Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts

    Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders

    Obama in my opinion is showing his true colors as he caves into the wishes of the Islamics. He is stabbing the one ally this country has in the state of Israel. By proposing pre 1967 borders he is permitting those against Israel to be able to massacre all those living in Israel. In most wars, land has been taken over by the triumphant and even though Israel did not start the 67 war, they were the victors and did take over lands that they had won. Some of these lands have been given back but some lands remain in Isaeli hands such as the Golan heights which was used by Syria to shoot down upon Isael. Now why should Israel give up the heights so that Syria (which is now killing it's own citizens) can attempt to wipe Israel off the map? Right now Israel appears to be the most stable country in that region. I still remember a story of terrorists attacking a school bus in Israel and killing all those young children. Obama- have you been twittering too much?

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/...ex.html?hpt=T2

    Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official a long-held but rarely stated U.S. policy that a future Palestinian state should be based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

    The contours for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict pushed by the United States have previously been based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula.

    However, Obama took U.S. endorsement of the policy a step further by expressing it so clearly in a major speech on the Middle East.

    "The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

    "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," Obama continued.

    His position agreed with the Palestinian negotiating stance on border issues in the staggering peace process, now stalled again by disputes over Israel settlements in the West Bank and the role of Hamas -- a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States and Israel -- in the Palestinian leadership.

    At the same time, Obama reiterated unwavering U.S. support for Israel's security, and he endorsed major negotiating positions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, including an incremental handover of security responsibilities by Israel when conditions on the ground allow it.

    Obama declared the U.S. commitment to Israel's security "unshakable," and said "every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat."

    "Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security," Obama continued, touching on the major concerns of Israel in facing a new Palestinian neighbor. "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated."

    Tony Blair, the former British prime minister now working as part of international efforts to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, said the security assurances and provisions are essential to the territorial issue.

    "I think it's saying in essence, that the Palestinians have got to be sure that their state is viable in terms of territory," Blair told CNN shortly after Obama spoke. "Obviously, there are going to be deviations or changes (from the exact 1967 borders) that are mutually agreeable."

    On the other hand, Blair said, Israel has the right to protect itself.

    As expected, initial reaction was mostly negative. A statement from Netanyahu's office rejected what it called a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, calling them "indefensible" and noting it would leave major Israeli population centers in Palestinian territory. Hamas also rejected the speech.

    Obama used his speech to speak directly to both Israel and Palestinians, declaring that both sides must yield on some deeply entrenched positions in order to bring peace that is desired and needed by both the region and the world.

    He criticized both sides for "unmet" expectations despite decades of efforts by U.S. administrations, including his own, to facilitate an agreement.

    In particular, Obama cited Israel's insistence on building new housing settlements on the West Bank and other areas beyond its 1967 borders. On Thursday, Israel announced the approval of projects to build 1,500 housing units in Har Homa and Pisgat Zeev, which are outside the 1967 borders. Roye Lackmanovich, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said the projects had previously received initial approval.

    "The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace," Obama said, adding that "the dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."

    Obama also rejected any Palestinian effort to challenge Israel's right to exist, saying they would "end in failure." He noted an expected push for a symbolic U.N. General Assembly resolution in September "won't create an independent state."

    While calling for positive steps by both sides on territory and security issues, Obama said he recognized two "wrenching and emotional issues" remain unresolved -- the future status of Jerusalem, which is claimed by both sides, and the fate of Palestinian refugees who claim Israel as their homeland.

    Obama also repeated the strong U.S. opposition to Hamas playing a leadership role unless it recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces terrorism.

    "The recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel -- how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist," Obama said. "In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question."

    Netanyahu's statement cited the refugee and Hamas issues as major obstacles to renewed peace talks sought by Obama.

    "Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace," said the statement, adding that Netanyahu -- who will meet with Obama on Friday in Washington -- "will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority's decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel's destruction."

