Obama to impose a solution
By Ted Belman
Obama has surrounded himself with a host of vehemently ant-Israel advisors including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Gen Jones, many of who advocate imposing a solution on Israel.
So it was no surprise that he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, and demanding a complete settlement freeze east of the greenline including Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the US commitment set out in the Bush ’04 letter to Sharon saying there was no agreement. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter testified otherwise.
In January ’09 before Obama had gotten his act together, Haaretz, reported
-
“Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands”.
Within a few months, that commitment was history.
PM Netanyahu, who had campaigned on the rejection of the two state –solution and on continued settlement growth, attempted to deflect or resist the pressure. One can only imagine the Tools of Persuasion that Netanyahu was subjected to. Finally on June 12/09 Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.
-
“We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of
the other.”
Nevermind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.
He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.”
With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction he affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements:.
As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.
At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated. Many complained that he had caved to the pressure without anything in return. Afterall, this was not the platform that Netanyahu had campaigned on.
A month later Obama met with Jewish leaders to reassure them and by all accounts the meeting went well. But shortly thereafter some Jewish leaders demanded that he make demands also on Arab countries. Obama publicly took up the challenge during the summer thereby admitting that Israel should get something in return. He was soundly rebuffed.
Undaunted, Obama then focused on getting Abbas to accept what Netanyahu had offered in his BESA speech when they met in September at the United Nations. Abbas refused to go along.. Obama had crapped out.
So it then came as a surprise that Netanyahu on Nov 26/09 announced a unilateral ten month freeze of settlement construction except for the 3500 units already announced and natural growth. But he emphasized that the freeze did not include Jerusalem. In fact a few days earlier, a new project of 800 units was announced for the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. Although Obama complained about it, he probably agreed to it to help Netanyahu win over his right wing.
The right in Israel was incensed; first by the acknowledgement of the two-state solution and now by the freeze, all with nothing in return.
On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,
-
“Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe 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.”
This is little different from Bush’s wording,
-
“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.”
Clinton referred to these realities as “subsequent developments”.
Thus the borders probably will be moved to the east of these blocks thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 100,000 give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.
So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen Mitchell had two months earlier endorsed in his name?
There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338” leaving open the possibility that Res 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines”. This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Whereas Bush had written “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel.”, Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res 194.
In the scheme of things these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit? Especially when Bush had said doing otherwise was “unrealistic”
Perhaps there was another reason.
Bush had committed in said letter that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”.
By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan as many in his administration recommend he do.
In case you haven’t noticed, neither Obama, nor his administration, refer to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.
It would appear that the Obama administration has no confidence that a negotiated solution will be achieved. Most pundits and politicians believe likewise and that includes Netanyahu.
The issues are too intractable, in part because the Arabs and more specifically the “Palestinians” are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. .They haven’t compromised in ninety years. Why start now.
Abbas continues to reject negotiations. He prefers an imposed solution too.
This standoff may lead to the disintegration of the PA. which would invite unilateral moves by Israel, the US or Hamas.
Will Obama push for a binational state or allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria? Will he attempt to impose a solution? The NYT, in a lead editorial this week, favoured Obama ” Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble. ”
Meanwhile Obama has less than six months to decide to what extend he will cooperate with Israel in bombing Iran.
ROTFL!
Ted…stop it!!
You’re killing me, dude!!!
More realistic question:
Will Obama allow the Palestinians to annex Tel Aviv and Haifa?
Obama has been entirely consistent throughout his adult life and during his administration.
Except when he was conning Jewish voters in his bid for the presidency, he has been relentlessly anti-Zionist.
His closest friends and advisers ALL hate Israel.
As a Marxist, he rejects Israel’s legitimacy (he also rejects America’s legitimacy, but that is a topic for another post).
Operating within the constraints of American public opinion during his first term, he will go as far as he can to damage Israel.
And if he is reelected, Katie bar the door.
Ayn, your right “Ted…stop it!!
Jews and Israelis need to stop this “the glass is half empty” attitude.
They must believe “the glass is half full”
Obama the community organizing acorn Muslim has no authority whatsoever in what takes place in Israel.
