Obama to Push Saudi “Destroy Israel” Peace Plan

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Obama’s love bombing trip to Israel was heavy on flattery and light on substance, but by the end of it Israel had been pressured into surrendering to Islamist Turkey and Hamas had gotten improved access to Israel. It was the first “accomplishment” of Obama’s trip. But not the last.

Obama had long been an admirer of the Saudi peace plan. Obama had told Abbas during his first term that Israel would be crazy not to accept it. He’s talked it up now and again… and Kerry is reportedly pushing the plan now.

Israeli and Palestinian officials confirmed to McClatchy that President Barack Obama raised the possibility of using the Arab Peace Initiative, as the plan was known, as a framework for an agreement when he was in the region last month.

“It was raised directly by Obama during his visit and during his closed-door discussion with the Palestinian leadership,” said a senior Palestinian official directly involved in the talks. “It was made clear to the Palestinian leadership that this would be the new direction of U.S. diplomacy in the region.”

The official said that White House officials laid the groundwork for the renewal of the Arab peace initiative two weeks before Obama’s visit to Israel and the West Bank when they spoke with Palestinian negotiators in Washington.

“They were told then that this would be the focus and that it had great potential,” said the Palestinian official, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the talks. He said Obama, Kerry, Abbas and Palestinian negotiators Mohammed Shtayeh and Saeb Erekat discussed the topic for several hours during the president’s visit to Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority has its headquarters.

The trouble with the Saudi Peace Plan is that it’s more like a suicide plan involving Israel going back to indefensible 1948 borders, dividing up Jerusalem and accepting millions of Muslim “refugees”.  In exchange the Arab nations, though obviously not Iran or Syria, would consider the conflict over and open diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel.

The Kerry version would no doubt drop the refugees part, but the rest of it would remain largely intact with possibly some small territorial modifications.

The problems are obvious and many

1. The 1948 borders were and are indefensible. Especially against a modern army. A nine mile wide country that can easily be cut in half is always going to be a tempting target. And that target will trump any peace agreements.

2. The idea of signing a peace agreement with all the Arab states sounded better ten years ago when it seemed as if they might actually stick around. The Arab Spring showed how fragile governments and agreements are. Hillary has kept talking about how Israel needs to make peace with peoples, not just governments, and now Obama Inc. is proposing a plan put forward by a totalitarian state that might be overthrown tomorrow. And has Kerry even gotten the various new Islamist governments on board with this?

3. Any peace plan not approved of by Hamas is meaningless because Hamas is the closest thing to a legal government and it is also the popularly supported government. And Hamas, like Hezbollah, has shot down the Saudi Peace Plan. A peace agreement signed with a Palestinian leader who refuses to hold an election is worthless because he does not represent his people.

4. The Saudi Peace Plan calls for returning the Golan Heights to Syria. Syria is unlikely to be on board with the peace plan now and even if it were, its government might not last for very long. The border with Israel is now partly in the hands of Al Qaeda.

5. No interim agreement has resulted in a continued condition of peace throughout the more than two decades of the peace process. What reason is there for believing that a final agreement will be anything but a large scale repetition of the same process?

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Despite the "kissy-gooey", and show of "mamaloshen"/homey shtick, from the Islamist-in-Chief, his true colors showed through, at least to those non-delusional sorts in Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/24/the-convergen

    In this regard, these same folks also know what the Pyromaniac-in-Chief has in store for Israel, during his second term – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/06/obamas-second

    The open question still is, as always: will Israel's spineless leaders revert true to form – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/16/pm-netanyahus

    As such, the jury is still out….

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Mary Sue

    We *could* chalk this up to incredible naivete on Kerry/Obama/whoever's part. That would be an EXTREMELY charitable analysis.

  • HCQ

    Enjoy the Luciferian agenda.

