Obama at the UN: Rhetoric and Reality
President Obama’s UN speech marked the culmination of perhaps the most counter-productive American foreign policy in memory. A president who came into office with a Palestinian state as one of his top priorities, criticizing his predecessor for not having devoted greater attention to it, was still trying after nearly three years simply to get negotiations started; he had accomplished the unusual feat of alienating both Israelis and Palestinians in the process; he had diminished his own stature and reduced the influence of the United States in the region; and he ended up faced with having to veto a Palestinian state.
They are going to be studying this one at the Fletcher School, Johns Hopkins and other schools of international relations for a long time to come.
In a Middle East Brief, Professor Shai Feldman, director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, catalogs the long list of Obama’s mistakes. He mis-focused his diplomatic efforts on a construction freeze, without getting a Palestinian commitment not to make it a precondition for negotiations. He failed to rally support for his policies from the American Jewish community. He declined to address the Israeli public while repeatedly addressing the Muslim and Arab ones. He set a one-year deadline for negotiations, even though it was “not clear why [he] thought he could achieve within a year what had eluded his predecessors for over four decades.”
But Feldman misses the larger point: all these were unforced errors. In June 2008, Obama had told 7,000 people at AIPAC – in one of his trademark let-me-be-clear statements — that “any agreement” had to involve “secure, recognized and defensible borders,” and that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.” Once in office, “defensible borders” disappeared from his vocabulary, and the mere announcement of future Jewish housing in a Jewish neighborhood in the capital of the Jewish state set him off.
He declined to endorse the commitments in the 2004 Bush letter given in exchange for the Gaza disengagement. He decided the U.S. had been too close to Israel and told a delegation of American Jewish leaders that Israel should engage in serious self-reflection. He repeatedly declined to visit Israel, even when his own supporters requested it, and he humiliated Israel’s prime minister multiple times. He eventually endorsed the Palestinian goal of the 1967 lines as the basis of negotiation, and then had to quell the uproar with another AIPAC speech three days later. It is still not clear how the two speeches relate.
In Feldman’s analysis, Obama lacked any real strategy and relied instead on rhetoric:
[B]rilliant speechmaking became a substitute for establishing policy and devising strategy. While masterfully articulating his understanding of Arab-Israeli realities, Obama’s speeches rarely provided or were followed up by an action plan incorporating practical steps that would enable the U.S. to achieve the administration’s stated objectives.
With the exception of two words — “brilliant” and “masterfully” — the above analysis is correct. Obama’s strategy was to give speeches, but they were neither brilliant nor masterful. On the contrary, they raised hopes without articulating any means of satisfying them, and were conveyed in a manner that made it clear he believed he was the smartest man in the room.
As one example, consider Obama’s 2010 UN address, and then compare it to his 2011 UN address.
A year ago, Obama sounded like a parent lecturing children about the necessity of eating their peas:
[W]e can come back here next year, as we have for the last 60 years, and make long speeches about [the conflict]. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. And we can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life. We can do that.
But Obama assured the nations assembled before him that a better future could be claimed simply by claiming it. After telling the nations they could do the same thing they had been doing for 60 years (“We can do that”), he presented this solution: “we can say that this time will be different.” To be specific, he sketched this alliterative alternative:
[T]his time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way.
On the long list of persistent problems preventing peace from prevailing, it is doubtful that “posturing” and “petty politics” are close to the top. And “turbulence” seems to have been added to the list simply to match “terror.” Terror was the key word — but terror cannot be overcome simply by resolving not to let it “stand in the way.”
That was particularly true given the fact (unmentioned by Obama) that a terrorist group controlled half the putative Palestinian state, committed to eternal “turbulence” for Israel; and the further fact (likewise unmentioned) that the Ramallah regime was unelected, headed by a “president” whose term had expired nearly two years before, unable to set foot in the other half of his putative state, and who had already rejected the offer of a Palestinian state on all of Gaza and the West Bank (after swaps) with a capital in the Arab portion of Jerusalem, back when the Palestinian “president” was still in office.