Only the people of Israel and her government officials have those rights and we won’t forget G-d and like the old commercial saying “Don’t mess with
mother natureG-d/God”Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama to impose a solution : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies
you mean rather
ayn was your rolling on the floor in laughter figurative or literal?
Can I picture in my mind such a sight? You bet. As someone who LOVES Mark Levin any image is conceivable.
The commando mentality of Israeli governmet: Netanyahu’s and Barak’s experiences serving in commando units affects their political mentality. Commandos are necessarily tacticians with short time horizons: the mission must be completed at all costs. Politicians,on the other hand, must be extremely flexible and accommodating.
Thus, when the duo decided to freeze construction, they did so unreservedly and threatened force. Their cavalier tactics provoked riots in the settlements, and a major anti-freeze rally is scheduled in Jerusalem.
To Ted’s provocative and inane question No, and neither will any Israeli government. It’s going to be left to Zealous Jews and Zealous Arabs that will determine the final disposition and or divisions in Y&S. They have guns and bombs and we got guns and bombs. What we don’t have we can get. This is a very volatile and toxic mix. Bottom line is that some Jews and Arabs will remove the input of governments and create irrevocable facts on the ground.
And here I was beginning to suspect that you are Mark Levin.
Hardly, I am better looking and have a sense of humor. That said,we are mostly on the same page on topical subjects.
Narvey says you are humorless.
peskin says you are humorless.
While technically that does not comprise a minyan, when you consideration their joint intellectual wattage and vast powers of perception, it would seem as though the smart money posits that on the humor scale you fall somewhere between Bob Barr and Erwin Rommel.
Insofar as your appearance is concerned, handsome is as handsome does.
Hey, I thought Charles Bronson was a doll, so I am easy to please.
To form a minyan you need to have a min. of ten Jewish males over the age of 13, which presupposes a barmitzva.
At least you didn’t suggest as a comparison some combinations like: Barney Frank/Bernie Sanders and Rasputin/Quasimodo
You’re right , but I never claimed to be objective.
Bronson? No not pretty but I can understand his appeal.
Now Buffalo Bob Smith : I would think you would have right up there in your good looking dept. If you thought Bronson a doll? Smith should rate more than favorably.
A liberal who loves country music?
Oh, that would be the long haired greasy looking guy standing in the welfare office singing through his nose.
Buffalo Bob has two strikes against him. First, Howdy Doody was better looking. And second, Buffalo Bob is dead.
I might be able to get past that second one, but…
Parenthetically, Ted’s a good looking guy…an improved version of James Caan.
Ruggedly handsome.
Or is that a vanity photo?
Ted, did you pay a model to pretend to be you?
Ted, was comment # 11 solicited by you? Are you ayn reagan in cyber drag?”
James Caan?
Ted,
Please allow peskin to stay and ban yamit.
Thank you.
Hey Yamit, don’t rain on my parade.
Din rodef The Law of the pursurer
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l4408.htm
hp
RESPONSE:When Israel game into existence some 62 years ago,it was not the brand name that led to its creation. Rather, the determined effort of a group of people with common ethnicity, religion and way of life overcoming great difficulty that resulted in the successful birth of the state. No less important was international recognition and ongoing support from many quarters that has sustained Israel during some very difficult times. Of course the name Palestine was abandoned in favour of Israel- which meant that name (palestine) had come into the public domain.
The Palestinians define themselves as a distinct people with a common culture, ethnicity, religion and has now been recognized as such by almost the whole world. They are viewed as a quasi state in its formative stages. With all the hostility between Israel and Palestine,the former has been spending millions of shekels to build the Palestinian infrastructure, institutions and defence facilities. The majority of Israelis are not against the creation of a Palestinian State so long as that state poses no security threat to Israel.
History has shown that when a group of people see a hopeful future for themselves and are busy building a prosperous life, rancour and hostilty dissipates.When going to war means you risk losing something valuable such as your home, job or even your life, you are
not likely to go down that path. Finally after many years of outside prodding, Israel has understood the wisdom of such a strategy.
