Monday, May 23, 2011

Obama's trial balloons burst yet again

Most competent administrations use underlings to float trial balloons on policy. Then, when the trial balloon bursts and the administration needs to disavow that particular proposal, the President doesn't look like an inexperienced incompetent.

President Obama sadly lacks or feels no need for such a competent administration.

That's why he announced a push for Israel to concede to have the 1967 borders as a starting point in negotiation and offered a contiguous Palestinian state. That of course, would be an unmitigated strategic disaster for israel and just emboldend both Israel's and the US' enemies in the Mid East.

Thankfully Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the American people a solid dose of reality. You could tell Obama was annoyed to find that not everyone wants to roll the dice on survival for a promise of hope and change. (via the excellent Thunder Tales). Hopefully the staunchly Liberal Democrat wing of American Judaism just had a "WTF?" moment.

So what does Obama do after this particular foreign policy balloon pops? He backs away from it a bit at the AIPAC conferenc, claiming he was "misunderstood".

Hardly misunderstood, he was just caught yt again pushing his unpopular left wing agenda.

This administration seems determined to change the Presidential March from Hail to the Chief to "Send in the clowns"

Update: The Palestinians certainly have recognized the new course set by obama - Palestinians reject Netanyahu peace outline

Nabil Shaath, an aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Netanyahu's insistence on keeping key parts of the territories the Palestinians want for their state is a "declaration of war against the Palestinians." ... "What Netanyahu said in his speech tonight is a clear rejection of the suggestions of President Obama concerning the borders of 1967," said Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeneh.

In other words the Palestinian negotiating posture just changed based on Obama's statement to "first give us everything we want, then we'll consider peace with you".


NE said...

Actually, the staunchly Liberal Democrat wing of American Judaism went "oh, 1967 borders with land swaps is the same position on peace as the last three US administrations as well as former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir...why is the far right making such a big deal about this?"

I'm still wondering.

Aaron said...

No it is not the same as prior administrations.

Obama is making it the starting point for the negotiations which is a big difference from prior administrations. Not to mention his call for a contiguous palestinian state.

Obama makes the beginning negotiation point an Israel without eastern Jerusalem, the western wall or defensible borders.

That is a huge change from previous administrations as it places Israel in a terrible negotiating position, not to mention such an insistence on such a beggining with a fatah/hamas opposition ogvernment that still can't recognize Israel.

See the difference yet?

NE said...

Which of these statements is from President Bush, and which is from President Obama?

"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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."

"In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born...Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders."

Also, I don't know where you got the idea that Obama thinks Israel should withdraw before peace negotiations start. He never said that.

Oh, and about fatah/hamas, Obama said:

"Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question."

He is basically telling them to recognize Israel before negotiations can start.

Aaron said...

It certainly is a change from the Bush policy set in 2004. Bush certanly highlighted that any peace will require defensible borders for Israel and the 1949/1967 lines do not offer that.

Aaron said...

Oh, and you know its a change and a problem when even Senate Majortiy Leader Harry Reid (D) is blasting Obama for it.