Remember The Question Of Obama and Israel?

[Annie]

Seems it's being answered:

Obama’s U.N. Mistake by Anne Bayefsky on National Review Online

May 15, 2009, 3:58 p.m.

Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.

By Anne Bayefsky

In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.

It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”

This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.

The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”

Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.” ...

 

[DavidS]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

 

[Annie]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

Not for long if ties with US are severed. That is the way it's going. We truly are now on the European road.

 

[GHook93]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

Come on now that is just ignorant! Right now there is a de facto Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. They can't go on fighting forever. Both sides seem more than tired of fighting. The obstacles even 20 yrs ago have definitely shrunk to a few things. However, they are definitely at a stalemate. And 2 different Palestinian governments one in the WB and one in Gaza have not help matters much. Esp since the one in Gaza prescribes to an Islamofacist Ideology. But here are the barriers to peace and the Palestinians state (going down in importance):

(1) The so-called Palestinian Refugees:
In every other conflict the refugees are usually absorbed into the host state and made citizens. That is what has happened the the Lebanese and Palestinian refugees that have gone to the West and Latin America! Yet the Arabs do not absorb them because they want to use them as pawns in their deadly game. Despite the fact the Palestinians share the same language (Arabic), race (Arab), religion (Islam), sec of Islam (Sunni), origin (from the Islamic Caliphates/Crusaders) and Culture, the Arab hosts refuse to absorb them which is a crime against humanity in itself. Therefore this has remains an issue. Israel CAN NOT and WILL NOT absorb them, because no country is suicidal enough to take on millions of enemies of the state (esp a country as tiny as Israel). However, Palestine seems incapable of absorbing them. I believe many in the Arab world and in the Palestinian society are realizing what the West has known for decades, Not ONE so called Palestinian Refugee Will Resettled in Israel!

(2) Jerusalem:
Both make solid claims to Jerusalem. Its the holiest city in Judaism, with many Jewish artifacts, including the temple mount. The Jews ALWAYS have maintained a large presences in Jerusalem including the East Jerusalem (they fled to the other side of Jerusalem in '48). However, Jerusalem has significant importance to the Palestinians. Its Islam's 3rd holiest city. The Golden Doom is located there. And in East Jerusalem, Muslims are the majority with 250K of them living there. Its sticky and both seem uncompromisable here.

(3) Security:
Israel demands it and is justified in demanding it. The Palestinians have never been able to accomplish this requirement , most because of lack to will and desire.

(4) The West Bank Settlement:
Israel has stated that they are willing to give up most of the settlement, but not all of them. These settlements have grown into large extensive cities, many build with Palestinian hired labor. Israel wants to keep them in exchange for equal land primarily the Arab Triangle. Palestinian not NO!

(5) Water:
They live in the desert. Water is not always a commodity and they argue over it.

(6) Land Bridge of Gaza to West Bank:
Israel already stated they would give this up. See Israel is will to give in to logical requirements.

(7) Protection of Jewish Holy sites in Palestinian controlled areas:
Many of these holy sites predate the Holy Roman Empire, such as Joseph's tomb. However, the Palestinian have already proved they will not protect these sites and have openly destroyed them. As soon as the Jews left Joseph's Tomb to the protection of the PLO, it was vandalized, looted and set on fire. This is a 3000 year old tomb! It was tragic! Many other Jewish ancient artifacts are located in the Palestinian territories, including in East Jerusalem at the Temple Mount and they are being destroyed.

(8) Israeli Arabs in the Triangle:
These are area in Israel right on the border of the West Bank where Jews may not go, the place of many Arab riots, the place where many racial attacks take place, a place where Arabs will be killed if they sell their land to Jews or the State, a place where its treason to hang an Israeli flag, join the army or accept Israeli citizenship, a place where they only call themselves Palestinians and a place where Palestinian flags hang everywhere. Why the hell should be part of Israel? Israel rightfully wants to exchange these lands for some settlements. That is more than a rational and a fair trade. In fact the triangle is the equivalent of Arab settlements in Israel!

Yep there are obstacle and no easy solutions, but status quo is not plausible. A 2 state solution is the Only Way!

 

[DavidS]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

Not for long if ties with US are severed. That is the way it's going. We truly are now on the European road.

No US President would ever do that. They would lose Jewish support. Many Jews live in Florida and Nevada - two swing states.

Plus the US makes a TON of money from Israel's purchase of weapons.

 

[elvis]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

Not for long if ties with US are severed. That is the way it's going. We truly are now on the European road.

No US President would ever do that. They would lose Jewish support. Many Jews live in Florida and Nevada - two swing states.

Plus the US makes a TON of money from Israel's purchase of weapons.

you don't think obama could win without florida and nevada?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not for long if ties with US are severed. That is the way it's going. We truly are now on the European road.

No US President would ever do that. They would lose Jewish support. Many Jews live in Florida and Nevada - two swing states.

Plus the US makes a TON of money from Israel's purchase of weapons.

you don't think obama could win without florida and nevada?

