The Times has a report on Obama's meeting with big Jews. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, justifiably proud of being in the room, says Obama said there's a narrow window for the two-state solution, and I'm going for it.
Mr. Hoenlein [Malcolm, of the Conference of Presidents] told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ‘’ said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’
And the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, what did they say? Jim Zogby? Wait, sorry. This was a power group.
Related posts:
- ‘JPost’ memo to Obama: Israel doesn’t keep its word on settlements
- Obama may be looking to abandon ’secret’ deal between the US and Israel on settlements
- Hoenlein says Obama parroted Muslim ‘propaganda’ (and left out the Jewish religious propaganda)
- NYT’s Bob Herbert Runs for the Moral Daylight
- Gideon Levy: Only Obama can save Israel
{ 15 comments }
Where were the rest of us gentiles? Our opinions on such matters don't seem to matter a bit to anyone involved. We have no seat at the table, apparently, even though we foot the bill for this idiocy. If this entire thing ends badly for the US and its general citizenry, Zionists and Israel supporters can be assured that they will regret having shut us out of the government process.
What do you mean nothing got accomplished during the Bush/Cheney years? The settlers accomplished quite a lot. :(
Obama is the man. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1099966.html Obama to U.S. Jewish leaders: Israel must engage in self-reflection By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and Reuters Tags: Barak Obama, Israel News U.S. President Barack Obama met with 15 American Jewish leaders at the White House for the first time on Monday. The president and the Jewish officials huddled for talks aimed at clearing the air following allegations that his administration was taking a tough line with Israel over settlement activity. At the meeting, Obama told the leaders that he wants to help Israel overcome its demographic problem by reaching an agreement on a two-state solution, but that in order to do so, Israel would need "to engage in serious self-reflection."
What can Obama do? He can't offer the Palestinians a better deal than Olmert did. __The issue is the Arabs will never accept a Jewish State. They rejected a rump Jewish State in the 30's, 40's.__In 1948 to 1967 there was apparently no need for a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza. No demonstrations, suicide bombings etc. In 1967 again the Arabs rejected the land for peace formula in UN resolution 242. In 2000 the Palestinians rejected a State that included half of Jerusalem, virtually all of Gaza and the West Bank and then resorted to violence that cost Israel 1100 people.__In the end Obama can't deliver all of Israel to the Palestinians and any offer he makes will also be rejected.__
He can deliver the green line or Geneva Accords. You are wrong about "the Arabs will never accept a Jewish state". Jordan and Egypt already have, comprising the vast majority of exposed border pre-1967. That Israel decided to settle and is now committed to the maze, is really absurd for Israel, as it results in larger exposed border if formally annexed, than existed prior to 1967. You should get on board with this. It is more HELPFUL to Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors (even with few incidental exceptions), than it is to live in a state of constant deferred war.
Has every president, and most members of congress, for the last 40+ years had different interests than the average American? Wouldn't it be more beneficial for most Americans to see Israel totally cut and isolated than to continue wasting time, money, influence and lives on a one or two-state solution that will largely benefit Jews, and that neither side will be happy with for long? Israel isn't the issue! With a former IDF volunteer as a main advisor to Obama, and Jewish zionists and progressives littering the government and media with their phoney internal struggle, is it reasonable to deny that Jewish influence rather than Zionist influence in America is the real problem?
Maybe the Geneva Accords, although I have my doubts, but the Green Line? Richard do you think Obama can deliver the Green Line? Nice thought, though.
Only if the PA unifies and offers what the PA has recently, that is permission for the settlers to remain in their homes, but as Palestinian citizens with the protection of equal due process and policing, but no provision for exclusively Jewish neighborhood, or exclusively Jewish roads. Any implication of forced removal of settlers will be responded defensively. Its a good offer, that suggests by example that Israel should offer literal equal due process under the law within all areas that it has permanent or temporary jurisdiction.
I'm noticing nothing has been leaked about what was discussed about Iran — and I'm sure that was a major topic of discussion. and now this comes out: Israel Warships Cross Suez In Possible Iran Signal MATTI FRIEDMAN — July 14, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/israel-w... So what does Obama have to say about this? Or, are we about to be DRAGGED into a major ME dispute because we truly are joined at the hip with Israel?
Under what meaning of "due process" did the Jews invade the homeland of the natives?And ditto re the settlers' occupation in the land beyond that contemplated by the UN Partition? What internationally legally-approved right do the settlers have to thwart the natives' reclaiming of the land the settlers root on? Due process is a requirement by US Constitution regarding the taking of property. There is no Israeli Constitution.
The US Constitution requires any public taking to be compensated for–and it requires there be a pre-conditional "public purpose." "Officer, remove that man!"
Only if you think there is a difference between Israel's interest and the USA's interest. History shows the China Lobby has been treated much differently than the Israel Lobby, for example. Or the red fifth column. You are to believe the best interests of the USA are identical to Israel's. That way of thinking is best to avoid issues of dual loyalty, or rather evidence of Israel First policy. What US state is favored as much as Israel by our federal government?
“He said, ‘I disagree,’ . . . ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’ HALLELUJAH!!!!
The rest of the gentiles were working or looking for a job so we can continue to send checks to israel.
Yeah, that's a good sign.
Comments on this entry are closed.