The speech was neither brilliant nor a masterful analysis of the problem, but Obama did suggest the problem could be solved in a year. A year later, nothing had changed, but the Palestinians were seeking UN recognition of a state, citing Obama’s 2010 speech for the inspiration to “come back here next year” to welcome a Palestinian state.
This year, instead of relying on alliteration, Obama relied on repetition:
[L]et us remember: Peace is hard. Peace is hard. …
One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. …
And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.
Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. … Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them. … There are no shortcuts. [Emphasis added].
He said peace is hard three times; twice reminded his audience (whom he assured last year that peace could be only a year away) that there are no short cuts; and noted that the conflict has endured for decades. The speech was effectively a confession that the problem is more difficult than simply not letting terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way.
For Israel, Obama had some excellent things to say, just as he had in 2008. In Jeffrey Goldberg’s view, it was an impassioned pro-Israel speech that could not have been better. It asserted America’s unshakable friendship with Israel and a commitment to its security, called attention to the undeniable fact of the repeated wars against Israel, and referred to the Jewish people’s “burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.”
The reference to “exile” was significant, because it implicitly recognizes that the real “right of return” belongs to the Jews. But Obama had nothing to say about the fact that the Palestinians — terrorist and peace-partner alike — insist not only on a state for themselves, but a specious “right of return” to Israel as well, and will not accept a Palestinian state if the price is the recognition of a Jewish one within defensible borders.
Goldberg noted his “clear impression, based on some actual reporting,” that the genesis of Obama’s speech was that he and his administration were “particularly pissed-off” about UN hypocrisy on Israel and angry at the disrespect shown them by Mahmoud Abbas. It was thus “Abbas’s turn to feel Obama’s wrath today” and “Netanyahu was off the hot seat for the moment.” The key words are “today” and “for the moment.”
In other words, the speech reflected petulance at the Palestinians and/or a pivot toward presidential politics for the coming year, but it was not a brilliant or masterful analysis of the problem. As with most Obama speeches, it addressed the problem du jour, but may have been good for that jour only.
“Obama has lacked any real strategy and relied instead on rhetoric…”
That’s what he does every day, all day, as far as I can see. He’s a petulant little boy who is roleplaying at the top of his lungs who is getting increasingly peeved with the lack of response.
America has enough problems here at home. We need to stop giving money to the Israelis and Arabs, and spend it on Americans instead.
The religious freaks on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict will never give up. So let them kill each other. It’s not America’s problem.
It became America’s problem when Israel signed away land (the Sinai) for ‘peace’ with Egypt, and America became the guarantor. The next time (if there is one) Land for Peace will not be the operative slogan.
By approving the ouster of Mubarak, we failed to keep up our side of the bargain. It’s long past time for Israel to push everyone out of Gaza and the Sinai back into Egypt proper, and take over Suez as well.
Just how much was it worth to deny Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons before we invaded Iraq?
Saddam never had nuclear weapons.
We should have continued the Reagan/Rumsfeld policy of keeping Saddam as an ally against the Muslim crazies.
Saddam never had nukes because Israel took out Osirak ten years before American boots hit the ground in Iraq.
Dick Cheney was just interviewed and disclosed he had written a thank you letter to the head of the Israeli Air Force.
Get a library card.
And all that solid support for the USA during the Cold War years helping maintain its strategic security in the region against Russian hegemony was worth nothing in the long term now that America’s president has wrecked the economy?
Is that how you treat friends by kicking them out the front door because you spilled milk in the kitchen?
Oh, please. LOL
The support was completely one-way. From the wallets of American taxpayers straight to Jerusalem.
Turkey and Greece were much more important in keeping the Communists at bay.
Correcting your mistakes is becoming tiresome. The single most important and decisive event of The Cold War was Israels capture of an intact Mig aircraft and turning over to the US Air Force . Soviet avionics became an open book.
Perhaps you are not old enough to remember.
A lot of people aren’t old enough to remember, and sadly none of them are taught history in school anymore. That’s why the libs can keep spewing their nonsense about all the positive things they’ve done for the country when it was the other half of the political spectrum that was actually responsible.
