[b]The lessons of Netanyahu's triumph [/b]

M.D. Rawlings

Classical Liberal
May 26, 2011
4,123
931
190
Heavenly Places
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
May 27, 2011


bibi_american_flag2.jpg


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was hoping to avoid his clash with US President Barack Obama this past week in Washington. Four days before his showdown at the White House with the American leader, Netanyahu addressed the Knesset. His speech was the most dovish he had ever given. In it, he set out the parameters of the land concessions he is willing to make to the Palestinians, in the event they ever decide that they are interested in negotiating a final peace.

The Rest

RELATED STORY
"An Enemy We Dare Not Name", Canada Free Press
 
Last edited:
Glick writes:

Instead of welcoming Netanyahu's unprecedented concessions, Obama dismissed them as insufficient as he blindsided Netanyahu on Thursday with his speech at the State Department. There, just hours before Netanyahu was scheduled to fly off to meet him in the Oval Office, Obama adopted the Palestinian negotiating position by calling for Israel to accept that future negotiations will be based on the indefensible — indeed suicidal — 1949 armistice lines.

So, just as he was about to board his plane, Netanyahu realized that his mission in the US capital had changed. His job wasn't to go along to get along. His job was to stop Obama from driving Israel's relations with the US off a cliff.​

This is exactly right. Either Obama does not know his history or grasp the strategic territorial concerns of Israeli survival in the region, or his administration sides with the Palestinians. Which is it?

Or does Obama really believe that if Israel were to make the sort of territorial concessions he expects, the Palestinians would finally make peace? In that case he's delusional.
 
Last edited:
Glick writes:

Instead of welcoming Netanyahu's unprecedented concessions, Obama dismissed them as insufficient as he blindsided Netanyahu on Thursday with his speech at the State Department. There, just hours before Netanyahu was scheduled to fly off to meet him in the Oval Office, Obama adopted the Palestinian negotiating position by calling for Israel to accept that future negotiations will be based on the indefensible — indeed suicidal — 1949 armistice lines.

So, just as he was about to board his plane, Netanyahu realized that his mission in the US capital had changed. His job wasn't to go along to get along. His job was to stop Obama from driving Israel's relations with the US off a cliff.​

This is exactly right. Either Obama does not know his history or grasp the strategic territorial concerns of Israeli survival in the region, or his administration sides with the Palestinians. Which is it?

Netanyahu would seem to be far more popular with the US congress than he is with the Israeli people.

This is what Israel's oldest, and possibly most influential paper had to say.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-s-president-to-tell-aipac-the-truth-1.363403
 
Also, one of the nation's most liberal papers. . . .

A larger sample of opinion: BICOM

Israel and the United States have always agreed in principle to the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 of the 1947 Armistice (the pre-1967 boundaries) to which the non-existent Palestinian state was not a signatory. However, the historical caveat has always been predicated on a defensible posture for Israel regardless of the Resolution's formal terms. Obama's pronouncement is a dramatic departure from that understanding.
 
Last edited:
Also, one of the nation's most liberal papers. . . .

A larger sample of opinion: BICOM

Israel and the United States have always agreed in principle to the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 of the 1947 Armistice (the pre-1967 boundaries) to which the non-existent Palestinian state was note a signatory. However, the historical caveat has always been predicated on a defensible posture for Israel regardless of the Resolution's formal terms. Obama's pronouncement is a dramatic departure from that understanding.

IF they've always agreed? WHY hasn't it come to fruition?

Kinda flawed don't you think?
 
Also, one of the nation's most liberal papers. . . .

A larger sample of opinion: BICOM

Israel and the United States have always agreed in principle to the terms of U.N. Resolution 242 of the 1947 Armistice (the pre-1967 boundaries) to which the non-existent Palestinian state was note a signatory. However, the historical caveat has always been predicated on a defensible posture for Israel regardless of the Resolution's formal terms. Obama's pronouncement is a dramatic departure from that understanding.

IF they've always agreed? WHY hasn't it come to fruition?

Kinda flawed don't you think?

What's flawed? The historic caveat of the United States and Israel, or the realization of a lasting peace? Remember, Egypt and Jordan have kept the peace with Israel based on the post-1967 boundaries for decades. Palestinian state? What Palestinian state?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top