    • Michael

      Why should Israel give up anything? Because the Arabs have been so nice? Are you aware that Israel has been supplying electricity and water to Gaza for free, even as Gaza sends rocket thank you-s? (They don't intend that it should be for free, the gazan just refuse to pay the bill – SINCE 2005!)

  • Loyal Achates

    'Indefensible'? It sure seemed defensible back then, and again in '56 and '67…by what standards are the '67 lines 'indefensible'?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      56 isn't relevant and 67 featured an Israeli preemptive strike. In a 73 Yom Kippur War scenario when the enemy launches a surprise attack, they're not defensible.

      • Trevor

        Yea but he wants you to tell him/her "by what standards are the '67 lines 'indefensible'?"

        If answering that is beyond you just say so,

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Nine miles wide

          • JacksonPearson

            Anything less than what Israel have now, would be suicidal.

            IMO, Israel should make the West Bank a no deal. Make their own peace by keeping it 100%.

            Why should Israel be committed to giving up lands to a hostile government, that were won in a hostile war,

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Why should Israel be committed to giving up lands to a hostile government, that were won in a hostile war,"

            The Islamist / Islamic Jihadi playbook is to have all the Sunnis work together and the "statesman" pose as "peacemakers" (while stage managing the whole thing) and then when the "breakaway" militias attack Israel, Israel must push in to the territory that is controlled by the jihadis. The "statesman" plays victim and laughs while the UN condemns Israel for crossing the "border" in to "sovereign Palestinian land." These days, our traitor Sunni communist POTUS will now side with our enemies at the UN. Remember, the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. And anyone who can read knows who that is.

            It's just another chapter in the decades long joke that has killed so many people in Israel not to mention the longer near-14-centuries disaster of Satanic ideology trying to take over the world in the form we call jihad.

          • JacksonPearson

            The Islamic ploy is to corner Israel down into a sliver of land that can be easily overrun with the end result of Israel being driven into the sea. Their play-book of course comes from the hate filled Qur'an.

            Peace talks are a hoax and joke only to justify a secretary of state job. They'll never be peace in that region of the world because the Arabs never want it to happen. Even if Israel should become somehow extinct, the Arabs will than go after one another.

          • Trevor

            Can you expand on that?

          • defcon 4

            Deliberate irony? Or General Stupidity?

          • JacksonPearson

            What is there to expand on?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What is there to expand on?"

            Trevor understands now that 9 miles is not wide enough and advocates expansion to root out the terrorists permanently.

          • JacksonPearson

            He appears to want people to do searching and homework for him.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Can you expand on that?"

            Yes, in to greater Israel.

        • guest

          By the same standard that trillion dollars is not just a close cousin of a billion dollars. Also Seoul is 31 miles form DMZ and by standards of todays warfare, it is not defensible against North Korean artillery onslaught. Capisce?

          • Neils60

            Guest, You're 100% correct. But, I doubt that Trevor and Royal A**ates will be able to comprehend, as evidenced by their initial questions.

          • Defcon 4

            I'm certain they comprehend, but they're pushing an isalmofascist agenda that has nothing to do w/logic or truth and everything to do w/conquest.

          • JacksonPearson

            Big words and maps are really confusing to some…
            "To him who believeth, no explanation is necessary;
            to him that believeth not, no explanation is possible."

        • gee59

          Ah yes to cowardly morons that haven't a clue about combat are here to lecture us how a 6 mile wide corridor to our capital is defensible.

          I will tell you what – after you two idiots put on uniforms and pick up guns and spend a couple of lifetimes on guard duty protecting perfect strangers because they might need help – then and only then will you have earned a right to say anything at all

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Yea but he wants you to tell him/her "by what standards are the '67 lines 'indefensible'?" "

          There's some subjectivity involved. But let's just say that Islamists will attack and when Israel responds it will not be from those static borders.

          How's that? Any defense will require pushing the borders back again.

    • guest

      Beef up on a concept of Blitz Krieg, it will do you some good.

