I didn’t hear the press conference today, but I’m hearing from a number of sources that Bibi took the president to school.
Well, he badly needs it. I’m afraid, though, that on issues like this, he’s a slow learner.
33 thoughts on “Middle East 101”
Comments are closed.
Netanyahu: U.S. Must Resume 1847 Borders
israel: 70 ad borders.
I saw the presser. Obama tried to sound statesmanly, but then Bibi ripped him.
I didn’t see the press conference, but I read about it and have heard some audio clips.
Since Obama is such a vindictive little snot, count on him to become even more anti-Israel.
As Oscar Goodman said about a year ago, “This president is a – really – slow- learner”.
Quite frankly, I’m surprised Obama didn’t demand Israel return to the 1945 borders.
If you don’t address the “demographics problem” which will soon prevent Israel from remaining a Jewish democracy, you are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic.
But this business of Netanyahu taking Obama to school is just BS showmanship — they actually agree. Look at this article from a few days ago:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329292195130326.html
I’ll quote the first two paragraphs here:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a remarkable speech to the Knesset on Monday outlining future Israeli concessions to a Palestinian state. In doing so, he essentially ended the ideological debate within mainstream Israeli politics over the so-called two-state solution.
Mr. Netanyahu’s historic achievement has been to position his Likud Party within the centrist majority that seeks to end the occupation of the Palestinians but is wary of the security consequences. There is no longer any major Israeli party that rejects a West Bank withdrawal on ideological grounds. Instead, the debate is now focused where most Israelis want it to be: on how to ensure that a Palestinian state won’t pose an existential threat to their country.
Bob, I’m shocked, shocked, that you’d attempt to spin this in the president’s favor.
Rand, Netanyahu’s speech calling for a withdrawal from the West Bank (and the Wall Street Journal piece I linked to) preceded Obama’s speech by five days. You’re doing yourself a disservice if you dismiss it as “spin”.
Unfortunately we cannot read the entire WSJ article (unless you are a member which I am no) so you really don’t know what the article says. Still, in the two paragraphs posted, we have this:
“There is no longer any major Israeli party that rejects a West Bank withdrawal on ideological grounds. Instead, the debate is now focused where most Israelis want it to be: on how to ensure that a Palestinian state won’t pose an existential threat to their country.”
Not sure any serious Israeli party had an ideological problem with West Bank withdrawal. It’s kind of a silly sentence because what could those “ideas” be?
I know some of the practical reasons there’s opposition to a withdrawal: gives up control of water, defense, access to Jerusalem etc.
The other thing about the last sentence there is that, to my knowledge, it’s always been about “where most Israelis want it [the line]to be”.
Bibi has some stones to be in D.C., after the way he’s been treated in the past. But then he and his country have little choice. I read an article a day or so ago outlining how Obama has caused both sides of the argument to lose faith and trust in the US:
Short of threatening with nukes, no other nation on the planet can force Israel to do something except the US. No Middle East nation can – they tried by force of arms and lost repeatedly. They tried by infatada and lost. The French, for example, could influence Israel but, as I say,only by threat of nuke. A united global effort could make Israel a pariah state but that would be tough to arrange. And even then Israel would, I think, do what they wanted to do. When it comes to survival you do what you must.
The Middle East players see the US as the nation that can make Israel do something. So the US was actually their path to getting something.
But then Obama made his settlement declaration and Israel told him to pound sand. This was a serious event. Because now the players on the other side of the table from Israel realized that, under this Prez, the US can’t make Israel do anything.
So Israel lost confidence in, and respect for, the US
The arabs lost respect for the US.
Thanks much Obama.
As to why Obama made his statements this week I can only conjecture. Did he think he needed to throw the Arab world a big bone after offing Bin Laden so that they will love him again?
Maybe he thinks that ANY solution – no matter how sucky – could be classified as historic and give him victory in 2012. After all, countless presidents failed but HE got a deal! And the ramifications of a bad deal for Israel aren’t likely to show up before the election. We’ve seen this kind of thing before from him.
Did some of Rev. Wright’s comments sink in during the 20 years of sermons Obama attended and he truly hates Jews?
Does he not grasp the geo-military-political situation on the West Bank? It’s complicated, for sure.
Is this merely public posturing that the Facaded One loves to make and has nothing to do with his real intentions? We’ve seen that one before as well. And to be fair lots of presidents good and bad have had to do that from time to time.
I cannot say.
But to make a move like this really demands solid no-kidding justification to the US public and the world. I doubt we’ll get it.
