http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2011/05/23/obamas-speech-results/
Obama's speech - the results By <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/rachelraskinzrih/> Rachel Raskin-Zrihen What Obama said during his now infamous recent speech, and what he meant, may have been two different things, and what various people heard may not have been what he said or what he meant, but at this point it doesn't even matter. Judging from reports, the speech made him few friends and may have hurled whatever peace process there was between Israel and the Palestinians back to square one. For instance, JTA reports that "Palestinian officials said they would not resume peace negotiations unless Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepts President Obama's 1967 border guidelines." So, clearly, the Palestinians thought Obama was demanding a return to the pre-1967 borders. On the other hand, Obama himself "said his call for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations based on the pre-1967 lines did not mean the future state of Palestine would have those exact borders," according to reports. In other words, "I know you think you understood what I said, but what you heard was not what I meant." Some Israelis clearly thought they heard the same thing the Palestinians thought they heard, since Israeli protesters reportedly "demonstrated against President Obama's recent statements on Israel and the Palestinians in front of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv." At the same time, "the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said it 'appreciated'" the president's "clarification that he did not expect Israel to return to its 1967 lines," even as "Hamas condemned President Obama's AIPAC speech, saying it will not recognize Israel despite the U.S. president's demand." What a mess. If what it sounded at first like Obama said - that the 1967 borders should be the starting point of negotiations - then the Palestinian threat not to resume talks until "Netanyahu turns over a new leaf," and capitulates everything gained in the Six-Day War, is justified and totally Obama's fault. As far as they're concerned, settlement construction, right of return, the disposition of Jerusalem ceased being problems with Obama's speech, since a pre-1967 border pretty much solves all those issues to the Palestinians' satisfaction. And ensures the destruction of the Jewish state. Which probably explains why on Sunday, in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama said what everyone thought they heard is not what he meant. Reports say he told the pro-Israel lobby that "his call for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations based on the pre-1967 lines did not mean the future state of Palestine would have those exact borders." "By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," Obama said. So, if the final borders won't have anything to do with the pre-1967 borders, why mention them? So, after his AIPAC speech, some Jews were feeling a little bit better, according to reports. "In particular, we appreciate his statement that the U.S. does not expect Israel to withdraw to the boundaries that existed between Israel and Jordan in 1967 before the Six-Day War," the pro-Israel lobby said in a statement released after Obama's AIPAC speech. This speech by Obama and his subsequent clarification has pretty much confused everybody. According to reports, some pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee, praised the speech for its pro-Israel remarks, while others like the Zionist Organization of America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, condemned the reference to 1967 borders. AIPAC also was pleased with what Obama said about Hamas and Iran, though in his White House talk with Netanyahu, he was not able to bring himself to call Hamas a terrorist group, saying instead that it was a group that has "resorted to terrorism." "We also commend President Obama for his explicit condemnation of Hamas as a terrorist organization and his recognition that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a group that denies its fundamental right to exist," AIPAC said. "We also welcome the president's reaffirmation of his longstanding commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." This clarification prompted Hamas to condemn Obama's AIPAC speech, saying it will not recognize Israel no matter what the U.S. president says. Sounds like progress to me. I mean, just a week or so back, Fatah and Hamas made this reconciliation and there was some noise about Hamas softening its stance. The Obama speech has reinforced the hard-line, death-to-Israel Hamas we all know and love. One spokesman for the terrorist group said "The U.S. administration will fail, just as all others have in the past, in forcing Hamas to recognize the occupation." And the "moderate" Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in his response to Obama's speech reportedly said that "Hamas is part of Palestinian society and will take part in the democratic game as opposition." Yep. Things are much better now. This is not the first time Obama has said something about the Middle East that he's back-peddled on. At a previous AIPAC conference, Obama had called for Jerusalem to remain the united capital of the Jewish state, though he backed away from that remark in a television interview shortly afterward. Meanwhile, in something one might have thought impossible just a few short years ago, some 100 Israeli protesters demonstrated against the U.S. President in front of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. "Donning symbolic nooses around their necks and holding banners reading "Israel Won't Commit Suicide," the protesters gathered at the same time that Obama addressed AIPAC in Washington. "We support America, but we can say to you Obama, you are wrong," one of the event's organizers said. "In your speech you abandoned a friend. You betrayed the only true democracy in the Middle East, America's only friend and ally, Israel." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
