Thread: Obama's Road map

From Israel Today mailing:

Ex-envoy: Obama's approach to Mideast peace process is all wrong

Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on Tuesday said that President Barack Obama and his chief Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, have failed to grasp the realities of how peace is made in the region, and so have only exacerbated the conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

Indyk supported Obama for president, and originally believed he would do a much better job than past presidents at hammering out a lasting peace deal between Israel and its neighbors.

But at a political forum in Omaha, Nebraska, Indyk conceded that he had been wrong, and that Obama was flunking his foray into Middle East peacemaking.

Obama's first mistake, said Indyk, was putting so much stock in Saudi King Abdullah supporting his peace push by moderating the Arab-backed Saudi peace proposal, which offers Israel full diplomatic relations with its neighbors in return for surrendering all lands liberated in the 1967 Six Day War and opening its borders to millions of so-called "Palestinian refugees."

Obama believed that if he could just get the Arabs to drop their demand to flood what remained of the Jewish state with even more Arabs, then Israel could be compelled to accept the rest of the terms. But Abdullah was unwilling to budge.

Then, lamented Indyk, Obama made his second blunder by focusing nearly his entire peace policy on strong-arming Israel into halting all Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and even much of Jerusalem.

Indyk insisted that in order to effectively broker peace in the Middle East, one must not get bogged down in details before a broad agreement has been reached. Indeed, the Palestinians have played off Obama's error by adopting a far more extreme set of demands regarding Jewish building - demands that no Israeli leader can now accept.

Do you Zio-Jews ever stop whining?

You know, it gets tiring having to battle the Jews ...and I've just realized they're at battling us 24/7..and that's the reason they've managed to get as far with their disgusting theft of Palestine as they have....Houseknight just shows us that every little hiccup in the road to their final solution is another round of whines...

Houseknight wont be satisfied until all the Palestinians are removed from all of Palestine..so they can declare it all Israel...and then they can start doing the same to Egypt...
After all, wasn't it Egypt that their original battle was started?
Palestine is just the staging ground for their take over of Egypt...

It might sound ridiculous now...but the whole premise of Judaism is 'REVENGE'! So who was the first nation to kick them out?
Wasn't it Egypt? Is there a history of Jews before Egypt?

Isn't it the Jews agenda to put 3000 year old myths to 'right'? Isn't their plan to have Israel to the Nile? Well, then it has to be Egypt!
Don't knock it...no one thought they were serious about Palestine. When you work 24/7 on an agenda for over 100 years..do you think it's for the back water of Palestine??
They're going for 'broke' even if it takes them another couple of hundred years...
Keep in mind..there was no history of Jews prior to Egypt..

It's killing Houseknight, that Palestine is taking so long to become Israel...especially that Jews have a more ambitious agenda!


tata

IN 1941 ,Itzac Shamir proposed an alliance
to Hitler ,ready to have the Jews fight
against England.
Bar Zohar ,Ben Gourion ,Le Prophete Arme ,Paris, 1966
page 99

Originally Posted by houseknight

From Israel Today mailing:

Ex-envoy: Obama's approach to Mideast peace process is all wrong

Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on Tuesday said that President Barack Obama and his chief Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, have failed to grasp the realities of how peace is made in the region, and so have only exacerbated the conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

Indyk supported Obama for president, and originally believed he would do a much better job than past presidents at hammering out a lasting peace deal between Israel and its neighbors.

But at a political forum in Omaha, Nebraska, Indyk conceded that he had been wrong, and that Obama was flunking his foray into Middle East peacemaking.

...

November 18, 2009
Khaled Abu Toameh on Peace Process

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=18423

...


That’s why it was so fascinating the other night to listen to someone who describes himself as an Israeli-Arab-Muslim-Palestinian. His look, his dress, his accent and body language all felt different. His mother’s “large clan,” he said, lives in Ramallah, where he visits almost every day from his home in Jerusalem. I could easily imagine him drinking tea and eating hummus with them.

The man was Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh...
He brought up a private meeting he’d had with President Obama a couple of years ago, while Obama was still a U.S. senator. Toameh told Obama that the key obstacle to peace is the hatred and incitement to violence that prevails throughout Palestinian society — in schools, the media and mosques — and is endorsed by the Palestinian leadership.

Commenting on the charge of incitement, Obama asked: “Is it true?” and later asked: “What can we do about it?”

Toameh suggested that the United States and other donor countries should predicate aid to the Palestinians on their stopping the incitement, to which Obama responded, “Isn’t this political extortion?” [Obama is an idiot. Extortion is when you extort money from someone else. This is called making your money work for you.]