    Obama acknowledged the "suspicion and hostility" that impeded the peace process, but added he was "convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past."

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama 'threw Israel under the bus'
    Philip Elliott, Associated Press – 2 mins ago


    HANOVER, N.H. – President Barack Obama undermined the sensitive and delicate negotiations for Middle East peace with his outline for resumed talks between Israelis and Palestinians, the Republicans looking to unseat him charged Thursday.

    Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Obama, whom he served as U.S. ambassador to China until last month, said the president undercut an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to build trust. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said it "is a disaster waiting to happen." Former Sen. Rick Santorum called the president's approach "dangerous."

    Foreign policy has hardly been the center of the debate among the still-forming GOP presidential field. Instead, the candidates and potential candidates have kept their focus — like the country's — on domestic issues that are weighing on voters and their pocketbooks. Obama's speech provided one of the first opportunities for Republicans to assert their foreign policy differences with Obama and his Democratic administration.

    Obama endorsed Palestinians' demands for the borders of its future state based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. That was a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. "It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It is not appropriate for the president to dictate the terms."

    Instead, the United States should work with Israel to push for peace without acceding to the Palestinians, he said.

    Campaigning here in the state that hosts the first presidential nominating primary, Huntsman also said the United States should respect Israel and work to foster trust between Israelis and Palestinians. "If we respect and recognize Israel as the ally that it is, we probably ought to listen to what they think is best," said Huntsman, who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before surprising his party and serving Obama, a Democrat.

    He acknowledged he didn't watch Obama's speech and was reacting to news coverage — or as he called it "the aftermath."

    Obama urged Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation." That follows what other Republicans have painted as hostility from this administration toward a stalwart ally in the Middle East. "The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies," Santorum said in a statement.

    Obama's speech at the State Department addressed the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. Speaking to audiences abroad and at home, he sought to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind the protesters who have swelled from nation to nation across the Middle East and North Africa. "We know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith," the president said.

    But the remarks only muddied things, especially on the dicey issue of Jerusalem, Pawlenty said. "The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," he said. "At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/...1uZXlvYmFtYXQ-
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    "permanent occupation" is what he thinks that Israel has done? If that is the case, is Obama ready to give the US back to Britain, to Spain etc and they in turn must turn it over to the Indians? Maybe his immigration policies reflects his opinions of US occupation of Mexican lands and perhaps he is planning on giving Texas back to the Mexico....who in turn would have to give it to Spain who would have to give it back to the Indians.

  5. #4
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Despite GOP Rhetoric, Obama's Call for Two-State Palestinian-Israeli Deal Not a Shift
    Saul Relative – 1 hr 6 mins ago

    COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama said Friday that he supported a two-state deal in the peace talks between Palestinians and the Israeli government, a move that is causing considerable consternation among conservatives. It was a move that backed Palestinian demands that Israel honor the pre-Six Day War borders, borders that were established in 1949 after an armistice ending the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. It was also a move, according to CNN, that caused a few GOP contenders to accuse the president of abandoning a long-time ally.

    "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus," former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney wrote in a statement. "He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by your friends."

    Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who is also contemplating a presidential run, tool to Twitter to lambaste the president. She posted in one tweet: "Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division & more aggression in Middle East & put Israel at further risk." Bachmann wrote in another: "Once again, President Obama has betrayed our friend and ally Israel."

    But the president's speech is not as drastic a shift in Middle East policy as his Republican opponents would like Americans to believe. In fact, his stance on the Israeli borders is the same stance that president George W. Bush took in 2005 in a press conference alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. It is also the same stance taken by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives under then Speaker Tom Delay in 2004 (House Resolution 460).

    It is also the position taken by previous Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who stated in 2008, as reported by Haaretz, that Israel should return to its "core" state and its borders prior to 1967.

    Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is visiting with the president in Washington, said after Obama's speech that a return to the pre-1967 borders was impossible given Israel's current security considerations. He said that Israel wanted peace with the Palestinians but "peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality."

