Obama embraces Saudi peace plan
June of this year had Barack Obama before AIPAC and during that address to AIPAC he endorsed an undivided Jerusalem:
Senator Barack Obama, in his first day as the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, plunged into the thicket of Middle East politics on Wednesday with comments on the status of Jerusalem and deterrence of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Speaking before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s foremost pro-Israel lobby, Mr. Obama endorsed a two-state Israel-Palestine settlement, but also insisted that Jerusalem should remain both the capital of the Jewish nation and undivided.
Those remarks drew immediate criticism from Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza, with Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, saying that Mr. Obama’s speech proved there would be no change in American policy toward the Palestinians, which he described as “hostile.”
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, expressed frustration. “The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967,” Mr. Abbas said, “and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
Twenty-four hours later, after the Palestinians finished throwing their temper-tantrum, he shifted his position claiming that both sides would have to talk it out and come to a reasonable agreement; tossing the idea of an undivded Jerusalem under the bus. Today, the TimesOnline reports he's ready to embrace the peace plan concocted by Saudi Arabia as the only solution for peace in Israel:
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.
What does Israel get out of this? The so-called "right of return" the Palestinians demanded would be gone; never to be accepted or enacted. But aside from that they get nothing else. The borders would go back to their pre-'67 points, and Jerusalem would be divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Personally speaking, I'm not fond of this deal, even if it does buy Israel some level of peace. Of course the question that should be on everyone's mind is why would Yemen, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan agree to such a deal? They all want Israel obliterated and the Jews pushed straight into the Mediterranean. Then there's the matter of their proxies in Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah that have never been deterred by any peace plan or cease fire to keep up their intifadas against Israel.
All around this smells like a very bad deal. Granted, Israel can decide for itself whether it can weather the threat of it's enemies should they agree to this idea. Captain Ed notes that Bib Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to the plan, and that could prove to be troublesome to Livni when it comes to the elections upcoming in Israel in mid-February. After all, not too many Israelis are fond of her, or the endorsement she received from the Palestinian Authority. But not too many are fond of Netanyahu, either.
Like other peace plans brokered for Israel, this one will not be carried through, and it will end badly for Israel. The Saudis can crow about their plan, and Obama can support it, but it doesn't mean it's going to work. War, even with this plan, is inevitable, but we're not sure if Israel will have the heart to go all out in a war with the Palestinians, and their aforementioned enemies. Olmert didn't have the fortitude to take on Hezbollah in 2006, and we don't think the current government will have much of it either.
HT to Charles Johnson
Publius II
Senator Barack Obama, in his first day as the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, plunged into the thicket of Middle East politics on Wednesday with comments on the status of Jerusalem and deterrence of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Speaking before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation’s foremost pro-Israel lobby, Mr. Obama endorsed a two-state Israel-Palestine settlement, but also insisted that Jerusalem should remain both the capital of the Jewish nation and undivided.
Those remarks drew immediate criticism from Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza, with Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, saying that Mr. Obama’s speech proved there would be no change in American policy toward the Palestinians, which he described as “hostile.”
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, expressed frustration. “The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967,” Mr. Abbas said, “and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
Twenty-four hours later, after the Palestinians finished throwing their temper-tantrum, he shifted his position claiming that both sides would have to talk it out and come to a reasonable agreement; tossing the idea of an undivded Jerusalem under the bus. Today, the TimesOnline reports he's ready to embrace the peace plan concocted by Saudi Arabia as the only solution for peace in Israel:
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.
What does Israel get out of this? The so-called "right of return" the Palestinians demanded would be gone; never to be accepted or enacted. But aside from that they get nothing else. The borders would go back to their pre-'67 points, and Jerusalem would be divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Personally speaking, I'm not fond of this deal, even if it does buy Israel some level of peace. Of course the question that should be on everyone's mind is why would Yemen, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan agree to such a deal? They all want Israel obliterated and the Jews pushed straight into the Mediterranean. Then there's the matter of their proxies in Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah that have never been deterred by any peace plan or cease fire to keep up their intifadas against Israel.
All around this smells like a very bad deal. Granted, Israel can decide for itself whether it can weather the threat of it's enemies should they agree to this idea. Captain Ed notes that Bib Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to the plan, and that could prove to be troublesome to Livni when it comes to the elections upcoming in Israel in mid-February. After all, not too many Israelis are fond of her, or the endorsement she received from the Palestinian Authority. But not too many are fond of Netanyahu, either.
Like other peace plans brokered for Israel, this one will not be carried through, and it will end badly for Israel. The Saudis can crow about their plan, and Obama can support it, but it doesn't mean it's going to work. War, even with this plan, is inevitable, but we're not sure if Israel will have the heart to go all out in a war with the Palestinians, and their aforementioned enemies. Olmert didn't have the fortitude to take on Hezbollah in 2006, and we don't think the current government will have much of it either.
HT to Charles Johnson
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:00 AM
2 Comments:
I totally agree. Obama can support this thing all he wants but that doesn't mean it's going to work. The real test will come when it doesn't work, what will Obama do then? He and his liberal illuminati friends will have to decide if they are going to fight for peace for not. That will be the interesting decision to see Obama make.
Obama is too liberal, and it shows. He not only embraces the elitist illuminati too often, but other countries who are our enemies. When will enough be enough?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home