President Obama’s Speech to AIPAC: An Assessment
On this issue, the critical response came during the panel that followed. The points in the president’s speech, Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens said, “are not as innocent as he made them out to be.” To this, Stephens received a large ovation from the assembled delegates, more than Obama received for any points that he had made.
The fundamental issue, Stephens argued, is not where the border lines are drawn; the issue is the actual nature of Palestinian society. While Obama was critical of the Arab rulers who have been recently taken down by their people, Stephens noted that the Palestinian Authority is as corrupt and compromised as the others, and that the president never commented on their culture and political structure. Stephens also argued that as the president laid things out, he still favored an Israeli withdrawal and concessions of some sort, before the issue of refugees — the so-called “right of return” — and the nature of Jerusalem were settled. From Israel’s standpoint, he argued, why should they move in any such way unless they were guaranteed a final end to the conflict if they did so? As he said, “Democracy bringing a Hamas to power in the West Bank is simply not an option nor should it be to the United States.”
Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, argued that today the president had in fact affirmed the Bush administration agreement that he previously ignored, and had even used the precise language in that agreement with Israel as his own. Like Stephens, he said the president acknowledged for the first time that the major settlement blocs would have to be incorporated as part of Israel. Indyk also thought that by saying the Palestinians would have to accept a Jewish state before negotiations took place, he was implicitly saying there could be no right of return. Finally, as the session came to a close, Indyk predicted that Obama would bomb the Iranian nuclear installations in a pre-emptive attack.
While few present seemed to agree with Indyk’s optimism, judging from the amount of applause he got compared to Stephens, others too were optimistic. Josh Block, formerly AIPAC communications director and now a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, released a statement saying: “By adding a whole section to the speech that was missing on Thursday, President Obama put himself in line with presidents since Lyndon Johnson, who have said again and again, Israel cannot go back to the 1949/1967 lines. This is an important and crucial change from what he said last week.” Block added that he thought “President Obama’s speech to AIPAC today was a strong reaffirmation of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and represented an important and positive change from his remarks on Thursday. It reflected an important continuity of U.S. policy going back to President Johnson.”
A few minutes ago, AIPAC released the following statement about the President’s speech:
AIPAC appreciates President Obama’s speech today at our annual policy conference in which he reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the shared values that define both nations. In particular, we appreciate his statement that the U.S. does not expect Israel to withdraw to the boundaries that existed between Israel and Jordan in 1967 before the Six Day War. We also commend President Obama for his explicit condemnation of Hamas as a terrorist organization and his recognition that Israel cannot be expected negotiate with a group that denies its fundamental right to exist. We also welcome the president’s reaffirmation of his longstanding commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
What AIPAC has done, of course, is accentuate the positive and ignore the negative, that which the President chose not to address. It is a statement meant to pressure him to live up to what he seemed to say he now believed.
So the question is, as I conclude, whether or not the president means it, whether or not he will backpedal in the other direction, and whether he will seek to mend matters with Prime Minister Netanyahu, rather than push him in directions Israel does not want to go. We now have evidence that in a few short days, the pressure moved the president away from the contentious trap he set before meeting PM Netanyahu. Will he now change again facing pressure from the “realists,” the anti-Israel left wing, and the Arab nations — including those of the Arab Spring that are turning out to be vigorous enemies of Israel? Time, as usual, will tell.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Which will it be, Israel supporters? I don’t trust a thing that man says — to Netanyahu OR to AIPAC. He doesn’t know what truth is. Whatever he needs to get re-elected is what he’ll say. F
At times he’s Emily Litella…saying one thing then a few days later it’s “Never Mind”, leaving it on record that he supported or didn’t support both sides of an issue. This is the direct symptom of a habitual liar with no real course in his mind, but his actions dictate otherwise. That is, he always will do the thing that hurts this nation the most. However, with that said, he is undoubtedly frustrated with such things as Guantanamo, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, to which I say “tough s**t”. When reality comes around and bites you in the a**, it’s hard to ignore it. But because it’s something that makes him uncomfortable, he ignores it and so does the fawning, drooling, love-sick media.
As for Israel, there is no excuse for this nation’s government not giving 100%, unadulterated, uncompromising support. His notion that he can somehow thread the needle of placating the mistrust of the Israelis while simulatneously “working to make the muslims like us” (or is it just ‘him’ he wants them to like?), he cannot have it both ways. Not learning from Jimmah’s ridiculously misguided efforts in the 1970′s, Hambone’s agenda is that of a slick salesman when he sides with the muslims and fosters their anger while castigating Israel in particular and Jews in general.
And, added to what his idea of “compromise” is, he found out last week that not everyone in the world agrees with his (and the socialists’) definition of the word.
Petulant, angry man-child…get out of my country!
Oh, but Obama supports an absolute right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy (and even a few hours afterward) — so that makes everything else OK….
I find it very telling that the former AIPAC communications director mentioned in the article now works for the Progressive Policy Institute. The real problem — and the reason so many American Jews are able to convince themselves that 1 + 1 = anything-but-2 if Obama says it, is that their first loyalty is to leftist policy, NOT to Israel, NOT to Judaism, NOT to G-d.
why, why why? I don’t understand the hispanic voters and the jewish voters. He is very truthful for the past 3 + years. He’s in campaign mode now so he starts to slowly move towards them. They open their checkbooks, he wins and the dance begins again without them in the dance.
Wake up–he’s using you.
Yes & did you notice how he kept calling the AIPAC Pres.”Rosie”? They are friends & Rosenberg accompanied him on his ABOMINABLE campaign trip to the Wailing Wall.
I & my CONSERVATIVE Jewish friends,QUIT AIPAC,after he was elected !!!!
Exactly. American Jews were told what they want to hear, after Palestinians and the mass of Muslims around the world were first told what they want to hear.
The speech to the State Department was boosted for days, and was scheduled to pre-empt
Netanyahu’s visit. It was broadcast around the world, and bruited about in the Arab media, where they all heard him say that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders.
A few days later, mendacious Obama gives a speech to a comparatively small group, with a special interest, and he cleverly slants his spiel to mollify them (and crack open their checkbooks again). The speech to AIPAC will get much less coverage and attention, around the world (try to find the text on any major media alongside his earlier speech).
Everybody heard what they wanted to hear, Obama is a pal with everybody, so send money.
Exactly. American Jews were told what they want to hear, after Palestinians and the mass of Muslims around the world were first told what they want to hear. The speech to the State Department was boosted for days, and was scheduled to pre-empt Netanyahu’s visit. It was broadcast around the world, and bruited about in the Arab media, where they all heard him say that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders.
A few days later, mendacious Obama gives a speech to a comparatively small group, with a special interest, and he cleverly slants his spiel to mollify them (and crack open their checkbooks again). The speech to AIPAC will get much less coverage and attention, around the world (try to find the text on any major media alongside his earlier speech).
