Dem congress: Obama 'tilting toward Hamas'

[ed1066]

Wow! The president's own party knows he is a Hamas sympathizer, and they're not afraid to say it. He is toast!

House Dems side with Netanyahu over Obama

thehill.com/homenews/house/163003-house-lawmakers-side-with-netanyahu

House members side with Netanyahu
By Mike Lillis - 05/24/11 04:05 PM ET

House lawmakers from both parties are siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over President Obama in their differing approaches to the Israel-Palestine border dispute.

Obama last week called for Israel's 1967 borders to mark the "foundation" for renewing stalled peace talks between the two sides – a concession to Palestine that Netanyahu has bluntly rejected, including in remarks to a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday.

"The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv," Netanyahu told lawmakers in his 45-minute address. "And under any realistic peace agreement these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel."

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) said Tuesday that Obama is "tilting toward Hamas" – a reference to the Palestinian group the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization. He emphasized that Congress would never base its approach to Israeli aid on such a position.

"A majority of the Congress disagrees with him,” Andrews said of Obama.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), for one, said the president "absolutely … made a mistake" with his 1967-borders proposal, and suggested it would harm — rather than bolster — the chances of renewed peace talks.

"With all of the political turmoil and unrest in the Middle East, I don’t understand why the president injected himself into that issue right now," he said.

Both Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the House Democratic whip, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have also rejected Obama's proposal in recent days, telling the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that preconditions have no place in the negotiations.

"No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else," Reid said Monday night to roaring applause.

Israel has expanded its borders considerably since 1967, most notably during that year's Six Day War, when Israel conquered parts of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Thousands of Israelis have settled in the border regions.

While it is not unlike other plans promoted by past administrations, Obama’s call has provoked an outcry from Israeli leaders, Republican presidential hopefuls and a slew of Capitol Hill lawmakers, including some Democrats.

Addressing AIPAC Sunday, Obama sought to temper those concerns. The president clarified that he's not calling for those boundaries to be the final lines and emphasized that "mutually agreed [land] swaps" would ensure that they wouldn't be.

"By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," he said. "That is what mutually accepted swaps means."

After Netanyahu's speech Tuesday, Hoyer downplayed the division between Obama and Israel's allies in Congress, saying both sides have moved beyond the rift.

"I don’t think the president had any intention of changing policy," he said. "He said it was subject to swaps, in order words, adjustments. That’s essentially what President Bush said. I think we’re beyond that."

[deziloooooo]

"Addressing AIPAC Sunday, Obama sought to temper those concerns. The president clarified that he's not calling for those boundaries to be the final lines and emphasized that "mutually agreed [land] swaps" would ensure that they wouldn't be.

"By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," he said. "That is what mutually accepted swaps means."

After Netanyahu's speech Tuesday, Hoyer downplayed the division between Obama and Israel's allies in Congress, saying both sides have moved beyond the rift.

"I don’t think the president had any intention of changing policy," he said. "He said it was subject to swaps, in order words, adjustments. That’s essentially what President Bush said. I think we’re beyond that."
----------------------------------------------

It's amusing with all the hype and Drama so many put on these speeches, there are other words that are said , same topicle , but for some reason, while they make sense and are correct, to many don't want to hear.

[deziloooooo]

There are so many positive comments on the PM speech , it's true, but then again, there are also other voices being heard.
I could continue with all the posts who are against the ones who are applauding Natanjahu beliefs, siding with the POTUS as well as posts who support him, Natanjahu..some of the posts against Israel, granted a bit of anti semetic there, ok , but so many, not , just not happy with the status quo, but on this zone , lets face it, it isn't a real zone for discussion and debate . It is a zone of one side trying to drown out those who want discussion and debate, which is not their agenda, aand a zone that caters to their ideas only , all others , really should be silent or even those posters, better that they are gone from here, not really wanted. To bad , the zone did hav potential, but a vocal few in working together seem to have killed that potential.[sigh}
So this is a small answer, there are two sides to this question, and your side of the issue is just that, one side of the issue





-------------------------------------------------------------
BY Adam on 05/24/2011 at 16:46
I for one was glad to hear Obama's call for the boundaries. What do we get for our constant support of Israel? We should just walk away and let them all fight it out. 40 years of my life we hear the same thing. I'm tired of hearing about Israel and Palastine and I don't care if they both destroy each other.
------------------------------------------------------
BY rey on 05/24/2011 at 16:44
Why are we still being led around by the Israel lobby? Every problem in the middle east can be traced back to this country. If there is ever going to be peace in the middle east, then Israel had better get realistic about where it stands, because the day will come when the US will not be under the thumb of this nation that has no interest in working with the US, instead of using the US for it's own ends. The arrogance is amazing
---------------------------------------------------------
BY SHOCKER1 on 05/24/2011 at 16:48
The blind allegience to Likud by members of Congress is disgraceful. Dont confuse Israel's interest with Likud agenda. Everyone who follows this issue at all knows that the solution is based on 67 borders. Obama was right to call fro end of settlements and frankly didnt go far enough as Bibi has not shown one shred of interest in a Palestinian state. It is ironic he complains about failure to recognize Israel when he has never taken one step to do the same. There would never be another situation where US interests could be dismissed so casually by our own members of congress or other foreign allies…
----------------------------------------------------------
BY mightymike on 05/24/2011 at 16:53
The President is trying to get the peace talks started again. I believe he is flexible enough to consider the realities of the situation but there needs to some basic outline on which to build. The House members who disagree with our President should discuss it with him.Foreign policy matters should be led by the President and not some dopey congressman/women.

