If Drudge knew anything about Middle East policy his headline would read: OBAMA TO NETANYAHU: BALL’S IN YOUR COURT.
Clearly the Right isn’t on the side of the American President, which is getting more unseemly as we creep closer to election season. It puts U.S. Middle East policy in a political vice, which is why our Mideast policy resembles Swiss cheese.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace,” Romney said in a statement. “He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,” added the former Massachusetts governor. – Obama ‘disrespected’ Israel, threw it ‘under the bus,’ says Romney
Could Romney have said anything more meaningless and less informative? Unlikely.
Pres. Obama and every White House occupant since Truman has pledged to defend Israel. What doesn’t the Right understand about this unflagging commitment?
Drudge answers up in the far left corner of the graphic above: OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS.
On the contrary, Obama told the Palestinians that declaring statehood through the U.N. is a non-starter.
The idiot Right is so dense they don’t get that the Arab spring is on Israel’s doorstep, making the status quo (even less) unsustainable and everything much more urgent.
As for PM Netanyahu’s reaction, he was not amused.
Daniel Levy, most often my Israel-Palestine guide, weighed in via email, so I thought I’d share some of what he wrote:
The President adopted a position that some have been advocating for over a year by focusing on first setting out parameters for borders and security. The specific language he used in addressing what a border outcome should look like was new for the US President: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Establishing the ‘67 lines as the clear reference point takes the Israeli prime minister out of his comfort zone. Unfortunately the President did not explicitly say equal or equivalent land swaps (as the Europeans have done); he did say “agreed”, but that is not new.
In the Cairo speech of June 2009, there was no reference to ‘67. In his UN General Assembly speech of last year the President sufficed with repeating the Road Map language about ending the “occupation that began in 1967.” Other senior officials have referred to ‘67 lines as the basis for a territorial arrangement only in the context of this being a Palestinian aspiration. More significantly and troublingly from the perspective of the Israeli PM, President Obama did not refer to realities on the ground or settlements blocs (and Obama was wise in avoiding this). In so doing, Obama was creating clear distance between this speech and President Bush’s letter to then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon from April 2004.
References
Sec. Clinton, February 3, 2010:
“We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
Pres. Bush letter to PM Sharon, 2004:
“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
“The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit – calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement.”
Pres. Obama, remarks to UNGA, September 23, 2009:
“…[T]he goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”
I’m just happy I don’t have to tell you what Mike Huckabee said, because he’s now irrelevant.
Also read Josh Rogin’s piece, with comments from former Rep. Robert Wexler, the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.
It’s long past time that the American people cringed at Republicans taking the side of the Israeli president over the American president. Just maybe Pres. Obama is attempting to put it back in the Israeli-Palestinian court, while also flanking Netanyahu after he gave a hard-line speech to the Israeli Knesset last Monday.
Pres. Obama backing PM Netanyahu into a corner at home is also nothing but good news, especially since even the op-eds on Haaretz agrees with Pres. Obama.
Israel’s prime minister doesn’t have to agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Such a withdrawal is impossible. But he will have to agree to give the Palestinians land equivalent to the territory captured in 1967. Such an agreement is vital. Without accepting the principle of 1967, Netanyahu’s other principles will remain full of holes. The Palestinians will mock them and the world will reject them. They will end up the latest unimportant remarks by an unimportant prime minister who left no lasting mark. – Netanyahu must move forward and accept 1967 borders
What the Right is concerned with is having an election year talking point and a plan to drive into Obama with constituents, insisting he’s — to paraphrase Drudge — on the side of only the Palestinians, which is untrue, but their campaign isn’t predicated on facts. It lies in the status quo, which is a path to war.
I’m so confused. I thought the Roadmap was based on 1967 borders.
it was! good grief. a ship of fools leading the world it seems
As the Israelies might say, ” Roadmap, schmoadmap “, who cares. It’s just a stupid game. There will never be a Palestinian state, never! Why? The Israelies don’t want it, they want settlements, lots of them. The more settlements, the more babies, the more babies, the more settlements. This is what will be until the shooting begins. The Israelies have never failed to sabotage a plan just as it’s coming to fruition; they have done it over and over again, why has no one noticed. With all the issues facing this country it is simply incredible that we are wasting our time with such a fairy tale.
While the Palestinians have always been for peace with Israel?
How can Israel negotiate peace with Hamas, when it still espouses its destruction?
There will never be a peace deal, because the Palestinian leadership doesn’t want it. Remember the second intifada? Arafat pissed all over years of negotiating. Now they want a third one? Doesn’t sound like they really want peace.