    President Obama acknowledged that there were differences on how the negotiations should proceed as well as the language of the process regarding the formation of an autonomous Palestinian state.

    "But what we are in complete accord about," Obama noted, "is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel's security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal."

    It is difficult to say what the GOP presidential contenders meant by their general statements and attacks on the president's position, given that it is the same position that Republicans and even a former Israeli head of state endorsed -- all within the past seven years. But what is not difficult to say is that rushing to oppose an ideological opponent without considering the background behind the statements made, not to mention the parameters of the core issue itself, only tends to highlight the ignorance of those attempting to condemn.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110521/...VzcGl0ZWdvcHJo

    comments

    Most Israelis have a fair idea of why the Palestinians don’t want peace, and for those of us who may have forgotten, we were reminded in Jerusalem yesterday when a Palestinian bomb blew up a 59 year old woman and injured several other civilians waiting at a bus stop.

    At the moment, as Palestinian rockets are again raining down on villages and towns in the south of Israel, the Palestinians seem bent on rekindling a violent conflict, rather than returning to peaceful negotiations.

    ---

    It's too late to try & lie to justify the POTUS stance on this issue..The WORLD heard what was said and understood what was meant.. Today Netanyahu expressed it best when he told owebama what he thought of the POTUS supporting terrorists & informed the most high ignoamus that he was also called out by al-queda. But the social butterfly could not trifle with such indignation, as he had another teleprompted speech to give praising the same organization that HE has HOLDER prosecuting for getting him the info he needed to become Americas hero in his mind..Then off to another fund-raiser...

    ---

    Obama should read Hamas's charter, it's easily available online. Among other things, it accuses World Jewry of starting World Wars I and II, and, of course, every other ill the earth has ever suffered . . .

    Under the 1967 borders, Syria constantly shelled Israeli farmers in the south from the Golan Heights (which Syria stole from Lebanon, anyway, in the late 1940s).
    Nasser threw out the UN peacekeeping forces in May 1967, and in June 1967 announced that the "Zionist problem" was about to be "solved" and presto, six Arab armies lined up across the Negev and attacked.
    Israel simply got up from the chopping block, seized the axe out of their hands, and hit them with it - something for which the world has never forgiven Israel, which is somehow expected to behave in ways that the world never expects, say, China or the Sudan or the Congo or Russia to behave.

    I don't say Israel hasn't made mistakes, but really, I just never hear people blaming the rest of the Arab world for its treatment of the Palestinians with a judicious mix of crocodile tears, contempt, and cynicism - I wonder, really, how interested Jordan is in a nice Palestinian state next door, since most Palestinians are the descendants of Jordanians thrown out of their country in the 1930s for trying to bring down the Hashemite dynasty.

    Privately, the rest of the Arab world sees them and Hamas as "troublemakers". So they used them and
    Big Bad Israel All The Time . . .

    Meanwhile, Iran feeds Hezbollah arms as Hezbollah supports Syria's insidious quasi-occupation (it was a real one for 30 years, but no one seems to be as remotely angry at Syria's 30 year occupation of Lebanon for access to the sea as they are about Israel, which after all got bigger after winning a war after being attacked) and assassinates Lebanese politicians who try to pry Lebanon out of Syria's hands.
    It's always a mystery to me why this, as well as China's massive land grab in Tibet and the total destruction of Tibetan language, religion, and culture seems to bring yawns to the faces of the left - but golly gee you mention Israel and the fire returns to the ' liberal" eyes and the hate spills from the voice, and indignation and hand-wringing ensue ??
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Andrea Mitchell, John Heilemann Scold GOP 2012 Hopefuls for Disagreeing with Obama's Israel Policy
    By Alex Fitzsimmons | May 20, 2011



    In lockstep with Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who scolded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "please don't speak to my president that way," http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...at-way/239199/ MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell cautioned of the "political pitfalls" for Republican presidential candidates who dared to challenge Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East.

