Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to '49 armistice lines
Is this where we're heading on Friday?Prime Minister Netanyahu's reaction to President Obama's speech on Thursday night was to reject Obama's call to return to the 1949 armistice lines, to demand a reaffirmation of President Bush's 2004 letter saying that Israel would be allowed to annex the 'settlement blocs,' to demand the the 'refugees' be settled outside of Israel and to wonder whether Barack Hussein Obama gets it.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday issued a quick response to US President Barack Obama's Middle East speech that was noticeably negative in tone.It's important to point out that the Obama administration has now rejected UN Security Council Resolution 242 - which calls for 'secure and recognized boundaries' for Israel and which purposely does not mention a return to the 1967 borders or equivalent exchange.
While thanking Obama for his commitment to peace, the statement put out by the PMO said that the establishment of a Palestinian state cannot come at Israel’s expense.
Netanyahu said he expected to hear from Obama a re-affirmation of the 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Ariel Sharon that did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground -- a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that Israel would hold on to the large settlement blocs.
The statement also said that the Bush letter made clear that Palestinian refugees would be absorbed in a future Palestinian state, something that was not explicitly mentioned in Obama’s speech.
“Without a solution to the refugee issue by settling them outside of Israel, the statement said, no territorial concession will end the conflict.
Referring to Obama’s statement about Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, the statement said the Palestinians, and not only the US, need to recognize that as a fact.
Netanyahu also said that he will make clear in his meeting with Obama that Israel will need to remain on the Jordan River, and that he was disappointment by Fatah’s reconciliation with Hamas.
A senior official in the PMO said following the speech he was disappointed that the president did not answer more forcefully the refugee issue.
"They don't understand the reality" the official said. There was concern in Israel that what we saw Sunday, with refugees storming border fences will occur again.
The source said that the outline Obama gave represented a situation where "the price was too high."
Meanwhile, the 'Palestinians' will not issue an official reaction until it consults with their cousins, the Arab countries.
I didn't think Obama would go this far to try to push Israel. I thought he would give up until after the elections. This speech shows that Obama is a bull-headed ideologue who is incapable of flexibility or change. God willing, he will go down to ignominious defeat next November. It can't happen soon enough.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, UN Security Council Resolution 242
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:57 PM
7 Comments:
Obama did not go that far!
The actual text of what he said:
“While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel,” he declared. “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Source
I am against a 'two state solution' where Israel keeps most of the 'settlement blocs' and gives up land in exchange, but this is what Olmert offered in 2006. It is also what the USA has claimed it wants for a very long time. It is not new for Obama to say that he wants this.
In other words, Obama is not uniquely anti-Israel in his speech here, and frankly, it was one of the more (relatively) pro-Israel speeches he has given (considering)...
The bad part called for a contiguous state of Palestine. But sadly, Olmert offered that in 2006, so really, we cannot be shocked when Obama calls for that. :(
Carl, I think for this particular speech, not Obama's heart or sympathies, but this particular speech, you are overstating the dramatic change you find in the phrase "based on the 1967 borders"; it is balanced with the phrase "land swops"--that are linked to the settlement blocks--that's what is being swopped; though yes, the Palestinians get some acreage elsewhere. And yes, this involves dismantling, abandoning some Jewish homes, are leaving them to the mercy of the Palis. The problem is in starting with territory then security and leaving Jerusalem and refugees for last--but it is not radical stateside to use the green line as a reference point--this is not the same as accepting the Palestinians now codified demand for a Judenrein Palestine in every square inch eastward of the green line, including East Jerusalem--provided that Obama give up further attempts to impose a freeze.
...also, of course, Fatah has been unwilling to meet the conditions Obama himself listed for negotiations: recognizing a Jewish commonwealth, accepting that the Palestinian state is the Palestine home (i.e., refugees) etc., so yes, how can Israel negotiate with a Hamas (and Fatah) whose strategy is BSD en route to a two-Palestinian state solution? Similarly, as the Fatah-Hamas position on Judenrein Jerusalem and right of return sync with their no-Jewish state ideology, just kicking those cans down the road behind borders and security is evasion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267700/obama-s-empty-speech-elliott-abrams
The basic facts are: we have NEVER benefited from so-called swapping land for "peace"!! EVER! We have swapped land and whatever "swaps", for more war, insecurity, attacks, weakness and now a huge wave of anti-semitism across the world fed by the stinking jihadi in the White House.
NO MORE ANYTHING!
There are two types of arguments: a) what would the geographical basis of "land for peace" be abstractly with a Palestinian neighbor with what theoretical security guarantees etc. b) is land for peace viable at all with the flesh and blood Palestinians actually on the ground and is this or that or any American political administration credible with its guarantees ("no more anything").
If I were a Jew and a consul of Ben N. I would tell him to say this...."The President of American has made it abundantly clear where his alliances are. Although we send our love to the America people, Isreal as a country has no further use for the leaders of AMerica at this time."
I would say that and only that. I would then go back to my country and tell my people that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only ally Isreal needs. That we must prepare our hearts and our homes to return to Him, as we are in sore need of His protection.
YOU MUST TAKE A STAND AS HIS CHILDREN ISREAL. YOU MUST. HE HAS NOT FORSAKEN YOU. Be Daniel, Be Esther. REturn to your roots. Only then will you be delivered and blessed.
America will get what she has coming for her. But He is in control of all things. Only Isreal Has His promised protection.
God's Blessings on you all. You are in my constant prayers.
cm
Post a Comment
<< Home