By that I mean , it depends on which side one is on as to what is really said and meant, or at least what the different parties hear.
We been playing out here on this spec of cyber land a drama where this is none, and in my opinion , the screaming at the actions and words of the POTUS by the same handful represent not anger at what he said and meant , just they don't like the man, POTUS, wish he wasn't in the position he is in and that is about it.
I say this with out doubt in my mind and I am going to post a article from the other side of the spectrum, a think piece from aljazeer as to how they looked at the words and explanations he , POTUS, subsequently explained.
Just a short one here, like night and day.
You would think if the POTUS threw the Israeli's under the bus as one of the posters here suggested and others claimed much worse was perpetrated on those Israeli's, under the bus was mild, then the other side, represented by the article in aljazeer would be ecstatic as it would mean the POTUS was favoring them, the Palestinians in this confrontation. They think this, the other side?
Naaaaaaaaa, not happening.
---------------------------------------------------
english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/2011523115553473983.html--------------------------------------------------------
[Click on the link to read the article]
------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Obama to Israel: Take whatever you want
In his latest speech, Obama's thinly veiled rhetoric proves he will do anything to satisfy his pro-Israel voter base.
Lamis Andoni
"For years, American presidents taken a weak stance on illegal Israeli settlement construction, but none have come so close as Obama to actually legitimising them [GALLO/GETTY]
In 2008, Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, pandered to pro-Israeli voters and Israel by promising in a speech addressed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem would forever remain "the undivided capital of Israel".
Three years later, Obama is on another pre-campaign trail in order to improve his chances for re-election in 2012. As part of this campaign, he has made a new round of half-hearted attempts to revive the stalled "peace process" completely under Israel's terms.
In his latest speech addressed to AIPAC, Obama promised Israel everything short of allegiance by reaffirming America's commitment to Israel's political and security goals. His speech denied the right of Palestinians to declare a nation and he even vowed to block any peaceful Palestinian efforts to claim their legal rights at international organisations.
Obama's lip service to Palestinian "self-determination" is nothing more than vacuous rhetoric - as he clearly implied that Israeli interests, especially its security, remain the top priority for American foreign policy in the region.
He mechanically repeated his commitment to the vision of a two-state solution - establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, as expected, he left the borders and terms of the creation of such state subject to Israel's "security interests".
His reference to resuming peace negotiations on the basis of the 1967 borders (also known as the Green Line) means neither a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories nor the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state on all of the land within the Green Line, including East Jerusalem.
There is a significant difference in negotiations "lingo" and even legal language between saying that the establishment of a Palestinian state "will be based on" 1967 borders as opposed to saying it "will be established on" the 1967 borders.
The first leaves ample room for Israel to continue occupying and even annexing vast settlement blocs (and perhaps even all of the illegal, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem) for "security reasons".
Take whatever you can
Just in case his pro-Israel support base misunderstood the thinly veiled statements from his Middle East speech last Friday, Obama made sure to clarify to his definitively pro-Israeli view that there is no going back to the true 1967 borders:
"[The statement] means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 196... It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic reality."
In clearer words, the president is effectively, although not explicitly, equating the presence of Palestinians on their own land with the illegal presence of Israeli settlers living on land confiscated forty-four years ago from the Palestinians.
Basically, despite the fact that settlers live on that land illegally under international law, because they are physically there, the land becomes theirs.
This confirms the belief of many in the region that the construction of Israeli settlements and of the Separation Wall inside the 1967 borders is Israel's way of slowly completing a de facto annexation of Palestinian land.
This latest of Obama's statements may be the closest the president has come to legitimising illegal Israeli settlements.
Obama's message to Israel appeared to confirm that he is ready to keep former president George Bush's 2005 promise that Israel would be able to keep their largest settlements blocs as a result of any negotiated solution for the conflict.
In other words, Obama's idea of Palestinian self-determination is for Palestinians to accept whatever Israel decides.
In his AIPAC speech, and the previous speech addressed to the Middle East, Obama seemed to have either been out of touch with, or to have simply ignored, the changes brought about by the Arab Spring. For while he argued that Israel should understand that the Arab Spring has altered the political balance in the region, and that Israel should understand it now has to make peace not with corruptible Arab leaders, but with the Arab people themselves.
So much for hope and change
In fact, when it comes to the Palestinian cause, Obama is speaking and acting as if the Arab Spri
ng has not taken place. He has to remember that even America's most loyal Arab allies in the region could not openly support the American-Israeli formula for peace with the Palestinians. So, why then would it be acceptable to millions of pro-Palestinian Arabs?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
If one finishes the article, you will see the other side doesn't think much of the POTUS either, and how can both sides be upset. { those here are different, as I pointed out, it's personal with him, they abhor him, personally, little to do with the topic under discussion} but for the rest also not happy.A true fact mentioned in the article, I know this for a fact, the ultra right elected representatives in the knesset, remember sitting next to or close to, Arab Israeli elected representatives, all supposedly honorable men, rules of decorum to be in effect, civility, but in their discussions in the knesset, very common for them;
" If he wants to know who the true unacceptable partners for peace are, all he has to do is get an English transcript of discussions from the Israeli Knesset (parliament) and read how members from the political right call Arabs "animals" and make all manner of racist slurs against Palestinians"
Kind of like in our Congressional halls just before our Civil War .
Not saying "Bibi " is part of that, but he is from the political right.