    On the May 20 edition of "Andrea Mitchell Reports," NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent warned against criticizing the Democratic commander-in-chief and bewailed the "angry reception" he's received over his desire to see Israel surrender territory it acquired in the six-day Middle East war of 1967.

    "The political pitfalls of wading into the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate was on display today, with Republican presidential contenders piling on the president," chided Mitchell, who went on to ask New York magazine's John Heilemann, "Whatever happened to politics ending at the water's edge?"

    For his part, Heilemann appeared equally despondent that Republican presidential hopefuls would criticize Obama for taking a position that Netanyahu called "indefensible."

    "Well I think we left that age a long time ago, Andrea, unfortunately," lamented the magazine's national affairs editor.

    After reading critical press statements from the Romney, Pawlenty, and Bachmann camps, Mitchell fretted, "That's pretty categorical," before moving on to another subject.

    A transcript of the relevant portions of the segment can be found below:


    MSNBC
    Andrea Mitchell Reports
    May 20, 2011 1:08 p.m. EDT

    ANDREA MITCHELL: The political pitfalls of wading into the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate was on display today, with Republican presidential contenders piling on the president. 2012 hopefuls slamming Mr. Obama for saying that Israel should give up lands occupied since 1967, even as some Senate Republicans offer a more measured reception – those not running for office, not running for president.

    John Heilemann is National Affairs editor for New York Magazine and joins us from New York. So first of all, the angry reception that the president got, was that predictable? Whatever happened to politics ending at the water's edge?

    JOHN HEILEMANN: Well I think we left that age a long time ago, Andrea, unfortunately. Predictable? I think utterly predictable. I think most Republicans who are running for president believe that it's going to be a very close election in 2012 if they get the nomination and they're looking at states particularly like Florida. And they're looking at what they see as the president's political weakness with Jewish-American community and they're trying to get themselves in a good position to capitalize on that if they happen to be the nominee.

    MITCHELL: We had a strong statement from Mitt Romney saying that "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace." Pawlenty saying "President Obama's insistence on a return to the '67 borders is a mistaken and dangerous demand." The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided. Michele Bachmann, who could be entertaining a run, "President Obama has again indicated his policy toward Israel is to blame Israel first." That's pretty categorical. Newt Gingrich was also on the bandwagon here.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-fi...#ixzz1MxBs4CHR


    Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way
    By Jeffrey Goldberg May 20 2011, 8:05 AM ET


    For whatever reason, I tend to react strongly when a foreign leader disrespects the United States, and its President. I didn't like it when Hugo Chavez of Venezuela insulted President Bush; I don't like listening to Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan lecture the U.S. on its sins, and I'm not happy when certain Pakistani leaders gin-up righteous indignation about American behavior when it was their country that served as a refuge for the greatest mass murderer in American history.

    And so I was similarly taken aback when I read a statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he "expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both House of Congress."

    So Netanyahu "expects" to hear this from the President of the United States? And if President Obama doesn't walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.? Will he cease to fight for the U.S. in the United Nations, and in the many international forums that treat Israel as a pariah?

    I don't like this word, "expect." Even if there weren't an imbalance between these two countries -- Israel depends on the U.S. for its survival, while America, I imagine, would continue to exist even if Israel ceased to exist -- I would find myself feeling resentful about the way Netanyahu speaks about our President. Netanyahu had an alternative, of course: He could have said, as he got on the plane to Washington, where today -- awkward! -- he will be meeting with President Obama: "The President today delivered a very fine speech. His condemnation of Hamas and Iran, his question about whether the Palestinians actually seek peace; his strong language against Syria; his recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; his re-assertion of the unshakeable bond between our two nations -- all of this and more brought joy to my heart. There are a couple of points in the speech, having to do with borders and refugees, that I would like to clarify with the President when I see him, and I'm looking forward to a constructive dialogue on these few issues."