Everybody heard what they wanted to hear, Obama is a pal with everybody, so send money. I don’t know the Yiddish word for bullsh_t, but that’s all this is.
Agreed….and, I’d be very wary of what Obama may have “implied” to that large audience directly in front of him. I simply can’t take that man literally; let’s see the results of his careful phrasing as they gradually materialize…that’s why I posted earlier…Caveat Emptor.
As long as we are discussing borders, let’s talk about securing the USA borders, I’m all in favor of Israel securing it’s border but how about we focus on our own borders and how about a bit of reciprocity for US Border security from US and Israeli Jews! I propose we establish our own AIPAC, American Immigration PAC to lobby for border fences, armed patrols, refusal of benefits and return of illegal aliens to home countries.
Hmmmm.
It amazes me that so many rational people cannot see clearly where Obama is concerned. Obama will go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish his leftist goals and yet if he then gives some speech with BS throwaway lines all of a sudden people believe the rhetoric rather than the actions undertaken. And I can’t say it is due to any rhetorical brilliance at all.
It is just people trying to convince themselves that up is down, left is right and 1+1=15.
You’re math’s all wrong . . . they believe 1+1 = 11 . . . not 15. I
think it has to do with their erratic logic.
From where I sit (in Israel), there was good news and bad news in Obama’s AIPAC speech. His more conciliatory tone, along with his clear and repeated statements about the nature of Hamas helped me — somewhat — get over the anger that I’ve felt since his speech last Thursday. As an Israeli, I also appreciated Obama’s inclusion of strong statements about the effect that Iranian’s nuclear program has on Israel’s limited willingness to take risks in an ever more risky world (though at the same time I thought Obama’s boasting about “strong sanctions” he had taken against Iran to be slightly ridiculous). And I was surprised and pleased to hear him mention the captive IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit, though it would have been nice if he used this opportunity to call on Hamas to finally release him.
But obviously, the President is courting Jewish votes. Given his track record, I think we should trust these statements just as we trusted his campaign promises, many of which of course vanished in a puff of smoke the moment that he had to take on real responsibility.
For me, the worst part of the AIPAC speech was point #3 of what Obama claims to have said to PM Netanyahu in their face-to-face meeting. He said that the world was growing *impatient* because of the lack of a peace process.
Forgive me, but impatience is no reason to adopt a policy that may or may not cause enormous damage. “First, do no harm” says the doctors’ oath. If Obama thinks that impatience — the need to show you’re doing something! Anything! — overrules statesmanship, then he does not deserve to be the leader of the free world. And we, as citizens of the sovereign State of Israel, certainly don’t have to take unreasonable risks just to stay on his good side.
So, you think that Obama, with more time to re-think his original position, came to his senses and saw the whole issue of borders in a completely different and more rational way? Boy, Sandy, you are so easy to fool.
Exactly, all Hambone needed to do, in his own mind, was massage the lie. Or, massage the message so it didn’t seem so direct and revealing of his hatred of Israel and Jews. To him, it’s all a word game. Inside he is a pile of festering hatred brought on by his illegitimate past and lie of a personal history. He’s a walking sham and he knows it. People like this usually have no scruples and lack honesty in the worst sense. Don’t be fooled. He’s not sorry he said those things about Israel; He’s sorry he got called out for it.
“the language of the Bush administration agreement with Israel … “the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula … the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.”
So that’s the Bush policy that makes people happy.
Obama on the 19th said:
“We believe 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.”
So apart from that being a bit quicker off the tongue, what the hell is anyone complaining about ??? It is the same statement.
Sandy:
I’m afraid Willis is right: Obama is lying to you. The sooner you get that through your head, the better off you’ll be.
It’s nothing but lies. All lies. The only thing Obama is committed to doing is destroying Israel.
Yes, quite simply, Obama feels an affinity toward criminals, mobsters. despots, totalitarians, and those of the marauding and looting dispositions. They’re his kind of people. Lying fits perfectly to these ends, while the truth would only complicate their achievement.
Ftr, my best male friend x 51 yrs. is a [non practicing but very concerned] Jew, as were my two best friends in college. My best friend, a very successful and ethical business man, simply wishes that Obama would be gone, and here I think he’s worried about his children’s future, given the implied danger to them via the Progressives,enc., Obama’s thinking, and of course by Islamofascism and Shiria themselves. His son has been covering the Mideast for Fox.
I don’t envy the position of you Israelis, Sandy. With the whole world minus one against you to some degree or another, what hope you guys have rests with your relationship with America.
So I’m sad to say that I don’t share your optimism.
You correctly point out that Candidate Obama made lavish pro-Israel promises, and that President Obama has been about as anti-Israel as any President in decades. Stupidly so, considering the wave of populist revolutions sweeping across the rest of the region. His position makes little strategic sense even if he could have cared less about Israelis personally.
Where President Obama “clarified” his remarks, as I read the text of his speech, he does nothing of the kind. He reiterates them, and rhetorical flourishes aside he seems committed to imposing a deal, any deal, that extracts further concessions for the Palestinians.
And if you think that is a little too strong, consider that his foreign policy A-team includes people like Samantha Power. Obama’s goal is the weather the controversy until the campaign contributions are in. The expiration date on his promises to Israel is November 2012. Israelis need to know that and prepare to weather the storm that comes afterward. Americans need to know it and make sure that the storm only lasts until January, 2013.
Wow. Waking up this morning, I’m looking through the comments added since I penned mine from Israel yesterday. To state the obvious: support for Israel, together with anger and distrust of Obama. Thanks are owed to all of you. Come visit any time
I chose to use more diplomatic language than most comments, but our conclusions are the same. As I said: “…obviously, the President is courting Jewish votes. Given his track record, I think we should trust these statements just as we trusted his campaign promises, many of which of course vanished in a puff of smoke the moment that he had to take on real responsibility.”
It’s not a question of Obama pulling the wool over Israelis’ eyes (at least not mine) and lulling them into a false sense of security. It’s completely clear to many of us that in the fight against our Palestinian enemies and radical Islam, Israel is destined to go it alone. But as a very small country in a very bad neighborhood we cannot afford to spit in the face of the American administration where there is at least the possibility of getting some help… especially if the Congress can be motivated to stand up against Obama’s ideologically motivated, “liberation theology”-based enmity for the Jewish state.
We serve in the army, try to influence our (sometimes execrable excuses for) political representatives, and try to continue leading normal lives under ever-more dangerous circumstances. What can you non-Israeli supporters of Israel do, other than venting your anger and frustration in a comments section? That’s the real question.
“From where I sit (in Israel), there was good news and bad news in Obama’s AIPAC speech. His more conciliatory tone, along with his clear and repeated statements about the nature of Hamas helped me — somewhat — get over the anger that I’ve felt since his speech last Thursday.”
From where I sit, Sandy (Jerusalem), I read your opening paragraph and felt exactly the same way as our non-Jewish supporters in America. As far as ‘not spitting in America’s face,’ I believe Mr. Obama has been spitting in Israel’s for quite a while.