During the last two years Israel and Palestine has been building bonds of goodwill. The Palestinian economy has been growing very steadily and the degree of cooperation between both groups has been growing.The future looks hopeful. Time will tell
.
Worked like a charm in 1930s Europe. Germany had a thriving economy, and threw it all away at the altar of hatred.
“Building bonds of goodwill” being defined as the Palestinians continuing to insist that the Jews must die.
So with all this goodwill, what would happen if the Jews laid down their weapons? How many minutes would they survive?
peskin, your misogyny and vulgarity are far less offensive than this delusional screed.
If you really believe a word of the inebriated fable that you have just vomited forth, you are simply too weak to deal with reality.
Like all liberals, you are a craven danger to those who value freedom.
If the Palestinians were really interested in building bonds of goodwill, let it begin with the recognition of Israel a sovereign Jewish Nation and Jerusalem as it’s capital. And in doing so outlaw terrorism and terrorist groups such as Hamas and any other Iranian puppet organization.
That’s just for beginners.
Re: #15 Don’t understand what your point is?
On this site we have a Goy Rongrand who loves Israel and respects Jews.
On this site we have Peskin who hates Israel and would see her disappear if he could manage it himself and hates Jews including himself .
I think it is obvious who of the two we should accept as a friend and who we should nominate for a candidate of Din Rodeff.
Remember Peskin it was you who brought this subject up here and it is a Halacha ( Jewish Law). Salomon believes we should obey the Law, he didn’t say what laws though so I agree our laws should be observed. Peskin do you agree?
ron, you have singlehandedly brought yamit to his senses.
This achievement rivals Moses parting the Red Sea.
Where once yamit railed against the evil goyim, he is now like a purring circumcised kitten in your Gentile lap.
I would not now be surprised if on December 25 yamit declares that he has constructed a creche that he proudly displays in the front yard of his Taj Mahal-style estate.
Forget Anne Sullivan.
rongrand is truly the Miracle Worker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCAAq_79ubg&feature=related
The Husband Store A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates: You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building! So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1 – These men Have Jobs She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads: Floor 2 – These men Have Jobs and Love Kids. That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’ So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads: Floor 3 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking. Wow,’ she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads: Floor 4 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework. ‘Oh, mercy me!’ she exclaims, ‘I can hardly stand it!’ Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak. She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads: Floor 6 – You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.
PLEASE NOTE: To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened a New Wives store just across the street. The first floor has wives who love sex. The second floor has wives who love sex and have money and like beer. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited.
yamit, you continue to avoid the issue.
Ted is adorable.
Admit it.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama to impose a solution -- Topsy.com
ayn- my little pussycat
Sez who? After the first world war, Germany was saddled with huge reparation payments (treaty of versailles) which served to cripple its economy. It led to the bitterness which Hitler capitalized on to attain his position of supremecy in the German Reich.
After the second world war the west had learned its lesson and rapidly built up both Germany and Japan leading to a peaceful post war Europe.
If only had Israell learned this obvious lesson.
Ayn, I actually like women and I find those who really don’t understand much in life very endearing.I often fall in love with with these adorable creatures.
With regard to our relationship, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtLpt0N2esE
S
Holy shit, peskin. Are you angling for a berth in the Special Olympics?
Germany had been economically resurrected before seeking to rid the European continent of Jews.
Poland had millions of Jews after Germany’s economic renaissance, but the Germans were unsatisfied with prosperity…they wanted to kill Hebrews, so they marched eastward and slaughtered the Chosen.
Anti-Semites cannot be bribed into civility.
The Palestinians’ genocidal intentions are sincere.
If lack of money was the problem, the Saudis would be amenable to coexisting with Jews..which they most definitely are not.
One more asinine comment out of you and I will confiscate your vast stockpile of Depends undergarments.
Peskin speaks again!!! Using simplistic euphemistic historical revisionism as his sole argumentative pillar; another failed “hpeskin” attempt to sound knowledgeable and relevant which for Tosstsie is oxymoronic and an Impossibility.
Real causes of WWII: Mostly: Because Adolf Hitler wanted Europe in his power.
