The headline above was the Times' attempt to spin Prime Minister Netanyahu's 2011 trip to Washington. This time, the lies are starting before the Prime Minister leaves Israel.
The Times reported last week that President Obama had been 'blindsided' by House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahui to speak. That was false. The correction - first noticed by Omri Ceren - proves it.
In 2011, Boehner sent a notice to the WH stating his intention to invite
Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. The White House
never responded (spite? incompetence?) and Boehner proceeded to extend
the invitation to Netanyahu. Netanyahu accepted the invitation and
spoke. The White House did not express any outrage in 2011. That was before the 2012 reelection, of course, so Obama did not want to run the risk of losing any support.
But
that was then and this is now. And as Barack Obama has reminded us, he
will never be on a ballot again so he can do whatever he wants now and
go “full Bulworth,” as he told close aides he wanted to do in his second term.
Boehner clearly assumed the same series of events was occurring when the White House failed to respond this time to the notice given to the White House before he sent an invite to Netanyahu. (Hat Tip: CJL and LR).
The
White House deliberately created this “crisis” to impugn Netanyahu and
undercut support for him and Israel. No less than Senator Harry Reid
blamed this diplomatic faux paus entirely on Boehner and Netanyahu for
undercutting support for Israel among Democrats . The media, or much of
it, has been relentlessly attacking Israel over a lie promoted by people in the administration.
Most pro-Israel President evah? You gotta be kidding.
Reid breaks with Obama, says Hamas and Islamic State are the same
Greetings from Madrid Barajas Airport.
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has broken with President Hussein Obama, calling out the 'stunning hypocrisy' of condemning Islamic State (formerly ISIS) and not Hamas.
Reid’s speech to the Senate was made last Thursday but excerpts were published Sunday by JNS.
According to the report, Reid affirmed U.S. support for Israel,
calling the failure to condemn Hamas as one would condemn the Islamic
State group "stunning hypocrisy."
"Hamas and IS are both vicious, corrupt, hateful, evil groups. And
both are extreme. Yet, for some reason, Hamas' brutality doesn’t elicit
the same horror from the international community as ISIS. How can that
be?" Reid wondered as he addressed the Senate.
He added that one of the few differences between Islamic State and
Hamas is the latter's narrow focus on one single objective -- the
destruction of Israel.
"Consider its actions over the past several months: Hamas raided its
own limited supplies for housing and general infrastructure, intended to
repair the destruction that occurred during the last conflict they
initiated. But Hamas instead used the stolen materials to build tunnels
to hide and infiltrate Israel -- infiltrating to kill, maim, kidnap and
murder the innocent. These depraved agitators launched thousands of
rockets into Israel, hoping to inflict death and destruction. Their
rockets had no aiming capabilities -- they fired indiscriminately, not
caring whether they hit a child, a family or anyone," he said.
During Operation Protective Edge, Reid's party's leaders - President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Kerry - sought to replace Egypt with Qatar and Turkey as 'mediators' with Israel because the latter two are closely connected to Hamas.
A last-ditch effort to deliver aid to Israel during its war with Hamas
died on the Senate floor, as Republicans blocked the proposal over
concerns that it would increase the debt.
After Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ $2.7
billion border aid package, which also included $225 million for
Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system and $615 million to fight
Western wildfires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to split off
the Israel and wildfire money as a standalone bill, hoping to put aside
the dispute over border funding and appeal to Republicans’ deep ties to
Israel.
“We’ve all watched as the tiny state of Israel, who is with us on
everything, they have had in the last three weeks 3,000 rockets filed
into their country,” Reid said. “Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asked
for $225 million in emergency funding so that Israel’s arsenal as it
relates to the Iron Dome could be replenished. It’s clear that is an
emergency, and we should be able to agree on that.”
It didn’t work.
Even though GOP leaders had vowed to pass an Israel aid bill in
recent days, Republicans rejected Reid’s request. First Senate Minority
Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected to Reid’s request for a straight
emergency cash infusion for firefighting and Israel. Then Sen. Tom
Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an alternative that would deliver money to
Israel and the West and offer commensurate spending cuts to
international organizations like the United Nations; Reid blocked that.
“Our number one ally — at least in my mind — is under attack. If this
isn’t an emergency I don’t know anything that is,” Reid said.
“I want to fund Israel,” replied Coburn. “I also want to make sure our children have a future.”
The stumble on delivering $225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile
defense system, which is used to shoot down rockets aimed at Israel,
infuriated GOP hawks who’d been pushing Reid to break the Israel funding
from the border bill.