I would say that O’s strategy with regard to Israel has been a mixture of malice and incompetence. The next President (hopefully in 2013) will have to start repairing the damage.
I would second Emma @1 – O’s domestic strategy has been one of incompetence (and Fast and Furious may have been one with malice of forethought).
When Obama’s desperate need for “Jewish money” evaporates, so will these words, the empty rhetoric of principles of convenience.
Israel got teed up, like a Titelist Pro V1 and Obama whiffed, because he had no follow through. He wants to pick a side, he just can’t complete the course…he does not like Netanyahu or Likud and is on record saying so prior to his Ted Mack Presidency.
He so constantly winds up with egg on his face, the rest of the world calls him “Scrambles”.
If only we could get a copy of the Rashid Khalidi/Edward Said tape that the LA Times is holding hostage (have we reached 444 days yet? Want to know if they can beat the Iranian record…), we might be able to discern how “brilliant” and “masterful”…and even “sincere” the telethon actually was.
Not likely we will get any better vetting this time around than last, however.
What I would be interested in is seeing if France and Britain support a Palestinian state at the Security Council. I would like to see just how anti-semitic these two countries have become. We know China and Russia will support it just to annoy the United States, but France and Britain are different. They used to be staunchly pro-Israel, but not anymore. If they vote for the Palestinian state in its present form with no regard to Israel’s borders, then you’ll know that Israel has no friends in Europe, and that America is the last best hope for that country’s freedom. We cannot let the Israeli’s down. I just hope they can hold on until a conservative Republican is voted into office next year.
I found this BBC article fascinating for its take on American/Israeli relations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15026539. To listen to them tell it, America has been obsessively pro-Israel forever and is actually increasingly so during the Obama administration.
My guess is that orbiting bus is going to land squarely on the UN.
From your lips to HaShem’s ears……
Amen.
#5.Libertyship46….
I can’t resist reminding all that ‘France and Britain’ are the ‘France and Britain’ of the Mandate years, and that the ‘France and Britain’ of the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement are not the same ‘France and Britain’ of today….those days of the two of them drawing international borders on a paper on a table, then adding their signatures are gone. We really will see just how anti-Semitic they’ve become.
If we Americans don’t live up to expectations and remain steadfast in support of Delaware-sized Israel while they’re surrounded and vastly outnumbered with enemies just waiting to pounce, then we’ll have forfeited any stature and credibility as a nation forever.
….Here’s an interesting footnote from “The Mandate Years: Colonialism and the creation of Israel…” (cf: Dr. Google)..
Quoting:
“In July 1920, while the Allies were still debating the future of Palestine and attempting to hold onto their gains in Turkey, Balfour addressed a predominantly Jewish audience at the Albert Hall in London. He reminded them that Britain had freed the Arabs “from the tyranny of their brutal conqueror” – Turkey – during the Great War. “I hope,” he went on, “that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch – for it is not more geographically, whatever it may be historically – that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.”
From 1948 until the end of The Six Day War in 1967 the USA maintained a complete boycott of weapons sales to Israel. In fact Israels’ greatest military victories came without US aid or interference.
You hit the nail on the head Menachem and drove it home with a single blow. Most of America didn’t even know Israel existed until the Six Day War. Before that America acted more often as an obstructionist in its views of Israel because they thought of Israel as communist or at least socialist due to the fact of the Russian origins of many of the Zionists and the Trotskyist ideals they embraced. It took less than a generation for the socialist sheen to wear off when Kibbutz Dagania decided to experiment with privatization of holdings and enterprise. After that many others followed suit and there evolved in Israel thriving middle class such as we have in America.
….here’s another footnote for background which no doubt most have forgotten:
Quoting from Fouad Ajami’s article in today’s Wall Street Journal,”Palestinian Statehood and the Lessons of Oslo”….