No President needs Nevada. Florida is only important in context of what is happening else where.

Obama will sell out the Israelis it was his plan all along. Just as bankrupting the Country, cow towing to Europe and creating unsustainable new entitlements was his plan.

Obama thinks he can get away with anything. He is naive in politics and has been coddled his entire career. He comes from a political system that runs rough shod over its opponents. He has NO IDEA what will happen when he pisses the Jews, the moderates and his own left leaning members off.

This is going to be blunder after blunder and WE will pay for them.

 

[DamnYankee]

Seems it's being answered:

Obama’s U.N. Mistake by Anne Bayefsky on National Review Online

May 15, 2009, 3:58 p.m.

Obama’s U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.

By Anne Bayefsky

In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn’t fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.

It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”

This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don’t recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.

The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That’s a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America’s U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”

Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel’s wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.’s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel’s position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.” ...

Sooo.... What was all the bullshit he was shoveling at the AIPAC meetings he addressed?

Last update - 15:11 03/03/2007


In AIPAC speech, Obama repeats support for Israel, peace talks

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent



United States Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama reiterated his support for Israel on Friday, while at the same time calling on the U.S. to make a concerted effort to revive the peace process.

"Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region," Obama said during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago. "Our job is to do more than lay out another road map."

"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," he added. "That will always be my starting point."
In AIPAC speech, Obama repeats support for Israel, peace talks - Haaretz - Israel News

Senator Barack Obama AIPAC Policy Conference 2008 June 4, 2008
Before I begin I also want to mention that I know some have been receiving provocative emails that have been circulated throughout the Jewish communities across the country and a few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall-tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President and all I want to say is let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama because hesounds pretty scary.
But if anybody has been confused by these emails I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart and as a true friend of Israel. And I know--and I know that when I visit AIPAC I’m among friends--good friends, friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel isunbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow--unbreakable forever.
One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that youfight for this common cause from the bottom up. The life-blood of
AIPAC is here in this room; grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country who come to Washington year after year to makeyour voices heard--nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the worldthat the bond between Israel and the United States --that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than ourshared national interest; it’s rooted in the shared values and shareds tories of our people. And as President I will work with you to insure that it is this bond that is strengthened.
Senator Barack Obama

 

[Annie]

The UN and Obama can do whatever they wish. There will never be a Palestinian state next to Israel. The UN can "declare" one if they wish, but Israel will crush it the next day.

Not for long if ties with US are severed. That is the way it's going. We truly are now on the European road.

No US President would ever do that. They would lose Jewish support. Many Jews live in Florida and Nevada - two swing states.

Plus the US makes a TON of money from Israel's purchase of weapons.

Wow, now YOU are being delusional.

 

[jillian]

Kath, you need to stop reading stuff that would be right wing even in Israel.This is what the jpost is saying:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu left Saturday night for the US for what is widely considered a critical first meeting with US President Barack Obama that may go a long way toward setting the tone of US-Israel relations for years to come.


While Iran and the Palestinian track are expected to dominate the talks, diplomatic officials said that what was even more crucial to establish in this first meeting between the two new leaders was trust and confidence in one another.

The White House has cleared a considerable amount of Obama's Monday schedule for the talks, which will begin in late morning, run through lunch and continue on into the afternoon.

Senior Obama administration officials said on Saturday that the pair had already established a good personal working relationship, but they also related to differences in the two leaders' outlooks.

Netanyahu has refused to specifically endorse the vision of a "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His Likud ministerial colleague Yisrael Katz said on Saturday night that the prime minister would push for a joint American-Israeli partnership to launch a fresh "diplomatic initiative for the Middle East" in place of the Arab League initiative and previous negotiating tracks.

Katz also said Netanyahu would not be bound to the kind of "shelf" agreement on two states that prime minister Ehud Olmert had sought to finalize with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Washington officials, by contrast, stressed on Saturday that Obama had been committed from day one of his presidency to pursuing comprehensive Middle East peace, which would include a secure Jewish state of Israel alongside an independent, viable Palestinian state.

Obama has also welcomed the Arab League initiative as constructive and indicated it could serve as a basis for progress.

Netanyahu's aides have spoken in recent days of the prime minister's support for "natural growth" in the West Bank settlements - another area of possible contention, with some reports suggesting Obama wants to see a settlement freeze.

The administration officials would not directly answer questions about Obama's stance on Saturday, beyond saying that all parties had responsibilities and obligations to give the US a chance to be successful. Israel, they said, had responsibilities on settlements and outposts, and the Palestinians had responsibilities on security and terrorism.

Netanyahu, Obama hope for mutual trust | Israel | Jerusalem Post

so, while there are questions, and a lot will depend on what happens at these meetings, I don't think either Obama or Netanyahu are stupid. Much like China being opened by the anti-commie Nixon, Netanyahu may have the street cred to make a deal that doesn't sell out Israel.

but on this issue, too, your guys failed massively... de-stabilized the region, empowered Iran... so perhaps its time for the extremists who think they should 'bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb iran" need to sit back, pour themselves a shot or two and get out of the way.