    Of course, he didn't say this. Instead he threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise: If I'm waking up this morning feeling that the Israeli prime minister is disrespecting the President of my country, imagine how other Americans might be feeling. And, then, of course, there's this: Prime Minister Netanyahu needs the support of President Obama in order to confront the greatest danger Israel has ever faced: the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. And yet he seems to go out of his way to alienate the President. Why does he do this? It's a mystery to me.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...at-way/239199/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #6
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Israel has a right to all of its history, and all of its territory.
    Friday, May 20th at 2:30PM EDT


    There seems to be some confusion over why the Israelis should be so hostile to President Obama’s suggestion that the two-state solution be achieved by returning the Jewish state to its 1967 borders. The President’s supporters argue that since these borders were previously acceptable to Israel, they should be acceptable now. After all, pre-1967 Israel fought to defend those borders and they were on the table in the 2000 peace talks. Can 45 years make that much of a difference?

    It is true that 45 years is not so very long in terms of the territorial integrity of the United States. We might even prefer to return to the 1967 context in which our borders were much less challenging than they are today. But what Mr. Obama seems to fail to understand is that 45 years is a very long time for Israel. While the history of the Israeli people stretches back millennia, lsrael itself has only existed for 63 years.

    What the President is asking is that more than 70% of that history be erased, beginning with the reasons it was deemed necessary to annex the territories in 1967, and continuing on through the failed diplomatic initiatives, UN humiliations and relentless, deadly terrorist attacks of the past decades (including the last one, as Jeff Emanuel discussed yesterday). While some have considered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s terse response to this proposal disrespectful of the President, Mr. Netanyahu might have some very real concerns that once three-quarters of Israel’s past has been eradicated, would it be all that outlandish to go all the way to pre-1948? Especially under the leadership of an American president who is asking the Israelis to make this concession on the dubious grounds that hope will overcome hate?

    Mr. Obama justified his pre-1967 proposal yesterday by declaring “[t]he dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” While rhetorically it sounded nice and cleverly recalled Martin Luther King’s iconic speech, the choice of the word “dream” to describe a sovereign state was a curious one. Perhaps for our President Israel is still an abstract phantasm that might or might not exist, but for others it has been a reality for the last 63 years. Israel has the right to all of its history, and all of its territory.

    http://www.redstate.com/academicelep...1967-proposal/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #7
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Did Obama's Mideast speech crush hopes for peace?
    Fri May 20, 6:13 am ET

    New York – Israeli and Palestinian leaders take turns lashing out at the president's proposals to revive Mideast peace talks. Now what?

    Probably not the reaction President Obama was hoping for: Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders sharply criticized the Thursday speech in which Obama called for renewed Middle East peace talks. Hamas, the militant Islamist movement that runs Gaza, was angered by Obama's rejection of a bid to get the United Nations to recognize Palestinian statehood, and called his address "a total failure." Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is meeting with Obama in Washington on Friday, said Obama's proposal to return to the boundaries that were in place before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — with some mutually agreed land swaps — would leave Israel with "indefensible" borders. Did Obama just destroy any hopes of a peace deal?

    Throwing Israel under the bus won't bring peace: If anything, Obama has just set back the cause of peace, says William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. The indefensible 1967 borders should not even enter the equation — they "simply were the armistice lines after the Arabs failed to drive the Jews into the sea." Obama is siding with the Palestinians' territorial demands, "without the Palestinians having to give anything in return," and fueled "the unacceptable narrative that Israel is the problem."

    "Obama — Israel must withdraw to 1967 borders with land swaps"

    Obama offered a fair starting point:
    Obama's vision contains plenty to "please and annoy almost all concerned parties," says Hussein Ibish in Foreign Policy. "But it was not a bad step forward." Obama needed to place the U.S. "more on the side of the aspirations of the Arab peoples than it ever has been in the past." He didn't reject, as Israel has, the Palestinian deal to form a unity government that includes Hamas, but he did put the onus on the Palestinians to demonstrate a "commitment to peace with Israel and the rejection of violence."