Toameh clearly thinks not. He thinks it is in the interest of the Palestinians to stop incitement, and he shared an Arab perspective on the subject.

“Look at the language that is now flying back and forth between Hamas and Fatah,” he said. “It’s the same poison you hear about the Jews: sons of pigs, infidels, etc. Incitement has spread and backfired on the Palestinians.”

This incitement has also hurt the Palestinians’ ability to make peace: “How do you tell people to make peace with the people you’ve called monsters and sons of pigs?”

Toameh sees no hope in the “top down” approach to peace. The soil is too rotten, he says. The Arab moderates have been undermined. “If I go to Ramallah and talk about Palestinian concessions on the right of return, I’ll get shot in five minutes.” [This is another way of saying there is no diplomatic solution.]

He says the Palestinians “already got their two-state solution — Gaza and the West Bank,” and if it weren’t for the Israeli presence in the West Bank, “Hamas would take over and Mahmoud Abbas would be lynched.”

But lest you think there was no ray of hope in this Arab gentleman, he closed by discussing the people who he believes hold the key to an eventual peace between Jews and Arabs.
more...

Hey, houseknight...think it just might be the systemic Hate that fills all Israeli's and not only towards Christians...but for all people..

And what has Israel done to further peace with the Palestinians lately? It isn't Obama who has it all wrong...it's you insane Jews!

Jews with Mouths filled with 'hatred'!

TATA

Originally Posted by Eann

Hey, houseknight...think it just might be the systemic Hate that fills all Israeli's and not only towards Christians...but for all people..

And what has Israel done to further peace with the Palestinians lately? It isn't Obama who has it all wrong...it's you insane Jews!

TATA

Israe has made all possible and impossible concessions in the name of peace. These over-concessions actually endanger our existence and people's lives. The consequent USA administrations do NOT realise, that limit of our concessions is over, and continue to pressure Israel for new inacceptable concessions, instead of to make proper step, that is to start pressure Arabs.


http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=18864

December 7, 2009
Obama to impose a solution
By Ted Belman

Obama has surrounded himself with a host of vehemently ant-Israel advisors including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Gen Jones, many of who advocate imposing a solution on Israel.

So it was no surprise that he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, and demanding a complete settlement freeze east of the greenline including Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the US commitment set out in the Bush ’04 letter to Sharon saying there was no agreement. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter testified otherwise.

In January ’09 before Obama had gotten his act together, Haaretz, reported

“Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands”.
Within a few months, that commitment was history.

PM Netanyahu, who had campaigned on the rejection of the two state –solution and on continued settlement growth, attempted to deflect or resist the pressure. One can only imagine the Tools of Persuasion that Netanyahu was subjected to. Finally on June 12/09 Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.

“We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of
the other.”
Nevermind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.

He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.”

With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction he affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements:.

As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.

At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated. Many complained that he had caved to the pressure without anything in return. Afterall, this was not the platform that Netanyahu had campaigned on.

A month later Obama met with Jewish leaders to reassure them and by all accounts the meeting went well. But shortly thereafter some Jewish leaders demanded that he make demands also on Arab countries. Obama publicly took up the challenge during the summer thereby admitting that Israel should get something in return. He was soundly rebuffed.

Undaunted, Obama then focused on getting Abbas to accept what Netanyahu had offered in his BESA speech when they met in September at the United Nations. Abbas refused to go along.. Obama had crapped out.

So it then came as a surprise that Netanyahu on Nov 26/09 announced a unilateral ten month freeze of settlement construction except for the 3500 units already announced and natural growth. But he emphasized that the freeze did not include Jerusalem. In fact a few days earlier, a new project of 800 units was announced for the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. Although Obama complained about it, he probably agreed to it to help Netanyahu win over his right wing.

The right in Israel was incensed; first by the acknowledgement of the two-state solution and now by the freeze, all with nothing in return.

On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,

“Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
This is little different from Bush’s wording,

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
Clinton referred to these realities as “subsequent developments”.

Thus the borders probably will be moved to the east of these blocks thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 50,000 give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.

So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen Mitchell had two months earlier endorsed in his name?

There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338” leaving open the possibility that Res 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines”. This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.

Whereas Bush had written “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel.”, Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res 194.

In the scheme of things these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit? Especially when Bush had said doing otherwise was “unrealistic”

Perhaps there was another reason.

Bush had committed in said letter that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”. By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan as many in his administration recommend he do.

In case you haven’t noticed, neither Obama, nor his administration, refer to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.