…”Britain, the Mandatory Power in Palestine since the end of World War I, had wearied of the Zionists, of the Arabs, and of the whole sordid burden of adjudicating their competing claims. The British Empire was broke and looking for a way to reduce its burdens. In August 1947, it had given up India, the Jewel of the Crown, and stood aside as a wave of cataclysmic violence between Hindus and Muslims provided a shameful end to a long imperial dominion. It was no use shedding blood and treasure in Palestine, and Pax Britannia was eager to pass the problem onto the U.N.”
Besides heir was all this oil. Why not cut 80% of Jewish Palestine off and hand it over to the Muslims. After all there was all this oil.
Nobody ever asks – Why do the Palestinians need another country?
Because the question is never asked the problem is never solved.
Another question never asked is “Why haven’t those spacious neighboring Arab countries taken in these “Palestinians?”, as their “brothers” during all of these intervening years. The extensive and very successful irrigation projects and many, many eucaliptus (sp.) tree plantings of the Israeli’s shows what can be done in those arid areas.
If I remember correctly, the Jordanians tried to keep them out, and isolated them as much as possible.
I think that more “negotiations” after all of these years, even with different people and personalities on the stage, are a waste of time, I think that an effective barrier with controlled passage of documented workers is the only practical solution.
Literally nothing else has worked. Palestinians have in that sense created their own separatness after repeated refusals of earlier concessions from Israel, and so have no one to blame than themselves for this impasse.
It’ll be interesting to hear what Abbas has to say….”new”.
From what I remember Jordan had actually taken over the “original” Palestinian state anyway. Really though it comes down to the fact that the Palestinians are nothing but pawns for the rest of the Arab states in the region. The ones in Gaza and the West Bank (legally Israeli territory btw since it was originally taken in a defensive war back in ’67 and they didn’t HAVE to return it) hate the Israelis because they’re told lies when the Israelis retaliate for rocket strikes or bombings. The ones in refugee camps are told it’s all because the Israelis won’t grant them a state, and the whole while all them could have gained citizenship in the nations they are camped in, if those nations wanted anything to do with them. Nobody in the media wants to mention the only reason those refugees don’t have a home is because nobody wants them except as troops to attack Israel.
This is what you get when you have a president who not only doesn’t understand the problem(s) but also sucks at on-the-job training.
I think Obama is the natural end product of an educational system whose goal is to elevate the students self esteem rather than educate. People have been telling him how wonderful and special he is for so long he believes it. Is it any wonder his college records are sealed?
Yakov you’re way off base here. Obama at least was educated about Darwin in school and does not base foreign policy on religious text. This is struggle over US policy not whether Obama is educated or a secret Muslim. After listening to Ahmadinejad today, I have no patience the irrational. You will alienate the very Independents you need to reverse present US policies for the better.
As for Obama, Brzezinski had it mostly right on PBS after Obama’s speech. Incredible actually. I think Zbig was stunned by Clinton’s failure to articulate US policy and her recent comments about the Turkish Israeli dispute. More importantly Zbig was bright enough to see a HUGE ERROR (intentional or not intentional?) by Obama as the issue and his words were not just Israel. It should have been about the Arab Spring and what America thinks about it. A HUGE OPPORTUNITY was lost and one must wonder if Obama intentionally failed to represent America’s historic and critical interests at this Key Turning Point. He had Turkey, Iran, France, all to follow his speech. To explain, let me repeat what Brzezinski suggested the President should have said.
The Palestinians should apply for observer status and agree to a new US plan which begins with the Palestinian recognition of the JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL so there is no doubt where Palestinians must go for peace. Reject this and they reject peace. Unlike Erdogan’s diatribe and advocacy for the “Turkish” model, Obama could show some leadership and principle. He could assert there must be a year process in which a map is finalized, security arrangements made and institutions are created. There can be no more terrorism or violence. The bench marks must be met and then in a year the Palestinians can apply for Statehood.
What is even more remarkable coming from Zbig, is his bafflement about what Obama did not say regarding US ME foreign policy. Zbig would have used the Palestinian issue to state that voting alone or even Statehood does not a make legitimate government. The Arab Spring and Palestinian Statehood go nowhere unless a free and humane society emerges based on the rule of law, international responsibilities, protection of individual rights and transparent representation. If not, Pro-Democracy movements are simply a ruse to gain power from despots. Why would Obama fail to explain the American position to the UN bringing the issue of Palestine and the Arab Spring together exposing the problems in Iran, Syria and the chaos in Egypt? He said not a word about the potential Arab Winter. He was so far from JFK, Reagan or even Clinton it is astounding the media does not take Obama to task. Unless they are on board with his “ME project”.
