Obama puts the squeeze on Israel (in a good way)
I have to say that I'm quite pleased with how Obama seems to reading Netanyahu the riot act. The Likudniks are freaking out - but I think that people who want Israel to survive in some way shape or form realize that this is all for the better. Its clear that Netanyahu committed a massive mistake when he humiliated Biden in Jerusalem and now OBama has the pretext he needed to start to put a lot more pressure on Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159863.html
"U.S. President Barack Obama's demands during his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Tuesday point to an intention to impose a permanent settlement on Israel and the Palestinians in less than two years, political sources in Jerusalem say.
Israeli officials view the demands that Obama made at the White House as the tip of the iceberg under which lies a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Israel."...
"...It is not just Obama's demands that are perceived as problematic, but also the new modus operandi of American diplomacy. The fact that the White House and State Department have been in contact with Israel's European allies, first and foremost Germany, is seen as part of an effort to isolate Israel and put enormous political pressure on it."
and Harper is putting a squeeze on climate change.
Huh, guess people should step up the boycotts of those companies feeding Israel money
I guess some people just can't take yes for an answer. It was so much easier when Bush was in power aqnd the US was led by a man we all loved to hate. Life is so difficult having a US president who is doing things you actually agree with. There is no reason to live any more!
It Is Their Land And It's All About The Land!
http://www.countercurrents.org/fleming280310.htm
"Religion is used as a cover, but it's all about the land! It's convenient to claim one is doing something for God but the laws are made to take the land.
Since 1967 Israel has confiscated more than 750,000 acres of land from the 1.5 million acres that comprise the West Bank and Gaza. Most of the land has been confiscated to make space for settlement expansion and bypass roads that are for the exclusive use of Israeli colonists.
Since 1948, Israel has confiscated nearly 85% of the territory within the Green Line from Palestinians..
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 clearly asserts that the 'occupying power cannot move segments of its own population to parts of the land it occupies.' Furthermore, provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention have unquestionably condemned Israel's settlement activities and demanded the ceasing of 'all' settlement expansion by Israel.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 681 (1990) confirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Territories and thus Israel's compliance is mandatory.
On March 20, 1941, Yosef Weitz of the Jewish National Fund wrote: 'The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer.'
Yosef Weitz's wish was granted. In my name and in the name of Jewish people throughout the world, an indigenous population was almost completely expelled. Village names have been removed from the map, houses blown up, and new forests planted.
In Arabic, this is called Nakba, or catastrophe. In Israel this is called 'independence'
As we approach the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, the 60th anniversary of the Nakba...Let us remember more than 6 Million people whose basic human rights have been deprived for 60 years, and let us, as Jewish people with a history of oppression and a tradition of social justice, work for the right of Indigenous people to return to their land.
This is our only hope for true peace and security in the region.."
Canada too...
...all of which is totally irrelevant. Do you want to score debating points or do you want to see a long term settlement of the conflict in the middle east. If you think the US under any president is suddenly going to declare war on Israel and kill all the Israelis and turn around and say to the Palestinians "OK, its all yours now" - you're never going to get what you want.
It is actually very easy for me to dislike Obama because I dont agree with him on almost anything.
So Palestinians are going to have the right to return home and live as equal citizens in their own land?
Oh frabjous day! I didn't think Obama could pull it off!
Obama is , however, a far cry from Bush Obama did say " Jerusalem will remain the captial of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
Israel has nowhere to run now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWrvPvo8yXc
And when is someone going to put on a squeeze for humanitarian reasons in the Congo (link)? Excerpts below:
Fleeing Rebels Kill Hundreds of Congolese
March 27, 2010
Fleeing Rebels Kill Hundreds of Congolese
By JEFFREY GETTLEMANTAPILI, Congo - Depleted by an American-backed offensive and seemingly desperate for new conscripts, the Lord's Resistance Army, one of the most infamous armed groups in Africa, has killed hundreds of villagers in this remote corner of Congo and kidnapped hundreds more, marching them off in a vast human chain, witnesses say.
