A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
So, in other words, Obama *important* Middle East speech was pretty much the same old same old?
Despite the "liberal media" getting that entirely wrong, yes, Obama's Middle East speech represented nothing really new.
He doesn't really expect Israel to agree to giving back West Jerusalum and abandon all the settlements outside that 67 border.
He doesn't really expect Palestinians to give back the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to the Egyptians.
At least not without real assurances of peace ...
You're right, he doesn't expect that. From his speech:
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. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.
Now back to you:
Not with so much past negotiation in bad faith by arabs ...
Not with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, still calling for the destruction of Israel ...
Not with such a large fraction of the Arab "springers" calling for Israel's destruction ...
Hamas, at least, isn't happy with Obama's speech:
The Hamas movement called US President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech a "complete failure," saying it was like "throwing sand in the eyes of the public."
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri claimed the speech lacked content, adding that his organization "is opposed to intervention in our internal affairs." Abu Zuhri urged the Palestinian Authority to dismiss the speech, and emphasized the need to "coordinate the stances of Palestinian forces against the American arrogance."