“It’s an important moment for the Senate and the House to show
support for Israel. All I can say that if you don’t see the need to come
to Israel’s aid now, and the message that it would send now, it would
be a big mistake,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Any person who
thinks that the Iron Dome is unnecessary needs to go to the floor and
tell us why, why we don’t need to help Israel right now. They’re asking
for our help, they’re our best friend in the region, one of our best
friends in the world. “
I would have voted for Coburn's bill, but that actually could have drawn an Obama veto. And while Reid gets credit for trying to separate Israel, if you read between the lines of the article, he should have done so much sooner and was trying to use Israel to push the border bill through. But I'm disappointed with Cornyn....
Emergency Committee for Israel urges Senator Reid to allow vote on Iran sanctions
Today the Emergency Committee for Israel released the following
statement on the announcement that the P5+1 had reached an agreement
with Iran on implementing the November, 2013 Geneva Agreement:
Who says President Obama isn't tough?
With today's announcement of an implementation agreement with Iran,
President Obama has shown a willingness to be tough in confronting the
pro-Israel majority in Congress, threatening to veto any legislation
that would punish Iranian deception or prevent the White House from
acquiescing to a bad deal with Iran.
With Iran, on the other hand, Obama is willing to accept an agreement
that weakens even the original bad deal he announced two months ago. It
is a deal that guarantees a permanent Iranian nuclear weapons capability
and grants a new concession by allowing Iran to continue developing
ever more advanced centrifuges during the talks. It is a deal that, as
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister boasted today, rolls back nothing and
means Iran "can return to the previous situation within a day."
We urge Senator Reid to allow a vote on the Menendez-Kirk bill to ensure
that the interests of America and our allies are not subordinated to
the political interests of the Obama White House.
Aides and lawmakers said Reid had filed Rule 14 for the sanctions bill, which allows him to bypass the normal process of bringing a bill for a Senate vote through committee.
...
The bill introduced on Thursday would require reductions in Iran's
petroleum production and apply new penalties to other industries if Iran
violates an interim agreement or fails to reach a final comprehensive
agreement.
But it also gives the administration up to a year to
pursue a diplomatic track, which backers of the bill said would not
violate terms of the interim deal.
The Obama administration has
insisted that the bill would disrupt delicate talks being held between
Tehran and world powers. Iran's foreign minister has said a new
sanctions law would kill the interim agreement reached in Geneva on Nov.
24.
Do you think this might have something to do with it? Or perhaps that removing Reid has become a lightening rod for Republicans seeking control of the Senate in 2014? A year is an awfully long time. There are still too many Senators out there who are afraid to cross this President.
Oh my... 10 Senate Committee Chairs come out against Iran sanctions
Let's keep this in perspective: They're all Democrats and most of them are known as Obama allies. Still, this is a bit unusual.
Ten Senate Committee Chairs have written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging against further sanctions against Iran at this time. And Reid will undoubtedly use the letter as a weapon to try to keep a vote on new sanctions from reaching the Senate floor.
“At this time, as negotiations are ongoing, we believe that new
sanctions would play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager
to see the negotiations fail,” the ten Senate committee chairs wrote, in a letter to Reid that
was signed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-South
Dakota), Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin (D-Michigan),
Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Senate
Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Appropriations Committee
Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Environment and Public Works
Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California), Commerce Committee Chair
John Rockefeller (West Virginia), Homeland Security Committee chair Tom
Carper, Energy Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), and Health,
Education and Labor Committee chair Tom Harkin of Iowa.
Several veteran Hill hands expressed amazement at what one called the
“unprecedented” letter by the ten Senate committee chairs, several of
whom are Jewish, for publicly countering a fellow Senate committee chair
Menendez and AIPAC, which has been pressing members of Congress to back
the measure.
The fact that 'several of whom are Jewish' is totally irrelevant. We have seen time and time again that protecting the State of Israel is not a driving factor, and support for the State of Israel is too often not a high priority, in how Jews vote. Whether they're right or wrong, the reality is that these committee chairs signed that letter out of support for and loyalty to President Obama, and not out of the conclusion that refraining from introducing new sanctions is in the best interest of the State of Israel.
In fact, the closest arbiter of what is in the best interest of the State of Israel - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - is probably biting his lip tonight to avoid coming out for Menendez's bill.
The worry is that Dem Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Dem,
may join with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor on a resolution or bill that will
either criticize the current temporary deal with Iran, or call for a new
round of sanctions, or set as U.S. policy some strict parameters on a
final deal with Iran, such as opposition to any continued
uranium enrichment, House Democratic aides say. House Dems and outside
foreign policy observers have communicated such worries to Hoyer’s
office, sources add.