Can we exist without American support? Maybe not, but we can’t afford to give up vital interests out of fear that the US will abandon us. If you look honestly at US policy on the conflict over the past many decades – long before Barry Obama – it’s always been neutral = supporting both sides.
Have a nice day.
“Supporting both sides” ???????????????
please explain what “contiguous palestinian state” means than.
I’m beginning to see the problem, Sandy. You are far too easily pleased. I’ve got some useless, sage brushy property to sell if you’re interested.
A horseshoer was making shoes and tossing them on the floor to cool; although, they weren’t glowing red, they were still hot to the touch.
A know it all type man walked into the shop and watched several shoes being made. After a few minutes, he reached down and picked up a horseshoe to look at it; immediately, he threw it down and acted as if nothing happened.
The horseshoer asked the man if the shoe was hot and he replied, “No, it just doesn’t take long to look at a horseshoe.”
I think Obama has just had a hot horseshoe moment.
That anyone on the Right is even trying to figure out if Obama means what he says tells me that many on the Right have battered woman’s syndrome. He hits you then tells you he didn’t hit you and he really loves you so you go back and he hits you again. 29 times later, you’re still asking the same question – does he mean what he says this time?
Yes,”Battered Womens syndrome” AND STOCKHOLM SYNDROME…we’ve learned to love our captors!
As Paula Revere I LIVE Isaiah 62:
“For Zions sake,I WILL NOT keep silent,for Jerusalems sake,I WILL NOT HOLD MY PEACE,till Her righteousness shines like the dawn & she becomes a praise in the whole earth!”
Considering the founding charter of Hamas and it’s actions and rhetoric, why doesn’t the International Criminal Court go in and take it’s leaders out of Gaza? As long as Hamas is in town nothing will happen – they have to go.
The function of the international court is to provide innocent verdicts and a retirement plan for war criminals after the US picks them up, hog ties them, and drops them off with enough evidence to convict them seven times.
Of course it is also a threat for US politicians if the European Socialists/Communists are offended with US politicians who point out their propensity for corruption and mass murder.
The cynic in me suggests that Mr Obama has been reading some internal polling. The thursday speech was foolhardy: poor understanding of the issue, and (the cynic speaking) trying to shore up his progressive base. My going in position that Mr Obama does nothing of principle; only of political necessity. Thus the need to backtrack with AIPAC.
Mr Obama did the unthinkable from a diplomatic standpoint: He forced the only democratic state in the mideast to publicly tell him to go himself. The Arabs states, obscessed as they are with the importance of strength, will see this speech as a capitulation to the “zionist entity.” Mr Obama has succeeded in a mere 72 hours of antagonizing both allies and enemies.
The man is not suitable for the office he holds.
Skookum: I think you’re right. Question is, will Jewish voters believe Obama learned the horseshoes were hot? F
Why does anyone think there is even a tiny chance of a reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians?
Why does anyone think a solution is possible for this intractable problem that has been going on for decades without serious change?
The Israelis need buffer regions to protect them against attack; the Palestinian negotiators need the Israelis as evil bogeymen or they will lose power.
I don’t understand why so much time and treasure is wasted on a problem that simply has no solution.
D
To a Spanish radio station, he talked about enemies.
In a private fundraiser in SF he called middle America “bitter clingers”.
He learned how to “talk to white people” in order to put them at ease, as a youngster.
Not more than a few DAYS ago…in a PREPARED speech, he sold out Israel at time and in a manner that was absolutely unnecessary and absolutely harmful.
Not more than a couple days ago, he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who found it necessary to afterward, school Obama on the history of Israel and what the 1967 borders mean, and that Hamas was the equivalent to Israel…as al Qaeda.
So, today…all that is erased? Wiped away, shaken simply like an Etch-a-Sketch…so a new slate is created?
If he was “misinterpreted” in his PREPARED speech…wouldn’t Netanyahu know that after his private meeting and before his lecture to Obama?
This all stinks to high hell. With the Palestinians going to Obama’s favorite skirt to hide behind…the U.N., this gives Obama cover for washing his hands of “protecting” Israel…and saying “I told you so…and offered to help” when the U.N. pulls the same stunts they always pull.
That speech to the State Department, the timing of it, the language of it…was no accident. And the language of it was filled with weasel words pertaining to what Palestinians had to do and what Hamas had to do.
But hey, the abusive relationship continues…because he came home in the wee hours of the morning saying he won’t raise a hand to slap that face again, he is filled with love and didn’t mean it. Whispers and pillow talk….so….let him have his way. You know what comes next.
Perfect comment, as usual. Thanks.
Typical backtrack speech. His first one with Bibi didn’t go well. Got a public shellacking out of that one. Didn’t want another. Had a couple of days to rewrite his speech. Figures that the Jews were lulled by Hitler and Goebbels the AIPAC will be easy marks.
Went in front of AIPAC. Is trying to lie away his statements from Thursday. Wants to get re-elected big time.
In the meantime, the Muslims have started problems from what they heard on Thursday. They will be really pissed off when they hear what he said at AIPAC. President Disaster.
This lines him up for the vote on Palestinian statehood vote in the UN. He can go Nay, Yea, or Present. At the moment he figures, that he will vote whichever way he needs to be re-elected.
Our Presidential Disaster
Where his lips moving? Is the bar of soap plastic?
“What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say.”
For those of you working to defeat president disaster, here’s a tip:
Never give him a chance of making a follow up statement. Go with the first lie.
Once again I am reminded of my firm belief that Obama, rather than being malevolent is remarkably clueless as to the nature of international diplomacy. He simply does not understand how “reiterating” American opposition to the UN unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state is actually a concession to the Palestinians. The reason is that prior, something that was seen as a given is now seen as a favorable “concession” to Israel. Meanwhile the one vital concession that should take place prior to any resumption of negotiations,that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and accordingly give up the so-called “right of return” continues to be ignored, leading the Arabs to believe they will ultimately get their way.
You should reconsider that firm belief of yours; he’s really malevolent.
Still not sure what Obama means? I have one word for you: taqiyya. If you don’t know what it means, look it up.
He wil talk nicely, take the Jewish contributions, the Jewish votes and then sell Israel down the river. If that causes a second Holocaust that will not be his fault, of course. He will get the “international community” to do his dirty work, and then take the credit for making “peace” in the Middle East (by turning Israel into part of the Dar-al-Islam).
“Still not sure what Obama means? I have one word for you: taqiyya.” Antivenin
Hence the belief by a large percentage of the populace that he is muslim. His actions differ little from muslims that we see every news cycle.
Several years ago, we visited Dachau in Germany, and the Holocaust museum in D.C. What an experience! there is a statue outside Dachau that states that– to know history is to never repeat it, (paraphrased). Well, it is time that the Israelis wake up and we, Americans also, for history, is about to be repeated and shame on us, for allowing this, shame on the WORLD for allowing this evil to perpetuate? Is our president alienating Israel because they refused to dare stop building houses for their own citizens in their own country. This president OBVIOUSLY does not support Israel. How much evidence does one need than the man’s own actions! How can he demolish Israel on Thursday and on Sunday, say, he really didn’t mean it, but the bond is unbreakable?
