Obama Regrouping in His Effort to Harm Israel?

[marshabar1]

Is President Obama using his European trip to pressure Israel to accept a peace deal based on the Jewish State's pre-war borders? Days after the President claimed to be misunderstood it now appears that he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are backtracking on his previous backtrack and incredibly actually seeking support for a negotiated settlement based on what Abba Eban called "the Auschwitz borders" (because they left Israel vulnerable to extinction) and presumes that Israel will be forced to absorb hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

According to the Guardian, the president "will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron, insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders." It may be that the notoriously anti-Israel Guardian is repeating speculation. But at a joint press conference with Clinton, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said they agree with Obama's original statement that, as the International Business Times put it, "any future negotiations between Israel and Palestine must be based on the borders that existed prior to the 1967 war."

"Time is running out for a two-state solution and the initiative must be seized now," Hague said.

Rather than restating the President's clarification, Clinton helpfully added: "Now is the time, in this period of great upheaval, there is an opportunity to come to a successful outcome."

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel will no longer seek to appease the international community by granting territory or additional concessions to the Palestinians.

spectator.org/archives/2011/05/26/an-auschwitz-borders-tour

[marshabar1]

Barack Obama will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron, insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders – a proposal rejected by Israel's prime minister as "unrealistic" and "indefensible".

The issue will be raised in private talks between the two men during the state visit by Obama and his wife to London, only the third by a US president in 100 years. Afghanistan, Libya, relations with Pakistan and the global economy – as well as the vacancy for the top job at the IMF – will also make up the agenda.

Despite the outright rejection by the Israeli premier, Binyamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the Six Day War, when Israel captured and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, Obama has already secured the political backing of the United Nations, European Union and Russia who, with America, are collectively known as the "quartet".

Signalling his determination to keep up pressure on Israel, Obama will be looking to enlist the public support of the UK prime minister. The aim is, in large part, to persuade the Palestinian leadership not to go to the UN in September seeking symbolic backing for an independent state.

The coming meeting between the two men follows evidence of a hardening of criticism of Israel by London. On the eve of the Obamas' arrival, Middle East minister Alistair Burt accused Israel of "unhelpful and destabilising activity" in announcing the building of 1,500 new settlement units in East Jerusalem ahead of a speech by the president on the Middle East on Friday.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/obama-cameron-pre-1967-palestinian-borders?INTCMP=SRCH

[Deleted]

Yeah, Marsha. I did not even bother posting the crystal clear video of the Obama speech in London yesterday, but he is most definitely over there working his "magic" while we deal with the tornadoes here. Disgusting.

[marshabar1]

Interesting how determined those people are to see Israel weakened. Do they think Israel will just bare her throat to the knife?

[Deleted]

They can think what they want, and say and do what they want. Israel will not surrender. I just hope Israel knows how many of us support her. I would hate to think we are judged by the few that think they are terrorists. Sux that the few are always the ones that make news. Surely Bibi knows.. I hope...

[jarhead1976]

Israel will never kneel again to any one.

[marshabar1]

A few months ago many people, including me, sent yellow roses to Bibi. They were given to people in hospital. I'd like to see that happen again.

[marshabar1]

Israeli-American Billionaire Says Won’t Be Donating to Obama

by Elad Benari

Haim Saban, a billionaire Israeli-American and a long-time donor to the Democrats, announced this week that he will not be donating to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC’s Michelle Caruso on Tuesday, Saban said he does not plan to donate to President Obama as he has other Democrats.

“President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him,” he said. “And he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations.”

Saban continued, “Will I donate if I am solicited? I will donate. But I can tell you that my staunch support in enlisting people to contribute to the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and to the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] as well as to Democratic senators and congresspeople hasn’t weakened in any way, shape or form. I continue to be a very active supporter of Democrats in both the Senate and the Congress.”

Saban also said in the interview that Obama should visit Israel as he has done with other countries in the Middle East.

“I’m very perplexed as to why the president, who’s been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people,” Saban said. “I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now.”

www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144540

[Deleted]

Well, if some other Dem does not challenge Obama, sounds like that Dem Jewish guy's money stays in the bank.