    "Will Obama's speech change anything?"

    To achieve real peace, the president must do more:
    It's about time Obama faced this problem head on, says The New York Times in an editorial. But his speech included "no game-changing proposal." Goading an ally like Israel to take risks won't be enough to break the stalemate. "Washington and its allies need to put a map on the table and challenge both sides to resume negotiations." That's "the best chance for peace."

    "Peace and change"


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/2154...RvYmFtYXNtaWQ-
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #8
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    2012 can't come soon enough. Please give me someone good (I'll settle for not horrible) to vote for.
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  10. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    Now this man I think is ridiculous in this article:
    "Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way
    By Jeffrey Goldberg May 20 2011, 8:05 AM ET "

    Could he be talking about the same president who roasted Trump? Could he be talking about the President who invited the Pres of Mexico to speak in front of Congress where the Pres of Mexico denigrated the US and about half our elected officials stood up and applauded him? Is this the President who is suing AZ for trying to uphold the constitution stating only he can do that? Is this the President who pushed obamacare and worked it out so that it got voted on even though no one had read the bill? Is this the president who hands out waivers to large companies and unions? Is this the President who wants to forgive illegals and their children while ignoring the plight of many Americans? Is this the President who tells Americans to tighten their belts and has his wife and her entourage travel to Europe? Is this the President who thinks people don't hear him straddling a fence as in Israel should feel secure but should also give back land so the those who want the annihilation of Israel live within shooting distance? So Mr Goldberg, should we have another case of do as I say, not as I do? (Reminds me of Al Gore's comments about global warming and what we should not be doing as he flies around the world in his private jet).

    Now O's middle east speech - doesn't he know that when a man straddles a fence, the only thing that comes as a result is sore cojones? His proposal that Israel talk peace with the Palestinians (made up of Palestinians and Hamas - who will not recognize the state of Israel and wants its demise) is no different than thinking if you pour oil and vinegar into a bottle that is will automatically mix. Pres O should be embarrassed because it appears that he lacks the knowledge of the history of the region. Before he opens his mouth, he should read up on the subject (not like our AG Holder who sued AZ without ever reading SB1070).

    Education appears to be lacking............................

  11. #10
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama's 'Jewish state' reference jars Palestinians
    Josef Federman, Associated Press – 2 hrs 19 mins ago


    JERUSALEM – U.S.-Israel tension over Barack Obama's endorsement of Israel's pre-1967 borders is obscuring a flip side of the Middle East coin: The past days' speeches by the U.S. president contained difficult challenges for the Palestinians as well.

    Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Sunday, Obama reiterated his request that the Palestinians drop their plans to appeal for recognition at the United Nations this fall, and — as he did in another Mideast speech Thursday — raised tough questions about an emerging Palestinian unity government that is to include the Hamas militant group.

    Most difficult for Palestinians is Obama's call to recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, essentially requiring the Palestinians to accept that most refugees will be denied the "right of return" to what is now Israel.

    Perhaps for this reason, the Palestinians have remained largely quiet about the substance of Obama's speeches, seemingly content to watch Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clash with the U.S. administration over Israel's future borders. "It's really premature to jump into any of these details," said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, when asked by The Associated Press about the demands Obama made of the Palestinians.

    The fate of Palestinian refugees is one of the most emotional and explosive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either fled or were expelled during the war surrounding Israel's creation in 1948. Today, the surviving refugees, with their descendants, number several million people.

    The Palestinians claim they have the right to return to their family's lost properties. Israel rejects the principle, saying it would mean the end of the country as a Jewish democracy. Israeli leaders say the refugees should be entitled to compensation and resettled in a future Palestine to be established next to Israel, or absorbed where they now live.

    In his speech last Thursday, Obama did not explicitly mention the refugees. But by saying a final peace deal must recognize "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people," he appeared to back the Israeli position.

