18 Mar 2019

Enemies Within

As yet another example of subversives in government that have undermined both Israel and the U.S., former “special envoy” for Presidents Clinton and Obama, Martin Indyk, claims that Arab states will not accept continued Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. In a report from the Jerusalem Post, Indyk-the-Menace tips his hand:

“Like it or not, the Golan Heights are Syrian territory,” Indyk said on Twitter. “To recognize Israel’s annexation of territory that is not its own is to play with fire.”

Like all leftists, Indyk massages the message and data to buttress his left-wing views. From a recent tweet:

“Not that anyone in Trump or Netanyahu land cares, but for the US to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights would be a direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which the United States co-authored, and Israel accepted.” 

This is false. And it is an old falsehood. 

Crafted by British and American diplomats in the fall of 1967, in the shadow of the Six Day War, Resolution 242 says this: 

“(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 

“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” 

From territories. 

Not from all the territories. 

This has been understood for two generations. 

Since Camp David in 1979, and Oslo in 1993, Israel has returned 93 percent of the territory won in the Six Day War. They have returned many territories. 

Indyk and his ilk conveniently gloss over this because it doesn’t fit their narrative of full Israeli capitulation. 

Indyk claims that five former Israeli prime ministers were prepared to give up the Golan, returning it to Syrian control. Israel took the territory in a defensive was in 1967, and the region is vital to Israel’s permanent security interests. 

Indyk doesn’t care. He’s a globalist, a Swamp Creature that isn’t personally harmed by the kind of reckless diplomacy he and his friends have conjured up in recent decades. He says that a return of the Golan to Syria is of course out of the question now—given that the fiendish Assad regime has disintegrated and Iran and Russia are keeping him safe while the country suffers all sorts of torments—but that on that sunny day when Syria becomes a Utopia, Israel must give up the Golan. 

If you’ve been to Israel, you can see the vulnerability of the northern border without even standing on the border. Stand on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and you’ll be able to look up behind you and see how Syrians were able to shell Israelis for years before 1967. 

Indyk doesn’t care about this because it doesn’t affect him. 

Finally, why in the world would Israel be interested in discussing the Golan? Even Hezbollah is strapped for cash and on the skids, much like Arafat was in 1991 when the Bush Administration dragged him out of hiding in a Tunisian cave. Plus, the Arab states in the region are looking for protection from Israel—irony of ironies—and are in no mood to help Syria do anything. 

The downside to Indyk’s statements though is that it reminds us once again that the Left never abandons a disastrous model. At some point in the future, will Israel be pressured to give up the Golan? 

You can count on it.