• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
 
Why do you think Obama made his speech just a day before Netanyahu's scheduled visit?

Was that speech supposed to mend US ties to Israel? :rolleyes:

Or is Obama planning to support Palestinian demands for statehood in the UN?

And if Israel doesn't go along, will Obama enact the Samantha Power's solution?

Hmmmmm?
 
Or is Obama planning to support Palestinian demands for statehood in the UN?

Well, if you'd bother to read the speech, rather than focus on your unsupported, reflexive Obama-bashing, you'd find that he specifically addressed that:

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.
 
So where's this "Obama changes US policy towards Israel, says they must return to pre-1967 borders!" crap coming from?
I couldn't figure that one out either. Obama hasn't said anything that wasn't the US, and even Israel's for that matter, policy for years.

eta: in this AP story the second sentence contradicts the first:
It was Obama's explicit endorsement of the 1967 borders that changed the dynamic.

The U.S., the international community and even past Israeli governments have endorsed the idea of an agreement based on the 1967 lines, but Obama's new emphasis was a clear prodding for Israel to act.
 
Last edited:
As a sign of how insane this is, here's what a blog on American Spectator thinks about what Obama said in his speech:

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and 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. 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 potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

COME AGAIN?!?!?!?!? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!


In other words, Obama is now ready to advocate the next step of his plan to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

Emphasis exactly as it appears in the original, by the way. So, saying that the borders involved in a two-state solution should be based on a modified 1967 border is essentially a step to wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.

Now, take a gander at this article from this past January, published in The Telegraph:

President Barack Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Arab world have been tarnished after it emerged that he reneged on an important Bush administration pledge to the Palestinian leadership.

[...]

Confidential Palestinian documents leaked to Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television network, suggest that Mr Obama retreated from a promise that territory occupied by Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 should become the basis for a future Palestinian state.

The documents, part of a second tranche of the “Palestine Papers” released by Al Jazeera on Monday evening, indicate that Mr Obama’s change of heart was the result of Israeli pressure.

That fact alone is likely to damage Mr Obama’s carefully-cultivated image as a friend of the Arab world.

According to the papers, Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush’s secretary of state, explicitly endorsed the use of 1967 borders as a basis for future negotiations on dividing territory in the months after the Annapolis peace conference in 2007.

[...]

It was accepted that adjustments to the border would have to be made to allow Israel to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank in return for land in Israel.

[...]

Records of a meeting in October 2009 between Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, and George Mitchell, Mr Obama’s Middle East envoy, show the Americans wavering.

The minutes indicate that Mr Erekat urged the United States publicly to declare its support for “two states along the ’67 border with agreed swaps”, a commitment Ms Rice only made in private.

Mr Mitchell noted that the US had come under fierce Israeli pressure to resist such a move, but promised to pursue the matter.

The next day, however, he told Mr Erekat to drop the subject.

“Again, I tell you that President Obama does not accept prior decisions by Bush,” the documents show Mr Mitchell as saying. “Don’t use this because it can hurt you.”

Mr Erekat seems stunned by the warning, replying: “But this was an agreement with Secretary Rice... For God’s sake, she said to put it on the record.”

In other words, before Obama's speech, he had angered the Palestinians because he was apparently backtracking (due to supposed "Israeli pressure") on a promise made by Bush Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in 2007. A promise that the proposed Palestinian/Israeli border would be the 1967 border, with agreed-upon swaps of territory! The same thing Clinton repeated in 2009, and that Obama stated in his speech today!

Why was a statement made by Rice under Bush apparently perfectly okay and a valuable part of Bush's attempts to secure peace in Israel, but when the exact same statement is made by Obama, it's a stunning declaration that he seeks nothing less than the destruction of Israel itself?

EDIT: And it can't just be the public statement regarding the 1967 borders that Rice apparently refused to make, because Clinton's public statement about exactly that three years ago passed with nary a peep. So what gives?
 
Last edited:
What he said, in fact, was exactly what the AP said was the previous, long-standing US policy:



Obama's words, in fact (in addition to being pretty much a word-for-word repeat of what the AP said was US policy before today's speech), are pretty much a verbatim reiteration of what Hillary Clinton said in 2009:

So, why did he make a speech at all then? I see no domestic political upside to trying to restart the fictional "peace process" kabuki. And, of course, no actual progress will come of it either. It just makes Obama look naive and ineffective.
 
So, why did he make a speech at all then? I see no domestic political upside to trying to restart the fictional "peace process" kabuki. And, of course, no actual progress will come of it either. It just makes Obama look naive and ineffective.
I believe the peace process is in a state where it will go nowhere without intervention from outside. Hopefully Obama will be strong enough to override Hamas loonies and Netanyahu and drive it through.
 
