President Obama's Sept. 23, 2009 speech to the UN General Assembly:
The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.
His Sept. 23, 2010, speech to the same body:
Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors.
The 2010 speech does not mention "occupation" or "refugees" or "1967." All its references to Jerusalem are elliptical.
He’s a mediator, not a demander.
Yeah, let’s here it for Neville Chamberlain! He only needs one Palestinian puppet at the table instead of two cringing Czech diplomats. What’s a few settlements anyway?
“He’s a mediator, not a demander.”
No he’s not a mediator, he’s a facilitator. A mediator is an honest broker, not an enabled who promises one side unconditional suppport, while making all the demands of thf other party.
He’s a “decider” too, huh?
Seriously. Sometimes you parodize yourself, Witty.
Who in our government, including Congress, has ever stated that Israel should not keep some or all of the land it stole in 1967? All believe the mugger has a right to stolen loot.
This explains yet again why Witty and the likes of Israei propagandists like Martin Indyk are such fans of Obama’s approach to the I/P conflict.
We regard consented peace as valuable, long-standing.
We regard consented peace as valuable, long-standing.
A perfect example of the motherhood statement, Richard Witty’s speciality:
link to en.wiktionary.org
Consent doesn’t come from the end of a gun, Witty, and it can’t be dropped by gifted F-16s.
Meh, who cares what Obama thinks if Israel’s actions can be “explained” by Agnon’s writings?
Zing
RE: “Between ‘09 and ‘10, Obama dropped demand for an ‘end to occupation’” – Weiss
MY COMMENT: In the year between the two speeches, the ‘Likud Lobby’ showed Obama who’s the boss (Netanyahu) and who’s the “boy”.
It’s sad, really. Obama had great ideas, but he doesn’t have the backbone to put his ideas into effect. He should have pushed for his ideas, and risked losing the second term. No-one believes now that if he has a second term, he will do better.
Better to admit that he will be a one-term president and do what has to be done.
It may be the only point though where a US president can say no to Israel, is when the mushroom clouds have already been seen. Either through the Stuxnet worm, or a physical attack.