Stephen Collinson from Agence France-Presse identifies the Israeli government as the greatest obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and President Obama doesn't really disagree. From last night's press conference:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. Stephen Collinson, AFP.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
QUESTION: How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the
likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two-
state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting
Arabs?PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not easier than it was, but I think it’s just as necessary. We don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like.
And we don’t yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership
is going to be comprised of.
What we do know is this; that the status quo is unsustainable.
I am "shocked", "shocked" to see the AFP blaming the israeli government for the failure of the peace process. I am also "shocked", "shocked" to see President Obama in agreement with the AFP. After all, according to this website, he's in the back pocket of the secret cabal of Jews who run this country and the world.
Shouldn't the question have been:
"How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a [HAMAS LEADERSHIP] who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a [HAMAS AND FATAH LEADERSHIP] who’s been accused of insulting [JEWS]?"
Or did I miss the press release from Hamas where they agreed to any solution that would allow Jews to remain in the region and retracting their bile that "Jews are the brothers of apes and pigs"?
"We don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like."
We do now, it looks like this:
"Barakula lines up with Netanscescu"
@ Harry Fenton:
"he's in the back pocket of the secret cabal of Jews who run this country and the world."
Parodying won't get you out of this. No one believes in the "World Jooooooish Conspiracy" here.
But Barack, like all 'good' presidential candidates went to AIPAC: he went, they saw, they won.
I've a feeling this ritual may be out of date by 2012 or 2016 though. Just a hint…
Willing is better than unwilling.
Hamas might prove similarly, maybe not.
the status quo is unsustainable
I predicted this a day or two ago, and cited the Irish political adage, "Whatever you say, say nothing." Obama seems to have followed my advice.
Obama needs some love on the ground. the movement is too diffuse to give him the meaningful political capital he needs to call out israel's history of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. otherwise, he'll play the game of normalization, hoping that the 2-state solution will save us from zionism and tame the beast.
The status quo is going to have to be "sustainable" because a contractual peace is simply not attainable, because the Arab side will never agree to one. Period. Even if savior Obama wants one. The world is bigger even than him.
"No one believes in the "World Jooooooish Conspiracy" here."
Really? could have fooled me.
I think most of us can spell the words 'Jewish' and 'Jew', Julian, whether you have problems with them or not. I mean, really, you're being very childish.
the zionist game is to claim to be acting "on behalf of the ancient jewish people", and then do the unthinkable, deir yassin, sabra, shatila, gaza.. we're talking about a zionist conspiracy, not a jewish one.
I checked out the zionists latest ugly T-shirts.I think we should ,I mean non-zionists,wear these things.I think they can be very effective anti-israeli props.
@ Bar Dufus
I bet the Arab side will agree to a peace if the settlements are abolished. And the Pals get full sovereignty. The Jews should be happy to settle for the pre-67 borders; they really only deserve the
47 partition borders at best–that itself was a clear gift to them considering the demography of that time
and that the Arabs were effectively left without recourse at the UN due to great powers with the most clout.
All the world hates the Jews. Ever been so. Goys will knife you in the back at every opportunity. Whatever any Jew ever got to live, and maybe a bit handsomely, they paid for totally by their own sweat and tears. Nobody ever helped a single Jew but another Jew. America is the perfect example. See what I mean? Don't try to "goy me down." I am an honest person. I believe in honesty. Fair deals. The Romans were evil-doers, and so its been right down to Postville, Iowa and Gaza. I don't know who killed those 10,000 Polish
snobs in the forest. Must have been the Nazis. Free Pollard, ditch the AIPAC spy trial. Resurrect the Rosenbergs.
@ dagon:
You've got a point. But who in their right mind would want be seen wearing such garments? Only some Israelis would. Says a lot, really…
Obama is going to say what the teleprompter tells him to say. His opinion will always be the opinion of almost everyone, and he will tell you so!
I don't know who believes that Jews control the world. They do seem to have a temporary and outsized influence in the United States, Europe and a small part of the Middle East. But what does that mean in the long run?
Not to worry Todd, the official Jewish agencies will inform you of what it all means in the long run, in due time. We suggest you don't look too deeply into history. OK?
Sure thing, USA Allways.
Gert,the more I think about it ,the T-shirt idea sounds great.the answer can be,Hey it's an idf T-shirt,don't you support israel too?
If you look at the carefully composed comment on this that I posted about ten hours ago, on the next thread, you will find that the word I use is 'manage'. I say that "for historical reasons, 'Jews', using the term broadly, have ended up to a considerable extent 'managing' both 'our own' countries and 'their own' proposed country. If one is talking about 'our own' countries, rather than 'their own' proposed one, then the assertion that Jews, using the term broadly, have ended up managing them is regarded as a potentially Nazi one, in that it implies a possible threat to exclude them from such managing roles, in order to gain objectivity in foreign policy." Considering the effort I put into these statements, I wish people would pay more attention to them. They are intended to help the discussion and clarify its terms of reference.
OK, Rowan. Now discuss the concept of dual loyalty in terms of who the respective management is.
You 'discuss' it; doubtless you know more of these individuals than I do. I shall continue to restrict myself to what I can safely deduce from the obvious facts known to all.
Actually I think it's already been discussed a lot, for example in terms of The Israel Lobby and the identity of the neocons in USA politics. A late example is the discussion on this blog regarding how the candidate Chas Freeman was managed so he would not be in a position to summarize the USA's aggregate security intelligence data as it relates to Israeli activities.