BY jim mcdonough on 05/24/2011 at 16:54
To bad more Americans don't go and visit Jerusalem, Bethlehem, jericho, and the west bank so they can see the indignity that the Palestinians experience. All made possible by American's apathy towards our foreign policy.

BY Jon on 05/24/2011 at 16:54
It seems that neither side is willing to give up what they want, so I say "forget both sides" and let them fight over it themselves. Ahhh, but the Christians wackos who take the Bible seriously won't allow it because they need the Jews to exist for the Rapture to occur in Jeruselam. What do we get in return for our overwhelmingly one-sided support of Israel?

BY Casual Observer on 05/24/2011 at 16:56
The war began with a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel. The outcome was a swift and decisive Israeli victory. Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Opinions are divided on whether Israel's attack was an act of aggression or a preemptive strike of a defensive nature.

BY BrentC on 05/24/2011 at 16:58
Beginning negotiations with the 1967 borders has been the cornerstone of ALL Israel/Palestinian peace negotiations dating back to Richard Nixon. The Presidents who supported this view include Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So, for anyone to be "shocked" by Obama's announcement only shows the speaker to be frightfully ignorant to history. The only thing that has changed is Netanyahu. Like Conservatives here, peace is the enemy. War pays the bills.

BY mcalvinlaw on 05/24/2011 at 16:58
The issue of the borders was brought up as a red-herein for the greater issue of a Palestinian state. Obama didn't mandate borders be the exact same as the 1967 ones, but based on them. Netanyahu got to go before congress and play the part of a hero defending Israel, but the debate is not about denying Palestinian's a sovereign state anymore. If anything, everything seems to be about WHEN a Palestinian state is created, how it will be defined. That seems to me a pretty big change in the dialogue started by that political push in Obama's speech. Now we are hearing about Israel being ready for "painful" change…some settlements will be given up and be outside of Israel borders…it's a completely different dialogue from just a couple of months ago.

BY Clay on 05/24/2011 at 16:58
The Republicans are playing up to the Isralies to get votes when in reality they have always treated Jews as second class citizens subject to cross burnings and lynchings and banishment from good ol' boy clubs.

BY DemsWin on 05/24/2011 at 16:59
Israel doesn't want peace. If there is peace, they can't play the victim card anymore.
As far as the 1967 borders are concerned - he should have insisted on the 1940 border instead.

BY Daniel on 05/24/2011 at 16:59
House members side with a foreign leader against their own president. pffff " the security of israel is more important than Ours". Let the palestinians and israelis duke it out.

[Deleted]

I don’t understand why the president injected himself into that issue right now,"

I'm guessing that it was because it was on his teleprompter.

[ed1066]

May 25, 2011 19:01:40 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I don’t understand why the president injected himself into that issue right now,"

I'm guessing that it was because it was on his teleprompter.

[henryclay]

I wonder what left wing site desi picked those three comments from? And isn't it amazing that he protedted them by not showing their source. Was it al Jazeera or Palestine.com perchance?

Heck, beside, we've had more than three posters saying as much right here. Desi should be invited to lend something of real substance to the conversation.

[Deleted]

I'm glad to see Dems in opposition to terrorism. It is very concerning that ANYONE would support terrorists.

[deziloooooo]

This post was deleted due to insulting language.
Deminmaine- Moderator.

[marshabar1]

The quoted material that was here is deleted as it contained insulting language.
Deminmaine- Moderator

Okay it's official. You're on my "do not read" list. Never read stuff written by obvious stalkers and trolls. Oh, is that name calling?

[ed1066]

Oh, is that name calling?

We'll see what the mods think, eh? A new door may have opened up here...

[Deleted]

What is WRONG with you lately, Dez?? Cut the name calling crap. It is daily now.

[Deleted]

Calling someone a troll must be okay, Marsha, because DEZ called Henry one at least 4 times the other day in ONE DAY. Ridiculous. I'm just keeping a list of all the garbage I am allowed to say if I ever decide to.

[deziloooooo]

This post is deleted due to defamatory content.
Deminmaine- Moderator.

[Deleted]

I'm done with you, too, Dez, after #12.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Even Netanyahoo said today he has no argument with Obama, and that the media are full of crappe....and the misled of course... ;D

[pappyjohn99]

Even Netanyahoo said today he has no argument with Obama

Of course not. Any responsible adult, after explaining to a child how the world works, does not hold the child's ignorance against him.