he rejected and chastised the President for asking Israel to commit suicide. The steely glare of the President revealed a hatred and sense of outrage. “How dare this Israeli embarrass me before the entire country and world!” was probably, one thought that coursed through his mind. Did he really expect to intimidate Israel?

Through either stupidity or arrogance-or worst-the President behaves like an enemy of our people. Obama is Jimmy Carter Redux.

The AIPAC response to Obama was muted at best. No amount of Presidential citations from the Talmud will sanitize his goal and apparent objective.

Either President Obama is an arrogant fool, who doesn’t realize the harm he is about to cause; or, his intentions are indeed malevolent. Either way, we wish him the blessing of the Czar.

Obama would be wise to respect the wisdom of the ages; in the Hippocratic Oath, the physician promises to never cause harm to another person. Shouldn’t this dictum apply to Presidents as well-especially when dealing with solving the problems of the Middle East?

I want to conclude with a wonderful Talmudic insight that speaks directly about this theme.

The Talmud records how Rabbah and Rabbi Zera once got together and celebrated Purim. After getting drunk, Rabbah cut Rabbi Zera’s throat with a knife. Rabbi Zera nearly died, but miraculously he recovered.

A year later, Rabbah met Rabbi Zera in the street and invited him for another Purim celebration. However, this time, Rabbi Zera turned down the invitation. He said to him, “Thanks but no thanks; it’s not every day that a miracle occurs” (BT Megillah 7b).

The moral of the story ought to be abundantly clear: by means of great miracle, Israel survived the 1967 war. However, who is to say that another miracle will occur if and when the Arabs start another war from the same boundaries of 1967?

Obama is no fool, but neither is Bibi Netanyahu or the Jewish people.

Remember that on next Election Day . . .