Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Better to discuss whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table while Obama’s reelection still is on the table

    Better to discuss whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table while Obama’s reelection still is on the table

    Is there any doubt that Obama will put the screws on Israel to come close to doing what people like Jeffrey Goldberg insist “my President” will not do, which is force Israel to make dangerous concessions? 

    When there is no reelection on the horizon, when Jewish campaign donors have no Obama campaign to which they can contribute, when the opinions of the vast majority of Americans don’t matter, when Obama is free of the constraints of the political process…. that’s when you will see the full force of Obama come into play to force a “historic” peace deal.

    Bret Stephens makes that point in The Wall Street Journal:

    What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.

    That’s the most troubling thing. 

    Goldberg and others are afraid that Netanyahu upset Obama by speaking up for Israel.  Quite the contrary, Obama is going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether Netanyahu speaks up or not, and it only will get worse in a second term.

    So it was better for Netanyahu to engage on the issue of whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table, while Obama’s reelection still is on the table.

    Update:  Thanks to commenter @Timb for the quote which proves that Obama adopted the Palestinian position: “the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps….”  That was not the Israeli position or the U.S. position.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Hello David! Alpha Sierra: "Ape Shit." Now. Take a deep breath, please, and go back and read what I wrote. I didn't write that Sparky was correct. I wrote that he did not say what he is being 'accused' of saying. He did not call for a unilateral withdrawal to the pre-'67 lines. And, he said nothing that at least two of his predecessors – Bush II and Clinton – have also said. So, why was it acceptable for those two to formulate US policy on that concept, but not Sparky? Help me out here, please.

    IT iS ALL IN THE WAY HE SAYS IT!

    "which proves that Obama adopted the Palestinian position: "the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps"

    Is there anyone in America who believes Obama, or his supporters, would have even considered not adopting the Palestinian position?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend