Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
Obama Says No To Israel
Jim Hoft
says that Obama has
refused all Israeli military requests since entering office in 2009,
reminding us that last week Obama refused to have his picture taken with
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There were reports that he
refused to dine with Netanyahu, too. But, his angst against Israel
does not stop there.
The World Tribune reported that officials
said the U.S. Defense Department and Israeli Defense Ministry concluded
an agreement that would enable the sale of at least three C-130J Super
Hercules aircraft to Israel.
They said the agreement was signed
in Washington on March 24 but has not been announced.
"There is a
signed agreement," an official said. "The announcement requires a
political decision."
Under the accord, Israel would be able to
purchase three C-130Js from manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The agreement
called for an option of another six air transports for a total value of
$1.9 billion. The Israeli request for the Super Hercules had been
approved by the administration of then-President George W. Bush in 2007.
The administration of President Barack Obama has refused to approve
any of Israel’s military requests since it entered office in January
2009. The Pentagon did not announce any weapons contracts to Israel over
the last 14 months.
Israel was expected to receive its first
C-130J in 2013, officials said. They said the next step would be to sign
a contract with Lockheed Martin, which has been processing requests from
such Middle East countries as Iraq, Oman and Tunisia.
Obama Administration Won't Rule Out Firing
on Israeli Jets
Jim Hoft draws our attention to
another warning -- the Obama Administration won't rule out firing on
Israeli jets if Iran is attacked.
America's top military officer wouldn't rule
the possibility today of U.S. forces firing on Israeli jets, if
Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
In a town hall
on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young Air Force
ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike
Mullen to respond to a "rumor." If Israel decided to attack
Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through
Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is
considered a "no-fly" zone by the American military. So might
U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the
chairman, if they breached that airspace?
Mullen tried to
sidestep the question. "We have an exceptionally strong
relationship with Israel. I've spent a lot of time with my
counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear
understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just
wouldn't get into the speculation of what might happen and who might
do what. I don't think it serves a purpose, frankly," he said.
"I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never
have to answer a question like that."
This isn't the first time we've heard this.
Last September, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former foreign adviser to US
president Jimmy Carter and current advisor to Barack Obama, called for
the US to shoot down Israeli jets.
Netanyahu To Obama: Pound Sand
Ed Morrissey
says Benjamin Netanyahu
delivered
an unequivocal message to the Obama administration this morning,
rejecting completely a call from Barack Obama to stop building
settlements in Jerusalem. The rejection creates a standoff between
the two traditional allies in the region and all but halts Obama's
efforts to force Israel back to the bargaining table (via
JWF):
Aides to Israel's prime minister said
Thursday that he has officially rejected Barack Obama's demand to
suspend all construction in contested east Jerusalem, a move that
threatens to entrench a year-old deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian
peacemaking.
The aides said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu delivered his government's position to Obama over the
weekend, ahead of the scheduled arrival later Thursday of Obama's
special Mideast envoy, George Mitchell. They spoke on
condition of anonymity because the contact between the two leaders
was private.
Washington had put Mitchell's shuttle diplomacy
on hold for more than a month as it awaited a reply from Israel.
Aides to Netanyahu provided no information on whether the Israeli
leader had offered any other concessions to the Palestinians in an
effort to restart the long-stalled talks.
The AP sounds almost disbelieving in reporting
this, adding in this odd paragraph:
But with Israel eager to ease tensions with
its closest and most important ally, it appeared likely the Jewish
state tempered its rejection with other confidence building gestures
toward the Palestinians.
Really? "It appeared likely" isn't even
rumor-mongering. It's complete fantasy by the writer.
Nothing in the article reports on "gestures," confidence-building or
otherwise, and AP reporter Amy Teibel doesn't provide even an anonymous
source for the reporting. It's nonsensical spin aimed at somehow
keeping this from becoming an abject diplomatic failure by Barack Obama.
