Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

[GeoffP]

What does that even mean? Is there a point there somewhere which has anything to do with the topic under discussion?

I was wondering the same thing about your first series of comments in that post.

Today is the turning point of the Israel - Palestine conflict. Or yesterday, when the US Congress applauded Netahyahu for opposing Obama.

Was it specifically for that? Was it a giant fuck you to Obama?
Have you even seen the speech?

And today is the turning point to - what? Will Israelis arrive and enslave Americans?

Because unless you are completely blind, deaf or dumb, you can no longer pretend that the Israel Lobby is not influential in the US Congress to the extent of being more influential than the President of the USA.

Powered, presumably, on the sonic power emanating from their clapping. Of course the Israel Lobby is influential in Congress...much like the Iranian Lobby, the Saudi Lobby (and especially so), the NATO Lobby, the Oil Lobby, the Arms Lobby, and every other Lobby group. You have effectively discovered a fraction of the kind of outside influences that affect American politics.

Unfortunately the moderators have as little influence on the coming reality as you do.

Don't stop there. Proselytize away.

[spidergoat]

Sorry I meant to post this, for some reason my mouse has been giving me problems with copy paste. Its damn irritating

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ald/index.html

Also failed to point out where exactly Obama was undermined.

[S.A.M.]

Also failed to point out where exactly Obama was undermined.

?? Have you been following this discussion?

Obama specifically declared that Israel's borders would be "based on the 1967 borders" with "mutually agreed land swaps" and "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state" and Netahyahu simply wiped the floor with him in Congress by whining about Judea and Samaria and indefensible 1967 borders.



How would you see a contiguous Palestine with these mutually exclusive arguments?

[Bells]

Also failed to point out where exactly Obama was undermined.

You missed the whole point of this discussion?

Even the article states how Obama's previous speeches in Congress were given a cold and frosty reception from the right but they were falling over themselves clapping for the Prime Minister of another country who was disagreeing openly with their President. You don't see that as undermining at all? Strange..

[S.A.M.]

As I understood it all votes of the GA have to then go through the SC for ratification

I think the vote will first go through the Security Council and then if the US vetoes it, it will be presented to the General Assembly by convening an Emergency Session

I got this off mondoweiss, but I don't know if its correct

“I think that Palestine will go ahead and apply for full membership in the UN and that the 10th Emergency Special Session will be reconvened if the US interferes in the vote in the Security Council. If Palestine is admitted, it can pursue its own claims in the ICJ and ICC.

If not, the General Assembly can always adopt a resolution(s) (a) designating Palestine as a Permanent Observer State; (b) inviting Palestine to become a party to the ICJ Statute; (c) requesting that the ICC prosecutor act on the Article 12(3) Declaration of the State of Palestine; (d) requesting a follow-up advisory opinion on the legal consequences for states arising from Israel’s continued violation of the erga omnes obligation to remove impediments to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people in the occupied territories – including continued Israeli occupation, colonialism, and allegations of apartheid reported by UN fact finding missions; (e) calling on member states to impose sanctions including boycotts and divestments; and (f) calling on the member states of the ICC to refer the situation in Palestine to the Prosecutor in accordance with article 14 of the Rome Statute, while providing the Court with every assistance necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

One or two of those eventualities would be more than adequate to alter Israel’s behavior.”

[spidergoat]

?? Have you been following this discussion?

Obama specifically declared that Israel's borders would be "based on the 1967 borders" with "mutually agreed land swaps" and "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state" and Netahyahu simply wiped the floor with him in Congress by whining about Judea and Samaria and indefensible 1967 borders.


How would you see a contiguous Palestine with these mutually exclusive arguments?

The key phrase "land swaps" seems to mean that 1967 borders are only a starting point. Obama specifically said he was not firm about demanding 1967 borders.

You missed the whole point of this discussion?

Even the article states how Obama's previous speeches in Congress were given a cold and frosty reception from the right but they were falling over themselves clapping for the Prime Minister of another country who was disagreeing openly with their President. You don't see that as undermining at all? Strange..

I don't see clapping as undermining, no, there is nothing substantial to it.

[GeoffP]

?? Have you been following this discussion?

Obama specifically declared that Israel's borders would be "based on the 1967 borders" with "mutually agreed land swaps" and "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state" and Netahyahu simply wiped the floor with him in Congress by whining about Judea and Samaria and indefensible 1967 borders.

Point 1: sidepoint - how anyone can call Israeli concerns about indefensibility as "whining" beggars belief.

