Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama on the Wrong Side of Israel Border Issue

Obama on the Wrong Side of Israel Border Issue
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 20, 2011

Bigger than the 2012 election, the security and ultimate survival of the State of Israel are at stake thanks to an irresponsible and radical speech given by the most hostile US president Israel has encountered in its 63 years.

In his May 19 speech, Barack Obama callously called for a two-state solution where Israel would revert back to the days of its pre-1967 War borders. He may as well be seeking a “Final Solution,” that would give Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the Muslim Brotherhood reason to dance in the streets.

Such a suggestion by Obama would shrink Israel’s “waistline” from roughly 45 miles to a mere 12 miles, creating an untenable situation with “virtually indefensible borders,” according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, adding, the airport would be in total jeopardy.

Obama and anyone else supporting such an outlandish notion need consult a history text pertaining to the Six Days War of 1967. A war where Israel was mercilessly attacked by the quartet of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria. Israel fought back, rightfully defending herself, and in the process garnering the lands of Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

When you win, you win, was an oft-quoted comment from the late Rabbi Meir Kahane (1932-90). Kahane was also correct when saying one does not return land won in war – especially a war started by ones enemies, as in the case of 1967.

Adding insult to injury, Obama expects Israel to surrender land for a guarantee of nothing in return, a plan criticized by legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. This is a “one-sided insistence that Israel surrender territories without the Palestinians giving up the right of return,” said Dershowitz, adding, “the president’s speech gave no cause for optimism.”

Not unless that optimism is being felt by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Palestinian Authority, who have in their various charters calls for the destruction of the Jewish State and the death of the Jewish people. With these extreme beliefs, no amount of surrendered land can ever placate an enemy with such genocidal goals.

Land for potential peace is a farce at best. Stand on your head if you think Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Palestinian Authority can be trusted. Clearly history has demonstrated there is no precedence for such trust. Once land is gone, it is gone, yet peace is fleeting at best and ever so tenuous if ever achievable when dealing with such volatile combatants.

Further, a two-state solution is no solution, but instead, a reward for generations of terrorism, murder, and the systematic teaching of lies to future generations of Israel and Jew haters. Such a return to the pre-1967 borders would put East Jerusalem in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, along with the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Mount of Olives, the Temple Mount and the Room of the Last Supper – sites of religious importance to Jews and Christians.

The call for a return to the pre-1967 borders would also see the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens – Jewish, Christian and Muslim from their rightful homes. Where these major population centers are concerned, Netanyahu correctly criticized Obama for breaking its commitment to Israel made in 2004 by former President George W. Bush.

Bush rightly recognized both the existence of these population centers as well as the enormity in attempting to move those already living there. “It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines on 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities,” Bush wrote in a letter in 2004 to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

There is absolutely nothing in Obama’s plan that Netanyahu could possibly agree to that would satisfy and secure the safety of the people of Israel. Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, as many, including potential GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (MA) has said since the outrageous speech.

“This proposal is a slap in the face of our friends and only democracy in the Middle East,” said Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

This speech by Obama had better serve as a wake-up call to the Jewish community, who gave Obama 78 percent of its vote in 2008. Christian conservatives who are typically ardent supporters of Israel seem to be more outraged than many Jewish voters who will find any excuse to vote for the Democratic ticket.

Israel is the canary in the minefield of global democracies. Obama is on the wrong side of this issue and we must make him pay at the ballot box next year.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. The 10 year City resident still keeps a finger on the pulse of Alexandria.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Illegals' Plight no Civil Rights II

Illegals' Plight no Civil Rights II
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 10, 2011

The DREAM Act is a nightmare for US citizens and taxpayers, who should come first.

If Erica D. Smith (Teen immigrants put their dreams into sit-in plans) has her way, we the taxpaying citizens will be ponying up to allow illegal immigrants to sit in college classrooms, paying in-state tuition rates.

What part of illegal escaped Ms. Smith’s vocabulary? Actions have consequences. Parents in this country illegally, with their children who are also in the US illegally, knew they were breaking the law upon arrival. Now it is time to pay the piper.

Start with the notion of in-state tuition – those in this country illegally should not only be denied the privilege to pay in-state tuition, they should not be allowed to matriculate in the first place – at any price.

Then, comparing life on campus with that on a military base does a disservice to the men and women in uniform. Illegals at frat parties should not be a path to citizenship. With proper vetting, maybe, five years of military service could be a path to citizenship – maybe.

Comparing the plight of illegal immigrants to that from the Civil Rights Movement is an insult to the legal American citizens denied basic rights. Illegal immigrants do not even have a right to be in this country, let alone make demands of it.

House Bill 1402 and Senate Bill 590 should be signed by Governor Mitch Daniels – not for some picture of posturing and a potential GOP presidential nomination, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator who moved to Westfield two weeks ago.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

New In Town, but Paying Attention

New In Town, but Paying Attention
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 1, 2011

I must take issue with Matthew Tully’s commentary “Primary day: There’s a reason to care. Really.”

In his somewhat amusing, sad but true thoughts about primaries, if he wanted to encourage people to get off their collective duffs and out to the polls on Election Day, he should have mentioned Westfield.

I’ve been in town a mere 96 hours and even I know there is a mayoral primary between Mayor Andy Cook and his challenger Russell Cameron. Yet, Tully ignores the Westfield race and gripes, rightfully, about the paucity of challengers in the numerous single-candidate races.

Then, I question the inconsistency of Jon Murray’s article, “Area’s mayoral contests, schools take the spotlight.”

While Murray discusses the mayoral race in Indianapolis, along with Mayor Greg Ballard’s opponents, as well as the participants in the Carmel contest, four GOP mayors in Indianapolis suburbs, including my new home of Westfield, were mentioned as facing opposition, yet nary a mention of their names.

This explains the Duma-like rate of incumbent reelection. Being in town 96 hours, I do not have a dog in this fight – this year.

Sanford D. Horn moved to Westfield last week and is looking forward to getting involved in his new community.