 

[editec]

I don't understand the particulars that are holding up the peace process.

Can anyone clearly explain to me the specific issues where Isreal and Palestine are at complete loggerheads?

 

[jillian]

israel remaining a viable jewish state with defensible borders

jerusalem...

golan heights

 

[Dr Grump]

Why the hell do the Pals give a toss about the Golan Heights - it's a Syrian problem...

 

[Annie]

Kath, you need to stop reading stuff that would be right wing even in Israel.This is what the jpost is saying:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu left Saturday night for the US for what is widely considered a critical first meeting with US President Barack Obama that may go a long way toward setting the tone of US-Israel relations for years to come.


While Iran and the Palestinian track are expected to dominate the talks, diplomatic officials said that what was even more crucial to establish in this first meeting between the two new leaders was trust and confidence in one another.

The White House has cleared a considerable amount of Obama's Monday schedule for the talks, which will begin in late morning, run through lunch and continue on into the afternoon.

Senior Obama administration officials said on Saturday that the pair had already established a good personal working relationship, but they also related to differences in the two leaders' outlooks.

Netanyahu has refused to specifically endorse the vision of a "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His Likud ministerial colleague Yisrael Katz said on Saturday night that the prime minister would push for a joint American-Israeli partnership to launch a fresh "diplomatic initiative for the Middle East" in place of the Arab League initiative and previous negotiating tracks.

Katz also said Netanyahu would not be bound to the kind of "shelf" agreement on two states that prime minister Ehud Olmert had sought to finalize with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Washington officials, by contrast, stressed on Saturday that Obama had been committed from day one of his presidency to pursuing comprehensive Middle East peace, which would include a secure Jewish state of Israel alongside an independent, viable Palestinian state.

Obama has also welcomed the Arab League initiative as constructive and indicated it could serve as a basis for progress.

Netanyahu's aides have spoken in recent days of the prime minister's support for "natural growth" in the West Bank settlements - another area of possible contention, with some reports suggesting Obama wants to see a settlement freeze.

The administration officials would not directly answer questions about Obama's stance on Saturday, beyond saying that all parties had responsibilities and obligations to give the US a chance to be successful. Israel, they said, had responsibilities on settlements and outposts, and the Palestinians had responsibilities on security and terrorism.

Netanyahu, Obama hope for mutual trust | Israel | Jerusalem Post

so, while there are questions, and a lot will depend on what happens at these meetings, I don't think either Obama or Netanyahu are stupid. Much like China being opened by the anti-commie Nixon, Netanyahu may have the street cred to make a deal that doesn't sell out Israel.

but on this issue, too, your guys failed massively... de-stabilized the region, empowered Iran... so perhaps its time for the extremists who think they should 'bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb iran" need to sit back, pour themselves a shot or two and get out of the way.

Jillian, do not patronize, it's unbecoming. You KNOW I don't read only right outlets, you've known me too long. What I choose to post however, is within my rights.

 

[Dr Grump]

Jillian, do not patronize, it's unbecoming. You KNOW I don't read only right outlets, you've known me too long. What I choose to post however, is within my rights.

And if you're gonna post partisan crap, expect to get called on it, as is Jillian's or anybody else's rights....

 

[jillian]

Why the hell do the Pals give a toss about the Golan Heights - it's a Syrian problem...

It has to do with the settlements... they shouldn't give a toss, but as syria is one of the funders of terrorists, they use it as a wedge. and if it is going to take a global resolution, then syria is one of the considerations.

personally, i don't think syria should ever get back the golan heights... too easy to fire into settlements like they used to.

 

[editec]

israel remaining a viable jewish state with defensible borders

jerusalem...

golan heights

I doubt that's the entire list, Jill

What are the Palestinian issues?

Settlements?

Water?

Resitution?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why the hell do the Pals give a toss about the Golan Heights - it's a Syrian problem...

It has to do with the settlements... they shouldn't give a toss, but as syria is one of the funders of terrorists, they use it as a wedge. and if it is going to take a global resolution, then syria is one of the considerations.

personally, i don't think syria should ever get back the golan heights... too easy to fire into settlements like they used to.

I'd give it back to them. Won't take much to get 'em back if the Syrians start getting antsy. Apparently Assad jnr is a little more liberal than his father....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So when will Jillian drop her Obama worship? After he sells out Israel? Looks like he already did from where I am sitting.

 

[jillian]

israel remaining a viable jewish state with defensible borders

jerusalem...

golan heights

I doubt that's the entire list, Jill

What are the Palestinian issues?

Settlements?

Water?

Resitution?

water? yeah, the pals don't think israel should have any.

restitution? weren't the people with legitimate claims aleady offered money?

i already said what the pal issue was... jerusalem

and for the radicals... right of return which is never going to happen ever in the history of mankind.

they were already give 98% of what they wanted. they should have taken it.. .they'll get less from netanyahu because he isn't going to let israel be destroyed.