from Haaretz: Obama, the first U.S. president to tell AIPAC the truth

Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by SergeGainsbourg, May 22, 2011.

  1. SergeGainsbourg
    Offline

    SergeGainsbourg Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    from Haaretz

    Obama, the first U.S. president to tell AIPAC the truth

    Obama did not go to the AIPAC conference to iron out differences between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He went there to settle misunderstandings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.


    By Akiva Eldar


    Appearing before the annual conference of AIPAC, the American pro-Israel lobby, is what all candidates for president of the United States dream about. It's their big chance to attract the Jewish vote and Jewish contributions. It's the setting where they can reap the benefits of declarations of loyalty to Israel, elegantly bypassing anything that might rile supporters. That's where, 16 years ago, Republican candidate Bob Dole announced a legislative initiative, at an inopportune moment, to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in one of the low points in the peace process.

    No American president or presidential candidate has ever told this large Jewish audience of supporters of Israel the truth. Until yesterday, that is. Obama did not go to the AIPAC conference to iron out differences between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He went there to settle misunderstandings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

    Obama's explanation regarding his statement last week at the State Department regarding borders, meaning the 1967 borders with mutually agreed-upon swaps, has been acceptable to the Palestinian side for some time. Any diplomat trainee at the Israeli Foreign Ministry would know that not only would Palestinians never agree to have the Israeli army stationed for decades along the Jordan River, but neither would the Americans support Netanyahu's demand that the IDF control Palestinian territory.

    It is not coincidental that seasoned Palestinian adviser Saeb Erekat quickly announced yesterday that if Netanyahu were to accept that principle, the path to negotiations would be open and Israel would be able to spare itself and Obama the headache of a vote at the United Nations in September on recognition of a Palestinian state.

    Obama fed Netanyahu a heaping portion of Passover bitter herbs garnished with sweet apple haroset. He did not try to make nice. After long deliberations, the die was cast at the White House. Plans would no longer be tailor-made for the government of hour in Israel, as America's perennial Middle East adviser Dennis Ross was known to do.

    Yesterday came the turn of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has learned a thing or two about Netanyahu's maneuvers. Precisely in the run-up to a tough election year, Obama decided to adopt the approach of the secretary of state, to take off the kid gloves and show the true face of the head of the Jewish state on his guest's home court.

    Obama's AIPAC speech is the bill the president is submitting to Netanyahu for the dinners that the Israeli prime minister thought he had gotten for free. The time has come to pay for American opposition to the Goldstone commission report on the Israeli incursion in Gaza and the veto of the UN Security Council's condemnation of construction in West Bank settlements. Obama denied Netanyahu the opportunity to exercise a veto on the terms for negotiations with the Palestinians. The U.S. president said that negotiations could not be conducted with Hamas as long as the organization does not recognize Israel's right to exist, refuses to accept existing international obligations and engages in terrorism. The Palestinian party to the negotiations was and remains the Palestine Liberation Organization and not Hamas.

    Obama also rejected Netanyahu's demand that negotiations begin based on the principle of Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The president was careful to speak about both parties' right to self-determination. Period.

    Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to liken Israel's participation in negotiations on the future of the territories to cattle being led through the corral to the slaughterhouse. When Netanyahu returns home, he will have to decide once and for all if he is ready to lose the support of an American president who yesterday went into the lion's den or enter the corral of negotiations that in the end, and perhaps even from the beginning, will threaten him with political slaughter. Netanyahu's choice not to attend yesterday's convention session may indicate which direction he will choose.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Jroc
    Online

    Jroc יעקב כהן Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,221
    Thanks Received:
    6,244
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +11,537
    Well.. The person that wrote that OP-ED totally missed what actually happened and obviously has a dislike for Netanyahu.. Just an op-ed by a lib… wasted post.

    Akiva Eldar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. SergeGainsbourg
    Offline

    SergeGainsbourg Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    JROC-

    You obviously are on the right on these issues--which for me is great, because I always appreciate having an intelligent discussion with people I don't necessarily agree with.

    I posted a message stating that I thought it would be in Israel's interest to reject US aid and instead pay for the weapons itself given that it has a big enough economy ($217B GDP) and relatively little debt compared to the US and Europe. Meanwhile it is unseemly to lecture the President of the country that is your chief donor. So there are two ways to solve this, either kiss ass or reject the aid. I think it may be in everyone's interest now for Israel to reject the aid. What do you think?
     
  4. docmauser1
    Offline

    docmauser1 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7,274
    Thanks Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,176
    Yes, a hysterical leftist newspaper, we know.
    They have to learn that there's no such thing as 1967 borders to be taken seriously, of course. Bth., thanks for making sure jews are better.
     
  5. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,262
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,066
    Obama just cost Dems every 2012 swing state. Thanks, Barack Yasser Obama!
     
  6. Jroc
    Online

    Jroc יעקב כהן Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,221
    Thanks Received:
    6,244
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +11,537
    It has always been the goal of Natanyahu to get off of foreign aid but like i said in another thread there are forces at work boycotting all Israeli made goods,, so it's taking a little longer but I'm sure you are for all foreign aid being cut right? And it's Obama who has to "kiss ass" becouse the pro-Israel lobby is strong and he can't win the election without their support.:cool:
     
  7. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    "It is not coincidental that seasoned Palestinian adviser Saeb Erekat quickly announced yesterday that if Netanyahu were to accept that principle, the path to negotiations would be open and Israel would be able to spare itself and Obama the headache of a vote at the United Nations in September on recognition of a Palestinian state."

    In other words, it won't mean peace, Israel will have to meet further demands, for a short peace.

    Israel and the world, knows the Pals won't be peaceful allies after being given land, since it's been done. And since the main charter of Hamas, a terror group, is to destroy Israel...
     
  8. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    "The Palestinian party to the negotiations was and remains the Palestine Liberation Organization and not Hamas."

    don't be dim.
    If the PLO does agrees to anything, Hamas does not have to follow it b/c THEY have the power.
     
  9. Two Thumbs
    Offline

    Two Thumbs Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    33,450
    Thanks Received:
    5,786
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Where ever I go, there I am.
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    I have to wonder.

    Why is obama taking a hard line with an ally and helping a terrorist organisation?
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,262
    Thanks Received:
    14,919
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,066
    You mean Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood?
     

Share This Page