Obama speech - another attempt to deceive Palestinians into a futile "peace process"

[freepalestine]

PFLP denounces Obama speech as another attempt to deceive Palestinians into a futile "peace process"

http://pflp.ps/english/files/images/obama-israeli-flag.jpg (http://pflp.ps/english/?q=node/1442)


The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said on May 19, 2011, commenting on the speech of United States President Barack Obama, that the Obama speech lacked any form of meaningful change or objectivity in relation to US policy, and served as yet more attempted justification for the occupation and its crimes against the Palestinian people. Said the Front, it is clear that any claims that the United States upholds "values of freedom, democracy and justice" are belied by the fact that those values instantly evaporate in the case of Palestine and its people. Furthermore, said the Front, the Arab youth movement will not trade their dignity, freedom and democracy for U.S. dollars and wars.


In a press statement, the Front said that it is clear that the U.S. position remains - as always - in imperial alliance with its strategic partner, Israel, completely ignoring the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people, international law and U.N. resolutions. It is clear, the Front said, that the U.S. adopts the positions of Netanyahu and his settler regime, in alliance to deprive the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights to independence and self-determination, demanding that Palestinians participate in a U.S. negotiations regime that has no capacity for providing rights or freedom for Palestine and its people. The United States has failed in its attempts to impose its political demands upon Arab and Muslim peoples, and is completely inappropriate and incapable of sponsoring any political settlement that leads to justice or peace in the region.


The Front noted that the U.S. president once again demanded the reactivation of the so-called "peace process" based on bilateral negotiations under the auspices of the U.S., outside the reference of international law and UN resolutions, reflects the fact that the U.S. is simply once again attempting to deceive the Palestinian, Arab and international public opinion while the occupation continues its siege, aggression, settlement as "facts on the ground" against the Palestinian and Arab people. The occupation continues to flagrantly violate international humanitarian and human rights law and the Fourth Geneva Convention to prevent the Palestinian people from exercising our rights to self-determination and national sovereignty over our land, and achieving our rights to freedom, self-determination and return.


The PFLP concluded by calling upon all Palestinian political and social forces to act together in unity to reject any such proposals and instead reactivate the power of the Palestinian national movement, through a rebuilt and democratic Palestine Liberation Organization that can represent the highest reference for our people wherever they are, with a clear vision for national resistance and victory.

http://pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-denounces-obama-speech-another-attempt-deceiv

[freepalestine]

Obama’s Flawed Approach to the Israel/Palestine Conflict

RICHARD FALK




May 22, 2011

There is no world leader that is more skilled at speechmaking than Barack Obama (http://www.myspace.com/everything/barack-obama), (http://www.myspace.com/everything/barack-obama) especially when it comes to inspiring rhetoric that resonates with deep and widely held human aspirations. And his speech on Middle East policy, symbolically delivered to a Washington audience gathered at the State Department (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8941666667,-77.0483333333&spn=0.01,0.01&q=38.8941666667,-77.0483333333%20%28United%20States%20Department%20 of%20State%29&t=h), was no exception, and it contained certain welcome reassurances about American intentions in the region. I would point to his overall endorsement of the Arab Spring as a demonstration that the shaping of political order ultimately is a prerogative of the people. Further that populist outrage if mobilized is capable of liberating an oppressed people from the yoke of brutal and corrupt dictatorships, and amazingly to do so without recourse to violence. Obama also was honest enough to acknowledge that the national strategic interests of the United States (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667&spn=10.0,10.0&q=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667%20%28United%20States%29&t=h) sometimes take precedence over this preferential option for democracy and respect for human rights. Finally, his proposed $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt was a concrete expression of support for the completion of its revolutionary process, although the further $1 billion tied to an opening to outside investment and a free trade framework was far more ambiguous, threatening the enfeebled Egyptian economy with the sort of competitive intrusions that have been so devastating for indigenous agriculture and industry throughout the African continent.

But let’s face it, when the soaring language is taken away, we should not be surprised that Obama continues to seek approval, as he has throughout his presidency, from the hawks in the State Department, the militarists in the Pentagon, and capitalist true believers on Wall Street. Such are the fixed parameters of his presidency with respect to foreign policy and explain why there is so much disappointment among his former most ardent followers during his uphill campaign for the presidency, who were once energized and excited by the slogan "change, yes we can!" Succumbing to Washington 'realism’ (actually a recipe for imperial implosion), the unacknowledged operational slogan of the Obama presidency (http://whitehouse.gov/) has become "change, no we won’t!"