Netanyahu just taught Obama a lesson, which is that a nation that
has been surrounded by terrorists and other enemies for decades isn't
going to be intimidated by an Ivory Tower academic, even if he sits in
the Oval Office. After Obama's shameful treatment of Netanyahu on
his visit to Washington DC, he could hardly have expected any better
response. Instead of cowing Netanyahu into submission, Obama has
alienated him -- and as a side effect, made Netanyahu more popular at
home because of it.
That's what makes Teibel's reporting so
disingenuous. If Netanyahu was so eager to "ease tensions" with
Obama, he would have found some sort of face-saving compromise for his
ally. Instead, Netanyahu just told Obama to pound sand.
Related: Poll -- 65 percent of Americans disagree
with how Obama is handling Israel
according to a Quinnipiac University survey.
PLO Wants Obama To "Impose" Solution
Sweetness & Light is
reporting that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas urged the Obama
administration on Saturday to impose a solution to the Middle East
conflict that would give his people an independent state.
"Mr.
President (Barack Obama) and members of the American administration,
since you believe in this (an independent Palestinian state), it is your
duty to take steps toward a solution and to impose this solution," Abbas
said in a speech.
Abbas made the remarks to members of his Fatah
party in the West Bank city of Ramallah a day after talks there with
Obama's Middle East envoy.
"We've asked them (the Obama
administration) more than once: 'Impose a solution'," Abbas said.
Abbas's appeal to Obama came amid widespread media reports that he
was considering floating a proposal that would set the contours of a
final peace deal.
Any such move would likely be opposed by
Israel, which says only negotiations can secure a final settlement to
the conflict.
Obama has been sharply at odds with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israeli settlement construction in the
occupied West Bank, land Palestinians want for their state, and in East
Jerusalem, which Abbas wants as a future capital.
Signals Of Weakness
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Tuesday
that Barack Obama has encouraged Israel’s enemies by sending "signals of
weakness" in the U.S. commitment to its ally.
"We have to ask if
the Obama administration remains committed to the state of Israel and
the right of Israel to exist and defend herself," Bachmann
told
POLITICO. "The Obama administration, through its word and its
actions, has been sending the world mixed signals at best."
Bachmann’s criticism came a day after a raid by Israeli commandos aboard
a ship headed for Gaza turned violent. Nine pro-Palestinian
activists were killed, prompting condemnation of the raid by Turkey and
other Islamic countries.
After reviewing a video tape, Bachmann
insisted that the commandos who dropped onto the ship from helicopters
were attacked by the activists. "Yet, Israel is being called upon
to apologize," she said.
While the incident sparked outrage
around the world, the administration has been cautious in its response
-- which Bachmann argued sends an unmistakable signal of its own.
Obama has demonstrated "less than clear, full support for the state
of Israel," Bachmann said. "Now Israel’s detractors act as though
Israel has no friends. … It’s more important now than ever that
the Obama administration and the United States are committed to the
state of Israel."
"It appears that from the time the Obama
administration came into office they have been stepping away from
Israel," she said.
Bachmann pointed to Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s March visit to the White House, where he was
perceived to have been coolly received by Obama, as a key moment in the
deteriorating relationship between the two countries.
"Some of
those signals haven’t gone unnoticed by Israel’s detractors and
aggressors. Those signals of weakness in coming to Israel’s
defense will only lead to further aggression," the congresswoman said.
"That hasn’t led to peace. That was an unwise decision, and I
think this weekend shows how that has played out."
"Peace Activists" Were Al Qaeda Mercenaries
Jonatan Urich
says
that in a special meeting of the Israeli Security Cabinet it was
disclosed that a group of 40 people on board the Mavi Marmara with no
identification papers belong to Al Qaeda.
According to
intelligence disclosed during that meeting, the terrorists wore
bullet-proof vests, and carried with them night-vision goggles, weapons,
and a package of cash. While the civilian protestors were sent to
the lower deck during the Shayetet Naval Special Force's interception of
the ship, the group divided into cells and remained on the upper deck in
order to attack the soldiers.
An announcement delivered at the
completion of this special meeting stated that blocking the entrance of
these ships into Gaza is an act of self defense. The Cabinet
places full responsibility for the incident on those who started the
violence which clearly endangered the lives of the IDF soldiers, and
commends the IDF for the way it responded. The meeting on this
subject will continue on Wednesday (June 2).
Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said during the meeting that he regrets all loss of
life, but gives full support to the IDF. "This was not a flotilla
for peace, but instead was a violent and organized force. We have
films and photographs which show what our soldiers faced, but the
last thing that can be said about this ship is that it was a flotilla of
peace," he said.
"We know from the experience of Operation Cast
Lead, and beforehand, that weapons entering the Gaza Strip are used
against our civilians. Within Gaza there is a terror state aided
by Iran, and therefore we attempt to prevent the entering of weapons to
Gaza by land, air and sea. On the Francop ship alone we caught
approximately 200 tons of weapons which were smuggled by Iran to
Hezbollah," he added.
The Prime Minister emphasized that
"Opening a maritime channel to Gaza will present a grave danger to the
security of our civilians. Therefore we are upholding the policies
of the maritime blockade, and check the ships. There is no
possibility to establish these policies without checking the contents of
the ships. It is true that there is international pressure on and
criticism of this policy, but we must understand that it is necessary in
order to ensure the security of Israel and her right to self defense."
Obama To Netanyahu: Go Home
Hillel Fendel
says
that in the hubbub surrounding the "battle of the flotilla," Netanyahu’s
quick reversal of his decision to remain in the United States has been
largely ignored. It turns out that Obama told him to leave because
he didn’t want Netanyahu to use the White House as a stage on which to
present Israel’s side of the story.
The flotilla violence caught
Netanyahu in the midst of a diplomatic trip to North America. He
was in the Canadian capital of Ottawa at the time, about to leave for
Washington for a meeting with Barack Obama. The meeting was to
have been a way for Obama to make up for the humiliation he dealt
Netanyahu on his last visit, when he refused to be seen with the Israeli
leader in public.
Netanyahu announced immediately after the
flotilla news broke that he would remain in North America and would meet
with Obama as scheduled. However, within minutes after media
reported Netanyahu would continue with his trip as scheduled, he
abruptly announced a change of plan and set off immediately for Israel
to "deal with the flotilla crisis."
Behind the scenes, it was
Obama officials who caused the turnabout. Globes cites sources in
both Jerusalem and Washington who say that Obama officials gave a clear
message to Netanyahu’s people: "Don’t come."
Officials in both
Washington and Jerusalem deny that this was the case.
Some
sources said that it was precisely the high-profile nature of the visit
that scared the Americans. The White House did not wish Obama to
be seen sharing the stage with the leader of the country that was under
international attack for having "attacked peace activists."
Netanyahu, for his part, was looking forward to explaining to the world
from Washington that the violent activists on the boat in question were
"terror activists" with ties to Hamas and Al-Qaeda, who attempted to
lynch the minimally-armed soldiers as they rappelled down down their
helicopter.
Obama's actions,
or lack thereof, are setting the stage for war in the Near East, Iran,
and the Koreas. He's a pushover, and our enemies know it.
Birds Of A feather
John Hinderaker
says Helen Thomas has been a White House
correspondent for decades; how many decades, I can't even guess. She
is a hard-core left-winger who thinks Barack Obama is nowhere near
radical enough. She is also, frankly, an idiot, and has been humored
by White House press secretaries for about as long as I have been
alive.
Thomas revealed her lunacy once again last week, when she
confided that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and go
"home" to Germany and Poland. Click the image to
view the video; as usual, Thomas gives hags a bad name.
Someone should remind the old Arab
that there ain't no such place as "Palestine."
Obama’s Flotilla, Obama’s War
Gary Bauer says the flotilla of boats
intercepted by Israel this week flew the Turkish flag and was paid for
by a "charity" deeply implicated in Islamic terrorism. But the
"captain" of the fleet was none other than Barack Obama.
From
the day he took the oath of office eighteen arduous months ago, Obama
has followed a Middle East foreign policy that’s been as hostile toward
Israel as it’s been hospitable toward the Islamic world.
Over
those months Obama has seldom showed anger toward rogue Muslim
governments -- not toward the appalling human rights abuses of the
genocidal Bashir regime in Sudan. Not toward the government of
Iran as it pursues its nuclear weapons program.
Obama refused
"to meddle" in Iran’s affairs after the deadly crackdown against
protestors following the Islamic Republic’s sham elections. But he
was described as "seething" with anger only moments after hearing about
a routine decision by Jerusalem’s municipal government to authorize
housing units in a well established Jewish neighborhood.
The
administration’s latest betrayal of Israel came a couple days before the
flotilla episode, when the U.S. joined an international conference that
singled out Israel -- not Iran -- to renounce its nuclear weapons.
From Tehran to Ankara, from Damascus to Beirut, radical Islamists
have read the signals as well. They see Obama as weak and they
know he feels no bond with Israel. They sense opportunity.
That is why missiles are being launched from Gaza again, why Hezbollah
says it is yearning for war, why Syria has rejected every U.S. overture
and why Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens a second Holocaust.
"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries
and get some experience," Ahmadinejad taunted Obama ahead of his nuclear
summit in D. C. two months ago.
Obama’s
"It’s-Better-To-Be-Loved-Than-Feared" foreign policy also explains why
Turkey, a U.S. ally and NATO member, allowed the flotilla to be
launched. Did Obama even try to convince Turkey to stop the ships?
Did he object when Turkey signed a nuclear deal with Iran two weeks ago?
From
Scott
at PowerLine blog: Bill Kristol
reports that senior Obama administration officials have been telling
foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort
next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission,
under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla
incident. Bill comments that the White House has apparently
shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that:
a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of
much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN
investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing
entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that
this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents
involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own
war on terror. The Obama administration is once again
demonstrating its unerring instinct for opposing friends and supporting
enemies.
Kristol's report comes just as Israel's Ministry of
Foreign Affairs has informed Israel's representatives the world over
that there were
never
any humanitarian supplies or equipment aboard the Mavi Marmara, where
Israeli commandos were ambushed by armed mercenaries posing as peace
activists. Of related interest are the videotaped
statements of
two Mavi Marmara crew members showing that preparations for a violent
confrontation with IDF forces were put in motion about two hours before
the boarding began, when the Israeli Navy hailed the ship and told it to
halt; according to the statements, the atmosphere aboard the Mavi
Marmara; IHH operatives on the main deck were cutting the ship's
railings with metal disks they had brought with them into lengths
suitable to be used as clubs.
Despite outward appearances, the
Obama administration is not clueless. It has plenty of clues.
Let's just say now is a good time to meditate further on Dorothy
Rabinowitz's Wall Street Journal
column on "The alien in the White
House."
UPDATE: The Standard has posted the White House
response to Kristol's report
here. Senators Reid and McConnell
have in addition circulated a joint letter to Obama for signature by
their colleagues. The letter raises the role of the IHH in the
incident and recommends investigation of the IHH for inclusion among the
designated state sponsors of terror. The letter further states:
"[W]e ask you to stand firm in the future at the United Nations Security
Council and to use your veto power, if necessary, to prevent any similar
biased or one-sided resolutions [such as the UN Human Rights Council's]
from passing."
What Was Obama Thinking?
Surveying the wreckage of the middle east peace
talks, Paul Mirengoff
believes Barry Rubin
asked an excellent question in connection with Obama's recent push
for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority:
Knowing that it was unlikely he would get a
full continuation of the freeze [on Israeli settlement construction]
and that the Palestinian Authority was eager to get out of
negotiations, why did Obama put so much of his prestige on success;
give himself unnecessary self-imposed impossible deadlines; make a
breakthrough seem relatively likely and easy (despite giving lip
service to the difficulties); and magnify the issue's importance so
that a failure seemed all the worse?
For Rubin, the primary answer is incompetence. This
is an explanation Mirengoff almost always resists in these kinds of
situations as facile and demeaning to people more accomplished than me.
But Rubin exhausts the force of explanations Mirengoff generally
find more plausible -- political calculation, ideology, arrogance, and
the desire to posture -- without providing a fully satisfactory answer
to his question. So Mirengoff is inclined to agree that incompetence was
also at play.
Israelis and Palestinians Both Blame Obama
Ed Morrissey
says it isn’t often that one man can bring the Israelis and
Palestinians together, but Barack Obama has managed the near-impossible,
according to Ben Smith at Politico. Obama hasn’t brought them any
closer to peace -- just the opposite, in fact. But at least
they’re both blaming the same guy:
Vowing to change a region that
has resisted the best efforts of presidents and prime ministers past,
Barack Obama dove head first into the Middle East peace process on his
second day in office.
He was supposed to be different. His
personal identity, his momentum, his charisma and his promise of a fresh
start would fundamentally alter America’s relations with the Muslim
world and settle one of its bitterest grievances.
Two years
later, he has managed to forge surprising unanimity on at least one
topic: Barack Obama. A visit here finds both Israelis and
Palestinians blame him for the current stalemate -- just as they blame
one another.
Instead of becoming a heady triumph of his
diplomatic skill and special insight, Obama’s peace process is viewed
almost universally in Israel as a mistake-riddled fantasy. …
Even
those who still believe in the process that Obama has championed view
his conduct as a deeply unfunny comedy of errors.
"He’s like
rain," said a top Israeli official involved in diplomacy with the U.S.,
speaking of Obama’s role in negotiations. "You can do all kinds of
things to cope with it."
A lot of Americans are learning the same
thing, especially Tea Party activists, who threw Obama’s party out of
power in the House. In fact, many of them have a similar opinion
of Obama as do the Israelis:
"Israelis really hate Obama’s guts,"
said Shmuel Rosner, a columnist for two leading Israeli newspapers.
"We used to trust Americans to act like Americans, and this guy is like
a European leader."
We feel your pain, dude.
Israel Says Obama Can’t Be Trusted
If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled,
Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood
and Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits
said on Monday.
Political commentators expressed shock at how
the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be
ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to
conform to the current ideology of political correctness.
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to
make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid
inflaming an already explosive situation, but Israel’s President Shimon
Peres, who is not a minister said:
"We always have had and still have great
respect for President Mubarak. I don’t say everything that he
did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to
him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East."
Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.
One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled, "A
Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and
insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.
Who is advising them, he
asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the
head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the
president … an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"
"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the
generations … is painfully naive."
"The question is, do we think
Obama is reliable or not," said an Israeli official, who declined to be
named.
"Right now it doesn’t look so. That is a question
resonating across the region not just in Israel."
Writing in
Haaretz, Ari Shavit said Obama had betrayed "a moderate Egyptian
president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability
and encouraged moderation."
Making Israel Pay For The "Reset"
Jonathan Tobin
says Obama’s paean to democracy in the Arab world was
neoconservative in tone and strongly rooted in an American freedom
promotion agenda that Obama had derided when running for president as
well as in his first years in office. Obama’s appeal for human
rights and proposals for economic development in the region linked to
peaceful change from tyranny to freedom was well said and an entirely
proper policy pronouncement. But by linking this appeal to a move
that will undermine Israel’s negotiating position, Obama has
demonstrated that he has little faith that an American freedom agenda is
enough to win over the Arab world.
Contrary to reports that said
that Obama had decided to pass on enunciating his idea of a framework
for Arab-Israeli peace in the wake of the unity pact between Fatah and
Hamas, Obama nevertheless proceeded to do just that. Though Obama
paid due deference to Israel’s security needs and stated his opposition
to Palestinian attempts to delegitimize and isolate Israel, by stating
that a framework of peace must be based on the pre-1967 borders, he has
dealt the Jewish state a telling diplomatic blow.
Rather than
helping to head off a United Nations vote to recognize a Palestinian
state without benefit of a peace agreement this fall, Obama’s speech
will actually strengthen the Arab argument in favor of such a measure.
Their goal is international recognition of a Palestinian state in every
inch of the territories without an agreement that will force either
Fatah or Hamas to recognize Israel. Obama’s endorsement of the
1967 borders -- without any reciprocal measure from a Palestinian
Authority that has not only refused to negotiate with Israel but has now
allied itself with the Hamas terrorists -- will be seen as implicit
support for their refusal to talk until Israel concedes everything in
advance. Though it was couched in neutral terms laden with
rhetoric designed to please friends of Israel, the ultimate impact of
this speech damages Israel’s negotiating position and weakens its
ability to stave off efforts designed to further isolate it.
But,
as even Obama seemed to acknowledge, the chances that his formula will
actually lead to peace are not great. Why then devote so much
attention to this hopeless quest when the real challenge in the region
is how Arab societies can transition to freedom from tyranny?
The
first reason is that Obama has never wavered from his obsessive belief
that Israeli concessions will magically create peace.
Second, and
perhaps more importantly, by putting Israel in a corner Obama hopes to
score points with the Arab world. Perhaps rightly, Obama seems to
have concluded that American economic aid to the region and our halting
and inconsistent support for freedom isn’t likely to win many Arab
hearts and minds. But helping to tilt the diplomatic battlefield
even further in favor of Israel’s Palestinian foes may do the trick.
The problem with this strategy is that even this unprecedented move
won’t convince those who hate Israel to love America. And by
damaging Israel’s diplomatic position and making its isolation more
likely, he has also undermined U.S. interests.
Related:The Fallacy of the "1967
Borders" -- No Such Borders Ever Existed
Related:"In his Muslim speech today Barack Obama told Israel
to give Old Jerusalem, including the tomb of Jesus, to Hamas."
"A Rank Amateur"
Rick Moran
says The One was stewing. You could almost see the steam
coming out of those Dumbo ears of his when Prime Minister Netanyahu
turned the tables on Obama and began to lecture HIM. From ABC
News:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
seemed to think he needed to educate President Obama on some issues
today, so in the Oval Office he described in some detail to the
president a history of the refugee problem in the region dating back
63 years, as well as his view on the need for Israel to be able to
defend itself in the context of thousands of years of Jewish
suffering.
"We don't have a lot of margin for error,"
Netanyahu said to the president. "Because, Mr. President,
history will not give the Jewish people another chance."
Netanyahu, whose father is a retired academic, offered the president
repeated history lessons, saying Jews have "been around for almost
4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like
no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and
massacres and the murder of millions. But I can say that even
at the dearth of -- even at the nadir of the valley of death, we
never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a
sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel."
[...]
Netanyahu said that "while Israel is prepared to
make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967
lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don't take
into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground,
demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years."
In 1967, Netanyahu said, "Israel was all of 9 miles wide -- half
the width of the Washington Beltway... So we can't go back to those
indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term
military presence along the Jordan."
The topper came when Bibi told Obama, "Hamas has
just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the
world of bin Laden. So Israel obviously cannot be asked to
negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of
al-Qaida."
It will be fascinating to watch the dueling speeches
at AIPAC -- Obama on Sunday and Netanyahu on Monday -- as well as
listening to Bibi's Joint Session of Congress speech on Tuesday.
Expect more war of words from both men as Netanyahu exposes Obama's
pandering to the Arabs as the naive maneuverings of a rank amateur.
Obama Ganging Up On Israel
The left-wing Guardian (UK) is reporting that
Barack Obama will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron,
insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders
-- a proposal rejected by Israel's prime minister as "unrealistic" and
"indefensible".
The issue will be raised in private talks between
the two men during the state visit by Obama and his wife to London.
Afghanistan, Libya, relations with Pakistan and the global economy -- as
well as the vacancy for the top job at the IMF -- will also make up the
agenda.
Despite the outright rejection by the Israeli premier,
Binyamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state based on the borders that
existed before the Six Day War, when Israel captured and occupied the
West Bank and Gaza, Obama has already secured the political backing of
the United Nations, European Union and Russia who, with America, are
collectively known as the "quartet."
Signaling his determination
to keep up pressure on Israel, Obama will be looking to enlist the
public support of the UK prime minister. The aim is, in large
part, to persuade the Palestinian leadership not to go to the UN in
September seeking symbolic backing for an independent state.
