As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Bibi is upset because a foreign government is declaring their right his foreign policy. This is probably the #1 complaint that Israelis have about the U.S., but especially for Obama.
If El Jefe had been a little more nuanced and not so arrogant, that would’ve been helpful.
Obama just outlined for the world his preconditions. He placed the blame & responsibility on Israel to meet Palestinian demands instead of demanding the two sides to come together and talk. Furthermore, he more or less recognized the legitimacy of the Super Terrorist Hamas and Weaker Terrorist Fatah union.
There was an op-ed in the U.S. somewhere that said it would’ve been nice if Obama had a letter - since after the re-election, he doesn’t have to waffle anymore.
There was an op-ed today in the NYT by the MP that said if the PLO thinks it can go unilateral, so can Israel. sigh Let’s see what Friday brings…
Bibi is actually acting a lot like Sharon right now. Ironic. But he has always been a serious politician.
Is there any reason to think this speech will mean absolutely nothing tomorrow? I mean, really, so what if Obama says “x”? The Israelis aren’t going to agree to anything they don’t figure out on their own is in their best interest. The Palestinians aren’t gong to do anything different either.
There have been alternatives. Bibi has said so. He just won’t do anything on Obama’s conditions. Bibi & Obama aren’t exactly bffs.
Most Israelis aren’t opposed to 67-like borders that still ensure security. But Obama is giving Abbas new talking points. :rolleyes:
I don’t think that President Obama (er, I hope) will throw Israel under the bus here. But this is a guy who’s shown us he’s more concerned about his legacy and being right than actually doing what is right.* I say this as a true blue loyal Democrat.
before I get the Zionist bias criticism, I should note that I’ve objected his domestic policies re: healthcare (sellout), bailout (pandering), education (ignorance).
Yeah, well, that is the fate of client states. They rely on other people’s money, they have to listen to other people’s ideas. So you’re saying you have less problem with Obama’s ideas than with Obama himself?
OK, but that is sort of another topic, isn’t it?
Really? Which speech were you watching? Please provide a cite. Thanks.
I’m willing to bet that Israeli pollsters have been burning up the telephone lines since Obama’s speech last night; the results will probably be in this morning’s papers. The results will be telling.
Israeli politicians are just like American politicians: nothing you can threaten then with can be worse than the threat to their re-election. If the polls are in favor of Obama’s plan, you’ll see some other progress, if not, you’ll see zilch. Personally, I’m not optimistic - Bibi’s administration may not be that popular, but Obama has done little to win over the Israeli public. We’re talking about a man who’s visited Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but won’t consider visiting the only country around here that actually likes America. You may not think that means much, but to Israelis, all politics are personal.
OK, so what is the best-case scenario for Israel? Ultimately, there’s going to have to be either a one-state solution, or a two-state solution. If Israel doesn’t want a two-state solution because that would leave their borders vulnerable, and they don’t want a one-state solution because that would put Jews in the minority, then what do they want? What else is left?
Abbas has already aligned with Hamas, saying he didn’t care about Israel and U.S. support and moved away from the negotiating table.
For Obama to outline conditions in the same speech that praises self-determination movements elsewhere - those movements that are nothing like Hamas and the PLO - is a slap in the face to every Israeli that has been subject to terrorist acts.
The whole speech was about independence and revolution.
I saw a weak slap on the wrist for suicide bombers…President Obama voted for sovereignty before he voted against it.
I am not suggesting that the U.S. (or any country) shouldn’t use its relative power. But I am saying that Obama’s actions have not been seen as Israeli-friendly in the least, nor was keeping Israel’s PM in the dark about his speech helpful.
snippero
*
Wait, didn’t you just…?
Okay. That’s in line with what most people think.
Oh now that’s wide-open for interpretation, and not in a conductive peace process kind of way.
(the drone of the jaw drops was deafening)
Does this mean Hamas is legitimate?
…did he just suggest that Israel cede part of the Negev or something? Doubt it. But what does that mean?
And who the hell in Israel elected Obama to be their leader?
Word of advice: don’t read the Jerusalem Post. It caters to the American immigrant community in Israel, a sector noticeably more right-wing and frankly, more crazy than mainstream Israeli society.
Oh, no! The Babushkas from the farmlands of Russia have a divine right to occupy the land of other people, and they want to keep killing and stealing land forever, so now they’re dissatisfied with Obama!
More posturing by the messiah. Obama made the speech to show the palestinians that he is working “for them”.
The speech also riles up the israelis-which allows them to be properly outraged.
Absolutely nothing to see here, move on.
As long as the money keeps flowing from the US taxpayers, nothing changes.