But, anyway: at the worst here, Congress agrees with Netanyahu and not with Obama. And? Is this a violation of some kind of loyalty oath? Or is it possible that Obama is simply wrong on this issue? Your comment seems more like elaborate panic.

[adoucette]

You missed the whole point of this discussion?

Even the article states how Obama's previous speeches in Congress were given a cold and frosty reception from the right but they were falling over themselves clapping for the Prime Minister of another country who was disagreeing openly with their President. You don't see that as undermining at all? Strange..

It's an opinion piece.
Doesn't make the opinion correct.

This is the President's speech on the issue on May 19.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.

For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That’s certainly true for the two parties involved.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. 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. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, 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. 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.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, 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? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

What SPECIFICALLY in this speech did Netanyahu argue against in his speech?

Speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Meeting of the United States Congress May 24, 2011

I am deeply honored by your warm welcome. And I am deeply honored that you have given me the opportunity to address Congress a second time.

Mr. Vice President, do you remember the time we were the new kids in town?

And I do see a lot of old friends here. And I do see a lot of new friends of Israel here. Democrats and Republicans alike.

Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations America, Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance!
In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.

My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own. Thank you all, and thank you President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.

Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty.

These extraordinary scenes in Tunis and Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. Yet as we share their hopes, but we also must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then. The brief democratic spring in Iran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. This same tyranny smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution, and inflicted on that long-suffering country, the medieval rule of Hezbollah.

So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less travelled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.

As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will “shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates. You think you guys are tough on one another in Congress? Come spend a day in the Knesset. Be my guest.

Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We’re proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel!

This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.

Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it’s begun to take root. This beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.

But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.

Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.

When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise.

A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world. I want you to understand what this means. They could put the bomb anywhere. They could put it on a missile. It could be on a container ship in a port, or in a suitcase on a subway.

Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies.

But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America.

President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important.

Yet the Ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. That same year, Muammar Qadaffi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. We’ve achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have held up for decades.

I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother.

So no one in Israel wants a return to those terrible days. The peace with Egypt and Jordan has long served as an anchor of stability and peace in the heart of the Middle East.

This peace should be bolstered by economic and political support to all those who remain committed to peace.

The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.
I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.

This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.

This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.
We’ve already seen the beginnings of what is possible. In the last two years,

the Palestinians have begun to build a better life for themselves. Prime Minister Fayad has led this effort. I wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation.

We’ve helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It’s growing by more than 10% a year.

Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses. This is all happening without peace. Imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.

So now here is the question. You have to ask it. If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.”

Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.

This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv.

These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.

The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.

We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous. President Obama rightly referred to Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, just as he referred to the future Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state. Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.

As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill a solution can be found.

This is the peace I plan to forge with a Palestinian partner committed to peace. But you know very well, that in the Middle East, the only peace that will hold is a peace you can defend.

So peace must be anchored in security. In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn’t get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 thousand rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas. The UN peacekeepers in Lebanon failed to prevent the smuggling of this weaponry. The European observers in Gaza evaporated overnight. So if Israel simply walked out of the territories, the flow of weapons into a future Palestinian state would be unchecked. Missiles fired from it could reach virtually every home in Israel in less than a minute. I want you to think about that too. Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket. Would you live that way? Would anyone live that way? Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.

The truth is that Israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size. Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Mr. Vice President, I’ll grant you this. It’s bigger than Delaware. It’s even bigger than Rhode Island. But that’s about it. Israel on the 1967 lines would be half the width of the Washington Beltway.

Now here’s a bit of nostalgia. I first came to Washington thirty years ago as a young diplomat. It took me a while, but I finally figured it out: There is an America beyond the Beltway. But Israel on the 1967 lines would be only nine miles wide. So much for strategic depth.

So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.

And when I say tomorrow, I don’t mean some distant time in the future. I mean — tomorrow. Peace can be achieved only around the negotiating table. The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end.

I appreciate the President’s clear position on this issue. Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.

And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now again I want to make this clear. Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.

So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so.

My friends, the momentous trials of the last century, and the unfolding events of this century, attest to the decisive role of the United States in advancing peace and defending freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All peoples who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds, in ancient and modern times alike.

I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America, Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world. May God bless all of you. And may God forever bless the United States of America.

Red = areas of agreement
Blue = areas of general agreement.

Please indicate any areas of substantial disagreement.

Arthur

[quadraphonics]

Obama specifically declared that Israel's borders would be "based on the 1967 borders" with "mutually agreed land swaps" and "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state" and Netahyahu simply wiped the floor with him in Congress by whining about Judea and Samaria and indefensible 1967 borders.