Thanks for the map, which clearly illuminates indefensible borders, aside and apart from substantive issues….like why Israel should return land won in a war it did not start…and return it to terrorists, as defined by U.S. law. Inasmuch as Egypt is now much more hostile to Israel and has in fact, restored friendly relations with Iran, I fail to see how these recent events would give any Israeli confidence in any peace. Further, why are U.S.taxpayers giving money to Egypt? Why would we support the Egyptian economy as the miltary leadership initiates friendly ties with Iran? Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood , whose ideology is clearly anti-democratic and opposed to universal human rights, let alone equal rights for women, is hardly the type of leadership that will bring about positive change in the region, to say nothing of the Egyptian military dictatorship. This incoherent foreign policy is a recipe for disaster, as our policy toward Iran and Syria amply indicate. Other clarifications….Haaretz is a left wing publication and does not represent the views of a majority of Israelis. Obama’s approval rating in Israel is around 6%….so if anything, Obama’s speech solidifies Netayanu’s position among the Israeli public. Your misleading implication that Haaretz is a publication representing mainstream views is a reflection of your bias in presenting this story. However, regardless of my agreement with Romney on this issue, Republicans are hardly in a strong position to be seen as credible leaders, especially of domestic policy. In the end, the election will probably rest on the economy’s health and the employment numbers…unless we get attacked by terrorists…The middle east is a powder keg…and it has nothing to do with Israeli policy…it has to do with a culture of hate, corruption and religious dictate. As one George Will noted, the Palestinians have historically supported every one of our enemies….in World War 1….the Nazis in World War 2, the Russians in the Cold War, Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War and bin Laden of late….It is strange that U.S. policy is now tilted toward the Palestinians, who have consistently shown themselves not to be our friends nor share our ideology. As for “words” of support for Israel….Who would trust Obama’s word on anything? Richard Haas is a foreign policy voice that is temperate and intelligent…and he found the speech and American policy, wanting. Unfortunately, leadership is no longer a characteristic of American politics.
If Israel is to remain a Jewish nation- and I do- it MUST cede the w bank and gaza. MUST. there is NO choice ehre. period. most israelis in the polls have said they want land for peace. Its a minority of nuts there holding the future of Israel hostage. do not forget that. land for peace. its got to happen. so i hope
You are a fair person and have usually spoken rationally…so I ask you….when has ceding land for peace ever resulted in peace for Israelis? Gaza is now run by terrorists. Bush was a moron on foreign policy and I have never thought he was good was Israel…Obama is not much better…Bill Clinton was a true leader and Al Gore would have been a good President….The fact is that the unrest in the middle east has nothing to do with Israel or its policies. As the current unrest unfolded in the middle east, starting with the fake elections in Iran and erupting in later in Tunisia, there were no signs of hate for Israel or the U.S. because the Arab uprising wasn’t about either. There would have been peace long ago were it up to the Israelis. But the current situation in the middle east is not conducive to peace as not all of the players truly want peace. And despite all leftist pundits harping on the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem as the answer to stability in the middle east, the facts proved them wrong. And they completely missed what ultimately drove people to the streets (other than cartoons of Mohammed) So if these great foreign policy analysts completely failed to understand the true issues of concern to the peoples in Arab lands, why would they be more credible now? Look at Egypt. Mubarak kept only a cold peace with Israel….while he allowed all the anti-semitic activities and hatred to continue….Now that cold peace looks threatened….so why would anyone have confidence that peace with a Hamas/Fatah is even possible? This isn’t about land. This is about the existence of Israel. Sometimes the culture is not conducive to peace. The Arabs have never prepared their people for peace….ever….They have attacked Israel consistently from 1948, 1967,1973 and forward… Hizbollah, now running Lebanon, and Hamas, the current terrorist Palestinian partner, have been funded and armed by Iran…for what purpose? There is no ideology of peace in the Arab middle east. The ideology is about the destruction of Israel….And this speech made no mention of this so called “right of return,” being a non starter. So without a clear statement on the “right of return,” what purpose was the statement on the 1967 borders? Because, as you know, the “right of return” is there to ensure an Arab majority in all of Israel….thus refuting your argument about the West Bank. Israel would have to be crazy to agree to their own elimination….especially with armed enemies surrounding them…The Arabs have never shown an interest in peace with Israel. It’s sad but true. And the return of Gaza should be proof positive of what happens when you are naive. And the Gaza return happened as a result of pressure from Bush. What did Israel get from returning this land? If history is any guide, Israelis should be very careful when their existence is threatened openly as has been since their founding.
“Israel would have to be crazy to agree to their own elimination” –klassicheart
Especially since no US president in my lifetime has asked them to agree to such an absurd thing. Good grief.
ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/right-wing-freak-out-67-borders/
But Obama’s pronouncement today isn’t new. Even President Bush in 2005 endorsed a two-state solution with negotiations based on the post-1949 Armistice, pre-1967 borders:
Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work.
