Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

[quantum_wave]

Do you support President Obama's Middle East policy as announced today or did he throw Israel under the bus?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Do you support President Obama's Middle East policy as announced today or did he throw Israel under the bus?

Its nothing but public posturing, Obama isn't going to do anything about Israel. He hasn't really been able to negotiate anything with them unless you consider negotiating being

Obama: I want you to remove settlements.

Israel: No.

Obama: Ok I want you to halt settlements.

Israel: No.

Then Obama goes away and peace talks come to a grinding halt.

So it doesn't matter what Obama says he wants to see happen, as you can see from the response:


'Reacting to the address shortly afterwards, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said a Palestinian state should not be established at the "expense of Israeli existence". He appreciated the US president's address but rejected any withdrawal tp "indefensible" 1967 borders.'

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011519145837856559.html

That's just a longer way of saying 'no' and there is no 'or else' in Obama's plans.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If Obama were serious he would tell Israel that they would not get any more funds from the US until they come to a peace conclusion and leave the ball in their court. I think he's just doing this so he can seem 'progressive', a kind of image boost. All talk and inaction behind the scenes.

 

[Asguard]

Really fix Israel, a ban on the tranfer of funds and the sale of any weapons or weapon components

 

[p-brane]

Let the stupidity begin...

Really fix Israel, a ban on the tranfer of funds and the sale of any weapons or weapon components

...and they're off!

:roflmao:

 

[S.A.M.]

Since the essence of the speech was embracing the Zionist narrative I don't understand the reaction of the OP

Obama, an Afro-American president considered a “leftist,” unequivocally adopted the essence of the Israeli-Zionist narrative in his speech. I doubt whether we will find even one serving Palestinian politician who would be willing to accept the wording offered by Obama.


So what did the president say? Among other things, he said the following:


- “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” Netanyahu, had he conducted himself wisely, should not have had any trouble endorsing this wording, as long as the size and locations of the territories to be swapped is not pre-determined.


- “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.” According to Obama, the Palestinians are required to recognize Israel as the Jewish State and renounce, in practice, the right of return. No previous US president, including Israel’s staunchest friends, had openly expressed the American position in a way that is so commensurate with the national Zionist-Jewish position.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4071431,00.html

However I did not watch the speech so any points where he refuted the above would be appreciated.

 

[Asguard]

Let the stupidity begin...




...and they're off!

:roflmao:

Ops sorry forgot that the US and Israel's shit doesn't stink because they are the moral leaders of the world, when they kill civillans and babies its right and moral because its them doing it. Right p-brain

USA UAS, RAH RAH RAH

 

[spidergoat]

Wanting a reasonable peace is not a "Zionist narrative".

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Since the essence of the speech was embracing the Zionist narrative I don't understand the reaction of the OP

Its because some israeli represented said it was like 'throwing israel under a bus'. You can read the gist of the speech in the link I posted. Obama said that the right of return and jerusalem would be worked out later.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its because some israeli represented said it was like 'throwing israel under a bus'. You can read the gist of the speech in the link I posted. Obama said that the right of return and jerusalem would be worked out later.

I still don't understand what the argument is about. The settlements? Land swaps? Holding Israel to an agreement they have signed?

Today in WSJ:

Jewish donors and fund-raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel.

The complaints began early in President Barack Obama's term, centered on a perception that Mr. Obama has been too tough on Israel.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs=article

So what is it they want?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I still don't understand what the argument is about. The settlements? Land swaps? Holding Israel to an agreement they have signed?

Today in WSJ:



So what is it they want?

Well I think they want Obama to sit back and shut his trap.

As far as the argument is concerned, I'm not sure if there is really an argument save the Israeli's are pissed that Obama got up and said they should move back to 1967 borders when the Israeli's are saying that would be a security nightmare or some such thing. It would mean land swaps. But you know Israel, they'll be full of umbrage and go off in a huff and ignore Obama leading to more silence in terms of peace negotiation. Like his famous late showing of the birth certificate I think its too late to speak of borders and such when he has basically failed at bringing both parties to the negotiating table. If he felt Israel should go back to 67 borders then he should have said as much in the beginning. What makes him think they will listen to any of this when they wouldn't even halt settlement building? Obama is doing this for himself, his image, not because he really expects to make any headway. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[S.A.M.]