    • rastabanker

      Change in strategic ideology and weaponry. Range of rockets and artillery would make those lines unmanageable

    • Michael

      Why should Israel give up anything? Because the Arabs have been so nice? Are you aware that Israel has been supplying electricity and water to Gaza for free, even as Gaza sends rocket thank you-s? (They don't intend that it should be for free, the gazan just refuse to pay the bill – SINCE 2005!)

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Why should Israel give up anything? Because the Arabs have been so nice? "

        Come on Michael. Where's your sense of hospitality? Haven't you ever have a house guest destroy your home and then after they are arrested and in jail ask to have the judge release them to come and try again?

    • Mary Sue

      um smart aleck, they didn't have rockets back in 67 like they do now.

  • Ar'nun

    Why should Israel be the first Nation in history to cede land it won fair and square? I say go back to the King Solomon borders, and rebuild the Temple in its righful place.

    • andyprigge

      Yes 100% but where is that place specifically. Do you have scripture to identify that place geographically rather than it being called the threshing place.

      • Guest

        It is called the Temple Mount and the Al Aqsa Mosque is situated on top. It wont take long to clear it because the moslems have been undermining it for years building underground mosques.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yes 100% but where is that place specifically. Do you have scripture to identify that place geographically rather than it being called the threshing place."

        There's enough evidence about the location to know. There are not enough other qualifiers though.

        Location is not the problem. We know enough to let the Israelis enjoy their land in peace but we don't do that.

      • Ar'nun

        We not only have scripture but we also have archaelogical evidence that supports the Temple Mount, the Holy of Hollies.

  • andyprigge

    If war is coming into Israel proper, then I am looking forward to an expanded Israel truer to its Biblical boundaries. That will be a glorious day indeed. I think the Sunni's will be completely out of the picture.
    And the Shiite's will unsuccessfully make war with Ha Mashiach.

  • mjazzguitar

    Just because Jordan seized Judea and Samaria and renamed it doesn't mean it automatically belongs to the arabs.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Just because Jordan seized Judea and Samaria and renamed it doesn't mean it automatically belongs to the arabs."

      Careful now. You're slandering the "prophet of Islam" and hurting religious feelings.

  • rastabanker

    BTW…Israel does not need our permission to level Gaza, and Lbanon to guarantee their safety. I would support that prior to a strike on Iran which will be soon. Forget Syria the CIA has so embedded that war that it won't end any time soon

  • JacksonPearson

    Memo to Israel:
    Don't give up an inch of lands won in past wars. Retain 100% of Jerusalem. Demand the original 1922 British Mandate Borders. Bulldoze the Al Agsa Mosgue and rebuild the Temple. Islam have no claim whatsoever to any of the Holy Lands.

    • Trevor

      "Demand the original 1922 British Mandate Borders."

      The Mandate only allowed for Jewish immigration into 'Palestine' . It [the mandate] never gave Jews sovereignty or control over the region…only immigration and only in numbers [after a certain quota] that was agreed on by the Arabs.

      • JacksonPearson

        The 1922 British Mandate Borders are about 10 times or more compared to what Israel have now. It included what is now called Trans-Jordan, and part of Syria. Israel got short changed.

        • Trevor

          Israel never got "short changed". There was never to be an Israel under the Mandate. Why you fail to grasp that astonishes me….You've never read the mandate, have you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Israel never got "short changed". There was never to be an Israel under the Mandate. Why you fail to grasp that astonishes me….You've never read the mandate, have you?"

            We understand that from your perspective the Jews were given a wonderful gift when some were allowed to live through Hitler's efforts. But unless we say so, we're not discussing things from the perspective of evil enemies of the West.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The Mandate only allowed for Jewish immigration into 'Palestine' . It [the mandate] never gave Jews sovereignty or control over the region…only immigration and only in numbers [after a certain quota] that was agreed on by the Arabs."

