Why is the left so racist and anti-semetic? Why are you and the left so loving of those that wish to kill jews? I'll never understand that hatred liberals have for Jews.
The giant implied myth in this whole Israeli Palestinian issue, is that it will be forever possible to kick the dispute issues can down the road.
IMHO, and for no gain, Obama has done little to solve a damn thing regarding Israeli Palestinian issues. And when the new year 2013 dawns, Obama may or may not be US president, as for Israel, either way, come 2013, Israel will be in even worse shape than they are now.
Leaving Israel in the position that if they demands the moon and sky, they may end up with nothing instead.
Right now the GOP regards Israel as a political club, as they can accuse Obama as throwing Israel under the bus for political gain, but the fact is and remains, Israel is now a US political liability, and if the GOP ever regains POTUS, they too will throw Israel under the Bus.
Political rhetoric and political reality have an annoying habit of being quite different.
But how damn absurd, that the entire world will compromise all their fairness principles for the benefit of only 6 million delusional people who somehow demand too much while totally raping all the Human rights of others.
Appeasement doesn't work. You need to learn the history of evil.
He'll lose the Jewish vote (yea 2% of population i know, doesnt change much) and the jewish donor's money for 2012 and that will decide the election.
he guaranteed he wont be re-elected.
Most mainstream moderate democrats (like myself) arent like this, but it seems many far left "progressives" flat out hate Jews and Israel.
it was a token of consolation for the muslim community knowing that israel would laugh and do nothing.. yet it makes obama look good to the islamic world
Terrorists unimpressed with Obama's words: President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech Thursday was a "total failure," Hamas said Thursday evening.
"The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama," said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. "Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel's crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel's occupation."
"We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances," the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: "We object to intervention in our internal affairs."
Abu-Zuhri also urged the Palestinian Authority not to endorse the American president's speech. He stressed the need to coordinate Palestinian positions in the face of what he referred to as "American-Israeli arrogance."
Other Hamas sources said the president's speech was "deceptive."
He can say whatever he wants - but nothing will happen. Also US military funding is only 14% of IDF budget.
That's hilarious, appeasement only makes a bully hungrier. Proof.
Because you're a self loathing racist, everybody knows this.My dad is jewish and my brother is full blown hacidic (truth, just don't talk about it much, why would I?).
I guess you're right. I didn't know that until you pointed out that he lied on the election day. I had only assumed he was because the US vetoed the UN resolution which would allow Palestinian Settlements, because he said the US has an unbreakable tie to Israel, and because he supported giving them the antirocket dome.Obama was never "the most pro Israel president"
He'll lose the Jewish vote (yea 2% of population i know, doesnt change much) and the jewish donor's money for 2012 and that will decide the election.
he guaranteed he wont be re-elected.
He'll lose the Jewish vote (yea 2% of population i know, doesnt change much) and the jewish donor's money for 2012 and that will decide the election.
he guaranteed he wont be re-elected.
I heard the President give a speech this morning as I was getting ready for work. Not sure if it is the original speech, but in it he called for the '67 borders with land swaps. In other words, Israel is entitled to no more land than it had before the '67 war, but may negotiate land swaps to avoid giving up strategic territory. Chris Wallace was making the point that this isn't materially different from Bush or Clinton. Personally I don't think Israel should give back land won in its defensive wars any more than I think we should give up Texas, but either Obama has modified his position, or this isn't really that much of a change in US policy - more of a change in emphasis. The thing about giving up part of Jerusalem, that's a bigger deal as Jerusalem is the capital. East Jerusalem however is predominantly Arab now. Of course, all Jews in East Jerusalem would have to be leave their homes, as Jews in an Arab state are not safe like Arabs in Israel, and likely mortar attacks over the wall would be a continuing problem. (Personally I recommend an automated defense system that automatically fires a score of 120mm shells back to saturate the calculated fire point, but no doubt some would have a problem with even that.)
I heard the President give a speech this morning as I was getting ready for work. Not sure if it is the original speech, but in it he called for the '67 borders with land swaps. In other words, Israel is entitled to no more land than it had before the '67 war, but may negotiate land swaps to avoid giving up strategic territory. Chris Wallace was making the point that this isn't materially different from Bush or Clinton. Personally I don't think Israel should give back land won in its defensive wars any more than I think we should give up Texas, but either Obama has modified his position, or this isn't really that much of a change in US policy - more of a change in emphasis. The thing about giving up part of Jerusalem, that's a bigger deal as Jerusalem is the capital. East Jerusalem however is predominantly Arab now. Of course, all Jews in East Jerusalem would have to be leave their homes, as Jews in an Arab state are not safe like Arabs in Israel, and likely mortar attacks over the wall would be a continuing problem. (Personally I recommend an automated defense system that automatically fires a score of 120mm shells back to saturate the calculated fire point, but no doubt some would have a problem with even that.)
I agree, Israel doesn't have to give back land, but if it wants to hold on to that land, it needs to integrate it and give the residents citizenship. It can't have it both ways, land is Israel, but residents of the land are not Israelis.
Do you really think a significant portion of the pro-Israel electorate will vote for him in any case? I'm thinking maybe 2% at most, which granted can easily sway an election but isn't necessarily a guaranteed loss. Seems to me that might be offset by energizing his base which is largely anti-Israel, if not anti-Jew.That's essentially correct. Most of his speech was pro-Israel, and this one comment wasn't materially different from previous administrations. Pre-1967 borders "with land swaps" is similar to what was on the table at Camp David under Clinton.
It's also important to note that anything Obama says about this is a calculation, a political one really. The brass ring for his administration is to conclude a peace deal here. So whatever Obama says it's because he *thinks* that taking that position will further the chance of such a deal closing. In this case, it might possibly be to help prod the pals to the negotiating table, and then once at the table, if Obama backs off the full pre-1967 borders just a little bit, then Israel perceives that it is getting more than what the US POTUS deemed appropriate at the outset and hence might be more inclined to take such a deal. It's part of the psychology of a negotiation.
However, while that might be his thinking, in reality it's probably a political blunder. The truth is that no peace accord will be reached during this administration and probably not the next either. Taking any position which even seems to be remotely pro-palestinian is only going to alienate a largely pro-Israel electorate. Case in point - it gives the political right ammunition like we're seeing here in this thread. It's a big gamble which will bolster his political fortunes if it pays off, but unfortunately for him I don't see it paying off and hence I think it was likely a mistake.
- wolf
Do you really think a significant portion of the pro-Israel electorate will vote for him in any case? I'm thinking maybe 2% at most, which granted can easily sway an election but isn't necessarily a guaranteed loss. Seems to me that might be offset by energizing his base which is largely anti-Israel, if not anti-Jew.
Israel doesn't have to give back any of that land, it can exist in a state of war till the end. On the other hand if it actually wants to broker a peace deal they should give it some consideration.