Obama to Israel: Take whatever you want

[oberliner]

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.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/2011523115553473983.html

Edit to add: The views expressed in this piece are not my own.

[dionysus]

1. .

:popcorn:

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. At this point, why not simply make Israel a state.

The power of Israel in Ameican politics is an awesome thing to behold.

[Autumn]

4. Might as well, we have so many Senators representing

Israel.

[oberliner]

5. You really think that?

Like who, for instance?

[Autumn]

8. LIEberman for one,

and anything that comes up for Israel he certainly seem to be for.

[oberliner]

9. Why do you think that is?

And I would say it's one thing to say what you just did here (anything that comes up for Israel he seems to be for) and another thing to accuse someone of being a Senator representing Israel.

That seems a much more extreme statement - implying he does not represent his own country.

[Autumn]

10. That's the way I see it. Your

opinion is different, and that's all good. Not too many of them do represent their own country, corporations and political aspirations first you know.

[oberliner]

11. Fair enough - but why?

What do you think Lieberman's motivation is?

This guy, after all, was at one point the Democratic nominee for Vice President!

[Autumn]

12. So was Palin,

:shrug: I do not claim to know what his motivation is and I really don't care, other than the fact that these people are screeching about the deficit and it has to be brought under control by cuts to the most vulnerable among us, our citizens in our own Country, yet can spend money like they will never run out for other countries.

[oberliner]

14. Palin was the Democratic nominee for Vice President?

I don't think so!

[Autumn]

16. Of course not. Just shows both sides have idiots,

or perhaps it would be better to say both sides have people who don't put the people in our Country first.

[oberliner]

19. I think their side has primarily idiots

I think most Democrats are pretty on the ball.

And I think they all put our country first.

Even if I disagree with them on some foreign policy issues.

[oberliner]

6. Pretty extreme position

The power is not so much from Israel but from American politicians who have views on this subject that you don't agree with apparently.

[alsame]

17. US policy vis-a vis Israel does not change, regardless of which

party is in power. It's far more than specific politicians, although some are more vocal in their support.

For as long as I've been aware of foreign policy, the US has offered unconditional support for Israel. I think it's unwise for us to do so, I think support should be based on actions and stated intent.

[oberliner]

18. US policy vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia hasn't changed either

The same as true for our relationship with lots of countries around the world.

[sabbat hunter]

3. I see no reason why

Jerusalem, up to and including the old city should not remain under Israeli political control. Under any partition plan it was not supposed to be part of Palestine. Status quo for the old city works (politically controlled by Israel, various holy sites controlled by hte various religions). The only thing I could see happening is part of eastern Jerusalem, but not the the old city, becoming part of Palestine.

[oberliner]

7. Jerusalem was the biggest sticking point in the talks with Clinton

I feel it may be so again.

[BernieSandersIsGod]

13. I said last wk that OBama got horrible advice. He shouldn't have even talked about Israel last wk.nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swede]

20. Obama to Israel - get smaller and closer to your Islamist enemies.

snip

Jihad and sharia law are antithetical to freedom and liberty. Why can't President Obama say that? Instead, our American leader unexpectedly pronounced last week that the tiny democratic ally, Israel, needs to get smaller and move closer to its Islamist antagonists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-alan-silverman/waiting-for-barack-obama_b_866248.html

[jimmie]

21. Yup....makes great sense ....

this way the bombs will more likely to kill innocent israelis.

great logic he showed there.

[sudopod]

22. Implying Syria or Jordan are actually a threat to Israel

Implying they would mess with a nuclear-armed nation
Implying disapproval of the Israeli government means supporting Islamic fundamentalism
Implying implications

[boppers]

23. Unrec for hyperventilation.

"whatever you want"... nope.