You overestimate the import of a person being invited to give a speech to Congress. US policy isn't determined by who gets to address Congress. And it was a forgone conclusion that the GOP would make a show of opposing anything with Obama's name attached to it, so this doesn't tell us much about the influence of the "Israel Lobby" either (and anyway, this was arranged between the Netanyahu government and the GOP - so the attribution would be to the influence of Israel, rather than the Israel Lobby).

[p-brane]

...it was a forgone conclusion that the GOP would make a show of opposing anything with Obama's name attached to it, so this doesn't tell us much about the influence of the "Israel Lobby"

I just watched a Charlie Rose episode in which one of the panelists said that the overwhelmingly warm reception that Netanyahu and his speech was given by congress reveals that the Israeli Lobby is accorded far too much credit for the pro-israel stance of the US government. Rather, the origin of American support of Israel has always been that the constituents of congressmen and congresswomen - i.e., the american people - are so overwhelmingly pro-israel.

[Chipz]

?? Have you been following this discussion?

Obama specifically declared that Israel's borders would be "based on the 1967 borders" with "mutually agreed land swaps" and "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state" and Netahyahu simply wiped the floor with him in Congress by whining about Judea and Samaria and indefensible 1967 borders.



How would you see a contiguous Palestine with these mutually exclusive arguments?

That's actually a photo of all of the Hamas/Hizbolla missile launcher sites.

[spidergoat]

I just watched a Charlie Rose episode in which one of the panelists said that the overwhelmingly warm reception that Netanyahu and his speech was given by congress reveals that the Israeli Lobby is accorded far too much credit for the pro-israel stance of the US government. Rather, the origin of American support of Israel has always been that the constituents of congressmen and congresswomen - i.e., the american people - are so overwhelmingly pro-israel.

Or just anti-Palestinian with their support for terrorists. No one seems to like terrorists for some reason.

[p-brane]

Or just anti-Palestinian with their support for terrorists.

Yes. Americans feel they have more in common with Israelis than palestinians, including their view of terrorists.

No one seems to like terrorists for some reason.

This may be related in some way to how disliked murderous assholes are.

[Bells]

What SPECIFICALLY in this speech did Netanyahu argue against in his speech?

Speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Meeting of the United States Congress May 24, 2011



Red = areas of agreement
Blue = areas of general agreement.

Please indicate any areas of substantial disagreement.

Arthur

Hello Arthur..

I find it interesting that you put the return to 1967 borders as stated by Obama (with land swaps) to be in a "red" area of agreement for Netanyahu when he clearly stated he disagreed. That was a substantial disagreement, don't you think? It was a focal point of the whole debate since Obama made his speech.

In my neck of the woods, if someone recommends something and the other outright refuses, it is generally not taken as an "agreement" but is deemed a fairly substantial disagreement. Are you saying it is different in your neck of the woods?

[adoucette]

Hello Arthur..

I find it interesting that you put the return to 1967 borders as stated by Obama (with land swaps) to be in a "red" area of agreement for Netanyahu when he clearly stated he disagreed. That was a substantial disagreement, don't you think? It was a focal point of the whole debate since Obama made his speech.

In my neck of the woods, if someone recommends something and the other outright refuses, it is generally not taken as an "agreement" but is deemed a fairly substantial disagreement. Are you saying it is different in your neck of the woods?

Not really.

I put what Obama said in Blue, because it is an area of general agreement but Obama was not at all specific about the areas involved in the so called "Land Swaps" and Netanyahu added a little more detail to what Israel was thinking along those lines, and so while the specifics might be up for some more debate, the two positions are in general agreement.

Obama: 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.


Netanyahu: In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated. We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967. We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous.


So, yes, I think that's in GENERAL agreement.

Netanyahu went further and said that the areas that would have to remain in Israel (via land swaps) were rather limited in size:

This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines, reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and Greater Tel Aviv. These areas are densely populated but geographically quite small. Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.

Arthur

[quadraphonics]

I find it interesting that you put the return to 1967 borders as stated by Obama (with land swaps) to be in a "red" area of agreement for Netanyahu when he clearly stated he disagreed. That was a substantial disagreement, don't you think? It was a focal point of the whole debate since Obama made his speech.