Israel, do not be deceived once again! Deceived once, shame on them, deceived twice,shame on me!! Well, it is about time that we Americans stop giving this president the “benefit of the doubt”, because he is somehow, naive, or inexperienced! The Israelis are a courageous people, fight against the propanganda, the lies, stand up! DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR COUNTRY!! You can no longer assume that America has your back, not with this president. However, the majority of Americans support you, but this president rules against the MAJORITY of Americans. If there are truly any US jews who are still loyal to Israel, your homeland,your heritage, then please send your money to ISRAEL, today, do NOT support the enemies of your country.. I believe Israel is surrounded by enemies. And America is not helping its allies! May God Bless Israel and America!
Surah 3:28
“32:8 Then He made him to be reproduced out of the essence of a humble fluid.”
Sorry if I don’t get it. Not really connecting this with the subject of the article.
Wait, you said surah 3:28, not 32:8
“3:28 Let not the Believers take the Unbelievers as friends – rather than the Believers. And whoever does that, then there is nothing from Allah in any matter; unless that you only protect yourselves from them a protection. Thus Allah cautions you of Himself; for towards Allah is the eventual coming.”
That makes more sense – Muslims aren’t supposed to make peace with the Unbelievers. Got it. Much more germane than the sperm thing.
It is very, very obvious that Barack Hussain Obama cannot be trusted, that he is a congenital liar, that his word is absolutely no good, and that he will say anything, do anything that will get him the power he craves, and that will advance his far Left/Marxist/Muslim agenda.
Thus, he will say one thing to once audience and say exactly the opposite to another, say that he is firmly convinced of or committed to this or that policy only to reverse it or ignore it a few days or weeks later.
Thus, the only things that can be counted on from him are concrete, measurable action,s and those only so long as they cannot be reversed, retracted, or cancelled.
Were I in charge of Israel, I would assume that Obama was my enemy–because he is–and I would not put any stock whatsoever in any of his promises or rely on or cooperate with the U.S. in any but the most limited way; I would realize that, realistically speaking, I was now on my own.
Barack Obama is moving strongly to influence the Jewish vote. This tactic is simply, if they don’t believe you, confuse them. By the way it is working. Many secular Jews and reform Jews are confused. Recently Rabbi Richard Jacobs was nominated to head the Union for Reform Judaism. Jacobs is a J Street Jew and has even gone as far as to protest Jewish settlements in Jerusalem. This was a silent victory for Obama. However, not all Reform Jews are anti-Israel. There is a faction which let the world know that they don’t stand for Jacobs views. Thank G-d that they are voicing their opinion. I openly welcome hearing from my reform brethren on this matter. It is pivotal to the up coming election.
“So what are we to make of all this?”
Prime Minister Netanyahu scared the living carp out of B.O. during their private session.
Not sure if it was “we can deliver the bulk of the American Jewish vote to whichever candidate we want to see in your office, and so far, it ain’t you”, or “congratulations, you WILL have an enduring legacy, which seems always to be the goal of whoever occupies your office, but it will be as the American president who triggered the nuclear meltdown of the entire Middle East.”
I’m leaning more towards the first choice, as B.O. seems to respond more to threats affecting his personal power than to threats involving nuclear Armageddon and millions of deaths.
Taken to the woodshed in the Oval Office. Pitiful.
I think the nuclear meltdown was what got his attention because that is what will happen if Israel is faced with annihilation. Wonder where the price of gas will go if that happens.
I posted this at the link also:
Israel cannot be expected negotiate with a group that denies its fundamental right to exist(Hamas, Hezballah, Iran, and virtually all of the Arab world). Obama expects them to do just that. On Friday, sitting right next to PM Netanyahu, president Obama said the Palestinians state which encompasses the West bank and Gaza should be “contiguous”. For that to happen, Israel would have to be cut in half. Am I the only one who recognizes that when Obama speaks off teleprompter he says what he means? He can accept a scenario in which Israel is cut in half for the sake of a “contiguous” Arab state called “Palestine”.
IMO, it’s more of the same “were you lying then, or are you lying now?” Barack Obama will say anything and do anything to get re-elected, up to and including forcing Israel to agree to a treaty creating a Palestinian state with Hamas playing a significant role in it’s govt.
Expecting Hamas to “accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements.” as a condition for this treaty would be a “fool’s errand”, as anyone who understands the “Treaty of Hudaybiyah” understands. Hamas would gladly pretend to abide by those conditions for the weeks or months required to gain the territory and strategic advantages they don’t currently enjoy, then just as Mohammad did with the Quraish of Mecca, they would find some pretext to violate that treaty and attack Israel again…this time, with the aid of Egypt, Iran, the newly “democratic” Libya, Syria…etc.
Anyone familiar with the parable of “The Scorpion and the Tortoise” understands that the treaty Obama proposes will lead to World War IV…but for Obama, as long as he can make it happen before Nov. 2012, it’s not important what happens to Israel after his re-election.
Barack Obama has no love for Israel, or Israelis, his affections belong to the Arab/Muslim world, and while what Obama said about America and Israel being the closest of allies and Americans overwhelmingly support Israel is true…Obama doesn’t share the sentiment and the main stream media is more than willing to continue to overlook this fact.
The moral of the story when it comes to Israel negotiating in good faith with the likes of Hamas and the PLO is:
What’s the nature of a scorpion? It stings.
What’s the nature of a scorpion when it receives help? It stings..
What’s the nature of a scorpion when it receives goodwill? It stings…
What’s the nature of a scorpion which loves it’s loved ones very much? It still stings!
Israel has been fighting these scorpions for it’s very existance for 63 years now.
While much of the world is willing to overlook this. Israel, and PM Netanyahu don’t have that luxury.
Of course, as a practical matter, we probably ought not spend a lot of time and effort trying to interpret statements made by an inveterate liar.
The entire “what did he mean by that” discussion must be predicated upon a belief that he meant what he said. Given that B.O. will say anything to anyone at any time if he thinks he can gain some advantage by saying it, we’d be better off trying to figure out, not what he means, but what he hopes to gain.
Epic Fail on Geometry. I can see that there is no requirement to get into Columbia on an affirmative action admission passing high school geometry.
There is no way to have a contiguous Pali-state that includes the West Bank and Gaza and not cleave Israel in two.
#6 cfbleachers
I second what you said most strongly, and would add the following.
As you said, one salient point is that this was not an off the cuff remark that has to be walked back. This was an announced, major policy speech, delivered in a friendly venue and under no pressure, prepared and promoted as a key statement of the carefully considered policy of this administration [and by dubious extension our country] vis-a-vis Israel.
What we see at AIPAC is weaseling to cover his exposed fundament.