The massacre and abductions are a major setback to the effort to stamp out the remnants of the group, a primarily Ugandan rebel force that fielded thousands of soldiers in the 1980s and '90s. But in recent years it has degenerated into a band of several hundred predators living deep in the bush in Congo, Sudan and the Central African Republic with child brides and military-grade weaponry.
***********
They also kidnapped nurses from hospitals, witnesses said, and stripped blood-splattered clothes off corpses for themselves, a sign they are increasingly desperate.
Human Rights Watch, which sent a team to investigate the killings in February, said the L.R.A. killed at least 320 people in this area, calling the massacre one of the worst in the group's 23-year, atrocity-filled history.
Witnesses said that the number of dead could be several hundred more, and that most victims had been taken from their villages, tied at the waist and forced into the jungle, often with enormous loads of looted food balanced on their heads. Along the way, fighters randomly selected captives to kill, usually by an ax blow to the back of the head.
"They only scream once," said Jean-Claude Singbatile, a high school student who said that he spent 14 days in captivity and witnessed dozens of killings.
And there is lots of urgency about criticizing Netanyahu, granted. But what about someone taking up the cudgels for these victims?
someone is and if you're interested you should check out:
www.allthingspass.com/
I am.
And where's the UN resolutions?
And how about global warming?
And how about global warming?
Covered here (link):
and Harper is putting a squeeze on climate change.
Israeli officials view the demands that Obama made at the White House as the tip of the iceberg under which lies a dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Israel."...
Even getting a compromise where Palestinians permanently surrender all or most of East Jerusalem and the West Bank that Israel presently occupies- leaving aside how problematic that would be- is never going to be imposed on Israel unless it is a real imposition... which means one backed by the complete withdrawl of all types in US aid if Israel does not immediately agree to accept the terms.
Otherwise, its just the same old same old: someone from the outside comes up with a plan, Israel says 'looks good, we'll talk about it' and proceeds to keep changing the facts on the ground, while stalling and undermining the plan... until we come to the next iteration of active Palestinian armed resistance, in which Israel howls about betrayal and security, and says 'deal is off'... that being the deal they never accepted and worked to undermine from day 1.
The only thing that has any hope of changing that is for the US to withdraw all aid, period.
And what do you suppose the chances of that are?
So when I start hearing things 'leaking' out of the Obama about imposing a settlement on both parties, then I'll think maybe something moght happen.
Otherwise, this is just the latest self-serving Israel liberal manufacture of vain hopes.
So Obama = Bush ? Who knew?
Take that, Israel!
Actually, Obama ≠ Bush. Obama is in many ways far worse.
.
Obama's just like any other Potus (Murrican Latin for "Caesar"), Bush included, and Israel is still their attack dog in the Middle East.
President Obama has taken a further plunge into the kind of war abyss that consumed predecessors named Johnson, Nixon and Bush.
On Sunday, during his first presidential trip to Afghanistan, Obama stood before thousands of American troops to proclaim the sanctity of the war effort. He played the role deftly -- a commander in chief, rallying the troops -- while wearing a bomber jacket.
Irrespective of formulas like Obama = Bush, or does not equal Bush, or is worse than Bush, my point stands independently. Let alone i said nor implied nothing like that...
Try reading it that way. [That words on the page thing.]
Israel has playing this exact same game since the collapse of the Oslo accords. The discussion of relative sincerity of any particular US president is trumped by Israel running this game. The only debate on that 'sincerity' question would be whether the US president of the moment is the willing or unwilling straight man. Moot point when it comes to the chances of the US using its leverage to force a settlement on Israel.
Actually, Obama ≠ Bush. Obama is in many ways far worse.
Obama's FAR WORSE than Bush. I'd say at this point Obama is in Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot territory.
If Obama can win a 2nd term I think he will have a good shot at unseating Satan for the crown.
What fatuous nonsense, folks. I'd hoped for at least some nuance, Ken. We're into never, never land of "the left"... again. Politics of the ideologues becomes really meaningless when the above equation is sucked down.
I dunno, KenS seems to be quite aware of nuance. You, on the other hand, are sticking to blind personal attacks.