The war in Europe was caused by the German invasion of Poland and the war in Asia was triggered by the Japanese invasion of China. Searching for more fundamental causes is more complicated and becomes intertwined with answers to “What could have prevented World War 2?” and “What chains of events led to WW2?”
There were four immediate causes:
Hitler invaded Poland bringing France and Great Britain into the war.
Japan took over Manchuria bringing China into the war.
Japan attacked the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor bringing the US into the war.
Germany invaded the USSR bringing the Soviet Union into the war.
On September 1, 1939 Hitler sent troops into Poland after repeatedly being told NOT to try and take over neighboring countries by England and France. On this date they had had enough and formally declared war on Germany September 3, 1939.
The treaty signed after World War I treated Germany very harshly and was greatly resented by the German people.
The size of Germany’s military was severely restricted.
Germany lost territory in Europe and was forced to give up territories from its overseas colonies.
Germany was ordered to pay $33 billion in reparations (war damages).
This left Germany with grievances. In the Great Depression, which hit Germany early in 1930, unemployment was at terrible levels. Hitler made it his responsibility to defy all of the charges made on Germany through the Treaty. He re-armed the nation, built up a massive army, re-militarized the Rhineland, and threatened neighboring states. It was obvious he was preparing for war.
Appeasement, Isolationism, and the Failure of the League of Nations
At the end of World War I, the victorious nations formed the League of Nations for the purpose of airing international disputes, and of mobilizing its members for a collective effort to keep the peace in the event of aggression by any nation against another or of a breach of the peace treaties. The United States, imbued with isolationism, did not become a member. The Soviet Union was not admitted till 1935 … The League failed in its first test. In 1931, the Japanese, using as an excuse the explosion of a small bomb under a section of track of the South Manchuria Railroad (over which they had virtual control), initiated military operations designed to conquer all of Manchuria. After receiving the report of its commission of inquiry, the League adopted a resolution in 1933 calling on the Japanese to withdraw. Thereupon, Japan resigned from the League. Meanwhile, Manchuria had been overrun and transformed into a Japanese puppet state under the name of Manchukuo. Beset by friction and dissension among its members, the League took no further action. Also in 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power as dictator of Germany and began to rearm the country in contravention of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. He denounced the provisions of that treaty that limited German armament and in 1935 re-instituted compulsory military service. That same year the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini began his long-contemplated invasion of Ethiopia, which he desired as an economic colony. The League voted minor sanctions against Italy, but these had little practical effect. British and French efforts to effect a compromise settlement failed, and Ethiopia was completely occupied by the Italians in 1936.
Alarmed by German rearmament, France sought an alliance with the USSR. Under the pretext that this endangered Germany, Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936. It was a dangerous venture, for Britain and France could have overwhelmed Germany, but, resolved to keep the peace, they took no action. Emboldened by this success, Hitler intensified his campaign for Lebensraum (living space) for the German people. He annexed Austria in March 1938, and then, charging abuse of German minorities, threatened Czechoslovakia.
In September, as Hitler increased his demands on the Czechs and war seemed imminent, the British and French arranged a conference with Hitler and Mussolini. At the Munich Conference they agreed to German occupation of the Sudetenland, Hitler’s asserted last claim, in the hope of maintaining peace. This hope was short lived, for in March 1939, Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia and seized the former German port of Memel from Lithuania. There followed demands on Poland with regard to Danzig (Gdansk) and the Polish Corridor. The Poles remained adamant, and it became clear to Hitler that he could attain his objectives only by force. After surprising the world with the announcement of a nonaggression pact with his sworn foe, the Soviet Union, he sent his armies across the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939.
The US policy of isolationism
Leading up to World War II, the United States of America maintained a policy of isolation. The United States focused little attention on any conflicts occurring outside of their borders.
Pingback: Obama's Road map - Page 3
Yamit . Stop the name calling. I don’t want to have to check all your comments.
I have checked his comments, Ted, and they are truly vile.
Wait…those are my comments.
Never mind.
My comments are viler than yours.
ayn/yamit. I have checked your comments and they are equally vile. Vile beyond belief.
Equally vile beyond belief?
Since that constitutes a pattern, maybe you better start believing.