Since this was first published in “09, Obama has appointed a Power, Hagel and Indyk and has announced the solution he intends to impose, namely ’67 lines plus swaps and a division of Jerusalem. Ted Belman

By Ted Belman (first published Dec 7/09)

Obama has surrounded himself with a host of vehemently ant-Israel advisors including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Gen Jones, many of who advocate imposing a solution on Israel.

So it was no surprise that he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s  best and most steadfast ally, and demanding a complete settlement freeze east of the greenline including Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the US commitment set out in the Bush ‘04 letter to Sharon saying there was no agreement. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter testified otherwise.

In January ‘09 before Obama had gotten his act together, Haaretz, reported:

    “Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands”.

Within a few months, that commitment was history.

PM Netanyahu, who had campaigned on the rejection of the two state  solution and on continued settlement growth, attempted to deflect or resist the pressure. One can only imagine the Tools of Persuasion that Netanyahu was subjected to. Finally on June 12/09 Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.

      “We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of


    the other.”

Nevermind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.

He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.”

With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction he affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements.

As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.

At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated. Many complained that he had caved to the pressure without anything in return. Afterall, this was not the platform that Netanyahu …read more
Source: Israpundit


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here