| Obama's Address about Israeli Palestine Conflict; Wants return to 1967 Israeli Border | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 18 2011, 08:35 PM (4,416 Views) | |
| Concerned | May 22 2011, 02:27 AM Post #106 |
|
Possible speech to be given by Netanyahu........good history lesson - and he asks for the release of Pollard. I thought this was a good speech although not actually written by Bibi. What Will Prime Minister Netanyahu Say to the US Congress? Note: This speech was actually written by MK Yaakov Katz (“Ketsaleh”), head of the National Union party, given to Prime Minister Netanyahu and sent to INN for translation and posting, in the hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu will stand firm and present its message to the government of the United States. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144360 |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | May 22 2011, 11:59 AM Post #107 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
0bama is habitually late to his speeches. Last minute changes in his speeches could be a reason for it. Still though whoever is writing his speeches is doing a bad job. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | May 22 2011, 01:18 PM Post #108 |
|
The Moonwalk has begun. I really didn't mean it Obama says to American Israeli PAC. Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Sunday that any controversy over his remarks last week that Israel-Palestinian negotiations should start from pre-1967 borders and include land swaps was "not based in substance." In his first speech as president to the main American-Israeli lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama said his reference to the border issue in a major policy address on the Middle East on Thursday "means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," the eve of the six-day war in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip and other territory. "That's what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation," Obama said to applause. "It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years," including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. He later added: "If there is a controversy, then, it's not based in substance." Obama also told the AIPAC meeting that his speech Thursday made clear a long accepted outline for the negotiations.....snipped http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/22/obama.israel/ The damage is done. Abbas needs to move towards Hamas or risk becoming irrelevant. Hamas is winning and the longer they wait the more they win. Arafat was basically given 99% of what he wanted at Camp David under Clinton's deal. He refused it and started a period of more terrorism. Why would Hamas take any less then everything? They are a brutal terrorist organization determined to seek the destruction of Israel. Obama blew it big time and is now trying to save support.. Let's see if wishful thinking on the Democratic Jewish side of the isle buys it. Want to really worry? Think of an Obama Administration in 2013-2017 not worried about reelection and what that means for Israel. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | May 22 2011, 01:44 PM Post #109 |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama Obama: '67 borders reflects long-standing policy Associated Press – 40 mins ago WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama defended his endorsement of Israel's 1967 boundaries as the basis for a future Palestine, telling America's pro-Israel lobby Sunday that his views reflected long-standing U.S. policy that needed to be stated clearly. He also said the Jewish state will face growing isolation without "a credible peace process." Obama tried to alleviate concerns that his administration was veering in a pro-Palestinian direction, placing his Mideast policy speech Thursday in the context of Israel's security. He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that those border lines must be subject to negotiated land swaps and said these principles reflected U.S. thinking dating to President Bill Clinton's mediation efforts. "If there's a controversy, then it's not based in substance," Obama said in a well-received speech. "What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace." The event was eagerly anticipated after Obama outlined his vision for the changing Middle East at the State Department on Thursday and then clashed in a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a day later. The speech came ahead of a weeklong trip for the president to Europe, where he'll tend to old friends in the Western alliance and look to secure their help with the political upheaval across the Arab world and the decade-long conflict in Afghanistan. Netanyahu said in a statement after Obama's remarks that he supported president's desire to advance peace and resolved to work with him to find ways to renew the negotiations. "Peace is a vital need for us all," Netanyahu said. snip.... |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | May 22 2011, 01:55 PM Post #110 |
|
KISS' Gene Simmons: Obama "Has No F***ing Idea What The World Is Like" "When you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well. I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no f***ing idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there," KISS vocalist and guitarist told CNBC. "The most pathetic body on the face of the planet." Simmons called the U.N. a "paper tiger" that allows dictators to spread propaganda. Video http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/21/kiss_gene_simmons_obama_has_no_fing_idea_what_the_world_is_like.html Listen to the complete video. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 22 2011, 02:09 PM Post #111 |
|
I believe the wording Obama used, to include "swap", was a BS move for CYA. The downside I see is that the only specific details on any topic he mentioned was just that, '67 borders. One doesn't or shouldn't see that as a diplomatic approach to improving peace negotiations, so we should search more for what the objective was in him including those details. Nobody involved in that late coming speech would have anticipated it would NOT be said without reactions to it. What was their objective for including that part of the speech? |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 22 2011, 02:16 PM Post #112 |
|
"...I think he’s actually a good guy." I'm not sure where he comes up with that. Obama is not so stupid that he does not know what he's doing. A poor excuse for overlooking what Obama says and does. Was the '67 borders topic an effort to redirect attention? Maybe away from what many anticipate to be Mideast foreign relation failures, for we have no clue what the end result will be and neither does Obama ...as he proposes to spend more. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | May 22 2011, 03:52 PM Post #113 |
|