Obama’s Pro-Israeli (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.7833333333,35.2166666667&spn=1.0,1.0&q=31.7833333333,35.2166666667%20%28Israel%29&t=h) Partisanship

With these considerations in mind, it is not at all surprising that Obama’s approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict remains one-sided, deeply flawed, and a barrier rather than a gateway to a just and sustainable peace. The underlying pressures that produce the distortion is the one-sided allegiance to Israel ("Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempt to single it out for criticism in international forums."). This leads to the totally unwarranted assessment that failure to achieve peace in recent years is equally attributable to Israelis and the Palestinians, thereby equating what is certainly not equivalent.

Consider Obama’s words of comparison: "Israeli settlement activity continues, Palestinians have walked away from the talks." How many times is it necessary to point out that Israeli settlement activity is unlawful, and used to be viewed as such even by the United States Government, and that the Palestinian refusal to negotiate while their promised homeland is being despoiled not only by settlement expansion and settler violence, but by the continued construction of an unlawful barrier wall well beyond the 1967 borders. Obama never finds it appropriate to mention Israel’s reliance on excessive and lethal force, most recently in its response to the Nakba demonstrations along its borders, or its blatant disregard of international law, whether by continuing to blockade the entrapped 1.5 million Palestinians locked inside Gaza or by violently attacking the Freedom Flotilla a year ago on international waters while it was carrying much needed humanitarian aid to the Gazans or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

At least in Obama’s Cairo speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Beginning) of June 2009 there was a strong recognition of Palestinian suffering through dispossession, occupation, and refugee status: "..it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people)—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.0,35.3833333333&spn=1.0,1.0&q=32.0,35.3833333333%20%28West%20Bank%29&t=h), Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

America will not turn our backs on the legitimate aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." Of course, this formulation prejudges the most fundamental of Palestinian entitlements by confining any exercise of their right of self-determination as a people to a two-state straight jacket that may no longer be viable or desirable, if it ever was. And throughout the speech in Cairo there was never a sense that the Palestinians have rights under international law that must be taken into account in any legitimate peace process, taking precedence over 'facts on the ground.’

But at least in Cairo Obama was clear on the Israeli settlements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement), or reasonably so: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for the settlements to stop." Even here Obama is only pleading for a freeze (rather than dismantling what was unlawful). In the new speech settlement activity is blandly referred to as making it difficult to get new negotiations started, but nothing critical is said, despite resumed and intensified settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This unwillingness to confront Israel on such a litmus test of a commitment to a negotiated peace is indicative of Obama’s further retreat from even the pretense of balanced diplomacy as measured against Cairo.

And there were other demonstrations of pro-Israeli partisanship in the speech. On the somewhat hopeful moves toward Palestinian Authority/Hamas reconciliation as a necessary basis for effective representation of the Palestinian people at the international level, Obama confines his comments to reiterating Israeli complaints about the refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist). What was left unsaid by Obama is that progress toward peace might be made by at last treating Hamas as a political actor, appreciating its efforts to establish ceasefires and suppress rocket attacks from Gaza, acknowledging its repeated acceptance of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders buttressed by a long-term proposal for peaceful co-existence with Israel, and lifting a punitive and unlawful blockade on Gaza that has lasted for almost four years.

It is possible that such an approach might fail, but if the terminology of taking risks for peace is to have any meaning it must include an altered orientation toward the participation of Hamas in any future peace process.


A Disturbing Innovation

Perhaps, the most serious flaw in the Obama conception of resumed negotiations, is the separation of the territorial issues from the wider agenda of fundamental questions. This unfortunate feature of his approach has been obscured by Israel’s evident anger about the passage in the speech that affirms what was already generally accepted in the international community: "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." If anything this is a step back from the 1967 canonical and unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 that looked unconditionally toward "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied in the recent conflict."

Obama’s innovation involves deferring consideration of what he calls "[t]wo wrenching and emotional issues..the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees." Leaving Jerusalem out of the negotiating process is in effect an uncritical acceptance of the Israel’s insistence that the city as a whole belongs exclusively to Israel. What is worse, it allows Israel to continue the gradual process of ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem: settlement expansion, house demolitions, withdrawal of residency permits and deportations, and overall policies designed to discourage a continued Palestinian presence. It must be understood, I believe, as an unscrupulous American acceptance of Israel’s position on Jerusalem, which is not only a betrayal of legitimate Palestinian expectations of situating their capital in East Jerusalem but also a move that will be received with bitter resentment throughout the Arab world.

