By Ted Belman
By calling for the ’67 lines with swaps, Obama did Israel a favour, not intentionally, of course. The result of which is that he has made his pressure on Israel a US political issue, one that he is currently on the wrong side of and sure to lose.
Netanyahu carved the issue in stone in the Whitehouse when he said “It isn’t going to happen” and again at AIPAC when he said that “67 lines are “indefensible”.
AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr said Monday that U.S. President Barack Obama should not take an even-handed approach to the Middle East conflict, as it puts Israel at a disadvantage.
-
“Part of being an honest broker is being honest,” Kohr said in an address to AIPAC, a day after Obama spoke to the pro-Israel lobby and clarified his remarks regarding his vision for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, adding “that honesty “should not be confused with even-handedness”.
“In a world which is demonstrably on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs – where Israel stands virtually alone – the United States has a special role to play,” said the AIPAC director. “When the United States is even-handed, Israel is automatically at a disadvantage, tilting the diplomatic playing field overwhelmingly toward the Palestinians and Arabs.”
The AIPAC leader also said that no settlement imposed on the Palestinians or on Israel could succeed. “When neither party owns the plan or has responsibility to accept it, that plan is doomed to fail,” he added.
Thus the marker has been set,
-
1. ’67 lines are out of the question
2. ’67 lines are indefensible
3. the US should not be “evenhanded”
4. don’t impose a plan
The American people by and large are in total support with these principles. Obama and the Left are odd man out.
Obama has a difficult row to hoe on his stance on spending, energy, Obamacare, deficit, and foreign policy to name a few. Now he has added one more to the list, Israel. More than 60% of Americans support Israel and it is plain that Obama doesn’t.
All GOP contenders are firmly opposed to his demands on Israel and even in the leading Democrats have come out against it. Harry Reid breaks with Obama on Israeli borders condition for peace settlement
Breaking with President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday urged a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks without preconditions regarding borders.
-
“The parties that should lead those negotiations must be the parties at the center of this conflict – and no one else,”
“The place where negotiating will happen must be the negotiating table – and nowhere else. Those negotiations will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.
“No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else,” Reid added, bringing the audience to its feet for the first time during the speech.
Americans are learning what is wrong with the ’67 lines.
By announcing his plan for the ’67 lines he has galvanized Americans to oppose it and support Israel.
Now Netanyahu will speak to both Houses today and will be roundly supported. He said he would lay out his vision for the future and no doubt, it will be one supported by both sides of the ailse. Now that it is a public difference, support for Netanyahu means rejection of Obama.
Obama thought by making his speech he would gain the upper hand. But it has backfired and now Netanyahu has the upper hand.
He has already capitulated to Israel on two things. He recommitted himslef to preventing Iran from getting the bomb and he took a harder line on Hamas. And that was even before Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC.
The Mother of All Jihadist Jokes
Two Middle Eastern mothers are sitting in a café chatting over a plate of tabouli and a pint of goat’s milk.
The older one pulls out photos of her children and shows them to the younger one.
“This is my oldest son, Mujibar. He would have been 24 years old. He’s a martyr now.”
The other says, “Yes, I remember when he was young, so sorry for your loss”.
“And this is my second son, Khalid. He would have been 21” says the older mom.
“Oh yes, he had curly hair, I remember him” says the other mom.
“He’s a martyr now too”.
“Oh, so sad dear” says the younger mom.
“And this is my third son, my baby, my beautiful Ahmed. He would have 18.”
“Yes, I remember when he started school” says the younger one.
The older mom, with tears in her eyes, says, “He is a martyr now too.”
The younger one looks wistfully at the photographs and sighs deeply, searching for just the right comforting words, and says, “They blow up so fast, don’t they?”
Debt collector accidentally discovers Obama real estate fraud (1.32 million dollars in 2005)
Obama’s Social Security Number Tied To An Alias Harrison J Bounel – 5/18/11
Rick Wiles is a known anti-Semite but then this video may have merit See video Here
Is Steven K referring to the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama this month? According to CBS, an overt ally of the Obama administration,
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Friday that Israel would not withdraw to 1967 borders to help make way for an adjacent Palestinian state. President Barack Obama, seated beside him, had called on Israel to be willing to do just that in a speech the day before.” (/www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/20/politics) What part of that don’t you understand?
In addition to pointing out a non-existent “pretense(?),” he implies that Netanyahu had accepted the 1967 lines before and is rejecting them now. That’s nonsense. Steven, If you can find the sources and dates of the 2 speeches in which Netanyahu favored of the 1967 lines (mentioned in your comment), please cite them.
Been making the rounds, have you?
And perhaps seeding them with DNC talking points?
Small correction: Obamanation shot itself in the mouth, not only in the foot.
Well, this takes the cake for the most dishonest blog on this issue I’ve seen so far.
So basically, you’re pretending that Obama called on Israel to retreat to it’s 1967 borders, he’is sticking to that request, Netanyahu is rejecting that and now the Obama administration is isolated by this policy. None of which is true.
What you’ve written here amounts to little more than an open letter to the rest of the internet declaring a blog named “Israpundit” has so little of a clue about this issue that CornPunditIowa is a better place to go if anyone wants some informed and/or honest commentary on the matter.
Anyway, back to you telling us who shot themselves in the foot on this one and is now the odd man out. Since Netanyahu’s now made at least 2 speeches supporting Obama’s position and his NatSec adviser is in the press doing the same, that would leave the list of people complaining about Obama’s proposal as:
1. Israel’s enemies in the ME
2. Certain clueless right-wing bloggers
3. Certain clueless GOP candidates
Yeah, let’s wonder who’s shot themselves in the foot and got isolated on this one.