Hoyer’s office confirmed to me that Cantor had produced a bill and
shared it with him, but declined to discuss details. “Cantor has a bill,
and it’s being reviewed by our office,” Hoyer spokesperson Stephanie
Young said. “No decisions have been made.” Spokespeople for Cantor
didn’t respond.
Any resolution or bill along these lines that has the support of any
House Dem leaders would increase the pressure on Senate Democrats to
pass a measure of their own, which the White House opposes. And some
fear that a measure in the House itself — even if the Senate didn’t act —
could have an adverse impact on international talks.
According to reports in the Hill and National Journal,
Cantor and House GOP leaders are looking for a way to express
opposition to, and put obstacles in the way of, the deal the Obama
administration is pursuing. But now that a bill has been produced,
and could be joined by Hoyer, that significantly ratchets up worries
that Congress could very well act in a way that scuttles hopes for a
long term deal.
Those wary of a possible Hoyer-Cantor measure point out that the two
have previously collaborated on measures relating to U.S. policy in the
middle east.
...
If the GOP-controlled House passes something with the support of someone
like Hoyer, it could make it harder for Senate Dems to resist pressure
to act. Indeed, it could exacerbate divisions among Senate Dems over how
to proceed. It could strengthen the hands of those — such as Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez — who want to pass
something right now. Senator Harry Reid appears to want to grant the
White House the flexibility it has asked for, but bipartisan movement in
the House could intensify the pressure on him to allow a vote on
something the White House doesn’t want.
Spokesman Behrouz
Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing
on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed,
underlining Iran's determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is
work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.
Although
the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck
between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless,
as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched
to a high degree.
"The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a
higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have
completed initial tests," Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.
"The
production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian
atomic energy) agency's approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines
and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure
facilities".
Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) had been informed of the development.
Iran's development of a new
generation of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase
the ratio of the fissile isotope - could enable it to refine uranium much
faster.
Things sure have changed a lot since JFK's days, haven't they? What could go wrong?
And yet without a deal, Washington is now primed to act on its own.
After weeks of heated debate on the timing of a new sanctions bill in
the Senate between congressmen, the White House and the Israeli
government, one key senator has thrown support behind the bill should
negotiations fail in Geneva this week.
We all strongly support
those negotiations and hope they will succeed, and want them to produce
the strongest possible agreement," said Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, who controls whether or not the bill will get a vote in the upper
chamber. "However, Mr. President, we're also aware of the possibility
that the Iranians could keep the negotiations from succeeding.
"I
hope that won't happen," Reid continued. "But the Senate must be
prepared to move forward with a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill when
the Senate returns after the Thanksgiving recess. I'm committed to do
just that."
Several senators have proposed legislation that would
further tighten the noose around Iran's oil sector and the country's
access to foreign exchange. But, at the urging of the Obama
administration, Reid has held off in order to allow negotiations to play
out.
Responding to Reid, Psaki thanked the Senate majority leader
for waiting until after talks conclude in Geneva this week to move
forward with any new legislation. But the administration hopes Reid will
continue to "give the space" requested by the president for
negotiations to succeed, she added.
"Broadly speaking, if the
negotiations fail writ large over the coming months or however long...
we would lead the charge for more sanctions," Psaki said. "That's one of
the reasons why we've been so clear in Congress why we should give
diplomacy the chance to breathe, to see if it works out."
Given that the Senate has been pushing for sanctions - against the Obama administration - Psaki sounds like the administration is 'leading from behind.'
Republicans are filibustering Chuck Hagel’s nomination for
secretary of defense, Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.)
announced Thursday.
The Senate will vote to end debate on Hagel’s nomination
Friday morning, Reid said. Democrats need at least five Republicans to
meet the 60-vote threshold required to end a filibuster, though it is
unclear whether they have those votes in the bag. A GOP aide says “it’s
pretty clear” Reid does not have the votes. No major cabinet appointee
has ever been successfully filibustered.
Reid was visibly agitated as he made the announcement.
“This isn’t a high school getting ready for a football game,” he huffed
on the Senate floor. “There are serious consequences to this delay.”
He went on to denounce Republicans for their “shocking”
and “outlandish” behavior, falsely claiming that the United States will
be without a secretary of defense “in less than two hours,” when Leon
Panetta formally leaves the post. In fact, Panetta said he would remain on duty until his successor is sworn in.
Reid also dismissed GOP requests for further information
about the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi — a primary rationale for
the filibuster — as “political theater,” and suggested Republicans were
simply trying to placate the Tea Party. “Chuck Hagel had nothing to do
with the attack in Benghazi,” Reid said. “It’s tragic they have decided
to filibuster this qualified nominee.”