Israel and Obama’s Radical Past May 20, 2011 10:05 A.M. By Stanley Kurtz Does President Obama’s radical past tell us anything significant about his stance on Israel today? Perhaps more important, do the radical alliances of Obama’s Chicago days raise a warning flag about what the president’s position on Israel may be in 2013, should he safely secure reelection? Many will deny it, but I believe Obama’s radical history speaks volumes about the past, present, and likely future course of his policy on Israel. The Los Angeles Times has long refused to release a videotape in its possession of a farewell dinner, attended by Obama, for scholar and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Obama spoke warmly of his friendship for Khalidi at that event. Unfortunately, the continuing mystery of that video tape has obscured the rather remarkable article that the LA Times did publish about the dinner — and about Obama’s broader views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In light of the controversy over Obama’s remarks on Israel in his address yesterday on the Middle East, it is worth revisiting that 2008 article from the LA Times. The extraordinary thing about “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama” is that in it, Obama’s supporters say that in claiming to be pro-Israel, he is hiding his true views from the public. Having observed his personal associations, his open political alliances, his public statements, and his private remarks, Obama’s Palestinian allies steadfastly maintain that Obama’s private views are far more pro-Palestinian than he lets on. Having pieced together Obama’s history, I make much the same argument about Obama’s broader political stance in my book, Radical-in-Chief. Obama’s true views are far to the left of what he lets on in public. Yet it’s striking to see Palestinian activists making essentially the same point — not in criticism of Obama, but in praise. Notice also that, in this article, Rashid Khalidi himself claims that Obama’s family ties to Kenya and Indonesia have inclined him to be more sympathetic to Palestinians than other American politicians are. That sort of claim often gets ridiculed when conservatives make it. The point of all this is not that, as president, Obama is going to make policy exactly as Rashid Khalidi might. Obviously, no American president could take such a position and survive politically. Rather, the point is that Obama’s stance is going to tilt more heavily toward the Palestinians than any other likely American president, Republican or Democrat — just as Obama’s Palestinian allies argued in that LA Times piece. The entire article is worth a read, but here are some choice excerpts: snipped http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267731/israel-and-obamas-radical-past-stanley-kurtz |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | May 22 2011, 06:16 PM Post #114 |
|
Obama doesn't like being schooled by a foreign leader. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F7aQWiIefg&feature=player_embedded#at=93 |
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 22 2011, 06:18 PM Post #115 |
|
I hate it when someone makes general statements or identifies some group in a general manner that leaves the reader wondering WHO or WHAT. I agree with the idea reported there, it's just a half-azzed job. ADD: As I highlighted in red. Edited by kbp, May 22 2011, 06:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | May 22 2011, 11:06 PM Post #116 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/where-knesset_567623.html
Obama admin writes odd press releases, as if certain areas are not actually in Israel...
|
![]() |
|
| foxglove | May 23 2011, 09:33 AM Post #117 |
|
The difference between Germany and Japan is that after their defeat, the US took over and reformed those two countries. The USS Liberty incident, to many, shows that the special relationship between Israel and the US government puts American lives in a subordinate position to the political aims of Israel and American politicians. If Jonathan Pollard is set free than the US, it can be argued, dissolves into an Israel (Likud) first mentality and US sovereignty and independence suffers a blow. As Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, doesn't the United States? Anyway, more on the Liberty: "'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html "The USS Liberty Cover-Up" http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html If you look into the story of the USS Liberty, it is interesting that Sen. John McCain's father, a full admiral, conducted a inquiry into the Liberty incident. The board of inquiry stated that the Liberty attack was a case of mistaken identity. The crew that survived feels otherwise. "Like Father Like Son: The Cover-up Continues on the USS Liberty" http://ussliberty.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/25 John McCain, Jr., Sen. McCain's father, is an interesting person. According to the wikipedia entry on McCain Jr., he had connections with Congress as a liason between Congress and the Navy and was a full admiral just as was his father. Also, interesting is that he was reported to be a 33rd degree Mason which conjures up images of Albert Pike. Edited by foxglove, May 23 2011, 09:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | May 23 2011, 09:40 AM Post #118 |
|
Obama's 'Jewish state' reference jars Palestinians .....Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Sunday, Obama reiterated his request that the Palestinians drop their plans to appeal for recognition at the United Nations this fall, and — as he did in another Mideast speech Thursday — raised tough questions about an emerging Palestinian unity government that is to include the Hamas militant group. Most difficult for Palestinians is Obama's call to recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, essentially requiring the Palestinians to accept that most refugees will be denied the "right of return" to what is now Israel. Perhaps for this reason, the Palestinians have remained largely quiet about the substance of Obama's speeches, seemingly content to watch Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clash with the U.S. administration over Israel's future borders. "It's really premature to jump into any of these details," said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, when asked by The Associated Press about the demands Obama made of the Palestinians. The fate of Palestinian refugees is one of the most emotional and explosive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....snipped http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_mideast_jewish_state No one ever talks about the Jews forced out of the Arab lands. From 1948 until the early 1970s, 800,000-1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries; 260,000 of them reached Israel between 1948 and 1951; and 600,000 by 1972. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries The Pals are upset because Obama mention Jewish State. How can Peace happen when they don't even admit the Jewish State has existed since 1948? Edited by Baldo, May 23 2011, 09:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | May 23 2011, 01:17 PM Post #119 |
|
I keep wondering if this Israel matter is just a non-issue that has redirected attention on the Mideast failures, for the news has been all over it and less on where the rest of the region is going. |
![]() |
|
| Acc Esq | May 23 2011, 03:05 PM Post #120 |
|
I just received this from a Jewish colleague who knows I am sympathetic: This is an outstanding explanation of why Israel must keep its borders as they now stand. http://youtu.be/k2hZ6SlSqq0 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







7:50 PM Jul 10