This is not a unique experience. We have history of this. One of the few consistent points of his foreign policy is his unremitting hostility to the existence of Israel and its people; matched with tolerance and abetting the worst of the state and non-state actors attacking Israel. This is far from the first time he has threatened Israel, only to walk back the words if not the deeds. It can be assumed to be far from the last.
I cannot speak to what PM Netanyahu is going to do, being American. I can note some parallels. Buraq Hussein Obama’s speech was a existential threat to the state of Israel. Despite his “Emily Latella moment” at AIPAC, he functionally pointed a gun at Israel. Not the act of a friend, ally, or a benign neutral.
Speaking from a military point of view that I am sure that PM Netanyahu understands, and from a law enforcement point of view that I understand; if someone pulls a gun on you, they are the enemy. If they keep doing it, no matter how many times they say, “just kidding”, they definitely are on the engagement queue. He can tell AIPAC the equivalent of “just kidding” until shortly after hell freezes over. You need to watch what he is doing when he is not under pressure, which measures true intentions and character [or lack thereof].
The only rational course for PM Netanyahu and his successors for quite a while; is to assume that they can look to the United States for no help at all in a crisis and may well be facing active hostilities from us. At least until the current Democrat regime is replaced and there is time to root out the remnants of its bureaucrats from State. They are on their own against a hostile Ummah, Europe, and the US.
It is up to AIPAC to decide whether honeyed words spoken to them, outweigh regular venom and hostile acts in other venues. I tend to believe that they don’t, but there plenty of historical examples of people denying the existence of an express threat because they don’t want to face the requirement of action if it is acknowledged.
Subotai Bahadur
The prob. is they cannot fight for long without hardware supply line. And the hardware will come.. eventually. When they start bleeding badly. The same way it happened in 73 under Nixon.
#1 F.
What [s]he said.
My read is that Mr. Obama was telling AIPAC what he thought it wanted to hear, but I and many others have long since stopped listening to what he says and instead watch what he does. So far, I’m not the least impressed. Even the bin Laden raid was more or less forced on him, and according to reports it took him 16 hours to make up his mind at that.
As far as I’m concerned Mr. Obama has all the sincerity of a cobra.
…..thanks, ExRat….. your: “As far as I’m concerned Mr. Obama has all the sincerity of a cobra.” Very nice.
…..I’d add only that his magnificent teeth remind me of a crocodile smiling.
We Americans mustn’t allow ourselves to be so vote-snookered again in 2012.
It is impossible to understand how anyone can find any credibility in BO’s public pronouncements at AIPAC. I continued to be baffled by how either Israelis or American Jews can buy into his rhetoric. From the the day of his inauguration his actions have clearly shown his leanings toward support of the Islamic line of reasoning regarding Palestinians and his duplicity regarding the support of Israel. Joe Wilson had it right and spoke it out loud; he is a liar! His speech on Thursday was intentionally designed to undercut Netanyahu when Netanyahu was not present to defend himslef, and declare to the Arab Middle East that BO was on their side in the Palestinian issue. In the comment above, ‘cfbleachers’ allusion to the cycle of domestic violence induldged in by abusive partners is spot on. After the push back by both the Jewish community and the population in general resulting from his Thursday speech (not to mention Bibi’s media slapdown of BO) Obama wants to “make nice” and promise that “he didn’t really mean it” and “it won’t happen again.” Beware, Obama will offend again, and Israel will be the victim.
“That anyone on the Right is even trying to figure out if Obama means what he says tells me that many on the Right have battered woman’s syndrome. ”
AND, its not just the ‘right’ Black Flag; its everyone foreign or domestic who believes anything BHO says. There is no need to parse what our president says, all you need to know is that he has an extreme case of narcissistic personality disorder.
“What are we to make of all this?”
Is this a trick question? Obama lies. The End.
Don’t trust, but verify.
So what are we to make of all this?
He is not to be trusted.
I think the eruptions over Obama’s Thursday speech are a result of understandably shot nerves. Whatever you think of Bibi, would you want to be in his shoes these past years? This past week??
I think all that’s happened in the past four (!) days is much less important than the re-uniting of Hamas and Fatah, and the Facebook-organized raids into Israel on Nakba Day. These are the real issues.
” Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. ” Sen. Obama remarks at AIPAC 2008.
As long as Michelle gets to eat lobster and buy $500 sneakers Barak will say anything and do anything to stay in power.
Is he a trustworthy friend? Ask Hosni Mubarak.
In god we trust, all others pay cash; didn’t that boy say he’d never heard anything problematic from Reverend Wright in all his twenty years of pew pandering? Um hum, yeah, that’s what he said. Sure ‘nough, that’s what the man said.
Could it be that the President’s advisors took a look at Friday’s overnight polling of Jewish voters and did some quick editing of the President’s position. Needs those votes in Florida, ya know.
Obama appears perfectly willing to pressure Israel into national suicide, if only to satisfy his own warped ideology. Luckily, Israel might have another idea.
Tell ya what, if Barack Obama is now Israel’s BFF, how about this? Make another speech indicating that on the day after the U.N. votes for Palestinian statehood in September, the US will withhold all UN funding for a period of five years or until the vote is rescinded.
Now we have to wait to see how the CMA (Communist Media of America) will spin this to make it even more convoluted and confusing.
Even though Obama cannot comprehend 80% of what is posted on his tele-prompter, he will never come back and say he “meant to say”, in order to correct a statement. He will always come out with a new twist to the previous statement to further confuse his faithful with dialog. Especially when misspeaking this drastically on such an extremely important foreign policy matter.
We will now witness the CMA spinning it’s web of obfuscation in order to confuse the matter as much as it can.
This stuff is really getting old.
Can we fast forward to the Presidential debates now? I can’t wait to see this boy president put in his place.
Hillary offered Bibi a squadron of F-35 fighter jets, if Israel would extend the settlement freeze for another 90 days, (after the 10 month freeze). Netanyahu replied, I’ll present it to the cabinet … let me have the offer in writing.
That letter has never been written ….
Obama and the leftists he surrounds himself with as advisors have only one metric: Will this help or hurt The Won politically? Nothing else is relevant. When he is forced into a situation that could have negative personal consequences (OBL mission), he agonizes and finally makes the “decision” he really never had a choice about.
Consider this: Now he can say to the Arabs, “I tried.” when it comes time to veto the UN Palestinian resolution – another of those inescapable foregone ‘decisions.’ And already to the Jews, “You just misunderstood.” Voting ‘Present’ one more time, our sadly predictable Waffler-in-Chief. Makes an American proud. Or nauseated.
Radosh’s piece is about as conclusion and coherent as Obama’s speech. One lefty fooling another lefty?
All Obama has to do now is give American Jews another reason to support him — nationalizing an industry or supporting another big welfare program or proposing government-paid abortion on demand — and they’ll forget all about what he said Thursday and allow themselves to be lulled by the AIPAC statement. He is the leftist messiah.
What O should have said Thursday and today: NO settlement is possible until the Palestinians pro-actively and fully (not grudgingly) accept Israel’s right to exist and prove it over a reasonable length of time — at least a decade. In other words, the idea that Israel could negotiate “peace” with two sworn enemies, one of which is open about its desire to wipe Israel off the map by any means possible and the other of which proposes to “moderately” swamp Israel out of existence via the “right of return,” is completely absurd and dangerously stupid. That’s what he should have said both times and every time until the Arabs “get it,” and he didn’t. That’s all anyone needs to know.
Wake up, American Jews! Are your “progressive” fantasies worth the life of the Jewish state?
Israel cannot be expected negotiate with a group that denies its fundamental right to exist(Hamas, Hezballah, Iran, and virtually all of the Arab world). Obama expects them to do just that. On Friday, sitting right next to PM Netanyahu, president Obama said the Palestinians state which encompasses the West bank and Gaza should be “contiguous”. For that to happen, Israel would have to be cut in half. Am I the only one who recognizes that when Obama speaks off teleprompter he says what he means? He can accept a scenario in which Israel is cut in half for the sake of a “contiguous” Arab state called “Palestine”.
IMO, it’s more of the same “were you lying then, or are you lying now?” and the world is supposed to forget Thursday’s speech(especially since we “misunderstood what he meant”) in light of todays “2nd edition” rewrite for AIPAC. Barack Obama will say anything and do anything to get re-elected, up to and including forcing Israel to agree to a treaty creating a Palestinian state with Hamas playing a significant role in it’s govt.
Also…
Expecting Hamas to “accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements.” as a condition for this treaty would be a “fool’s errand”, as anyone who understands the “Treaty of Hudaybiyah” understands. Hamas would gladly pretend to abide by those conditions for the weeks or months required to gain the territory and strategic advantages they don’t currently enjoy, then just as Mohammad did with the Quraish of Mecca, they would find some pretext to violate that treaty and attack Israel again…this time, with the aid of Egypt, Iran, the newly “democratic” Libya, Syria…etc.
Anyone familiar with the parable of “The Scorpion and the Tortoise” understands that the treaty Obama proposes will lead to World War IV…but for Obama, as long as he can make it happen before Nov. 2012, it’s not important what happens to Israel after his re-election.
Barack Obama has no love for Israel, or Israelis, his affections belong to the Arab/Muslim world, and while what Obama said about America and Israel being the closest of allies and Americans overwhelmingly support Israel is true…Obama doesn’t share the sentiment and the main stream media is more than willing to continue to overlook this fact.
The moral of the story when it comes to Israel negotiating in good faith with the likes of Hamas and the PLO is:
What’s the nature of a scorpion? It stings.
What’s the nature of a scorpion when it receives help? It stings..
What’s the nature of a scorpion when it receives goodwill? It stings…
What’s the nature of a scorpion which loves it’s loved ones very much? It still stings!
Israel has been fighting these scorpions for it’s very existance for 63 years now.
While much of the world is willing to overlook this. Israel, and PM Netanyahu don’t have that luxury.
Hypocritical arrogance on display for all of you that voted for a slogan.
One day, soon, all Obama’s critics will wake up to the fact that they are casting aspersions on one of the most civilized and enlightened leaders America has ever had and the world has ever known.
His demand that the Fatah and the Hamas recognize the Jewish State as a condition for commencement of serious negotiations is proof of his understanding of the core problem in the Jewish/Muslim confrontation.
Since both the Israelis and the Palestinians are victims of the Middle East Despots’ agenda, aimed at perpetuating their regimes through the elimination of Democracy from the Middle East, it behooves the Palestinians, after 63 years of servitude and sacrifice, to rid themselves of the Despots shackles and move towards peace and prosperity through cooperation with peaceful, progressive, productive Israel.
Wondering where he really stands. Dissection of his speeches. Talking about his lying ways. All this misses the obvious… that it is all so UGLY!
Why are we even having this discussion? Because the lying SOB gave his official policy position to the State Department, then gave his whitewashed version to AIPAC, a group the leader of which is head of a Progressive institution. Then he gets verbal support from that head. For those of you do not get it, the fix is in at AIPAC. They do not represent Jews. It is now just another tentacle of Progressivism. They are going to sell the lie to the Jews.
To see the ugliness, just think of how it is supposed to be. The American President, in an official policy position speech to the State Department, renews his commitment to the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jews, as we have for 60+ years. Netanyahu visits and it is all warm and fuzzy. The President speaks to AIPAC reiterating his previous speech and telling how wonderful was his visit with his friend Bibi. He is met with thunderous applause. No confusion. No bitterness. No bickering. All is wine and celebration and good fellowship.
We are having this discussion because of the sheer UGLINESS of Obama’s true intentions for Israel, what he does towards those ends in deed, and his need to lie about it. That UGLINESS has a word to describe it: malevolence. It is raw, nasty malevolence. It is so ugly, it shows right through the smiling mask.
Vile. Hateful. Ugly. Evil. Malevolence.
When will the US Jews en mass understand that Obama is a Marxist lier ? Never. He lies and they follow as though marching blindly to the slaughter. If he asked for their gold fillings they would comply. Been there – done that. Shameful, passive stupidity. Their destiny fulfilled – again. Regrets.
Obama says intentionally gives two speeches, that totally contradict each other, in an effort to appease both sides of the debate. I was for pre-1967 borders before I was against them. Israel, don’t turn your back on him. He dislikes you as much as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton do. He has incited the Arab world against you at a time when the Arab-Islamic radical elements are reclaiming the last strongholds of decency in the Middle East. Israel has many friends in the US but not in its current government…
How can anyone believe anything that Barry has to say? Look at the recent posted picture of a young Barry and a young Bibi. Who would you believe?
I openly welcome hearing from my reform brethren on this matter.
I have been working against Comrade Zer∅ since I figured out who he was (Feb 2007). I’m with the Jewish Republican Coalition and am a fan of Jews For Sarah. I’m not too popular with my Jewish “friends”. The heck with them.
I’m an old man but when (if) it gets bad I will be in the hills with the partisans.
Obama will let the UN do his dirty work. We know where he stands on Israel.
That is disillusion, it was the same as Thursday, by the way did anyone think that it was Netanyahu that through the US under a bus. Why did we set up the Turkel Commission so the US had justification to use the veto over the Flotilla. Without the management of the US, Israel would have ended up with sanctions over that incident.
Why do the US not want the Palestinians to go to the UN because they do not want to use the veto, if they are forced to they want justification to shape the perception re: blame the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows this as he knew with the Flotilla. All Netanyahu had to was go along, but he had to be the one that said no, he had to shape the perception that it is Israel that is to blame, then he had to go to the White House and make it look like he controls American and the US is his puppet. That is the perception he wanted to show the world and to hell with America.
