I/III. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/who-has-more-lose-obama-or-netanyahu/38001/
<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/who-has-more-lose-obama-or-netanyahu/38001/> The Obama-Netanyahu Split: Who Has More to Lose? BY UJALA SEHGAL <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/authors/ujala-sehgal/>11:23 AM ET Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/05/what-obama-meant-1967-lines-why-irked-netanyahu/37977/> of President Obama's proposal for the Israel-Palentine border caused a major divide. This turn of events has risks for both sides. As *The* *New York Times* reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21ross.html?hp>, even Obama's own chief Middle East adviser Dennis Ross argued<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21ross.html?hp&gwh=E15C6E817470639A89F31F614B708282> that it was unwise for the U.S. to look as if it were publicly breaking with Israel. But which politician, Netanyahu or Obama, has more to lose from this public break? Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast argues<http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-20/netanyahus-ill-advised-white-house-tantrum-over-obamas-mideast-speech/?om_rid=NXa0v$&om_mid=_BN18WLB8bTQEfB> that Obama will win the ensuing public relations battle. Calling Netanyahu's behavior<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/05/divisions-remain-after-awkward-obama-netanyahu-meeting/37992/> at the press conference with Obama a "tantrum," he suggests that the Israeli Prime Minister has underestimated Obama's strength. "Obama’s a stronger president now on foreign affairs than he was in 2009, partly because of the bin Laden coup and partly because the speech was generally well received across the American political spectrum," he posits. Any major opposition to Obama's policy is likely to be partisan; Netanyaho might be welcomed by certain Republicans "who want to embarrass Obama by backing the prime minister. But the applause will only mask temporarily what everyone knows—that he is in total denial about the future." If anything, his "tantrum" may have hastened what Tomasky considers to be the inevitable. Furthermore Obama, as the *Times* reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21prexy.html?hp&gwh=514CD8415B57AAF4975C5BA5BC807CA9>, has received the political backing of the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia, which with the United States are the international mediators overseeing efforts to end the conflict. The four issued a statement expressing “strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined” by Obama. On the other hand, by no means does everyone support Obama's position. Internationally,* The Globe and Mail* reports<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-wont-back-obamas-mideast-peace-proposal/article2030146/> that Ottawa is refusing to join the 1967 borders proposal, because of "sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel." And in the Arab world, according<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/disconnected-and-dysfunct_b_865059.html> to James Zogby at the Huffington Post, Obama's speech on the Middle East "fell flat ... the speech the Arabs heard was too tired and too careful, in no significant way advancing the discussion beyond the Cairo speech of 2009." Domestically,* The Wall Street Journal *reports<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576331661918527154.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule> that Jewish donors have been warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support. It is difficult to assess how widespread the complaints are, according to the *Journal*, but the Obama campaign has asked Penny Pritzker, his 2008 national finance chairwoman, to talk with Jewish leaders about their concerns. Additionally, Obama is not merely splitting with his Jewish donors on the Israel issue, but also with his own handpicked Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, the *Times* reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/middleeast/21ross.html> . And even if it is true that the opposition to Obama's proposal is partisan in entirety, it is still rather formidable, particularly as it comes from Obama's 2012 election contenders. Mitt Romney declared<http://www.thenation.com/blog/160848/obama-goes-aipac-while-netanyahu-howls> that, “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.” The world is now looking to both Obama's and Netanyahu's forthcoming addresses to AIPAC to gauge which poltician is under a greater pressure to back away from their original positions. II. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-president-hamas-must-be-rational-about-israel-s-right-to-exist-1.363119 <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-president-hamas-must-be-rational-about-israel-s-right-to-exist-1.363119> - Published 12:25 21.05.11 - Latest update 12:25 21.05.11 Turkey president: Hamas must be 'rational' about Israel's right to existIn an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Abdullah Gul praises Obama's Mideast speech in which he drew the 1967 borders as an outline for Israeli-Palestinian talks.By Haaretz Service Turkish President Abdullah Gul hailed United States President Barack Obama's speech calling on Israel to pull back to 1967 borders, and added that Hamas was "internalizing" Israel's right to exist within these borders, The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday. According to the report, Gul said that the U.S. president had a point in questioning how Israel could enter negotiations with Hamas, who does not recognize the country's right to exist, adding that he has told the Hamas that they must be "rational" about it. Gul criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to accept the 1967 borders with land swaps as the preliminary condition for negotiations, saying that "Israel shouldn't focus on tactical issues. They have to look at the strategic side." The Turkish president also said Hamas wanted its recognition of Israel's right to exist to coincide with Israel's recognition of a Palestinian state, adding that citizens across the Arab world would no longer be tolerant of Israel's "humiliating" policies, the WSJ reported. Turkey-Israel relations have deteriorated in recent years and reached a low point last May when nine Turkish citizens were killed as Israeli naval commandos boarded a Gaza-bound aid flotilla trying to break Israel's siege on the coastal city. Turkey was also severely critical of Israel's three-week-long Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which was launched in December 2008 in an effort to stop rocket fire by Gaza militants into bordering Israeli towns. More than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed during the operation. Following the offensive, Turkey called off a joint military drill with Israel, and relations were strained further after Israel rebuked the then Turkish envoy over a television show depicting Israeli soldiers as cold-blooded killers. Turkey and the U.S. have since clashed repeatedly over its strained relations with Israel and increasing support of Iran. III. http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/blog/jewish-voice-for-peace-response-to-obama-s-speech-on-the-middle-east Jewish Voice for Peace Response to Obama’s Speech on the Middle East May 19, 2011 Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) was disappointed by President Obama’s speech today. While President Obama did speak for the first time of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, he did not break new ground in his overall approach to the conflict. His speech did not reflect the reality on the ground and further showed a breathtaking hypocrisy by omission. When President Obama says, "The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region," we ask, "Will you hold Israel accountable for its violence against Palestinians, both in daily life under occupation and in Israel's brutal response to nonviolent Palestinian protest, like in Nabi Saleh and Bil'in?" President Obama seems to recognize that the Palestinians are "suffering the humiliation of occupation," but he blatantly ignores the tyranny and violence of over four decades of control, land confiscation and worse. Further, he offered not one concrete step towards ending the occupation, an absence made all the more grotesque because Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu chose to headline today with plans to expand illegal and immoral Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to President Obama’s speech with an immediate rejection of the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiation, with one of the leading American Jewish organizations – whose leader was named by Newsweek as the most influential rabbi in America – calling the 1967 borders “Auschwitz borders.” In the face of such intransigence, we need President Obama to match his words with action. We need him to make a commitment to human rights and democracy for all of the Middle East, including all the people of Israel and Palestine. For further comment, contact Rebecca AT jewishvoiceforpeace.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