Horseshit, al-Q . Look at his first offering. Nothing that Obama is doing is distinguished from the Bush, and that is pure, unadultared horseshit. Stock's position is reasonable, but among the ideologues, unreason rules. "Blind personal attacks" my ass.
From the holier than thous set comes:
"Oh frabjous day! I didn't think Obama could pull it off!"
Even getting a compromise where Palestinians permanently surrender all or most of East Jerusalem and the West Bank that Israel presently occupies- leaving aside how problematic that would be- is never going to be imposed on Israel unless it is a real imposition... which means one backed by the complete withdrawl of all types in US aid if Israel does not immediately agree to accept the terms.
Otherwise, its just the same old same old: someone from the outside comes up with a plan, Israel says 'looks good, we'll talk about it' and proceeds to keep changing the facts on the ground, while stalling and undermining the plan... until we come to the next iteration of active Palestinian armed resistance, in which Israel howls about betrayal and security, and says 'deal is off'... that being the deal they never accepted and worked to undermine from day 1.
I gave substance George. Point out what is wrong with this as a history of Israel's strategy and practice since the collapse of the Oslo accord.
And what specifically is wrong with the role within that of the the US never playing the withdrawl of aid card on Israel: without which Israel has and will only posture for Western audiences and in the end do as it pleases?
Ken, I appreciate the depth of your summary, and it is a good backgrounder, but I would really think that one "maybe" as to what Obama has in mind, a soupcon of (wait for it) "hope" might have been offered. I know it is fashionable to be down on Obamba, but I thought Stock's position was heartfelt and in keeping with the spirit of Democrats' performance lately... I singled you out as the one most deserving of a reply (the others tending to "Caesars" and "attack dogs" and the usual drool).
...all of which is totally irrelevant. Do you want to score debating points or do you want to see a long term settlement of the conflict in the middle east. If you think the US under any president is suddenly going to declare war on Israel and kill all the Israelis and turn around and say to the Palestinians "OK, its all yours now" - you're never going to get what you want.
extreamly reasonable in his description of the left activists..
The opening post starts with an article in Haretz. They are speculating on the possibility of a settlement imposed on Israel being in the cards. I'm just pointing out that given the history, there is no substantive indication of such a fundamental shift until we see some sign- at least indirect ones- that the Obama administration is considering such a thing. If talk of such 'possibilities' merely gave false hopes, there would be no real harm. But raising them has a much more pernicious effect of contributing to the pertpetual illusion that something is in the works.
Whatever everyboy's intentions- this perpetualy re-arisng illusion is part of the manouvering room Israel uses to get its way.
I singled you out as the one most deserving of a reply (the others tending to "Caesars" and "attack dogs" and the usual drool).
...and so it continues...
There's a perceptive article by Thomas Friedman here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28friedman.html in which he argues that there is now a good deal more urgency in seeking a peace deal in Washington than in Tel Aviv. He outlines the conditions that have moved a Palestinian accord down the Israeli agenda and those that have made the Obama administration much more focussed on getting one. As he says, "With U.S. soldiers literally walking the Arab street - and, therefore, more in need than ever of Muslim good will to protect themselves and defeat Muslim extremists - Israeli-Palestinian peace has gone from being a post-cold-war hobby of U.S. diplomats to being a necessity."
The article's last sentence:
"Indeed, Jerusalem, settlements, peace, Iran - they're all connected and pretending you can treat some as a hobby and one as a necessity is an illusion."
Thanks for that, F-P. One can assume that Obama understands this, but he, like Netanyahu, would have to change the minds of religious zealots in their respective capitols. And that, in turn, depends on enough people reading the NYTimes and Haaretz (rather than depending on Fox) so that the wackos are weakened and dumped. And of course Friedman has to give it practical purpose - save American lives in their armies of occupation (the Times has to sell to an only slightly moe enlightened readership) but it's something, eh?
It's just that it adds such enormous complexity to the mantra, "Obama sucks".
Obama sucks, but he sucks for important reasons. That's how I'd put it.
Despite Israel really having gone out of its way to annoy the Obama administration, there's a limit to how forcefully it can respond. There's Congress to deal with.