I believe the peace process is in a state where it will go nowhere without intervention from outside. Hopefully Obama will be strong enough to override Hamas loonies and Netanyahu and drive it through.

I can only imagine your disappointment when you find out that Obama actually said that only Israel and Palestine can advance the peace process, and nobody is strong enough to force it on them from the outside.

Ineffective? That's pretty much exactly what he said.
 
Brainster pointed this out in another thread:
Ed Morrissey's response

Update: I’m not sure how the AP came up with this:

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

Er … no, he didn’t. He said that the settlement should “be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” That’s been the US position for quite a while.

Update II: Seriously, how the Associated Press could make this kind of a mistake is beyond me. Not only is this point clear in the text, Obama delivered it accurately as well.
. . .
He did not say “pre-1967.” Obama gave the standard US position.
 
As a sign of how insane this is, here's what a blog on American Spectator thinks about what Obama said in his speech:



Emphasis exactly as it appears in the original, by the way. So, saying that the borders involved in a two-state solution should be based on a modified 1967 border is essentially a step to wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.

Here's another off-the-wall reaction:

"We urge AIPAC to rescind the invitation for President Obama to speak and we urge friends of Israel and enemies of Islamist terrorism to contact your Members of Congress to fight against Obama’s anti-Israel policy," said the ZOA's statement Thursday. ZOA President Morton Klein added, "President Obama is the most hostile president to Israel ever.”

Obama is set to address the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday.

The ZOA statement on Thursday "strongly condemned President Obama’s Mideast speech given today promoting and supporting the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran terrorist state on the Auschwitz 1967 indefensible armistice lines."

Apparently the 1967 borders have something to do with Auschwitz and therefore president Obama is a Nazi?? :confused:
 
I believe the peace process is in a state where it will go nowhere without intervention from outside. Hopefully Obama will be strong enough to override Hamas loonies and Netanyahu and drive it through.

I believe the peace process is in a state where it will go nowhere. Full stop. There may be peace process kabuki theater, but that's it.

You can't "drive it through" when both sides are against it. Bill Clinton tried under much more favorable circumstances and failed. There's nothing to do now but wait for both sides to elect governments that want peace. That may have to wait for a future generation.
 
Apparently the 1967 borders have something to do with Auschwitz and therefore president Obama is a Nazi?? :confused:

Perhaps it would help to recognize why the 1967 borders are called the Auschwitz border?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ct-the-auschwitz-borders/?partner=rss&emc=rss

That resonant phrase, which suggests that Israelis would face genocide should they withdraw fully from the land they have occupied since the end of the 1967 war, is based on a mangled version of a remark made by the Israeli diplomat Abba Eban in 1969. According to Haaretz, Mr. Eban told the German newsweekly Der Spiegel in that year: “We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”
 
I believe the peace process is in a state where it will go nowhere. Full stop. There may be peace process kabuki theater, but that's it.

You can't "drive it through" when both sides are against it. Bill Clinton tried under much more favorable circumstances and failed. There's nothing to do now but wait for both sides to elect governments that want peace. That may have to wait for a future generation.
No, why allow people to do that? Put a stop to progress by simple non co-operation. There is little point in waiting for future generations if the current situation is simply poison. Certain basic structural elements may have to be imposed from outside to allow for a situation where generational attitude change can occur.
 
Looks like Israel....and therefore Israels supporters on this forum.....will go into a frenzy of well poisoning. Lets see how we can associate stuff with the 1967 borders. can I suggest the 67 borders be referred to now as the holocaust hitler Iran cancer obesity child molester borders?
 
Ah. Her idea is so unrealistic, I don't think there's any danger of Obama or any other president following that advice.

And yet Obama appointed Power to the National Security Council Staff, where she serves as a Special Assistant to the President and runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. And according to wikipedia, she is considered to be the key figure within the Obama administration in persuading the president to intervene militarily in Libya. She has *some* influence. :D
 
Okay, WTF?

I agree with you. Obama's speech did nothing more than reiterate what was already the US position, yet it's being reported as a radical shift. It seems to me that on this issue reality and perception are often so far apart it just can't surprise me anymore.
 
Looks like Israel....and therefore Israels supporters on this forum.....will go into a frenzy of well poisoning. Lets see how we can associate stuff with the 1967 borders. can I suggest the 67 borders be referred to now as the holocaust hitler Iran cancer obesity child molester borders?

Well, if we're going to make predictions, keeping it just to people on this forum, I predict we will see nothing we haven't seen in the past. Which means that nobody will associate anything with the 1967 borders except possibly bigjelmapro might refer to them as "armistice lines", which he often does.

So, what shall we wager on this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom