The "NEW" American policy towards the Middle East:

It's surely new for this administration, anyway...

What happened to the promise made only two years ago that America didn't have the "right" to force change down another region's throat? How are Obama's efforts to remove Gaddafi any different than Bush's efforts to remove Saddam, fundamentally speaking? How is Obama's promise to support and reward "rebels" across the region any different than Bush Jr., Bush Sr. or Reagan's efforts to effect change in Afghanistan, Iran or Syria?

I'm really not sure what to make of this "new" policy. He seems to have taken just over 25 months to learn that Bush was right, and force projection was the quickest and easiest way to secure US interests in the region's hot spots.

I got on this topic because Ryan sent me a text saying he'd heard the speech. I got home from picking up the oldest from work and listened to it myself. The only part that really got my worried was the part about the US "supporting" a return to the pre-1967 borders with Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. To be fair, he said it would be a starting point, and that nothing was off the table for discussion... but these pre-67 borders did come up again and again.

Understand this: The Palestinains DO NOT want to go back to the pre-1967 agreement any more than the Israelis do. Why? Because that means that Jordan has all political and security authority for the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Egypt gets authority over Gaza. It was the failing of these two Arab states in keeping their end of the "bargain" in 1949 that started this whole mess in the first place. Had Jordan actually been able to adequately administer the "Palestinian territories" in the agreed upon manner (with full, unfettered access to all Jewish and Christian holy sites, at any time and to anyone, and that all holy sites would be administered by the respective faiths involved equally)... then the fighting over access wouldn't have grown into an all out war of conquest (on the Israeli's part) and extermination (on the Arab's part).

There can be no gray area here: Israel was acting in legitimate defense of its sovereignty when it initiated military operations against Egypt and Jordan in June of 1967. There were more than 100,000 Egyptian troops within 2 miles of the Israeli border on the Sinai, and another 80,000 Jordanians and Iraqis in the West Bank region. Egypt had "closed" the Suez to all Israeli-bound traffic in May of that year... an act that even the UN had said would justify military response against Egypt as early as 1957. The Soviets were force-feeding Syria false reports about Israeli troop movements (this became a known fact in 1998 with the opening of the Kremlin archives to the West) and the Syrians were calling for immediate mass invasion from all possible fronts.

I'm the first to admit that I have criticized Israel for what I perceived to be errors in strategic and political planning over the last 15 years or so... but (no matter what Ryan might think) I have never doubted Israel's right and obligation to defend herself against the very real and constant threat that is another Arab-Israeli war. The "occupied territories" are captured territory, that is true... but they are NOT areas gain through aggressive conquest or expansionist political goals. They are lands taken from aggressors who openly threatened and attacked Israeli citizens, with the intention of creating greater security and safety for those same citizens in the future. We are not to allow ourselves to see the "occupied territories" in the same way we saw Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990, or Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded in 1980. Israel wasn't looking to "grow" into a Jewish Empire, for Pete's sake... it was keeping what was lost by aggressors in the legitimate defense of a sovereign state.

Frankly, I'm still not convinced that a "two-state" solution isn't the best course to follow... but NOT at the expense of Israeli security. And I AM convinced that the PA (and especially Hamas) does NOT want a return to the 1967 borders, either... since that would mean they'd have to recognize and abide by those borders as legitimate and sovereign. They primary goal, since their very inception as a people and a government is the destruction of Israel entirely and complete control of the entire Levant. It's written into their very Charter itself.

I'm also convinced that this is a can of worms that Obama is very rapidly going to wish was never opened.