Bob-1 Says:
“Rand, Netanyahu’s speech calling for a withdrawal from the West Bank (and the Wall Street Journal piece I linked to) preceded Obama’s speech by five days. ”
Bob, Israel offered West Bank withdrawal years ago. Remember the failed Clinton attempt where Israel offered to withdraw from 93% of the West Bank?
The offer was rejected mainly because of the 7% that Israel wanted to hold on to. That 7% was vital stuff. It included, among other things, water control.
So it’s not like this is some major move on Israel’s part, and that NOW Israel and Obama agree. The devil is in the details.
Transterrestrial Musings readers: if the Wall Street Journal piece is behind a paywall for you, search on “Netanyahu the Surprising Uniter” in google — the complete article should be available via the first link, as well as various subsequent links.
Gregg, yes, that’s right. Obama only repeated what Israel had put on the table over ten years ago. Netanyahu is just putting on a show for domestic consumption. On Monday he acknowledged that Israel will withdraw from the far-flung settlements, so now he has to put on a show in Washington to placate his coalition partners.
Bob-1 Says:
“Gregg, yes, that’s right. Obama only repeated what Israel had put on the table over ten years ago.”
No he did not. you are glossing over the details – as did Obama – which is where the problems are.
Thanks for the link to the full article. I’ll check it out.
Bob said:
“Netanyahu is just putting on a show for domestic consumption.”
I admire your belief in your ability to see into other people’s minds, and know exactly why they are doing what they are doing. I have no confidence in my ability to do that.
Or your ability truth be told….
Read (or reread) the last line of the WSJ piece. Netanyahu is trying to forestall a rift in the right wing between the security Right and the religious Right.
Yeah Bob,
and if all your ‘neighbors’ wanted YOU dead, and YOUR wife, kids and pets, you’d let those ‘neighbors’ pitch their tents in your front yard as a sign of good will. You’d look past the fact that the ‘neighbors’ had sworn in their ‘neighborhood camp out’ charter to wipe you out of the ‘neighborhood’. You’d know that it was just ‘rhetoric’ for the rubes in fly over.
You’ve spouted some goofy cr@p here before, but this tops it all for me!
And the fact that you’d believe anything in American MSM is baffling. Isn’t this the same MSM who wanted GWB’s head over going into Afghanistan and Iraq with Congressional approval? The same MSM who are ignoring Obama and Libya sans Congressional approval? Seriously Bob, do you believe this cr@p, or are you just a contrarian here in Rand’s house?
Phhht!
I’m not expecting Israel to give anything to the ‘palestinians’ but lead. In vast and repeated quantities. Mark my words, if the Israelis are pushed, they’ll look at the prevailing wind patterns and start mushroom farms on the Arab ground around them before they go away quietly.
Except for Bob-1, most of us would, I think.
Israel offered huge portions of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, in return for a peace deal, multiple times in the past. The Palestinian leadership rejected those offers. Israel has no obligation to honor them now, years later and after years of Palestinian hostility that has only intensified with time. Now Obama has asserted gratuitously, and unprecedentedly for an American president, that a territorial adjustment more extreme than the most generous offer Israel made in the past is to be the starting point for any new negotiations. Thus he rewards the Palestinians for their hostility and puts Israel in an untenable position.
Netanyahu isn’t “putting on a show for domestic consumption”. He represents a political consensus in Israeli society that with the exception of a loony-Left fringe has united after years of fruitless attempts to bribe and placate the Palestinians. As Israel’s Arab enemies learn that they can get away with anything, Israelis are near their wits’ end and are not likely to yield to Obama’s crude attempts to pressure them to act against their own interests.
Obama is making war more rather than less likely.
Jonathan, what’s the difference between “Israel gets 100% minus mutually agreeable concessions” and “Israel gets 1967 borders plus mutually agreeable swaps”?
My answer: nothing, except window dressing which makes it possible for two hostile parties to sit down and negotiate. The final agreement (or lack of one) is all that matters.
I don’t know where you get the idea that Israel’s enemies learn that they can get away with anything. Even the vicious assholes running Gaza tried very hard over the last few months to step back from a re-run of Operation Cast Lead.
Der Schtumpy, your argument isn’t with the me, or with “the MSM”. Your argument is with either Netanyahu himself, or with Yossi Klein Halevi, a rightwing Israeli journalist. Halevi is American-born, but see Halevi’s piece “As My Son Goes to War, I Am Fully Israeli At Last”, and it should be noted that Halevi himself joined the IDF when he immigrated and patrolled in Gaza).
Rather than ranting about the MSM, I think a reasonable argument for you to make would be that Halevi has misinterpreted Netanyahu’s May 16 speech. If you’re curious, you can read Netanyahu’s speech here:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechkneset160511.htm
Halevi points out that Netanyahu is calling for a Palestinian state with Israeli military presence in the Jordan valley, but no far flung settlements peppering the West Bank — the “settlement blocs” Netanyahu refers to in the speech are the suburbs that hug the Israeli border, and these would be included in the swaps.
