Building Bridges

 
The U.S President Barack Hussein Obama arrived in Indonesia and in a joined news conference with the Indonesian President he said among other things:

"With respect to outreach to the Muslim world, I think that our efforts have been earnest and sustained. We don't expect that we are going to completely eliminate some of the misunderstandings and mistrust that have developed over a long period of time, but we do think that we're on the right path."

I'm not entirely clear what misunderstandings he was talking about. The nature of Islam and Obama's distortion of it are very well described here and I will not repeat the analysis. His attempts to mischaracterize Islam or maybe his willful misunderstanding of Islam have consequences, some severe. One of them is the danger of starting a new war in the Middle East.

Asked about Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem Obama said: "Each of these incremental steps can end up breaking that trust between these parties." Again, I'm not clear what trust he is talking about. Is it the trust Israel should put into the corrupt band of thugs called the Palestinian Authority? A group that systematically reneged on every obligation it undertook under the "Land for Peace" agreements - taking the land and offering terror in return. Or is it the trust that the Palestinians put into the "Zionist Entity" the one they hope to destroy soon?

Besides making these statements from Indonesia that doesn't allow Israeli citizens entry, there is a more fundamental problem that seems not to bother Obama and the "journalists" that write about the Middle East: what are "settlements"?

Note that Obama was asked about "settlement" construction in east Jerusalem. What makes this a settlement? The housing in question was approved and will be built on land that belonged to Jews for generations. Some of it was Jewish for a hundred years and some longer. The same is true for the "settlements" of Gush Etzion, houses in Hebron and other places. Some of the "settlements" are built on land that used to belong to the Turkish Sultan and then to the Jordanian state, that gave up its rights to it. What makes these different from Tel Aviv?

The main difference is simple: the Jordanian Arab Legion conquered what is now called The West Bank and east Jerusalem during the 1948 war if Independence. Jordan promptly turned these properties over to Arabs who had no legitimate claim to them. This is how people who want to live in houses their families owned in 1928, before the massacre of the Jewish community of Hebron, are suddenly defined as "settlers".

The Europeans and the President of the U.S. keep calling rightful Jewish owners of land "settlers" only because the Arabs succeeded to take it away by force in a war of aggression. Shouldn't the same logic apply to Jews that took the same land by force in a defensive war? Apparently not.
So what about Tel Aviv? maybe it is also a "settlement" that has to be uprooted?

The firm and conclusive Palestinian response is YES. They are still showing in their schoolbooks maps with a Palestinian state on all the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean. The way to eradicate these "settlements" is through the right of return: flooding Israel with millions of Arab "refugees" as part of a peace agreement.
This is not surprising - Islam is absolutely intolerant of any incursion into its domain. How dare Jews set up an independent state in Dar El Islam - the House of Islam? No land once conquered by Islam can be relinquished except temporarily if it's taken back by force and guarded by a superior enemy. This makes Israel only a first in a line of candidates for Muslim restoration. Greece, that Balkans and Spain are next on the list. The mechanism of this restoration will be different but they still are on the Muslim agenda and will come after Israel is destroyed.

So what bridges is Barack Hussein building and where do they lead?

By defining anything built across the 1948 armistice line as "settlements" Obama joins the loud chorus of voices trying to delegitimize Israel's and the Jews right to any land, however long it has been in Jewish hands, if it is not within the 1967 "suicide" borders. From there only a short bridge leads to denying Israel any rights at all. Why are Tel Aviv, Hadera, Netanya and all the rest different from Jerusalem?
The Palestinians and other Arabs see Obama's rhetoric for what it is: blatant denial of Israel's right to exist. With such a strong supporter of their cause the next logical step is an attack. In the last 40 years, after the 1973 war, the Arabs seem to have realized that they don't have the military wherewithal to defeat Israel. Now with Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas ready to strike and the U.S. President in full agreement with them, they may decide to do so.

The other bridge Obama is building is much longer. It leads from the Muslim world into the Western. First Europe and then the U.S. or maybe in reverse order. No bridge built to Islam is two-way. Islam goes only one way: out to conquer. Therefore any bridges Obama is building have one purpose: to facilitate the spread of the "Religion of Peace".

Obama may not be building these bridges to make Islam's takeover of the West easier. He may be naive or stupid or vain or something else or all of the above. None of the above is an excuse to bring on the Islamisation of our society. The Europeans noticed the danger and parties are popping up all over that have stopping Islam's march across Europe as an important item on their agenda. In the U.S. the elites are still talking about multiculturalism and tolerance. I hope that both we and Europe wake up before it's too late.