Fox News Channel confirms: "Senior Republican sources [are] telling
Democrats they intend to mount a full-scale filibuster of the Chuck
Hagel nomination and will block his nomination from receiving an up or
down vote."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv) has set up a Friday showdown over the nomination of anti-Israel Chuck Hagel to become the United States' next Secretary of Defense.
In an attempt to get Hagel installed as secretary of defense before next
week’s recess, the majority leader set up a Friday vote to cut off
debate, setting up a crucial 60-vote test. If Reid can find five
Republicans to join the 55 members of the Democratic Caucus, the Senate
could approve Hagel quickly — possibly Saturday or earlier.
But if he can’t, the White House could be forced to recalibrate its
strategy as the nomination drags out into late February. And that could
give the GOP more time to mount opposition to Hagel’s nomination, which
has been targeted because of the former Nebraska senator’s past comments
on Iran, Iraq and Israel and his shaky performance at his confirmation
hearings.
The Democrats are whining that this has never happened before.
Democrats are warning Republicans that the precedent they set by
forcing a cloture vote on the national security nominees — particularly
on Hagel — would come back to haunt them when a GOP president eventually
returns to the White House.
“This is the first time in the history of our country that a
presidential nominee for secretary of defense has been filibustered,”
Reid said on the floor. “What a shame, but that’s the way it is.”
But has any President ever sent up a nominee for a national security position who was so obviously incompetent, and whose sole qualification appeared to be his agreeing with the President's agenda?
If a Republican president nominated someone as anti-Israel and
borderline antisemitic as Hagel to Secretary of Defense--say, Pat
Buchanan--the press would rightly have a field day. But when President
Barack Obama does so, aided by self-interested politicians who proclaim
their abiding belief in the ties between the United States and Israel,
the press remains silent.
To recap: with his openly expressed negativity toward Jews and
Israel, Hagel is the most problematic candidate for a high post in an
administration in decades. Between his apparent willingness to
countenance accusations of Israeli “war crimes,” his support for
negotiations with Israel’s terrorist enemies, and his unwillingness to
express support for Israel in the face of Palestinian terrorism, Hagel’s
anti-Israel credentials are well in order. Add in Hagel’s attempt to
shut down the Sixth Fleet’s USO Center in Haifa (“Let the Jews pay for
it,” he spat), his scornful assertion that he is not the "Senator for
Israel," and his belief that the so-called "Jewish lobby" intimidates
members of Congress, and you’re looking at a bigot.
And yet the Democrats, including President Obama, continue to push
Hagel through. That’s no surprise from an administration that treats
Israel more harshly than it treats most of America’s enemies. But it is a
surprise from the Jewish members of the Democratic caucus, who should
know better--not because they have dual loyalties, not because they
represent a "lobby," but because Jewish politicians above all should
understand the importance of a safe and secure Israel.
But they don’t.
Take, for example, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Levin has been the
moving force behind the push for a vote on Hagel on Tuesday. Levin said
on Monday that Hagel had turned over enough documents, but had no
comment on Hagel’s antisemitic utterances and anti-Israel record. In
fact, Levin saved tried to save Hagel during his disastrous hearing,
failing to ask him a single question about Israel, even though he
acknowledged Hagel's "troubling" record. Yet Levin portrays himself as a
friend of Israel.
The same holds true for Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who originally
expressed concerns about Hagel’s nomination, but quickly fell into line
once President Obama made clear that he’d be sticking by his anti-Israel
man. All it took was a ninety-minute tête-a-tête with Hagel to convince
Schumer to abandon his pro-Israel principles and stand behind Hagel.
...
The list goes on of Jewish Democrats who obviously care less about
the security the State of Israel or fighting antisemitism than they do
about staying in Barack Obama’s good graces. From Senator Dianne
Feinstein to Senator Barbara Boxer, from Senator Frank Lautenberg to
Senator Al Franken, from Senator Bernie Sanders to Senator Benjamin
Cardin, not one liberal Jewish senator has expressed opposition to the
most anti-Israel Secretary of Defense nominee since George Marshall
tried to stop the recognition of Israel in 1948.
Given the lack of priority that non-committed American Jews place on Israel, is anyone really surprised?
Senate Armed Services Committee approves Hagel 14-11, but will need 60 votes for confirmation
Chuck Hagel's nomination cleared the Senate Armed Services Committee in a rare 14-11 party line vote on Tuesday night just before the President's State of the Union address. But Republicans are insisting that Hagel will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the full Senate (Hat Tip: Memeorandum)..
