Obama’s absurd demands re Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are being challenged on a number of fronts. Most recently, the liberal Washington Post has spoken up, commenting that Obama’s demands may leave him without Israel as an ally and without Arab support.
“The problem is that no Israeli government — not Mr. Netanyahu’s, not even one led by the current opposition — is likely to agree to a total construction ban,” the Washington newspaper stated in its editorial. “By insisting on one, the administration risks bogging it down in a major dispute with its ally, while giving Arab governments and Palestinians a ready excuse not to make their own concessions.”
The Washington Post pointed out that former President Bill Clinton as well George W. Bush recognized the “facts on the ground” of a permanent Jewish presence in such cities as Maaleh Adumim.
However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specifically said earlier this week that the Obama government does not recognize the personal promise by Bush on Israeli retention of the city as well as other areas.
She called Bush’s letter to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “unofficial.” Most analysts said the letter may be morally binding on the U.S. but not legally binding.
The editorial also said that following the Israeli actions, President Obama could insist that the PA and Arab states take actions to match Israelis. It did not specify which ‘actions’ it was referring to.
If Obama gets his way, then Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria will shrink. These areas were part of the original area set out as part of the Jewish homeland. And the only reason Israel has them today is because she acquired them while defending herself from Arab nations that were yet again attacking her.