[deziloooooo]

May 26, 2011 20:30:15 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

Israeli-American Billionaire Says Won’t Be Donating to Obama

by Elad Benari

Haim Saban, a billionaire Israeli-American and a long-time donor to the Democrats, announced this week that he will not be donating to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC’s Michelle Caruso on Tuesday, Saban said he does not plan to donate to President Obama as he has other Democrats.

“President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him,” he said. “And he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations.”

Saban continued, “Will I donate if I am solicited? I will donate. But I can tell you that my staunch support in enlisting people to contribute to the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and to the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] as well as to Democratic senators and congresspeople hasn’t weakened in any way, shape or form. I continue to be a very active supporter of Democrats in both the Senate and the Congress.”

Saban also said in the interview that Obama should visit Israel as he has done with other countries in the Middle East.

“I’m very perplexed as to why the president, who’s been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people,” Saban said. “I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now.”

www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144540

He said why he isn't donating to Obama campaign, feels the POTUS has raised sufficient funds for the campaign already but did not say he wouldn't if solicited, still is a active contributor to Democratic candidates, so what is the biggie here? Doesn't compute to me.

As far as visiting israel, In think it is a very good idea if could be done safely, and possible that is one of the concerns. There are people who do not like him, us, and that is a fact, and to go and to not be seen, having to be isolated, what's to gain, but that's my feeling.

Safety for a POTUS, whoeverthey are, very important to me. For many here, you know who you are, I beleive his safety , this POTUS is the least of your concerns.
To me as sick a thought as one American could have but that's what I feel.
Was it one or two who expressed wanting to slap the man? Another today venting &^&^% at him directly, seems the mods were amused.
Sorry those types , to be near them , does not compute to me.

[marshabar1]

Nonetheless, Obama’s slip-up is more than a momentary lapse. It is an illuminating incident that reveals a lot about the American president.

I’m no psychologist, but I’d say Obama is clearly looking back longingly to the days when he was a candidate whose only responsibility was to smile for the cameras and deliver speeches. Indeed, it almost seems like he was trying to reorder reality.

Such an attitude may be very human, but it isn’t quite presidential. A leader is someone who must grapple with today while planning for tomorrow. Life is not a Michael J. Fox movie, and there are no time machines that allow us to go back to the future.

Yet this fantasy is precisely what seems to guide the president’s policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In his address to AIPAC, Obama asserted that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps” – reiterating remarks he made at the State Department last week.

In other words, he would simply like to travel back to before the 1967 Six Day War began, ignoring the lessons of that conflict and its outcome.

Such a suggestion is not only naïve, but also dangerous.

If Israelis learned anything from that encounter, it is that the pre-1967 frontiers were an invitation to potential extermination. They were indefensible and untenable and only served to whet our foes’ appetite for war.

Remember, in the run-up to the fighting, the Arab leaders made it chillingly clear that their aim was to destroy the Jewish state.

On May 20, 1967, Hafez Assad (then serving as Syria’s defense minister) said: “Our forces are now entirely ready to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.”

On May 26, Egyptian president Gamal Nasser declared in a speech to his nation: “Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.”

And at a press conference the following day, PLO founder Ahmad Shukeiry said: “D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this, and will not flinch from the war of liberation.”

On May 30, Cairo Radio was even more explicit: “Israel has two choices, both of which are drenched with Israeli blood: Either it will be strangled by the Arab military and economic siege, or it will be killed by the bullets of the Arab armies surrounding it from the south, from the north and from the east.”

A week later, the war began. And a week after that, it had ended, leaving Israel in control of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

In 1967, the State of Israel was faced with the threat of extinction. It fought off its enemies and liberated the cradle of ancient Jewish civilization, reuniting Jerusalem and depriving our enemies of the platform from which they had sought to destroy us.

By invoking the pre-’67 lines, Obama has essentially said that all this didn’t matter, and that Israel’s acquisition of territory in an act of pure self-defense was somehow illegitimate.

He would like to simply push the “rewind” button, returning the Jewish state to an unsustainable vulnerability.