        1) It didn't rule anything out with respect to sovereignty
        2) He specified borders, not "do-over."
        3) "agreed upon by Arabs" meaning reasonable negotiations. They were not reasonable and betrayed all of their promises before any aggression was faced by them. They wanted to impose Sharia and build their own Arab Islamic empire to replace the Turks and dealt with the British in bad faith.

        The Arab jihadis lost whatever rights they had as allies of the British during WWI and beneficiaries of British or Western sovereignty. Actions have consequences and you can't simply pick and choose events that suit your narrative out of any historical timeline in order to create supposed victims out of aggressors.

        We call that "lying" and that's what outs you as a complete leftist. You seem unable to even discern your own blatant fallacies even after you've been told and had plenty of time to verify the facts. You just can't face facts that contradict your indoctrination.

        I pity you.

        • Trevor

          There's so much misunderstanding in your reply that it hurts my head.

          "1) It didn't rule anything out with respect to sovereignty"

          Good grief. Jews living outside Palestine had no legal claim to any of the land what so ever. Jews immigrating to Palestine and wishing to make their home there were to take on Palestinian citizenship.

          2. See my above reply to your fellow Brown shirt.

          3. "meaning reasonable negotiations".

          No. Once the initial quota of immigration was met the Arabs and the Arabs alone had the say on whether to take on more refugees. The Arabs need negotiate with no one on that matter.

          The rest of your comment, what can i say. If you're going to continue speaking from your bum hole at least have the decency to clean it first.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Good grief. Jews living outside Palestine had no legal claim to any of the land what so ever. "

            Immigrants don't drop in by parachute. It's up to the sovereign how they arrive. What's your claim then? Submarines were employed and the Israelis took the land from the Arab Muslim sovereigns?

            "No. Once the initial quota of immigration was met the Arabs and the Arabs alone had the say on whether to take on more refugees. The Arabs need negotiate with no one on that matter. "

            You're interpretation is completely delusional for a number of reasons but most salient is what we call the doctrine of clean hands. When you don't uphold your end of the agreement you don't get to whine about legitimate reactions to your perfidy.

            That's the bottom line that could be applied to the entire history of the region. But what do you care because your agenda is to line up with enemies of the West. You are an enemy of the West.

  • Robert

    All US citizens are not like obama and we as Christians stand with Israel. DON'T give up a foot of your land, God gave it to you and I believe he is very angry by the pressure of other countries to threaten you into that. If he gave you something than it is an Honor to protect it, eventually your enemies will pay the ultimate price!

  • bob bartlett

    How much land does Israel need to give up in order for the muslims to start loving the jewish people?

    • RAF1667

      All of it.

      • defcon 4

        The Baghdad pogrom committed by muslimes against the Jewish majority in Baghdad happened before the establishment of Israel. I believe there was another pogrom committed against Jews in Jerusalem by muslimes in the 1920's.

    • Ar'nun

      They will never love the Jewish people, the Koran forbids it.

  • Joshmo

    When will there be peace? When the last one is dead

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Arab Peace Initiative" = "Islamic peace plan" which leads to…..Islamic peace. From the religion of peace.

    • Denise

      No. If Israel were gone the Arabs would keep fighting with each other, and they'd still be trying to spread Islam by the edge of the sword…

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "No. If Israel were gone the Arabs would keep fighting with each other, and they'd still be trying to spread Islam by the edge of the sword…"

        That's what Islamic peace means. It will be peaceful after they're all dead. They expect the peace of Heaven, but that's their problem.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "The trouble with the Saudi Peace Plan is that it’s more like a suicide plan involving Israel going back to indefensible 1948 borders, dividing up Jerusalem and accepting millions of Muslim “refugees”. "

    Jihadi do-over.

    Sure. Next on the agenda the Soviets want to return to 1948 as well.

  • nomemoleste

    First comes the false peace of "the beast" (and antichrist) according to prophecy. (The Revelation)

    Then comes the 1000 year peace of Yeshua Messiah before the end of this world and the heavens.