Several GOP senators told The
Cable Tuesday that they will not agree to a simple up or down vote on the Senate
floor this week, including Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican James Inhofe (R-OK), Senate Minority
Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Inhofe's demand for 60 votes is related to his overall
objection to Hagel becoming defense secretary, which is based on Hagel's past
record on issues ranging from Iran, Israel, Hamas, and cuts to the defense
budget. Inhofe also wants Hagel to further disclose financial records related
to his past speeches.
"We're going to require a 60-vote threshold," Inhofe told The Cable.
Cornyn told The Cable,
"There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told The
Cable that he is confident Hagel can avoid a filibuster.
"If there's a filibuster, I think there will be more than 60
votes to stop a filibuster," Levin said.
Levin is adding up the 55 Democrats in the Senate, all of
whom are expected to support Hagel, with the two Republicans who support Hagel, Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), and the senators
who have pledged not to filibuster Hagel, such as McCain.
I don't understand McCain's objection to a filibuster, but Inhofe seems to have found a way to work around it.
Inhofe insisted that his demand for a 60-vote threshold is
not a "filibuster." Inhofe said he will object to unanimous consent for a
simple majority vote, which will prevent Reid from bringing the Hagel
nomination to the floor without first filing for cloture, which requires 60
votes to proceed to a final vote.
"It's not a filibuster. I don't want to use that word,"
Inhofe said.
It may be a distinction without a difference, but it's a
distinction that GOP senators like McCain are prepared to embrace. McCain has
repeatedly said he is opposed to filibustering Hagel but told The Cable Tuesday that he would vote
against a cloture vote this week if the White House doesn't provide the
information he has requested on the president's actions the night of the
Benghazi attack.
"We need to know what the president's conversations were,"
McCain said. "I would vote no [on cloture] on Thursday [unless the information
is provided]."
Graham is also opposed to a "filibuster" of Hagel, but told The Cable today he would place a "hold"
on the Hagel nomination after the committee vote.
"I think the president has stonewalled the Congress on
Benghazi. I think a lot of people are worried that we don't have all the
information on Chuck Hagel," said Graham. "I'm not inclined to filibuster. I'm
going to hold him and Reid is not going to not honor my hold and try to hold
the vote on Thursday."
Senate aides told The
Cable that the earliest Reid could call for a cloture vote would be
Wednesday, according to Senate rules. That would set up a final vote for
Friday, unless there were unanimous consent to move the vote up to Thursday. If
the vote doesn't happen by Friday, it would be delayed until after the
President's Day recess.
The Democrats' behavior is beneath contemptible. The Republican objections to Hagel are legitimate and deserve at least a fair hearing before the vote. Everyone should be tired of being railroaded by Obama.
It's Harry Reid's fault Hagel is being asked to disclose foreign funders
You can blame Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nv) for Chuck Hagel being asked about his foreign funding. Reid asked Henry Kissinger about his foreign funding in 2002 when Kissinger was up for an appointment to the 9/11 commission. Kissinger refused to disclose the foreign funding and did not get the appointment. Will Hagel do the same?
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is
trying to give President Obama's nominee to lead the Defense Department
some cover. In a letter released to the press, Carl Levin, the chairman
of the committee, says that the call to release this information is
"unprecedented." He says that the committee asks for a nominee to
release "foreign affiliations." Which it does, but it does not ask for
foreign financial dealings to be fully disclosed.
Which was Reid's concern about Kissinger in 2002. The difference?
Reid called for Kissinger to disclose when a Republican was president,
and is now not standing up for full disclosure. Which seems like an odd
double standard.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) spoke at AIPAC on Monday night and slammed President Obama's call to use the 1967 borders 1949 armistice lines as the basis for starting 'negotiations' between Israel and the 'Palestinians' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”
When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.
Among the thousands attending the AIPAC event, controversy is still swirling over Obama’s public suggestion last Thursday that Israel’s pre-1967 borders be the starting point for negotiations with the Palestinians. In his speech last week addressing the democracy movements roiling the Middle East and North Africa, Obama also suggested that Israel withdraw from Palestinian territory in phases, that Israel eventually withdraw all troops from the West Bank, and that the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return claimed by Palestinians be deferred until border and security issues are resolved.
Obama said in a speech to the same AIPAC conference on Sunday that his formulation did not suggest that Israel return to its outlines before the 1967 war. He noted that in last week's speech he mentioned that negotiations would produce “mutually agreed swaps” that would alter those borders - and that any Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized.
“If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance,” Obama said Sunday, adding, “What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.”
Nevertheless, Reid made clear Monday that he viewed it as unfair to ask Israel to return to its contours before the Six-Day War, when Israel conquered territory from Jordan, Egypt and Syria.
The White House had no comment.
Will Obama's obsession with Israel cost him re-election? God willing....
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