Wanting a reasonable peace is not a "Zionist narrative".

What is "reasonable peace" in a society where car adverts indicate power by running over Palestinian children?

The Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank expressed on Thursday its anger over an advertisement showing the Subaru car hitting two Palestinian children in Jerusalem with “We will see who will stand in front of you” written in Hebrew on the ad.

http://www.imemc.org/article/61107

Yes, I know Palestinians are dehumanised by Israeli society, but promoting running over their children? Bizarre! And this is what American Jews want more of?

Well I think they want Obama to sit back and shut his trap.

As far as the argument is concerned, I'm not sure if there is really an argument save the Israeli's are pissed that Obama got up and said they should move back to 1967 borders when the Israeli's are saying that would be a security nightmare or some such thing. It would mean land swaps. But you know Israel, they'll be full of umbrage and go off in a huff and ignore Obama leading to more silence in terms of peace negotiation. Like his famous late showing of the birth certificate I think its too late to speak of borders and such when he has basically failed at bringing both parties to the negotiating table. If he felt Israel should go back to 67 borders then he should have said as much in the beginning. What makes him think they will listen to any of this when they wouldn't even halt settlement building? Obama is doing this for himself, his image, not because he really expects to make any headway. That's my opinion anyway.

I hear a lot about what they do not want, what is a security nightmare, what they do not care for, what they are unwilling to do.

Have they indicated anywhere at all what they do want?

What do American Jews want Obama to do about Israel in return for moolah to support his reelection?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I hear a lot about what they do not want, what is a security nightmare, what they do not care for, what they are unwilling to do.

Have they indicated anywhere at all what they do want?

What do American Jews want Obama to do about Israel in return for moolah to support his reelection?

Security against attacks, they have that territory because they were attacked, fruits of war. What they don't want is to give up territory if it means moving back to 1967 borders. What they do want cannot be known until there is a negotiation.

This isn't about american jews. Asking that question is like asking what african-americans think. American jews are not a single mold of jello. When I talk to you I don't think you are giving me Indian views or even muslim views, you are only stating your personal views.

By the way that is not a real Subaru ad. You should remove the propaganda.

 

[Bells]

I still don't understand what the argument is about. The settlements? Land swaps? Holding Israel to an agreement they have signed?

I think it is more a case of what is not acceptable to Netanyahu and the right in Israel.

But it is getting to the point of crunch time. Mr Zeev Sternhell wrote a very good article about what was to have been Netanyahu's visit to the US and the declining moral position of Israel in the world stage:

"Under the guise of security considerations and the war on terror hides the real, ideological reason: In the right's view, recognizing the equal national rights of the Palestinians means forgoing exclusive Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. From the point of view of members of the Israeli rejectionist front, recognizing the equality of Jewish and Arab rights on both sides of the Green Line is tantamount to betraying Jewish history.

But since the number of people who are still prepared to buy an argument of this kind is diminishing worldwide, Israel is on a collision course with all our allies and supporters. And at the end of this road, it is liable to become a pariah state." ​

Netanyahu has already come out and declared that the agreed 1967 border is not viable.. now tie it in with what Mr Sternhell pointed out - that under the guise of terrorism....

Savvy?

 

[S.A.M.]

Security against attacks, they have that territory because they were attacked, fruits of war. What they don't want is to give up territory if it means moving back to 1967 borders. What they do want cannot be known until there is a negotiation.

This isn't about american jews. Asking that question is like asking what african-americans think. American jews are not a single mold of jello. When I talk to you I don't think you are giving me Indian views or even muslim views, you are only stating your personal views.

Okay what do the various groups of people who think Obama threw Israel under the bus consider he should do? I only articulated American Jews because according to WSJ they are threatening to pull his funding for elections based on the speech - but nowhere do they declare what they want. I don't see any other groups making a similar threat - ie Israel or Bust

Meanwhile, what Obama said is exactly what George Bush said i.e.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties. … In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

- George Bush

IOW, Bush also supported a return to 1967 borders, not 1948 ones.

I think it is more a case of what is not acceptable to Netanyahu and the right in Israel.