Yes, I would suggest that this was intentional. Obama didn’t do this in Cairo years ago and he didn’t do it at the UN. I would also suggest that this is a perfect example on how Obama allows chaos to roll along. He could have stopped it with a serious, determined and passionate policy position with the gravitas of a US leader that means what he says, but Obama allowed the obvious go unspoken in his supplication to chaos. He is not an idiot, so I believe he does not want to support Liberal Democratic Peace Theory, but cops out to simply supporting the right to vote, even if such a vote allows our worst enemies to take power.
And as he was saying this at the UN, Clinton was supporting the view that the X-BAND radar data will not be shared with Israel and that Israel will not be asked to join a 28 nation counter-terrorism group headed by Turkey and the US despite many of those nations being Islamist.
How stupid does the administration think we are? Stupid enough to think Palestinian anger at the US now is a sign we love Israel and we have a grip on extremism in the ME. So how stupid are we?
Mullin and Panetta Say the ISI planned the attacks on the US embassy in Afghanistan. How long will Iraq deny overflights by Iran to Latikia? How many subs are there in Eastern Med? What control does the Congress have over deployment of the X-Band to Turkey?
And what would it mean if Obama’s Left turn on debt budget talks was an intentional effort to trigger the massive cuts to the DOD? At this point it is fair to ask whether the Joker is a Democrat or a Republican.
WHY
SO
SERIOUS?
M
not for nothing because there are valid points within your screed but…
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tips-for-not-appearing-crazy-on-the-internet/
Brzezinski? Only in a society that places great value on notoriety who that dunce even be asked a question. Some of the greatest foreign policy disasters the US ever experienced where under his stewardship. From arming the Mujahadeen to giving up the Panama Canal to letting Iran keep Americans hostage for 444 days, ” Zbig ” was the guy advocating appeasement. Asking him about foreign policy is like asking Obama about health care.
Absolutely right!
Outside of Poland, Zbig knows little about foreign affairs. And that little is almost always wrong.
An insightful article and very concise. I also had to tip my hat to the author for his own use of alliteration: “persistent problems preventing peace from prevailing, it is doubtful that “posturing” and “petty politics” are close to the top”. The merits of the article stand on their own but a fun turn of phrase should be recognized as well.
“In June 2008, Obama had told 7,000 people at AIPAC – in one of his trademark let-me-be-clear statements — that “any agreement” had to involve “secure, recognized and defensible borders,” and that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.” Once in office, “defensible borders” disappeared from his vocabulary, and the mere announcement of future Jewish housing in a Jewish neighborhood in the capital of the Jewish state set him off.”
This is the money quote. Because it neatly sums up Obama’s entire “MidEast” policy.
At core, Obama is a hardline leftist, and as such a view of the MidEast as being a “war of liberation” area with “oppressed” Palestinians (formerly allied with the former USSR- the “good guys”) fighting for “social justice” against the Israeli “oppressors” (allied with the U.S., the “bad guys”) is ingrained in his DNA. Ditto his SecState, Hillary, who specialized in being rude to Israel going back to her sojourn as “co-President” with Bill.
As such, the only thing you can be sure of is that when either one of them says anything even remotely sympathetic or charitable toward Israel- they are lying.
Obama lied about his vision of what the MidEast should be to get elected- and then dumped it as soon as he was sworn in. Since then, he has consistently kicked Israel at every opportunity, in ways reminiscent of Chamberlain’s treatment of Czechoslovakia. And for roughly the same reasons, I suspect, centered on a delusional worldview coupled with a refusal to let anything as petty as an incipient war being planned by a lot of demented primitivists get in the way of his concentrating on his domestic “social justice” agenda.
