Change?
Barack Hussein Obama made a statement about the Middle East. Same old, same old. U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday that Presodent George Bush's successor in the White House could help achieve a peace agreement if both sides showed a willingness to compromise.Where have I heard that before?
"The Israelis are going to have to acknowledge that some of the settlement policies make it very difficult to create a functioning Palestinian state. The Palestinians, they've got to recognize Israel and they've got to stop threatening violence," Obama said at a campaign stop in Gresham, Oregon.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:34 AM
4 Comments:
I know... its the same as the Bush policies. Insanity is the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Its been said here on this blog many times. The Palestinians are not interested in statehood and are not building a state. Its not something the U.S and Israel can do for them. That's something they have to do for themselves. Sitting around and waiting for a state is not going to result in change in the Middle East this year or in our lifetime.
Obama is a politician. He will say anything to be elected. The Arabs aren't interested in their own nation side-by-side with Israel, but to own Israel instead.
It's sort of what's been heard from the Bush/Condi/Road Map Monitoring Generals and the "Quartet":
"Israel told to halt West Bank settlements",
and re: the monitor generals:
"With regard to Israel's obligations, the Americans recently gave both the government and the defense establishment a list of 10 questions concerning outposts, settlement construction and other issues. Associates of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been harshly critical of Jerusalem's failure to evacuate outposts, remove roadblocks and take other measures to improve the PA's economy, such as establishing industrial parks along the seam between Israel and the West Bank."
But notice Obama's more diplomatic subtlety, the Palestinians are the ones being told they've "got" to do this or that (twice), but when it comes to Israel, he's just suggesting that the "settlements" aren't pragmatic right now -- he's basically setting up a compromise possibility, one I don't agree with, but if one's unfortunately going to be a 2-stater (and the 3 main candidates all are), this is about as mild as one can speak without being perceived as non-neutral.
Most telling was B Hussein O's twisted read on the actual situation: "...they've got to stop threatening violence". What "threatening"? They have to stop the violence. Apparently B Hussein O doesn't think that the Palithugs have been using violence against Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home