Instead of the WSJ Bob, try the LA Times:
But… they actually agree. And my 2nd grade teacher and I agreed too. That I needed to spend some time by myself in the hallway.
Curt, you’re referring to the Palestinian wish for a right to return. Who except the Palestinians thinks this is an option? Not Obama, not Labor, not Kadima, not Likud, etc. So why even bring it up?
There is no legitimate Palestinian right to return to Israel. The Palestinians had their own perfectly good state, with full government representation and everything. It was called Jordan, and they were kicked out of it in September of 1970 for trying to assassinate the king and overthrow the government. The king of Jordan at the time could have killed them all, and probably should have; instead, he expelled them. And since no one else would take them, guess where they ended up? Israel.
The Palestinians are neither a people nor a nation. They are an ungovernable rabble that brings nothing but blood and chaos wherever they go. One look at southern Lebanon is enough for any person to know what a “Palestinian State” would look like.
All they had to do was live in Jordan peacefully. They found ikt impossible to do so. Now, sadly, the Israelis will probably end up having to do what the Hashemite king of Jordan would not — and will face the hatred of the world for doing the job that no one else would do.
Then Netanyahu attacked Obama’s idea that the refugee problem could wait until borders and security issues were solved.
I’m quoting Netanyahu. I guess he was agreeing with Obama when he said “It’s not going to happen”. Just two friends chatting together. Droids… Move along.
Thanks for clearing that up. BOB.
Curt, the argument is over window dressing for negotiations. Show me one place Obama (or Labor, or Kadima) ever suggested that Israel allow the Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper. Everyone (including the Palestinians worth negotiating with) knows that it isn’t going to happen.
B. Lewis, your history is mixed up. The overwhelming majority of the millions of Palestinians living on the West Bank either lived there for generations or lived in Israel proper. The number of PLO fighters and perhaps their families that were kicked out Jordan after Black September numbers in the thousands (around four thousand, but I’m not sure). And no, Israel isn’t going to commit genocide, nor will they forcibly relocate millions of Palestinians.
And no, Israel isn’t going to commit genocide, nor will they forcibly relocate millions of Palestinians.
And yet Netanyahu felt the need to provide the President of the United States a history lesson. On camera. Most of it delivered while looking directly at him. Ending it with “And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”
Why? “Window dressing”? If you watch the video, or just look at some of the stills, you’ll see Obama’s reaction. He clearly does not approve of Netanyahu’s choice in drapes.
But go ahead Bob, spin away…
Bob, those “few thousand” PLO that Jordan kicked out are the ones running the Palestinian Authority today. Get real.
Mike, I don’t know what point you are trying to make. Are you addressing the history of how the people in the West Bank ended up where they are, or are you addressing the suitability of the West Bank’s leadership to engage in peace talks, or what?
It isn’t just the West Bank but also the Golan Heights and all of the holy sites in Jerusalem.
Obama unilaterally broke the agreement made between the USA and Israel that led to Israel pulling out of Gaza.
Obama’s words mean nothing. Look at his broken campaign promises, war in Libya, federally funded abortions, his constant flip flops on Israel, or missile defense provisions in the START treaty in comparison to his statements. Why would any foreign leader trust what Obama says?
Maybe it is time for the LA Times to release Obama’s speech to honor Rashid Khalidi.
“Israelis want it to be: on how to ensure that a Palestinian state won’t pose an existential threat to their country.”
Bob, Obama is the egg, Israel, to excuse the expression, is the bacon. So they differ considerably.
Bob-1 Says:
“Read (or reread) the last line of the WSJ piece. Netanyahu is trying to forestall a rift in the right wing between the security Right and the religious Right.”
Somebody wrote it so it must be true?
wodun Says:
“Obama’s words mean nothing. Look at his broken campaign promises, war in Libya, federally funded abortions, his constant flip flops on Israel, or missile defense provisions in the START treaty in comparison to his statements. Why would any foreign leader trust what Obama says?”
Quite true. The problem is that one doesn’t know which is the false statement from O:
He wants them to go back to ’67 borders
He didn’t really mean it.
Or some third fourth or fifth option he hasn’t revealed.
We need to keep in mind that the standards for ethics at the international level are non-existent. Obama isn’t any worse than many two-faced political leaders out there. They don’t negotiate with Obama because they have even the slightest trust in what he says. They negotiate because they’re looking to get something. And while Obama can’t be trusted, the US like many countries does honor most of its agreements, even when made by fools or charlatans.