No, you are not. Standard political boilerplate. Words not followed by action are just that, words.
I wait with bated breath to hearing his speech at AIPAC. Not. Actually I wonder why the fuck he accepted to go there in the first place. Justify last night’s speech and put it in “proper” context?
Oh well, if nothing else he’s stirred the pot:
ZOA: AIPAC Should Rescind Invitation for Obama to Speak
&
There is nothing new in the speech re Israel/Palestine, it is just reaffermation of previous positions.
What is sorta new, at least for Israel, is Bibi’s rejectionist stance. There can be no peace progress with Bibi in charge, since he’ll just find ways to reject everything.
Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its ‘kill everyone in Israel’ policy.
It’s going to be hard to get any negotiations going with Bibi on one end, and a Hamas-dominated PA on the other. Obama’s speech is whistling in the wind - until, that is, those two problems (Bibi and Hamas/PA) are solved.
Seems to me that current Israeli leadership want a Versailles peace. And just like the French, their over-reaching on backwards-looking ideas on security will buy less security, not more. Pity. I wish the damned thing would be settled rather than festering and infecting the rest of world.
Of course not. After all, we know that Real Americans Defend Israel!!
And Obama is a real one, right? Hmm..maybe not:
May 19, 2011 - The Day America is betrayed and Israel, our ally, thrown under the bus
Are you sure of that? I know it’s been reported (and was on Morning Joe), but as far as I understand it Resolution 273, which admitted Israel as a member to the General Assembly, was only a General Assembly resolution and no UNSC vote…
He is. Sort of.
– bolding mine.
So that’s that.
ETA: Article devoted to that very question: Can Palestine Join the UN?
The current Israeli leadership wants the status quo to continue. The Israeli public has enabled them, because they became utterly disillusioned by the inability of previous Israeli leaderships to deliver a deal with the PA, in spite of offering all sorts of non-Versailles-like concessions.
That was in the days when the PA was united and did not include Hamas. Then came the unilateral pull-out from Gaza, which gave the Israelis a glimpse of what a possible independant Palestinian state entity might be like - and they did not like it one bit: a state dominated by Hamas, bombarding them with rockets. Not a “peace” worth having, really.
Now, this month, Hamas and the PA are amalgamating again - and Hamas is variously stating it will not give up on its ‘kill all [Jewish] Israelis’ plan. This is, once again, not motivating the Israeli public into thinking offering concessions for “peace” is a good idea. The fear is that the Palestinian entity may take the concessions and deliver a Gaza-like form of “peace” - that is, a peace not really worth having - since there is really no ‘magic’, on the Palestinian side, to accepting the 1967 borders.
There is this notion that, if Israel pulled back to its '67 borders (with agreed swaps) definitively, peace would break out. This is not a given. I’d say more like peace would become more probable, which is reason enough to pursue it - but selling that notion to the Israeli public isn’t going to be easy in light of recent history. Other pull-backs have resulted, not in more peace, but in less.
All of this has empowered Bibi and his ilk at the expense of more reasonable parties within Israel.
That’s fine. In the mean time Israel is growing and Palestine shrinking one block at a time and the US won’t do a thing about it. Soft diplomacy is carrot and stick, regarding Israel Americas policy seems to be no stick and an unlimited supply of carrots.
No amout of sticking and carroting can make the people in the ME be reasonable. If the Hamas/PA will not give up the stance that they will not accept anything less that total destruction of Israel, a peace deal is unrealistic - it could only be imposed by forcibly policing the Palestinian border. Making the Israelis accept a deal, without guaranteeing some sort of peace, is simply a formula for future war (assuming that the US could in fact force the Israelis to accept a deal with sufficient application of the stick). What will happen when the new, improved Palestine starts lobbing rockets over the border, and asking nicely doesn’t get them to stop?
Ok, thanks! What’s still not perfectly clear to me is whether Palestine could still be alowed representation in the General Assembly? Perhaps I’m nitpicking here but it hinges on the question of whether entrance to the assembly (like res 273 allowed for Israel) and granting of statehood is the same thing..
Both of you are out of line, and I’m giving you each a formal warning. Naxos, your behavior needs to improve if you want to be on this site in the long term. Alessan, what you said is not allowed on this site in any language (and we prefer people post in English).
No, sir, no, it is not ridiculous at all.
Oh, taken that Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid totaling $3 billion a year what are we getting for our money?
A military response, like always, but what compels us to donate the guns? And what compels Israel to limit their provocative measures?
I think you are missing my point.
Assume that Obama, or someone in the US, is able to successfully force Israel into accepting a peace deal, and ceases any subsidies.
What then? Seems likely enough that you would get the same situation re-enacted, as has been the case time and again.
Remember that in 1967, the US was not offering any substantive susidies to Israel. This fact made no difference.
The main “provocative measure” made by Israel is the very fact of its existence - at least, if you listen to Hamas. As long as that remains true, peace will remain elusive.
I know everyone’s heard this a million times, but really, there are only a few options here.
A long time ago back in 1967 a three state solution might have worked–hand Gaza back to Egypt, and the West Bank back to Jordan. Except Egypt and Jordan don’t want them and won’t take them. So that’s impossible.
Continue the status quo? How’s that working out? And suppose the Palestinians finally get a clue from the Arab Spring and start some nonviolent protests?
Annex the West Bank? OK, that could happen. Except then you have to decide if the Palestinians are going to be citizens of Greater Israel, which means Israel is no longer a Jewish state, or you decide they’re not citizens, which means Israel is no longer a democracy.
And so, we’re left with a two state solution. And guess what, with a two state solution we’re left with something pretty close to the 1967 borders, with as the President so helpfully pointed out in the same sentence, mutually agreed upon swaps.
Israel can be a Jewish state, it can be a democracy, and it can control the West Bank. It can’t do all three at the same time.
Just a short note to highlight the part of Obama’s speech where he makes it perfectly clear that the US won’t be supporting the UN resolution giving Palestine statehood:
– bolding mine.
Here’s an interesting opinion piece on it:
This is the most significant part:
With Hamas as part of the PA side, Obama simply could not plausibly cram a deal down Bibi’s throat, even if he wanted to - my point above.
Another reason they have to go: Look how many Israeli settlements are right on the Jordan River. To be independent, Palestine must wield exclusive control over its side of its border with Jordan.
What a bullshit argument, Zionism, by its very definition, is against the existence of Palestine (as it was known to Palestinians before 48), does that mean that any Israeli political party (I do believe political parties in Israel cant legally have an anti Zionist stance, correct me if I’m wrong) should be permanently excluded from any possible peace talks?
Why does Netanyahu keep saying the Green Line is not a defensible border between Israel and Palestine? Seems to me any border would be defensible, at least by the Israelis. It will be a long, long time before independent Palestine has an army that matters, compared to the IDF.