But it is getting to the point of crunch time. Mr Zeev Sternhell wrote a very good article about what was to have been Netanyahu's visit to the US and the declining moral position of Israel in the world stage:

"Under the guise of security considerations and the war on terror hides the real, ideological reason: In the right's view, recognizing the equal national rights of the Palestinians means forgoing exclusive Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. From the point of view of members of the Israeli rejectionist front, recognizing the equality of Jewish and Arab rights on both sides of the Green Line is tantamount to betraying Jewish history.

But since the number of people who are still prepared to buy an argument of this kind is diminishing worldwide, Israel is on a collision course with all our allies and supporters. And at the end of this road, it is liable to become a pariah state." ​

Netanyahu has already come out and declared that the agreed 1967 border is not viable.. now tie it in with what Mr Sternhell pointed out - that under the guise of terrorism....

Savvy?

Again, agreed, we hear ye, we hear ye.

So what does Netanyahu want? There are 10 million stateless Palestinians, 5 of them in occupied territories, 5 of them in refugee camps

Palestinian refugees are "a threat to Israel"

Palestinian refugees are a threat to Israel's existence
The American aid, Netanyahu should stress in his Washington speech, is financing one of the most evil and strategically sophisticated plots of our times: cultivating entire generations, millions of people, with one primary goal - destroying the Jewish state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...s-are-a-threat-to-israel-s-existence-1.362676

1967 borders are "indefensible" [read: threat to Israel]

Netanyahu: 1967 borders can't be defended
- Israel's prime minister has rejected a key aspect of President Barack Obama's policy speech, saying that a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.

In a statement released late Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/05/19/general-ml-israel-obama-speech_8474997.html

So what do they want? One state for all citizens?

By the way that is not a real Subaru ad. You should remove the propaganda.

You're right - it is a fake ad circulating the west bank, of a real incident nine months ago when David Birri [head of Elad] ran over some teens in Silwan

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=190682

 

[pjdude1219]

Security against attacks, they have that territory because they were attacked, fruits of war.

typical Israel supporter. making arguments without doing the requisite research. guess what princess doesn't fucking matter that they were "attacked" ( in actuality they have been doing the attacking) it is against international law to take land in war. even defensive ones. and even if perchance they did manage to convince people itwas their most important ally the US can not legally recognize those gains so it becomes a moot point.

What they don't want is to give up territory if it means moving back to 1967 borders.

of course they don't no thief ever wants to give up the loot. that doesn't mean they have a right to it.

What they do want cannot be known until there is a negotiation.

why would Israel negotiate. they can continue their wars of conquest have people like you supporting their warmongering, ethnic cleansing, and theft.

 

[Bells]

So what does Netanyahu want?

He does not want to freeze the settlements or give back settlement land. He does not want swaps and he does not want to not have an Israeli presence on Jordan's border. He also does not want a Palestinian majority in Israel and he does not want Palestinians to be in a position where they can prosper financially on their own without their control.


It is more a case of what Netanyahu does not want.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Sam

It was a response not a discussion.

Of course he says the same mantra as former presidents. Does this surprise you? As long as they keep their purse strings open its not a real response only a suggestion, and a politically motivated one at that. There isn't any muscle behind his remarks.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@PJ

I know the few brain cells you have are struggling for survival so I will keep it simple. Relating what it is already stated by the Israeli government does not make anyone a 'war supporter', but simply stating what it is reported.

Go on now. I'm sure your mommy has a lolly waiting for you.

 

[S.A.M.]

He does not want to freeze the settlements or give back settlement land.

Okay so where does he place the borders of Israel?

He does not want swaps and he does not want to not have an Israeli presence on Jordan's border.

If he does not want swaps or an Israeli presence on the Jordan border what does he propose to do with Jordan? Move it somewhere else?

Palestinian home demolished by Israeli troops in Jordan Valley

He also does not want a Palestinian majority in Israel and he does not want Palestinians to be in a position where they can prosper financially on their own without their control.

So what is his proposal for the Palestinians, both in and outside the occupied territories?

It is more a case of what Netanyahu does not want.

We've had too much focus on what Israel does not want. Let us focus on the suggestions they are agreeable to.

@Sam

It was a response not a discussion.

Of course he says the same mantra as former presidents. Does this surprise you? As long as they keep their purse strings open its not a real response only a suggestion, and a politically motivated one at that. There isn't any muscle behind his remarks.

Thats a very vague statement. What is a response not a discussion? Whose purse strings are open?