If anyone still retained any doubt about where President Obama stands on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, that doubt should be gone now. In his speech yesterday, the president actually called for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders.

History reminder: in 1967, the nation of Israel fought the Six-Day War against its Arab “neighbors”—that term is more outlandish than descriptive. As a result of that war, this tiny country added more territory, which has caused great consternation in the Arab world ever since. Keep in mind, though, what Israel looked like prior to this war:

Notice that the width of Israel at one point was a grand total of nine miles. Tel Aviv was only eleven miles from its enemies, and Jerusalem was controlled by the Arabs, despite it being the ancient capital of the Jews.

The problem? The radicals who currently control the Palestinian territories want to kill every last Israeli. Even if Israel would agree to go back to those ludicrous borders that would wreak havoc with their defense, the radicals would not be satisfied. They are on record as saying nothing will satisfy them but the elimination of every Jew in the land.

We’re talking Hitler-style elimination here. We’re talking pure evil.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rightly rejected Obama’s call to return to those borders. It will be interesting to see what comes of the meeting between the two today. Israel has reason to worry. It does not have a friend in the White House.

What is the source of this animus toward Israel by Obama? Keep in mind his twenty-plus years of attendance at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “church” in Chicago, a “church” that preaches a combination of unhistorical Afrocentrism and Marxist-inspired liberation theology. This is a “church” that has put declarations from Hamas in its bulletins on Sunday mornings. What does Hamas seek to do? Annihilate Israel.

Obama sees the Israelis as occupiers, and the Palestinians as the oppressed. Well, they certainly are oppressed, but I counter that the source of their oppression is their own so-called leadership.

Obama will mouth the right words about the right of Israel to defend itself, but his actions continually undermine any soothing words he may utter.

As an evangelical Christian, I support Israel because I believe Biblical history: God used this nation as His conduit for bringing the Truth and the Light of the gospel into this world. I also don’t believe He’s done working with this people.

But even if I weren’t an evangelical supporter—even if I were assessing this situation as a confirmed secularist—I would be alarmed at the attempt to undercut the one ally we have in the Middle East, and the only one that allows its people a real voice in their government. A Middle East without Israel would be a complete cesspool of radical Islamist tyranny.

We abandon Israel at the risk of turning the entire Middle East over to our worst enemies. When they are done with Israel, they will turn on us with an even greater invective than we have witnessed thus far.

We must stand by Israel at all costs.

I’d like to add a few thoughts on some of the topics I’ve covered this week. On the whole Israel-Palestinian conflict, I believe it’s vital not to lose track of history. Hamas is a terrorist organization, devoted to the destruction of all Jews and to wiping the nation of Israel off the map. Israel, meanwhile, has always allowed Arabs to live within its borders. Some are representatives in the Israeli Knesset. Does anyone seriously believe that Hamas or any other Islamic group would offer the same privilege to Jews?

Throughout the history of this conflict, various peace plans have been offered, but always rejected by Israel’s enemies. The have their own peace plan.

Meanwhile, on the oil spill, President Obama visited the region again yesterday. As far as I can tell, nothing substantive occurred. This is the man who promised that under his administration, there would be no more Katrinas. Words flow easily from some people, but as for competence . . .

One item I haven’t mentioned yet is the furor surrounding the administration offering jobs to potential candidates for Democratic Senate seats if they will not run against incumbents. It began with Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, who said he was offered a job not to run against Arlen Specter. He refused, ran, and won the primary.

On the heels of that controversy is another offer that came to light, as Andrew Romanoff, former Colorado Speaker of the House, was told he might have a job in the adminstration waiting for him if he wouldn’t challenge the current senator, Michael Bennet. As with Sestak, Romanoff said no.

Debate centers on whether this is an actual violation of the law. It’s one of those things that will be hard to pin on anyone because they can always say the job wasn’t absolutely “promised.” Well, we know how that works. It’s a style of politics in which president is well versed.

It’s not that this style has never appeared in the Oval Office before. It’s just that it’s so blatant. Even more remarkable, it’s been bungled so badly that incompetence is a word that could apply. That might be a ray of hope: if the administration can’t even handle its graft efficiently, perhaps it won’t be able to fool the people again in 2010 or 2012.

The United States has been a bulwark of support for the beleaguered nation of Israel. President Harry Truman, back in 1948, stood firm in backing the creation of the nation. Ever since, the U.S. has helped Israel stave off the attacks of hostile regimes that surround it.

All that has now changed in the Obama administration.

President Obama is so tied to a policy of cuddling up to Islam that he is doing the same thing to Israel that he did in the past to his grandmother, “Rev.” Wright, and so many others—figuratively throwing them “under the bus.”

Don’t be fooled by empty rhetoric.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington for talks. In the past, such talks have always been high level and Israeli leaders have been treated with respect. No such luck for Mr. Netanyahu this time.

Apparently, President Obama was angry over an announcement that the Israelis were planning to build more apartments in Jerusalem. Never mind it was in an area where there is little dispute over who has the territory. In Obama’s mind, it was an affront to the Palestinians. I’ll let a couple of other bloggers quoted in HotAir.com provide some commentary on this, since they have done a fine job of summarizing what took place.

For a head of state to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of…

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisors and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman who spoke to the Prime Minister said today.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”…

Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to. Just like the Palestinians, European governments cannot be more friendly to an Israeli leader than the United States. Would Britain have expelled a senior Israeli diplomat Tuesday because of a flap over forged passports if there were no daylight between Obama and Netanyahu? Maybe not…

Here’s the attitude I perceive, as reflected in this political cartoon:

As an evangelical Christian, I have a natural affinity for Israel: it’s the land of the Bible. I’ve visited once and hope to return to walk where Jesus walked. Yet even if that were not the case, I would be a stalwart supporter of a nation trying to survive as a friend of America in the midst of relentless enemies.

It would be nice if the American president felt the same.