According to The Blaze, Congressman Allen West decried President Obama’s insistence that Israel return to the 1949 Armistice borders established when the nascent Jewish State thwarted the Arab Muslim jihad invasion. West characterized this demand as the “most egregious foreign policy decision” of the Obama administration, while voicing his concern that implementing such a policy “could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.” Elaborating, West further observed:
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
He concluded with these apt critiques of Obama’s pronouncement — a morally cretinous geostrategic disaster:
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.
The Obama Man-child’s animus toward Israel as unmasked by Allen West reflects Obama’s deeply ingrained Third Worldism.
Sylvia Haim, our greatest scholar of Arab nationalism, knew that this ideology was simply a forme fruste (an apt medical term for the incomplete, yet still diagnostic manifestations of a disease entity) of jihad. And Haim observed in 1955 that even the Arab Nationalist Ba’ath Party founder, Michel Aflaq — a Christian, or more appositely, an “Islamo-Christian” — insisted that in the end, Islam comprised the essence of this pseudo-secular political dogma:
Another feature of the modern doctrine which fits in with the Muslim past is the emphasis which both of them lay on communal solidarity, discipline and cooperation. The umma in Islam is a solidary entity, and its foremost duty is to answer the call of the jihad. This brings us to the third feature which both modern and ancient systems have in common, to wit the glorification of one’s own group. The traditional attitude of the Muslims to the outside world is one of superiority, and the distinction between the Dar al-harb, Dar al-Islam, and Dar as-sulh, is an ever present one in the mind of the Muslim jurist. It may therefore be said in conclusion of this modern doctrine of nationalism, that although it introduces into Islam features which may not accord with strict orthodoxy, it is the least incompatible perhaps of modern European doctrines with the political thought and political experience of Sunni Islam.
Haim (in 1962) quoted Aflaq:
Muhammad was the epitome of all the Arabs, so let all the Arabs today be Muhammad … Islam was an Arab movement and its meaning was the renewal of Arabism and its maturity … [even] Arab Christians will recognize that Islam constitutes for them a national culture in which they must immerse themselves so that they may understand and love it, and so that they may preserve Islam as they would preserve the most precious element in their Arabism.
Haim concluded in 1962 that “For Aflaq, Islam is [emphasis in original] Arab nationalism[.]”
It is now painfully apparent — witness these remarkable and distressingly stupid comments from 2009 (“if you actually took the number of Muslim-Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”) and further consider the continued obsequious behavior toward the Muslim world, added to relentless pressure upon Israel for land and security concessions — that Barack Obama’s dull-witted adherence to Franz Fanon-style, “Wretched of the Earth”-inspired Third Worldism could be described as follows:
For Obama, Islam is Third Worldism.
Perhaps that is why this Man-child hates the Promised Land of Israel — certainly its Jewish inhabitants and their government. After all, Israel being the only modern, fully functioning pluralistic democracy amidst a barren landscape of Arab Muslim societies and their fanatical, theocratic, thugocratic, kleptocratic, and just plain lunacratic “governments.” But it is to these Muslim populations that the Man-child pays homage, while eagerly offering up as “tribute” — jizya — willing participation in the dismantling of Israel.
The contrast with Allen West’s staunch support for Israel — sound both geopolitically and morally — could not be starker.