But this attempt at time travel is little more than political science fiction. It is pure illusion and, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made so eloquently clear in his address to Congress on Tuesday, it cannot and will not happen.

www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=222215

[Bluerobin]

I for one am hoping someone can reign in this terrorist state. Israel has gotten away with too much for too long. It is time we stopped our blind support for them. I just didn't think it would be a democrat that had the stones to start the discussion.

[marshabar1]

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral.

The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.

It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal.

In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.

For 2 1/2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances.

Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them.

He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.

It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period.

Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.

The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.

Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_print.html

[zibazinski]

No one in their right mind gives two hoots about what Obama says. He's an idiot and those who elected him are the same. SOME are wising up. But the ones that recieve the dole will try to re-elect him anyway. I pray his days are numbered before he does further damage to this country that has given him everything but that he hates so much. I thought Carter was shameful but this guy is plain evil.

[Bluerobin]

Zib, the reps don't have a candidate that can beat him (how pathetic is that?), so get used to him for another term.

Israel has to give up the land they wrongly acquired. Then true negotiations can begin.

[Deleted]

Well, someone has the guts to say Israel is a terrorist nation. Did I read that right?

[Bluerobin]

krickitt, I have long said that. Our support for these terrorists has cost us dearly. It is time to end the unbridled support for Israel.

[Deleted]

So, robin- do you suggest that Israel should lay down arms and surrender to Islamic slaughter from her neighbors?? Do you think that would bring peace to the ME/Africa? To the world? Just let the Jews be killed and their land given over to the Islamic extremists and it is all cumbaya?

[mmhmm]

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

[deziloooooo]

May 27, 2011 11:33:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

I actually believe what is happening now was a growing of ideas of what would be best for the security of the State over the years and also the beliefs of the current leadership of the country.

The security of the State was always paramount and so many of the past leaders of the State had experience as top war leaders in the past.

Responsibility for critical decisions , positions, making serious battle field decisions, knew the smell and sounds of the battlefield, and for those few here who have experienced it, I know you will agree there is nothing else like it to be experienced in the world.

From the beginning of the take over and control of the West bank in "67 ", the final gathering in of all the borders of Jerusalem, there was the exploration of what would be the correct way to handle this control and responsibility of State security now that they were in control, in charge, had the power.

Depending on the times , those in control, different scenario's were presented , from a almost complete granting of all of the wish list,

{less what was really wanted by that side, removal of Israel as a Jewish State , in fact the State itself ]

to Arafat that he as leader of his people refused, to today, where settlers were moved to the West bank , Jerusalem areas and beyond with defensive settlements, and the long occupation that the young soldiers that come along every year become more comfortable with till what is happening now becomes the way it is, most security, always in as much control as possible and becomes the accepted norm.

Whether sustainable , that is not the point , it becomes what is as a perceived reality as to how it will be, always.

Then a POtUS, the events , the reality's come along and say, this is not the norm, this is not sustainable

Security will still be there, strength will still be there , but some changes are necessary. Occupation forever not normal or healthy for the occupied, the occupiers. Dictating as the over lord to others, never is successful i the ong run, never works, always comes back and bites the controller in the butt, many times destroying the one in current change.

Yet few like changes, thus we have when changes are mentioned , have to come about..what we are getting now in comments and in sound bytes.

[ed1066]

May 27, 2011 11:33:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

Israel has not encroached on any countries' borders. If you are referring to the mythical land of "Palestine", it is not a country and never was...it is a people, governed by terrorists whom they freely elected, who have been rejected by all their Arab neighbors and are looking for acceptance by the very people they have pledged to destroy. In other words, when pigs fly...

[Bluerobin]

May 27, 2011 11:33:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

Let them swim or sink on their own. If we stop arming them, they will have to learn how to get along with their neighbors. How of if they do that is none of our concern.

[Deleted]

Point made, robin. I, personally, choose not to condone any kind of 2nd Holocaust situation, even if all I can do is put words on a message board and vote pro-Israel, which IMO is a pro-American thing to do.

[Deleted]

May 27, 2011 14:03:38 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

May 27, 2011 11:33:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

Let them swim or sink on their own. If we stop arming them, they will have to learn how to get along with their neighbors. How of if they do that is none of our concern.