And the 1967 borders were the basis for the two future states in negotiations during the Clinton administration. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, now Israel’s Defense Minister, signed a document “understanding that the negotiations on the Permanent Status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” UNSR 242, passed in November 1967, calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
NBC’s Chuck Todd noticed all the commotion, tweeting, “Surprised at venom re: 1967 lines. Has been part of the proposed solution for years.”
that passage should all be blockquoted
The rightwing is like a dog to a bone… “Obama is a socialist, Obama is anti-Israel…”
There is no sense of these terms actually meaning anything to them.
So what rhetoric of Obama is consistent vis a vis the mideast…..if we support the protestors in Libya but not in Syria….when we said nothing while Iran killed off and imprisoned the protestors in Iran? Or we support the government corruption in Afghanistan…and on and on and on…These terms are flexible whether in Republican or Democratic hands….and hypocritical….By the way, an extension of the Patriot Act was passed today….maybe we should be worrying about our own rights.
I’m no fan of Obama’s policies or rhetortic. Still doesn’t make him anti-Israel, pro-Palestine (or socialist).
Oh, extending the Patriot Act has you worried about our rights? What about all the shenanigans being pulled by far-right extremists who took over in states like Wisconsin, Maine and Ohio?
Or how about the tomfoolery in Arizona and Texas (again, courtesy of the far-right extremists)?
Yes, the Patriot Act is (always has been, in fact) a horrid piece of legislation but the GOP hasn’t exactly been lax in attacking everyone’s rights (except, of course, for corporations–which, thanks to the far-right extremists on the Supreme Court, are treated as “citizens”) everywhere they’ve taken hold.
(Incidentally, where else was Iran going to kill off and imprison protestors? Poland? At least the Iranian Government is willing to torture its dissidents at home, instead of sending them to parts unknown to allow the torture to be handled by OTHER parties. As for supporting the government corruption in Afghanistan, you might consider that the US handles supported government corruption in many places around the world, especially during the Cold War. You think the government of South Vietnam was clean and honest? Not even. Or the governments in Latin America? Nicaragua’s Somozas; El Salvador and Guatemala’s military juntas? Panama? Colombia? Pinochet’s Chile? What about Marcos’s Philippines? Or Mobutu’s Zaire? Or how about our wonderful “allies” in Pakistan? And I could go on and on.)
America should end ALL money to ALL groups in the Middle East. EVERY NICKEL. ALL weapons shipments and sales to ALL groups and countries.
Then tell all parties we are disengaging for 5 years. Pulling out. Figure, work or fight it out we don’t care.
During those five years roll the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars saved into R&D with renewable energy and electric cars and transportation.
Inform all parties concerned that even WHEN we re-engage we will NO LONGER be purchasing their oil.
Good idea.
“By the way, this I think is the pansy left’s view of the world that if you take — if you have two parties to a negotiation, one party wants to kill the other party,” Steyn said. “That’s why there was no peace in 1948, no peace under the British mandate in the 1930s, no peace at the time of the 1922 partition because one party to the dispute wants to kill the other. So, if they are wedded to that, then you got to put pressure on the party that doesn’t want to kill each other, to make concession – to keep throwing concessions in the face of the beast that wants to devour it and I think that’s – if you look at where he’s applying the pressure, I think that tells you a lot about the fundamental fraudulence of these negotiations.”
A little Mark Steyn to leaven the conversation.
This is, always has been, and always will be a religious war. The Muslims, Jews and Christians get it. Secular humanists do not. A “peace plan” is asking something of the Muslims they simply cannot do on religious grounds. Waste of time, but some folks want to keep on pretending.
“This is, always has been, and always will be a religious war. The Muslims, Jews and Christians get it. Secular humanists do not. A “peace plan” is asking something of the Muslims they simply cannot do on religious grounds. Waste of time, but some folks want to keep on pretending.”
DAMN!!! Don’t you sound all UBERChristian-Zionist/naziwannabee an stuff!!
It would be entertaining for the MSM to carry the racist/aparthide rants of the “settlers” and rightwingers in Israel so we could all understand that the hatred on both sides is SO deep and ingrained with the ONLY differance being Uncle Sugar enables the Israeli thugocracy to prevale. After Obama’s election there was just a smattering of clips of Israelis calling him a N—-r and a monkey and calling for death to all terrorists.
A PLAGUE on BOTH their houses.
STOP all monies and weapons shipments to ALL parties. Pull out and tell them we are disengaging for 5 years…they can figure, work or fight things out WE DON’T CARE> AND use the billions saved for research into renewable energy and electric cars AND when we see who is still around in 5 years tell them “by the way, we ain’tta gonna buy yer oil no mo.”