Obama's court Jew
President Barack Hussein Obama's Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, defended the President's '1967 lines' position in conference calls with 'Jewish leaders' and 'Jewish newspapers.' Dennis Ross, a senior adviser to Obama on the Middle East, told Jewish newspapers that the president’s call for Israeli- Palestinian negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines, with agreed land swaps, has been welcomed by European leaders during this past week of international meetings surrounding the G8 summit of world powers.Well, isn't that just great. The Obama administration made the Jew-hating Europeans happy. Big deal. If he was a leader rather than a follower, he would have told the Europeans that the US is going to veto 'Palestinian statehood' in the Security Council, and therefore it won't get to the General Assembly.
“The character of discussions with the Europeans has clearly improved for the better,” he said of talks held this week.
“They have been endorsing what the president had to say.”
He explained that one of the reasons Obama “became convinced” that it was necessary to lay out this basis for talks was that it would give the US leverage with the Europeans so they wouldn’t support a unilateral declaration of statehood that the Palestinians are seeking at the UN in September.
“It’s important for us to be able to use with the Europeans in particular, the fact that there is a credible alternative – there is an alternative basis on which to pursue the negotiation,” he said. “It gives us an ability with the Europeans to say this is not the right way to go. You should be opposing any effort to go to the UN.”
Ross denied that he had advised against Obama’s policy, which was hammered out leading up to his major address on the changes sweeping the Middle East two weeks ago.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick to push back against that approach when he visited Washington the day after Obama’s speech.
But Obama would rather pander to the Europeans anyway, so you can bet that even if he does veto the motion in the Security Council, it will be like the last time where it came down to the last possible minute and put Israel in the worst light possible.
Asked for the US response to Netanyahu’s own speech before Congress – where in addition to rejecting a deal on the 1967 lines, the prime minister spelled out positions on a unified Jerusalem, and no right of return for Palestinian refugees, promptly dismissed by Ramallah – Ross pointed noted, “he also talked about making painful compromises, so I think you have to take the whole speech, and not just focus on parts of it.”Netanyahu had a three-hour warning that '1967 lines' was going to be in there, and that came in a phone call from Hillary Clinton. The 'possibility' of '1967 lines' was raised as far back as October 2009, but you can bet that Netanyahu said "no" and thought that the United States - which was an ally until this regime took power - wouldn't screw him by taking the side of an adversary - particularly an adversary who is very unpopular in the United States.
In an off-the-record call with Jewish leaders Thursday, Ross made a similar point about Netanyahu, but also rejected the Israeli charge that the decision to include the 1967 language in Obama’s speech came without warming.
Ross said the prospect of the US endorsing that position had been raised as a possibility as long ago as last fall, so the concept that it was suddenly sprung “doesn’t fit history,” according to participants, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
They said that he did note that the decision to include the reference hadn’t been made with Israeli agreement, but that sometimes judgments need to be made, and these “judgments are never simple.”
But Dennis the Menace is just being the court Jew and doing his job. After all, what's selling your people down the river when compared to career advancement?
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, court Jew, Dennis Ross, Hillary Clinton
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:04 PM
3 Comments:
The Obama line is that since stalled negotiations might compel Israel in a deteriorating environment to face pressures to cave on strategic requirements in September and afterwards, America will help Israel by pressuring Bibi into unilaterally handing over the strategic assets to Fatah and Hamas now--as long as Fatah and Hamas agree to accept them.
By this logic, policeman would advise parents to hand over their blood money to kidnappers as soon as possible.
Unfortunately that does nothing to ensure the safe return of the kidnapped.
This is all second cousin rhetoric to the "linkage" idea that Israel has to make bold gestures because somehow this will lead to isolation of Iran, somehow, even if the Gulf states would prefer America to directly confront the mullahs.
There is the possibility that President O's Middle East policy is just analogous to those "uuhhhhhs" in his extemporaneous speaking--signaling brain lock in the midst of furious mental tap dancing.
btw, none of this bilge explains why Canada acted like an actual friend at the G8 and rejected the 1967 language. A real friend unlike a "frenemy" who explains "this hurts me more than it hurts you" before the under-the-bus push.
Conrad Black of National Review has a less bs-full explanation in his article "Living in Appeasement World: The Obama administration is at home in unreality"--
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268057/living-appeasement-world-conrad-black?page=1
why Canada acted like an actual friend at the G8 and rejected the 1967 language,
I don't why so much is being made of Harpers so called "support", which doesn't differ much from what any other Canadian leader would offer in practical terms.
Obama's words were misreprested, as he didn't say go back to 67 borders, he said to use them as a starting point. It doesn't mean you even have to accept them if you take those words at face value, and not with an agenda to malign Obama.
It's just another false example of how "unfriendly" Obama is.
Post a Comment
<< Home