On Thursday morning, President Obama spoke to a group gathered at the State Department to address the growing number of “crises” in the Middle East. He spoke of the right to self-determination, and of the need to end the violence. He also stated that it will be the position of the United States to promote freedom throughout the region – a position that made one wonder if they were listening to George Bush.
He focused on Syria, and condemned their actions – actions which have had the government (as it is) of Syria killing their own citizens. Obama called for the release of political prisoners, and stated that President Assad must allow peaceful protests. Amazingly, Obama referenced that the origination of the Middle-East protests were in Tehran, Iran. Protests (called the Green Revolution) in which he was eerily silent. His words on the subject were too few, and moved no one. Yet, to his credit, the President spoke of Iran not in glowing words, and placed them as the genesis of much of the funding of those who assault their citizens.
The President made numerous overtures to make good on the promises that he made in his speech in Cairo in 2009 – known by many as the Great Apology speech. In a stroke of irony, he made the pledge to help bring about free speech – from the largest news organization to the lone blogger. (I wonder what the Boston Herald thinks about this?) The President continued to focus on freedom of religion – mentioning Coptic Christians, who have been massacred in Egypt – and the rights of women. Both of these things run in direct opposition to Sharia Law, so one must assume that they will not be taken to heart.
Again, the President spoke about entrepreneurship, as he did in his State of the Union address. Yet, in the SOTU, he made sure to couch that entrepreneurship with the fallacy that entrepreneurship begins with, and from, government. He then said he will ask the World Bank and IMF to start with Egypt and Tunisia, and provide financial assistance to help them get through their “democratic upheaval.” Again, one wonders, especially in Egypt and the potential rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, how the spending of money in the region will lead to entrepreneurship. It takes more than money – it takes a justice system, property rights and a belief in people, not governments.
He ended his speech with Israel, and while talking about the stability of Israelis he pushed the term “occupation” as a way of defining how the Palestinians are being denied their rights. Obama moved to play both sides of the aisle. He stated that moves by Palestinians to deny the right of Israel’s existence will never succeed. Obama clearly declared that US support of Israel is unwavering, but that friends speak honestly with each other, and that Israel needs to make changes, and that a Jewish State can not truly exist while they engage in “occupation.” Obama then made the case for the Two-State solution – “…a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.”
And then, he dropped it in – that there should be real borders for both nations, based on pre-1967 borders. Many wondered whether or not Obama would make this declaration, and now we know that he is basing his entire Middle-East Policy on this. Obama continues to state that by doing so, Israel’s basic security will be met. When that statement is juxtaposed to the historical timeline of attacks on Israel, and the most recent Nakba Day attacks, one would have a hard time believing that Israel can be secure with a Palestinian neighbor, or any of their existing neighbors. (Obama did say that with the Palestinians signing a pact with HAMAS, that the peace will not be easy. One could argue that it will be impossible.)
More analysis on the speech will be available at PajamasMedia.com, and on PJTV.com.
As a Christian, I will not support the destruction of Israel, but it is up to American Jews to decide the fait of their own people. If they support Obama they are giving a green light to Holocaust 11.
The American government’s abandonment of Israel to the wolves is continuing. The West is continuing its collision course with disaster.
So does this meant the U.S. should give up all the land “conquered and occupied” since 1776?
Why is it that when a country wins a war they get to keep the land they conquered except Israel? Conquered territory can be given back after the war i.e. Europe and Asia conquered in WWII, Iraq conquered by the coalition, etc etc. Even Israel has given back Gaza and the Sinai since 1967. Must they commit national suicide to accommodate Obama and the U.N.?
If Israel retreats to the 1967 borders, the paleostinians will demand they withdraw to the 1948 borders. The end game is the total elimination of Israel per the koran, and there will be no peace until one side or the other is defeated.
the pre June 67 borders are the 1949 cease fire lines.
Israel should go back to the July 1967 borders.
Walt, we did give up Japan and Germany but we aren’t surrounded by countries dedicated to damaging us.
I’ve said it before: The mideast NEEDS Israel. Mideast tyrants need a way to draw attention away from their own crimes. Without the imagined danger of Israel, the people will be able to focus on getting the real boot off their neck.
To be fair, this “new” position taken by Big O is really no departure from the 2000 Camp David peace deal signed by Ehud Barak and ripped to shreds by Arafat. Basically, this administration is following the Syrian principle of negotiation which means starting things from where they left off 10 years ago, never mind the intervening wars and hostilities.
This does not let O off the hook for taking up an already useless, destructive idea and thinking he can “do it right” this time…
Next week Obama plans to have the Jews withdraw to their 1944 camps, I mean, “borders”…
It will be interesting to see how Obama plays this going forward. Will be wobble at the knees when strong Jewish lobby in US reduce his pay-cheque or will be stay strong and pursue his statement and improve relationship with ME.
Obama said NOTHING NEW in his Middle East policy speech. IN FACT, the policy of every US administration since 1949 has been that Israel’s borders are those borders established by the Armistice of 1949.
For example, here is the text of a 2004 Congressional Resolution authored by Tom Delay (R,TX) passed in support of comments by President Bush in which he stated that Israel’s borders are the 1947 and 1967 borders.
In 2004, U.S. House Approved A Return To Borders That Reflect “Mutually Agreed Changes” To “The Armistice Lines Of 1949.” House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by then-Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) and approved by the U.S. House in 2004, stated:
Whereas the United States is hopeful that a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved;
Whereas the United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well-being as a Jewish state;
Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has proposed an initiative intended to enhance the security of Israel and further the cause of peace in the Middle East;
Whereas President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in a dialogue with respect to this initiative;
Whereas President Bush, as part of that dialogue, expressed the support of the United States for Prime Minister Sharon’s initiative in a letter dated April 14, 2004;
Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [H. Con. Res. 460, 6/23/04]
Want some more: Okay — here you go:
In 2005, Bush Stated: “Any Final Status Agreement Must Be Reached Between The Two Parties, And Changes To The 1949 Armistice Lines Must Be Mutually Agreed To.” From Bush’s statement during a May 26, 2005, press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
How about this:
In 2008, Then-Israeli Prime Minister Edud Olmert Stated That Israelis Must “Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The State of Israel Prior To 1967.” On the anniversary of the death of Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by an Orthodox Jew opposing the Oslo Accords, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated: “We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then.”
Perhaps you people who are attacking Obama’s 1967 borders comments would do better to spend some time learning your Middle Eastern history before displaying your ignorance.