Better to discuss whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table while Obama’s reelection still is on the table
Is there any doubt that Obama will put the screws on Israel to come close to doing what people like Jeffrey Goldberg insist “my President” will not do, which is force Israel to make dangerous concessions?
When there is no reelection on the horizon, when Jewish campaign donors have no Obama campaign to which they can contribute, when the opinions of the vast majority of Americans don’t matter, when Obama is free of the constraints of the political process…. that’s when you will see the full force of Obama come into play to force a “historic” peace deal.
Bret Stephens makes that point in The Wall Street Journal:
What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.
That’s the most troubling thing.
Goldberg and others are afraid that Netanyahu upset Obama by speaking up for Israel. Quite the contrary, Obama is going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether Netanyahu speaks up or not, and it only will get worse in a second term.
So it was better for Netanyahu to engage on the issue of whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table, while Obama’s reelection still is on the table.
Update: Thanks to commenter @Timb for the quote which proves that Obama adopted the Palestinian position: “the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps….” That was not the Israeli position or the U.S. position.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Hi Bill! I'm not a Sparky fan, but I have to tell you, I think he's being roasted unfairly over this one:
When he said he had just said publicly what has been said privately, he was right. In fact, it hasn't been all that private, and he's not even close to being the first guy to say it.
There are plenty of valid points over which to roast Sparky. Why don't we stick with them, rather than alpha sierra over this one?
Obama is going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether Netanyahu speaks up or not, and it only will get worse in a second term.
This cartoon agree with you
Captures the essence of the matter with eloquent elegance.
And a commentator argues against situational awareness?! (I think it's sierra alpha, rather than alpha sierra.) Curious when situational awareness should be considered irrelevant, unnecessary, whatever. Commentator sounds like a moby, assessing from that devaluation of situational awareness: "not to be concerned with the signs that I am planning to remove your finger nails with red hot pokers, we have important things to discuss, such as coffee, how about some, first?"
As my husband says, it is customary for a US President to wait for the end of the second term to try his hand at the "peace process".
Here is a joint statement from Bibi Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a few months back:
"Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States’ unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and to peace in the region.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement."
Seems Bibi knew American policy long before you guys did (what a shock! The American Likud respond more to an foreign leader than their own). Hell, in 2008, Olmert offered the Palestinians a deal based upon the 1967 lines.
Still, when would a decade of US policy and a UN Resolution (242) get in the way of a good Obama hissy fit from the self-styled "patriot" crowd.
I'd have to say, based upon your performance here, that there are more Patriots on the field at Foxoboro during a game than there are in the entire Tea party movement
Hello David! Alpha Sierra: "Ape Shit." Now. Take a deep breath, please, and go back and read what I wrote. I didn't write that Sparky was correct. I wrote that he did not say what he is being 'accused' of saying. He did not call for a unilateral withdrawal to the pre-'67 lines. And, he said nothing that at least two of his predecessors – Bush II and Clinton – have also said. So, why was it acceptable for those two to formulate US policy on that concept, but not Sparky? Help me out here, please.
IT iS ALL IN THE WAY HE SAYS IT!
"which proves that Obama adopted the Palestinian position: "the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps"
Is there anyone in America who believes Obama, or his supporters, would have even considered not adopting the Palestinian position?