So the perception is that Israel is to blame for the failed peace talks, the US is an Israeli puppet as is the US President and will veto a Palestinian State without any foundation. That is going to go down well around 130 to 178 votes at the UN General Assembly and the US is going to be the one to deny a Palestinian State. There is going to anti-US protests all over the Muslim world from Indonesia to Palestine.
More terror, more dead Americans, more Major Hasan’s. The WHAM policy adopted in Bush’s second term and continued by Obama will be worth nothing. Moderate voice in the Muslim world will turn against the US, those that do not hate us will hate us. 10 years on the war on terror back to square one.
A friend should stand by a friend, but that goes both ways and a friend should not put a friend in the position that Netanyahu has placed the US. Netanyahu was intent in taking the US down the same road of destruction that he is taking Israel down.
Sure Obama has obligations to stand by allies, but he also has to protect the lives of US citizens at home and abroad. He also has to protect US interests.
Just remember that Bush abstained in relation to Cast Lead.
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
* As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
* If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
* If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there’s no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel’s title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
* The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
* The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
* The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
* The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
* The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
* The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
* The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
* The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
* The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
* The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
* The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
* The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
* The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
* The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
* The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other “Arab” states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence.
There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine.
The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that “aboriginalism”—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?
Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs’ tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?
To answer that question, let’s look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we’ve discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted.
The Jews’ willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN’s 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN’s partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel’s urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel’s existence (achieved in ’48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in ’67).
The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been “stolen” from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel’s destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as “oppressors,” and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.
Good post…
They are also called Arabs because Arab-Ia means “desert dweller”,which is all they were before they discovered oil…which is also WHY they went to BRITISH “Palestine”…fot the JOBS!
Also,when I was in Israel I learned that they can’t say their ‘P”s…SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THEY CALL THEMSELVES SOMETHING THEY CANNOT PRONOUNCE??!!!
Listen to old tapes of Arafat,he says “Balestinian”.
Then of course there’s THESE questions….
WHERE is ARAB archeology in Israel?
WHY is Jerusalem NOT EVEN GIVEN a MENTION in the Koran??NOT EVEN ONCE!
Pragmatist – spot-on. Let me suggest something about the Canaanites. They probably assimilated into the Israelite state that was formed under Saul and David. Also, let me suggest that some of the Arabs today in the Land of Israel were Jews forcibly converted in earlier periods to Islam. So if I am right about the Canaanites, the Arabs can claim to be Canaanites via their Jewish roots from Jews forcibly converted to Islam. -:)
Also, I have read that, at least some Arabs today in the Land of Israel, were originally Bosnians who the Turks transferred from Bosnia to Palestine to offset the Jewish imigration that occurred in the 19th century.
Very informative, especially the bit about the “verdict of arms.” When you resort to war, you forfeit any right to protest when the results of that strategy are not what you desired. That should be written into international law.
That might just be cynicism on my part, though. Looking at history, it’s apparent that a lot of wars have been, as they say, “wars of choice.” But other wars happen because for some conflicts there simply are no political, moral, or logical solutions that people are willing to accept. In those cases, a war almost *has* to happen in order to make things stable again.
The problem in the Middle East is that there’s never been a real verdict of arms. Neither the Arabs nor the Israelis have ever been finally, definitively beaten. There’s never been a victory – just a siege interspersed with occasional sallies and assaults. I’m not sure whether that’s preferable to a real war. Which is best, a brief holocaust or a long, slow blodletting?
Brilliant. And absolutely factual.
The hatred Arabs/Muslims have for Israel is based on jealousy of Israeli/Jewish brain power and the inability of Arabs to provide opportunity and food to their people under their feudalistic dictatorships. Their only solution is to blame the Jews. Israeli could move to an island off of the coast of nowhere and still be the object of hatred and cries of destruction by the Arab constituency.
It’s not about the Jews. It’s about the Arabs.
A very pedagogical and poignant post, Pragmatist. As it’s been published elsewhere on Pajamas Media, I wish once more to make a few corrections. The Haida people were the first people to inhabit the Queen Charlotte Islands. They consider themselves a separate nation of people. In addition, the first inhabitants of the Americas, identified as “Indians” in our parlance, still consider themselves respectively as having separate and distinguishable nationalities but governed by Canada and the USA, etc. Each of these “nations”, for instance, still retain separate languages. I wish you would consider this small critique in view of the fact that you are retaining the same comment/article. I hope you understand that I value what you have written and just wish to make a contribution which will improve it somewhat.
The Two – State Solution is 87 Years Old
In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.
The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.
The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.
At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.
Britain presented this gift to Abdullah, the son of the Sherif of Mecca, as a consolation prize for its awarding of the Hedjaz territory and Arabia, which included Mecca, to the rival Saud family: That vast territory is now Saudi Arabia.
British officials also claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, even T.S. Lawrence later described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”
This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein – the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.
This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan – an area barely 50 miles at its widest.
Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Zionist leadership had put forward in February 1919 its first submission that the eastern boundary would run well east of the Hedjaz railway. The incorporation of the railway would be an economically essential requirement for the Jewish community living east of the River Jordan as well as providing it with vital security.
The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:
“The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine … Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan … Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life … ”
But Jewish aspirations inevitably were dashed as a new British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, took the place of Lord Balfour. This new British official within weeks of succeeding Balfour made it clear that Britain was intent upon separating Transjordan from Palestine: the first two-state solution.
The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.
During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.
Britain’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.
Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nation’s Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left in Mandatory Palestine of the promised Jewish National Home.
They did this in order to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the growing numbers of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.
Israel was officially re-born as a sovereign nation in 1948 and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.
In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.
The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank. Israel’s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.
Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No’s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.
[b]It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history – certainly not as an independent Arab state.
Gaza has already been given to the Arabs and they have turned it into a terror base from which they have launched a lethal missile blitz against Israel numbering to date over 10,000 rockets.
Israeli leaders should never have accepted even one missile fired from Gaza at its citizens in southern Israel. To let thousands fall with relative impunity for so many years led the world to believe that it was acceptable. After all, if Israel wasn’t interested in safeguarding its own civilians, why then should the world be. It was accepted as business as usual.
[/b]
The Gaza War thus came as a surprise to the world community and, just as the Second Lebanon War, it was launched by Israeli leaders too late and ended too soon, leaving both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon free to wreak future havoc upon the Jewish state.
The disputed West Bank, which is the ancient biblical heartland of Israel, is now the territory U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is pressuring Israel to give away to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. This is the present day so-called two – state solution and will dismember what is left of Israel and drive some 250,000 Jewish residents from their homes and farms. Why? Because just as in Jordan, Jews will not be permitted to live within Arab territory, while Arabs can remain free to live within Israel.
It is instructive to remember that upon the granting of the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain, an eminent British celebrity and supporter of Zionism, Josiah Wedgwood, addressed a Jewish crowd of thousands at the Royal Albert Hall in London in which he urged the audience to stand up for Jewish rights in its homeland.
