Obama stance setback for Palestinians

[cali]

In eight years on the job, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has seen his share of ups and downs. Thursday's appearance with visiting U.S. President Barack Obama looked like it was one of his lowest points.

At a joint news conference, Obama delivered a stinging rejection to Abbas' key demand that Israel stop building settlements before peace talks resume.

Abbas has long argued that he cannot be expected to negotiate the borders between Israel and a future Palestine while Israel unilaterally determines that line by accelerating settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem.

<snip>

As the animated Obama explained his positions, the subdued Abbas looked on with a blank expression. When it was his turn to speak, Abbas held his ground, publicly disagreeing with his visitor. An aide later acknowledged Abbas was disappointed.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZm3K0Qcdv_KBJAqFtwMCApHYuJw?docId=1fade361bcf04a5b839695d8a5b8ae36

[Rider3]

1. I beg to differ

Although nothing is going to end the mess in the Middle East, I think Obama said what needed to be said.

[appal_jack]

16. Yes, Obama is being pragmatic & positive here.

Yes, Obama is being pragmatic & positive here. The Palestnian leadership should know by now that every delay shrinks their likely future state's geography. Had Arafat & co stuck with the agreement Clinton was after, Palestine's borders would be bigger & more contiguous than Israel will ever accept in the future.

Abbas should embrace Obama's call for talks to resume immediately.

-app

[Cali_Democrat]

2. The ultimate goal of the Israelis is ethnic cleansing

Nobody wants to say it, but there it is. Building settlements all over Palestinian territory is just one way the Israelis engage in this behavior. They want to make life so unbearable for the Palestinians that they just leave and the territory can be theirs.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. And the POTUS wants the Palestinians to not make (settlements)

a pre-condition before negotiations. Those can be negotiated on later.

Hmmmm..... now how would that play out.

Palestinians: We want the settlements and settlers to go.

Israelis: Fekk you. How would you like to negotiate 30% or 60% of what is left of your territory?

[geek tragedy]

5. As one Israeli put it, Bibi is someone who will negotiate

over how to divide a pizza, while eating it.

Obama's raised the white flag of surrender on I/P. This is probably a tacit acknowledgement that his role in that dispute is pretty much over.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. I guess that Bibi's share of the pizza is safe from sequester?

[djean111]

6. That's how I see it, and Obama has just implied that he agees with that, that the Palestinians

should just accept that Israel will take over the entire region, and quietly disappear.
I am used to politicians spouting crap, but this crap took me by surprise.
The only "peace" initiative wanted is for the Palestinians to leave the entire region.

[geek tragedy]

3. Obama has proven himself irrelevant to the I/P dispute,

Hopefully he will act on that irrelevance by stop pretending to be relevant.

Both sides would find it refreshing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Intentionally irrelevant it seems.

[geek tragedy]

9. Perhaps. His earlier attempts to be relevant

were a spectacular failure. So perhaps he's learned his lesson that I/P just isn't worth it.

The correct approach is for the US to disengage from the entire region, including Israel, slowly but surely.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. If the US is to do disengage then take the damn $$ out as well.

I don't like seeing US treasure go into black holes like it did in Iraq or to states practicing human rights abuses.

We have enough problems at home to spend 3+ billion on.

[geek tragedy]

11. First remove it from the realm of political consciousness,

then removing the dollars gets easier.

While we're funding Egypt, we have to fund Israel. Which is a perfect argument for defunding both.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Not a bad idea actually

Perhaps saying "screw it" might actually be the best approach here. Isolationism is underrated. The time has come to focus 100% on Americans.

Of course this also means foreign aid to Israel and other countries should be totally severed, which would also be a positive.

[geek tragedy]

13. Humanitarian aid still serves our national interest.

Arms shipments do not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I don't think it does, and I don't think it should be dependent on whether or not it does.

If I were a president solely concerned with the wellbeing of Americans, I would cut most ofthe pittance the USA currently spends on international aid (although not all of it, some good PR is valuable and there are some projects that do benefit the USA).

The argument for international aid is that it's the morally right thing to do to prevent people starving or dying of treatable diseases when you can do so easily.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. Absolutely not true - his support for Israel is immensely relevant to it.

He's as much part of the problem as the rest of the US government.