The thing is that the presentation/perception of the statements/issues is so stilted it's bizarre. Obama hasn't suggested anything that isn't long-standing, explicitly-stated, bipartisan US policy. And Netanyahu hasn't actually disagreed with that, as such. Rather, it all seems to be a cipher for the political dimension of relations: Obama pressures Netanyahu, Netanyahu resists said pressure. Somehow, that underlying narrative gets transferred into "Obama issues novel demands about two-state solution, Netanyahu refuses." But the more you look at the actual stated positions, the more it seems clear that this is not a policy disagreement, but a political disagreement - Obama wants to be seen pushing Israel to get the peace process on track, Netanyahu wants to be seen as immune to pressure from Obama. Theatrics ensue, with little bearing on substantive positions (but tons of bearing on political willingness to engage or cooperate).

[adoucette]

Indeed.

Sam posts THIS:

Congress gave 29? standing ovations to a foreign political leader against the President of the United States of America. The idea that the US Congress should support a foreign leader against its own president, is probably a first in Congress

With the implication that those 29 SOs were related to things that Congress agreed with Netanyahu against Obama, but when you take the time to actually read the speeches you find very little disagreement between the two.

Arthur

[quadraphonics]

With the implication that those 29 SOs were related to things that Congress agreed with Netanyahu against Obama, but when you take the time to actually read the speeches you find very little disagreement between the two.

That's kind of irrelevant. They aren't applauding his policy positions as such. They're applauding his resistance to Obama, which they endorse. Displaying such being the entire point of Netanyahu's appearance. This is political theater, not academic debate.

And it should go without saying that if Democrats tried a similar stunt with a Republican president, the right would be shrieking "treason!" until it was blue in the face. But, hey, no need for politics to stop at the water's edge - in wartime, no less - when the other team is in office...

[Bells]

The thing is that the presentation/perception of the statements/issues is so stilted it's bizarre. Obama hasn't suggested anything that isn't long-standing, explicitly-stated, bipartisan US policy. And Netanyahu hasn't actually disagreed with that, as such. Rather, it all seems to be a cipher for the political dimension of relations: Obama pressures Netanyahu, Netanyahu resists said pressure. Somehow, that underlying narrative gets transferred into "Obama issues novel demands about two-state solution, Netanyahu refuses." But the more you look at the actual stated positions, the more it seems clear that this is not a policy disagreement, but a political disagreement - Obama wants to be seen pushing Israel to get the peace process on track, Netanyahu wants to be seen as immune to pressure from Obama. Theatrics ensue, with little bearing on substantive positions (but tons of bearing on political willingness to engage or cooperate).

Pressure, or true pressure, would be doing what previous Presidents had done, which is threaten to curtail the billions of dollars in aid and loan guarrantees unless the Israeli Governmen complied with at least going to the peace talks table with something worthwhile, the same with the Palestinian leadership. So far it's just words and it will remain so because Obama is not going to come out and put that kind of pressure on Israel with a Presidential election looming over the horizon.

What makes this interesting however is that as you said yourself, he isn't saying anything new. Previous presidents threatened Israel with a tightening of the purse strings unless they froze settlement building and eventually, Israel caved. That President was a Republican and no one protested against it. Obama re-iterates what previous presidents have advocated (and what many in Israel recognise as being the correct thing to do), be they Republican or Democrat, and that is that Israel returns to borders recognised by International law and what they had agreed to and he is viewed as a pariah and not a friend of Israel. Meanwhile, the settlements continue to grow.

While this demented political ballet plays out, the situation worsens for the civilian population on both sides of that divide and they are left to deal with the consequences of the actions of their leaders.

The UN vote this year will be the interesting part. Obama seems to be trying to belay the Palestinian fight for Statehood in the UN by trying to force both to come to some sort of agreement before it gets to that. That is clearly not going to happen. Meanwhile the EU fully supports the notion of a Palestinian State and that Israel should go back to its legally recognised borders - and the US cannot veto a general assembly vote. So they, along with Israel are pushing ot keep it out of the General Assembly and leave it for the Security Council, where they can veto it.. and if that occurs, at what cost to its international reputation and standing? Political pundits in Israel have placed a possible Gen Assembly vote as being at 130/192, which would give them a 2/3 majority. If the Palestinians can successfuly invoke General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V), then Israel screwed. And so far, it looks like the Palestinians may be able to bypass the security council and take it straight to the Gen Assembly. Europe, Russia and many Eastern bloc countries, as well as the majority of nations in South America and many African and ME nations support an independent Palestinian State with clear borders, with or without's Israel's say so.. Oh but to be a fly on the wall for some of those meetings...

I think the real theatrics will come in September.

[Asguard]

I love the comment thy Israel must be able to defend itself while in the next breath stating that palistine must be demilitarized. Only 1 country has had that imposed on them and that was Japan after they were beaten in WW2, and they STILL didn't abide by it and the US helped them. Is palistine a conquered country then?