Between ’09 and ’10, Obama dropped demand for an ‘end to occupation’

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 12 Comments

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.

12 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    September 26, 2010, 1:56 pm

    He’s a mediator, not a demander.

    • Citizen
      September 26, 2010, 5:31 pm

      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?

    • Shingo
      September 26, 2010, 5:54 pm

      “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.

    • Chaos4700
      September 27, 2010, 8:52 am

      He’s a “decider” too, huh?

      Seriously. Sometimes you parodize yourself, Witty.

  2. Les
    September 26, 2010, 2:20 pm

    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.

  3. Shingo
    September 26, 2010, 3:27 pm

    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.

    • Richard Witty
      September 26, 2010, 8:43 pm

      We regard consented peace as valuable, long-standing.

      • Sumud
        September 26, 2010, 10:52 pm

        We regard consented peace as valuable, long-standing.

        A perfect example of the motherhood statement, Richard Witty’s speciality:

        link to

      • Chaos4700
        September 27, 2010, 8:53 am

        Consent doesn’t come from the end of a gun, Witty, and it can’t be dropped by gifted F-16s.

  4. Avi
    September 26, 2010, 6:01 pm

    Meh, who cares what Obama thinks if Israel’s actions can be “explained” by Agnon’s writings?


  5. DICKERSON3870
    September 26, 2010, 6:01 pm

    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”.

  6. alexno
    September 27, 2010, 2:34 pm

    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.

Leave a Reply