According to the late Shmuel Katz in his groundbreaking biography of the great Zionist leader, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, titled The Lone Wolf, Wedgwood said:
“… This lesson I want the new Jewish nation to learn and to get by heart: Stand up for your rights. Let us have more of the spirit in the Jewish movement of my good and gallant friend Jabotinsky.”
Sadly, Israeli governments have become notoriously fearful of rejecting outright the deadly trap inherent in the so called two-state solution. Their muted responses have merely encouraged world leaders to repeatedly breathe new life into the discredited plan. The searing tragedy is that the two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people another Final Solution.
Perhaps the Secretary of State prefers to remain oblivious to the stark fact that the Arabs, whom she embraces and who today call themselves Palestinians, are as committed as their parents and grandparents before them to destroy the Jewish state; whatever size or shape its borders. The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders; this is a religious war and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered in the name of Allah -whatever the size or shape of its borders.
Only just recently, Muhammad Dahlan, speaking on behalf of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, declared on PA TV that the PA will not recognize Israel — one of the primary demands made upon the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo Peace Accords. Indeed, Dahlan admitted that the only reason they meet with Israelis at all is in order to continue receiving the immense flow of international funds.
Is Ms. Clinton aware of this Arab charade? Or does she dismiss it and care not for the absence of a sincere and honest Palestinian Arab peace partner and the inevitable plight of the quarter of a million plus Jewish residents who will become displaced refugees by enacting the next two-state solution. Perhaps she cares little for the resulting takeover of Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the inevitable missile blitz that will be launched by the Palestinian Arabs upon the rest of Israel.
Incidentally, what irony when the homes of Peace Now members living in Tel Aviv become daily targets of missiles launched from the very areas they campaign for their fellow Jews to be expelled from.
One wonders if Secretary Clinton knows that eighty seven years ago an original two-state solution was enacted in infamy. If she does, it is unlikely that she cares – anymore than the rest of the Obama Administration or State Department cares.
And what of those Jewish Americans who serve the Secretary and sadly will be in the forefront of destroying Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. Will they have a conscience or feel shame for the calamity they create? I think not.
In discussing the “Arab Spring’ Obambi said it was a ‘TUETONIC Shift’in the region now a Tectonic Shift understand but TUETONIC????? perhaps he was having a freudian slip equating Mohammedans with the Teutonic Knights ( beloved of Hitler and the NAZI’s) or maybe he is just plain STUPID and this is another ‘Stupid Police’ ’57 States’ ‘Corpse Man’ ‘ I was conceived when my parents were thinking about Selma Alabama (FOUR YEARS too EARLY)’ moment and one of course that the Lame Stream EneMedia will give him a FREE PASS for just as they have done for all the others.
Re: comments 36, 37, 38 – Nicely done. Most, if not all you have written, falls in line with the reading I’ve done over the last 30 years.
Barack O’s thinking……….
I’ll give dem Jews their 3 billion for Israel (who cares, I spend that in two minutes). All I want is for dem to give me my money for my campaign. Screw Israel anyway….
Lissen as those fools clap for me. I still got em, the damn fools. Tomorrow I’ll make Samantha Powers ambassador to Israel. Can we send the West Bank Palestinians another 500 armored vehicles? This time Abrams tanks. Maybe some artillery too. And, anti aircraft missiles……
OBAMA’S AIPAC SPEECH: IS HE NAIVE, OR INSANE?
Obama did a splendid job yesterday reading from his teleprompter. But in the course of his speech when he told AIPAC (who cheered his insincere pro-Israel statements) that he wasn’t “naive” he should have been laughed off the stage. Trying to restart a failed and disastrous peace process with an implacable enemy hell-bent on Israel’s destruction is not just naive, it’s insane in the Einsteinian sense; for what better term is there to describe someone who imagines he can succeed where better men under more promising conditions have failed?
Without a scintilla of evidence that the Palistinians were ready to do an Anwar Sadat and accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State Obama (like Bush 41 and Clinton before him) recklessly plunged ahead pressuring Israel to make unilateral concessions on freezing settlements, wisely resisted by Netanyahu. After two years of Obama relentlessly demanding concessions from Israel, then publicly raising the issue of the 67 borders, Netanyahu had enough and put an end to this nonesense by politely scolding a livid president in public. Obama is insanely blind to his own naivity and folly, as are all the fairyland losers on the radical Left when it comes to the Middle East and the civilizational war with Islam.
Click my name to continue reading this widely linked Townhall piece.
Ron – You raised the issued of demographics in your article; you might want to read the following: http://www.meforum.org/2124/the-politics-of-palestinian-demography
You have to realize that Muslims can lie to the infidel. Why should their demographic reports be considered to be truthful?
Obama has deliberately stirred up the Muslims regarding Israel. Saw one on tv yesterday and the man was giddy! Watch what Obama does, not so much what he says. He has shown from Day 1 that he is not a friend of Israel and I am amazed the Jewish people don’t see this. All I can say is, re-elect him at your peril. If he gets a second term, we are all in trouble!
I agree with the posters saying MANY Americans have a short term memory/battered woman syndrome.
Yes, many Americans make their day-to-day decisions based on their politician’s forever changing ideology. Useful idiots indeed.
What’s disappointing for me is to see the very same 180 flips by POTUS. Seriously, why the *uck doesn’t Valerie Jarrett and Obama’s other usurpers do better research, possible fallout from these teleprompted speeches? For not ALL the U.S. citizenry are drooling, ADHD-type idiots.
This flim-flam empty vessel at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does SO MANY redacted type speeches in his albeit short presidency insofar, even HE has to realize this. I mean, being a ‘Magna Cum Laude’ grad and all.. riiiight.
A tad tired of these metrosexual, unethical spineless turds (‘paging Mr. Reid, Mr. Romney, Mr. Gengrich, Mr. Ensign ad infinitum) f’ing things up in the name of ‘fairness’.
Obama states whatever is convenient for the moment and the audience. This is not lying, it is a sociopathic life adaption. His credibility gap rivals the Grand Canyon. Many Jews prefer stirring rhetoric to harsh reality. Their numbers are dwindling. I hope.
Bret Stephens has correctly set forth the issues with respect to Israel’s interests insofar as the Palestinian authority is concerned. Hamas is part of the latter. The President’s shift of position since Wednesday, May 18, if in fact that is true, is meaningless. Who knows what his position will be tomorrow. The position of Hamas will not change.
Obama learned his foreign policy from reverend Wright and Bill Ayers.Let the Palestinians get nearer to Israel so they can terrorize them even more.Obama and the Democratic are disgraceful.
In addition to being a communist, Boobily has proven to be a political tap dancer! Oh look, now Boobily has a department of internet propaganda. The politburo continues to grow.
The President, himself, does not know where he stands on Israel, nor does he care. What he says is dictated by whatever he thinks will advance his cause for reelection. He is wholly unprincipalled. When confronted with the need for decision, he talks out of both sides of his mouth.