By Schmoel Yitzhak
The con is on.
Barack Obama has launched his attempt to resume peace talks between Israel and the Arabs.
Mind you, the Muslim president of the United States has no idea which Arabs will represent the pseudo-Palestinians if any negotiations with the Jewish State take place.
Will it be the fake-moderate, Mahmoud Abbas, or Khaled Meshal of Hamas?
Of course, it really doesn't matter to the White House; all Obama wants to do is chain Benjamin Netanyahu to some sort of tissue paper treaty that the Arabs will flush away the moment they find a weakness in Israel's underbelly.
To get things going, the president recently invited a bunch of Jewish "Yes-Men" to the White House, ostensibly for some friendly persuasion. Obama persuades them; and then they persuade Bibi.
The deal goes like this: "You Jewish guys tell Bibi that if he okays my 'framework for negotiations,' I'll keep those Palestinians from seeking statehood at the United Nations."
If the Obama's "Jewish Yes-Men" do his bidding, it does not -- repeat, NOT -- mean that Israel's Prime Minister has to do anything more than say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the President's messengers.
My reason is quite simple; by placing the onus on Israel to re-launch negotiations is like driving from Jerusalem to Washington via the Atlantic Ocean Bridge.
It's impossible -- right -- because there is no bridge.
Likewise, having Israel agree to negotiations is impossible because there's no peace partner there. (Get it, there's no THERE there.)
Saeb Erekat -- alleged "chief-negotiator" for the alleged Palestinians -- has made that clear, declaring that he would resume talks with Israel if Bibi accepted the 1967 borders for a Palestinian state.
What Erekat states is roughly equivalent to telling Netanyahu that, yes, he is invited to dinner but before sitting down Bibi must drink two goblets of cyanide.
Bibi made it clear to all the world -- and, especially to the White House -- that Israel never will return to an indefensible (1967) border that invites instant invasion.
He told that to Obama's face after the so-called "friend of Israel" backstabbed him by introducing the 1967 border issue as a "starting point" for discussions. Political columnists such as Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary saw it with 20-20 vision.
"Anyone who witnessed on television the drama that played out between Obama and Netanyahu understood that there was an argument going on," said Tobin, "and that, in the end, the Israeli prevailed."
Bibi prevailed because he HAD to for the preservation of his country. What's more, why in the world would Uncle Sam demand that Israel once again make the first concession before mediation begins?
The intransigence -- as it always has been -- is on the Arab side. For one thing, the Erekats of the world are uninterested in a true peace and for another his Hamas partners are determined to eliminate Israel. Gilead Ini, senior research analyst for CAMERA, puts it bluntly:
"What Hamas leaders espouse is nothing more or less than the 'phased plan' for destroying Israel. That is the acceptance of whatever land can be gotten in the short term as a step toward gaining all the rest later," noted Ini. "Hamas political leader Mahmoud al-Zhar said early this year that the Jews 'have no place among us...and no future among the nations.'"
So, why would Obama come to Netanyahu first before demanding -- as in DEMANDING -- that the Arabs begin by accepting Israel the way it is; as a Jewish state?
The answer is as obvious as the president's body language and behavior toward the Prime Minister of the Middle East's only democracy, who is treated as some troublesome interloper instead of friend.
"Three times in the last three years," asserted Tobin, "Obama has picked a public fight with the government of Israel. He has tilted the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians. His refusal to couple these demands on Israel with similar one put on the Palestinians such as a request that they drop the 'right of return' has discomfited Israel and made peace an even more remote possibility."
The con is on.
Obama knows that genuine peace has absolutely no relation to Israel withdrawing to its June 1967 borders. No group has made this more clear then the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
* BECAUSE -- Since 1967, Israel has repeatedly conceded "land for peace" withdrawing from Sinai in exchange for "peace" with Egypt; that so-called peace is rapidly being flushed away by the post-Mubarak government.
* BECAUSE -- Since 1995, when Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel none of the other 21 Arab states have deigned to recognize the Jewish state. (Obama might ask his buddies in Saudi Arabia what they have against Israel; that is other than general Jew-hating.)
* BECAUSE -- In 2000 Israel (via Prime Minister Barak) offered Yasser Arafat full sovereignty over 97 percent of the West Bank, a corridor to Gaza and a capitol in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Faster than you can say, "The Arabs don't want peace," Arafat nixed the offer. What's more, the current mouthpiece, Abbas refused virtually the same offer from Prime Minister Olmert.
* BECAUSE -- We all know what happened when Prime Minister Sharon gave away Gaza.
* BECAUSE -- Since 2010 Bibi has made offers of unconditional negotiations leading to a Palestinian State but gets nothing but snubs, demands for more unilateral Israeli concessions and a total freeze of all construction in Judea and Samaria.
These are the FACTS that Obama conspicuously and unfairly ignores.
This is the president who knifed has long-time pal, Mubarak, in the back because of a "revolt" in Egypt yet has done nothing to stop Assad's endless slaughter in Syria.
And this is the guy for whom Netanyahu should made further concessions?
Unless Bibi is the ultimate masochist leader of the ultimate masochist state, the Prime Minister should directly, bluntly, do what he did at the White House:
Tell the Muslim president: "Thanks, but NO THANKS!"
In dealing with the Arabs, that's the only thing that makes sense.