You do realize they have nuclear weapons and it is unclear what could happen if pushed to far. If they decide to "Erase" a few of their neighbors, is it still not our concern?

[Bluerobin]

jma, we are NOT the world's police force. Nor should we universally support all their bad actions. They are a terrorist nation that should be brought to account for the atrocities they have committed.

[deziloooooo]

May 27, 2011 13:28:37 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

May 27, 2011 11:33:35 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't know how robin feels, but I think it might be a good idea for Israel to stop encroaching on the territory of others. They certainly don't care for the notion when it comes their way from another quarter. Countries have borders. I doubt the Canadians would want us deciding we should settle Ontario and call it ours.

Israel has not encroached on any countries' borders. If you are referring to the mythical land of "Palestine", it is not a country and never was...it is a people, governed by terrorists whom they freely elected, who have been rejected by all their Arab neighbors and are looking for acceptance by the very people they have pledged to destroy. In other words, when pigs fly...

Actually pigs never, a abomination as it is for the Jewish Orthodox and real observant types, even the secular, not to happy about the idea..though then there are those like me, bacon, pork roast, baby backs..mmmmm.

Some who belive in terror granted and then six or more million there, just yearning for a land of their own to call home, and millions in other countries...unless your going with the Judea, Sumaria crowd and you feel all these folks...

[deziloooooo]

May 27, 2011 14:30:34 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

jma, we are NOT the world's police force. Nor should we universally support all their bad actions. They are a terrorist nation that should be brought to account for the atrocities they have committed.

And not that either...think we should put you and ed in a closed room..who ever comes out..then we.....

[hello fromWarsaw]

Do you really believe this RW BS? Netanyahoo himself said NOTHING has changed in the US stance, that US support has never been greater...Obama is actually serious about peace is the only difference, is about to get Hamas to agree to Israel's existence. Troublemaking Fox, bought off pubs, and the silly misled don't appear to care about anything but STUPID fear mongering and selfish politicking...same with Pakistan.

[Deleted]

May 27, 2011 14:30:34 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

jma, we are NOT the world's police force. Nor should we universally support all their bad actions. They are a terrorist nation that should be brought to account for the atrocities they have committed.

My use of the word concern was for all the countries involved, not for what we should "do". My concern was how do you bring any nuclear power to account? How far can you push one until they reply with the weapons of last resort? All the talk from Iran, etc. about the annihilation of Israel is foolhardy politics at best. Plays good at home, but not realistic. Like you said, we're not the worlds police force, so what they do is no concern of ours.

[deziloooooo]

May 27, 2011 15:03:57 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 27, 2011 14:30:34 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

jma, we are NOT the world's police force. Nor should we universally support all their bad actions. They are a terrorist nation that should be brought to account for the atrocities they have committed.

My use of the word concern was for all the countries involved, not for what we should "do". My concern was how do you bring any nuclear power to account? How far can you push one until they reply with the weapons of last resort? All the talk from Iran, etc. about the annihilation of Israel is foolhardy politics at best. Plays good at home, but not realistic. Like you said, we're not the worlds police force, so what they do is no concern of ours.

This area of the globe is very important to us, especially because of that important item, oil.

Granted Israel most likely is a Nuclear power, and as all of those types, has been very careful to NOT consider their use, UNLESS there is a real danger to the State, and because of how they know their people would be treated in the real world if the STATE of Israel were to disappear, and the survivors of that State and the Jews around the world would face the same fate over the rest of times, I believe before they allow that to happen, they would use all weapons in their control to keep that from happening.

Example is that it is known that four nucs were armed and on four Jets ready to lift off during the darkest days of the Yom Kippor war, the thought was Israel was finished, Dayan was lamenting he would be the one in charge when Israel was no more, so if it comes to that point, then ,,well nough said, also at the same time the Soviets were told, due to their complicity, instigating and actions at the time against the State, certain areas and cities of their country too would be attacked with them. {What did thy have to lose, when that was said , the worst for the State was expected}

For those her who might come out with how could they, remember we and the Soviets plan was to annihilate the Globe, hundreds of millions to die, and while not the end of humanity, the next best happening to that occurrence with their policy of MAD, if any side attacked the other or certain allies.