    The issue is so central to Palestinian policy and society that no Palestinian leader can be seen as abandoning the rights of the refugees, particularly at a time when peace efforts are at a standstill and so many other difficult issues, such as borders and the final status of Jerusalem, remain unresolved.

    Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian official, said recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would sell out not only the refugees, but potentially open the door to Israel expelling its roughly 1.5 million Arab citizens as well. This idea has never been seriously raised in Israel.

    He said the Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist, without any reference to national character, should be sufficient. "We recognize Israel as a state," he said. "It's a recognition of a state to a state."

    In his two recent speeches, Obama took aim at two other central planks of Palestinian policy: plans to ask the U.N. in September to recognize an independent Palestine, with or without a peace agreement; and a unity deal struck between President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and the Iranian-backed Hamas militants.

    In Thursday's speech, Obama warned that "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state." And referring to Hamas in Sunday's address to AIPAC, a powerful pro-Israel lobby, Obama stated: "No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction."

    "We will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric," Obama said.

    Erekat insisted the world must embrace the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, meant to end the split that has left rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinians claim both areas, along with east Jerusalem, for their future state, and Erekat said there can be no independence without reconciliation.

    In any case, he said Abbas, and the umbrella Palestine Liberation Organization, dominated by Fatah, are the parties to negotiate peace with Israel — not the "unity government" of the Palestinian Authority which would be backed by both parties.

    Erekat, like other Palestinians officials, declined to discuss most of the specifics of Obama's speech, including the issue of the Jewish state. For now, he says the border issue should be the focus of Mideast diplomacy.

    The Palestinians demand a return to the pre-1967 lines, which would require an Israeli pullout from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, though they are open to Obama's idea of agreed-upon modifications through land swaps — as long as they are small.

    Erekat said if Netanyahu accepts the 1967 lines he could raise any other matter in negotiations. "Before I hear the prime minister of Israel saying that he accepts this principle, I think it would be a waste of my time to discuss any other issue," Erekat said.

    Netanyahu says the 1967 lines are "indefensible," and his anger toward the U.S. president seemed palpable at a White House meeting Friday.

    But even Obama's reference to the 1967 lines may not be entirely to the Palestinians' liking.

    Clarifying his position Sunday, Obama said those lines should be the basis for a peace deal, but that the final borders could be adjusted to accommodate "new demographic realities."

    That was seen as a recognition that Israel could keep at least some of the occupied area where it has settled Jews. Some 500,000 Israelis live in Jewish settlements, which are considered illegal by the Palestinians and the international community.

    Obama also noted the 1967 lines have long been considered a basis for a final peace deal, most recently in previous negotiations that broke down in 2008. So his embrace of those borders is not revolutionary. "What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately," he said.

    After initial shock and anger toward Obama, members of Netanyahu's hard-line coalition have begun to soften their opposition.

    Limor Livnat, a Cabinet minister in Netanyahu's nationalist Likud Party, called Obama's speech on Sunday "excellent." She praised his tough line against Hamas and support for Israel as a Jewish state. "Following the prime minister's words, the president sharpened his message and said things that he didn't say clearly beforehand," she told Channel 2 TV. "These are important things."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_mideast_jewish_state
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    U.S.-Israel tension over Barack Obama's endorsement of Israel's pre-1967 borders is obscuring a flip side of the Middle East coin: The past days' speeches by the U.S. president contained difficult challenges for the Palestinians as well.

    ---

    Most difficult for Palestinians is Obama's call to recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, essentially requiring the Palestinians to accept that most refugees will be denied the "right of return" to what is now Israel.

    ---

    The fate of Palestinian refugees is one of the most emotional and explosive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either fled or were expelled during the war surrounding Israel's creation in 1948. Today, the surviving refugees, with their descendants, number several million people.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_mideast_jewish_state
    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...ot-oh-wtf.html

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...trination.html

    http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...reporting.html
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 05-23-2011 at 09:39 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in