It would appear that the Obama administration has no confidence that a negotiated solution will be achieved. Most pundits and politicians believe likewise and that includes Netanyahu.

The issues are too intractable, in part because the Arabs and more specifically the “Palestinians” are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. .They haven’t compromised in ninety years. Why start now.

Abbas continues to reject negotiations. He prefers an imposed solution too.

This standoff may lead to the disintegration of the PA. which would invite unilateral moves by Israel, the US or Hamas.

Will Obama push for a binational state or allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria? Will he attempt to impose a solution? The NYT, in a lead editorial this week, favoured Obama ” Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble. ”

Meanwhile Obama has less than six months to decide to what extend he will cooperate with Israel in bombing Iran.

Hahahaaa....the EU will handle it...Israel is finished with stealing more land...


TATA

Originally Posted by Eann

Hey, houseknight...think it just might be the systemic Hate that fills all Israeli's and not only towards Christians...but for all people..

And what has Israel done to further peace with the Palestinians lately? It isn't Obama who has it all wrong...it's you insane Jews!

Jews with Mouths filled with 'hatred'!

TATA

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1134167.html

Poll: More Israelis like Obama, but don't feel he supports them

By Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama has a higher approval rating among Israelis than is widely believed, undercutting arguments he has lost Israeli public support for new peace efforts, a poll said on Thursday.

The poll by the Washington-based New America Foundation found that 41 percent of Israelis had a favorable rating of Obama against 37 percent who rated him unfavorably.

Despite this, 55 percent of Israelis polled said they thought Obama did not support Israel against 42 percent who said he did - a reflection of the "complexity of views" about the U.S. leader as he presses both Israel and the Palestinians to resume stalled peace talks.
Advertisement

"They genuinely admire and like him ... but at the same time they also want to feel that he is in their corner, and they have concerns over this," pollster Jim Gerstein said in an email message.

Gerstein said that, in contrast to widespread media reports of low Israeli public support for Obama, the poll of 1,000 Israelis showed more support and solid backing for a possible future U.S.-brokered peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Israelis believe peace is necessary, but they currently do not feel a sense of urgency to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians," Gerstein said in his report, adding that Obama had a chance now to persuade Israelis it was time to
reach an agreement.

"There are real opportunities for the president and his team to speak directly and convincingly to the Israeli people," the report said.

The Obama administration's efforts to get Israeli and Palestinian negotiators back to the table has foundered amid disagreement over Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian lands as well as the status of Jerusalem.

The poll found that while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a modest 48 percent approval rating, he was deemed strong on all issues related to security -- indicating potential support for any deal he might strike with the
Palestinians.

"Netanyahu's security image translates into 59 percent support for 'any agreement Netanyahu reaches with our enemies,'" the poll report said.

The poll found that while Israelis were largely confident of U.S. backing, there was widespread fear that this support could crumble if Israel rejects a future U.S.- sponsored deal with the Palestinians.

"Ultimately, the public is evenly split (48 percent each) over whether to support or oppose the prime minister if he rejects the U.S. proposal," it said.

On Obama, the poll found Israelis with a variety of attitudes. While overall the U.S. president was rated slightly more favorably than unfavorably, "there are also a lot of doubts on whether the president understands the threats facing Israelis," the poll said.

It said 50 percent of respondents believed Obama was "weak on terrorism" while 43 percent rated him as naïve.

The poll was conducted from November 8 to 15 and had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points

Originally Posted by houseknight

Unfortunately, Palestinians themselves don't recognise their, partially, Jewish roots. The HAMAS' program supported by Palestinian majority is entirely based on Islamic Wakf legislation, which consideres any land conquered some day by Muslims as eternal Wakf, that is exclusive Muslims' property. This way Palestinians view themselves inheritors of 7-th century Muslim invaders, the suggestion which is only partially correct.
Probably, the mental "swich" from traditional islamic ideology to more wide approach, can help Palestinians to accept Jewish presence at Holy Land and Israel's existence. Until now, such "swich" didn't occure. The Palestinian backwardness is exploited by foreign antisemites with the purpose to instigate Palestinian enmity towards Jewish cousins.
By the way, the founders of Zionism were originally pro-Arab, they really considered palestinian Arabs their "brethren". You can realise this history fact by reading some poem of greatest Zionist poet Haim Nahman Bialik.
Another expression of the same fact was Weizman-Faisal agreement which preceded both "Balfour letter" and San Remo conference resolution.

Of course they do.. Arab Christians and Muslims consider themselves to be descended from Abraham.. always have..

The founder of Zionism, Herzl, was very clear in his intention to expel the Arabs from Palestine amd import European Jews.