I rarely disagree with Jonah Goldberg, but Obama’s speech wasn’t anything new. it was simply his latest regurgitation of the lies he hopes we’ll believe, instead of watching what he actually does.
Going back to Chamberlain, Obama may honestly believe that if Israel disappears, all our problems with the Arab world will instantly disappear with it. He also is locked into a fascination with mysticism over facts, which explains his belief in some sort of vague “superiority” of any and all “Eastern” philosophies over “cold, unfeeling” Western logic.
Chamberlain was enthralled by the “mystical, romantic” nature of… German National Socialism, complete to is obsession with pre-Christian pagan beliefs and iconography. He considered this somehow more “authentic” than Christianity, for Germany at least. He apparently only realized that such beliefs can have nasty consequences after Dunkirk.
The parallel with Obama is a bit to close for comfort. Both men believed their delusions were more “real” than reality, and that those delusions trumped reality.
Reality was unimpressed with Chamberlain, and proceeded to demonstrate its “relevance” in no uncertain terms in September, 1939.
When it decides to bring Obama up short, I suspect it will be in ways even he cannot ignore.
clear ether
eon
Even though the State Department lists three Palestinian organizations as Terrorist Groups, the US Administration is still giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying that, in three months or so, we might be able to readress this statehood thing.
Those three groups are Palestine Liberation Front, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinians. Appeasement has gained nothing good. It has only earned open derision from states which Obama tries to woo but have always stood against us.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-rebuffed.html
I, me, me, I, I, me, me, I, I, I, me, ……… Sorry I was writing an Obama speech be for I logged on and didn’t change gears fast enough.
Arabs don`t need land, they have the whole Arabia. But they smell the sweet odor of money and it is coming from Tel Aviv. Like flies the Arabs will not give up until they are nested on every Shekel.
Bottom Line Up Front
Russia, China, Nigeria, Lebanon are sure votes of Yes, while Bosnia, Gabon are likely a yes.
US, UK, France, Germany, India and Brazil are likely to vote No. India will also vote No.
Colombia sees more benefit in voting with the US, so they are a No. Portugal may say No, also.
I do not see the 9 vote majority for a state of Palestine; however, my experience in the Middle East and West Africa tells me that the vote, either way, is not going to pass without violence.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/unsc-vote-predictions.html
Obama’s Latest Gaffe: Jews and Janitors
There’s long been more than a sneaking suspicion that President Barack Hussein Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite although there’s no doubt he is more prone to gaffes than even George W. Bush. His closet anti-Semitism may have met his “gaffery” over the weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus awards in Washington.
Quickly scrubbed from the official transcript of Obama’s speech advocating class warfare–technically, he was addressing what he called a growing disparity of wealth in the United States–the president mixed up Jews and janitors before he realized his Freudian slip but he had already been caught by the tale of the (video)tape.
I guess it’s easy to confuse the two. After all, both words begin with a “J.”
Not that much of the mainstream media will make mention of Obama’s “Jews janitors” flub; they’re still more interested in Bush gaffes.
The Jewish vote is, of course, critical to his re-election, not as critical as the black, union, and homosexual votes but very significant nonetheless. He needs money from all of them to hit his goal of a billion dollar campaign chest.
Blacks, unionists, and gays are guaranteed supporters but those Jewish backers have been slip, slip, slipping away in view of the administration’s policies on the Mideast and his kowtowing to Arab potentates and catering to Muslim interests at home. The last thing he needed at this point was to demean Jews but he did so anyway, assuming that confusing Jews with janitors is demeaning.
In Obama’s talk to the CBC, he was in the middle of another rant against the rich when he blurted out, “If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew uhh as a janitor . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5558)
Palestine is seeking recognition as a state. They are already recognized as a nation under international law; however, they do not have any land to call their own. Under Resolution 242, Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of the land they seized by winning in war. The Arab League, starting in 1967 continuing on today, refuses to allow any land for the Palestinians, refusal, not just in violation of Resolution 242, but in violation of decent human dignity and of the Palestinian people themselves.
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/09/palestinian-seeks-recognition-they.html