    See Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24 of the New Testament Bible. Especially about Jerusalem.

    • AmericaLost

      The world is not going to end after 1000 years. Eternity is forever.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The world is not going to end after 1000 years. Eternity is forever."

        I think according to the millennial theory discussed above that Jesus will rule on this planet for 1000 years before a final eternal stage. Obviously then God's dwelling will never be destroyed but in some translations the skies are referred to also as "heavens." Maybe the plural indicates that.

  • Anonymous

    The whole of Arabia is Biblical Israel occupied by the Arabs and so Modern Israel should reclaim its original land promised to it by God and if need be making it Arabrein by using neutron bombs that will annihilate the unwanted invaders but keep the land intact.

  • An American In A Foreign World

    The important thing is not what happens to Israel, as we know Israel doesn't need us. What is important is what is going to happen when we attempt to bully Israel into doing stupid stuff. Remember how bad things always happen to this country when we have done so in the past? We'd better bless Israel, rather than do anything that G-d would take as a curse.

  • Lujack Skylark

    Our Moslem President Obama and his Saudi peace plan shows he is setting the platform for the false peace of the anti-Christ to come.

    • ReaLmz

      VERY True Obama Is The Living False Prophet!

  • claudiaishis

    It is a chess game. They want to manuevering Israel so that she breaks peace in order to defend herself, than global authorities take her over.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It is a chess game. They want to manuevering Israel so that she breaks peace in order to defend herself, than global authorities take her over."

      I think you're correct about the motivation of at least some of the enemies of justice.

  • http://www.none arizona

    hey you guys,don't worry,when your left behind,you'll have one last chance to please the lord,just before your killed………………………………

  • ReaLmz

    Only The 1 True GOD Can Bring Peace Threw His Son Jesus Christ To Think Any Peace Could Last Is Insanity!!!

  • ReaLmz

    Obama Is The False Prophet & A Satan Worshiper!!

    • julie1

      I agree that Obama is the false prophet among "Mabbas" (Mahmoud Abbas) as Nostredamus predicted and the antichrist–SUBTERFUGE. Obama will hand over U.S. soveriegnty to the antichrist who will prevail as a 10 member nation U.N. leader soon. Satan is here as carnate beast, Huling Houston Parker (corresponding to the number of the beast-666) and minions, Obama and antichrist (the beast's man, Peter, as Malachy foresaw, "Peter the Roman"; here on earth as the frail man and mystery, Peter Nurczynski), will be caterpulted into their demonic reign in tribulation.

  • Paul

    Great! But it seems like we all get together and talk. While the left is acting out their talk. I said march peacefully on Washington months ago with 20,000,000 and do not leave.

  • Pazuzu

    Love the picture of my favorite grinning monkey, yassar arafat. After a palestinian bomb would hit a civilian Israeli community, hospital, or whatever; he would decry the incident and wail “We only want peace, it is the Israeli’s who don’t want peace. In a way he’s the progenitor of a whole “people”, the fakestinian palestinian “people”.

  • Edwards

    Israhell is an entity occupying an indigenous people. How can anyone defend such a radical entity.. over a million rabbis want Israel gone, since stealing and killing is against Judaism.. the world had been in turmoil since the Zionist agenda began in 1948. The Zionist style my government, media, and entertainment industry..from America God bless all of Palestine

    • tbenton62

      Yes, and idiots like you blame the Israel for the weather, your lack of savings and of course your obvious low IQ.
      Hate to break it to you, but Israel does not control anything in the US, otherwise would not the US have been more inclined to accept Jerusalem as it’s capital, would never have called for the terms of returning the 1969 boarders, and people like you would not be allowed on these sites. But then, when you are the product of sever inbreeding, I guess that you believe such nonsense should not surprise anyone.

  • Chiliwack

    Israel should never go backwards..push onward.
    Fight for your inherinenc dont be fooled by the
    promises of snakes, swine and fair weather friends.