Similarly, the deferral of the refugee issue is quite unforgivable. As of 2010 4.7 million Palestinians are registered with the UN as refugees, either living within refugee camps under conditions of occupation or in precarious circumstances in neighboring countries within camps or as vulnerable members of the host country. This refugee status has persisted for more that 60 years despite the clear assertion of Palestinian refugee rights contained in General Assembly Resolution 194 adopted in 1948 and annually reaffirmed: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." This persistence of the Palestinian refugee status six decades later is one of the most notorious denials of human rights that exist in the world today. To remove it from the peace process, as Obama purports to do, is to consign the refugees to an outer darkness of despair, and as such, is a telling disclosure of the bad faith embedded in the most recent Obama rendering of his approach to peace. Those who are dedicated to achieving a just peace for the two peoples—Israelis and Palestinians—are doomed to fail unless the refugees are treated as a core issue that can neither be postponed nor evaded without a grave betrayal of justice.


Legitimacy Confusions

And finally, Obama does his best to dash Palestinian hopes about their one effort to move their struggle a step forward, gaining their acceptance as a state by the United Nations in September of this year. In a perverse formulation of this reasonable, even belated, Palestinian effort to enlist international support for their claims of self-determination and statehood, Obama resorts to deflating and condescending language: "..efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.

Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state." This language is perverse because the Palestinian diplomatic initiative is meant to legitimize itself, not delegitimize Israel. And the BDS campaign and other international civil society initiatives carrying on the 'legitimacy war’ being waged against Israel by way of the Palestinian solidarity movement are not aimed at delegitimizing Israel, but rather seek to overcome the illegitimacy of such Israeli unlawful policies and practices as the Gaza blockade, ethnic cleansing, wall building in defiance of the World Court, settlement expansion and settler violence, excessive violence in the name of security.

In many respects, Obama’s speech, aside from the soaring rhetoric, might have been crafted in Tel Aviv rather than the White House. It is a tribute to Israel’s extraordinary influence upon the American media that has been able to shift the focus of assessment to the supposed Israeli anger about affirming Palestinian statehood within 1967 borders. It is hardly a secret that the Netanyahu leadership, aside from its shrewd propaganda, is opposed to the establishment of any Palestinian state, whether symbolic or substantive. This was much was confirmed by the release of the Palestinian Papers that showed that behind closed doors even when the Palestinian Authority made concession after concession in response to Israeli demands, the Israeli negotiating partners seemed totally unresponsive, and appeared disinterested in negotiating a genuine solution to the conflict.

Underneath the Israeli demand for recognition of it character as a Jewish state is the hidden reality of a Palestinian minority of more than 1.5 million living as second class citizens within Israel. The Obama conception of "a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace" seems completely oblivious to the rights of minority peoples and religions. Such ethnic and religious states seem incompatible with the promise of human dignity for all persons living within a political community. Homeland for peoples is fine, and the Jewish claim in this regard has the force of history behind it, but to consign the Palestinians to a homeland behind the 1967 borders is a covert way to invalidate the claims of refugees expelled in 1948 from historic Palestine, as well as the Palestinian minority living within Israel at present.


American Irrelevance and Palestinian Populism

In a profound sense, whatever Obama says at this point is just more words, beside the point. He has neither the will nor the capacity to exert any material leverage on Israel that might make it more amenable to respecting Palestinian rights under international law or to strike a genuine compromise based on mutuality of claims. Palestinians should not look to sovereign states, or even the United Nations, and certainly not the United States, in their long and tormented journey to realize a just and sustainable destiny for themselves. Their future will depend on the outcome of their struggle, abetted and supported by people of good will around the world, and increasingly assuming the character of a nonviolent legitimacy war that mobilizes moral and political pressures that assert Palestinian rights from below. In this regard, it remains politically significant to make use of the UN and friendly governments to gain visibility and legitimacy for their claims of right. It is Palestinian populism not great power diplomacy that offers the best current hope of achieving a sustainable and just peace on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Obama’s State Department speech should be understood as merely the latest in a long series of disguised confessions of geopolitical impotence, but of one thing we can be sure, it will not be the last.


Source: richardfalk.wordpress.com (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/obama%E2%80%99s-flawed-approach-to-the-israelpalestine-conflict/)


:: Article nr. 77970 sent on 22-may-2011 18:52 ECT


www.uruknet.info?p=77970 (http://www.uruknet.info?p=77970)












------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Obama's Speech to Pro-Israel Lobby AIPAC on May 22, 2011

President Barack Obama



www.uruknet.info?p=77965 (http://www.uruknet.info?p=77965) < here










----------------------

[Kamos]

Well, Israel is also pissed for Obama because what he offers is not enough for them. So only Obama loses here, and nobody wins.

[L.A.P.]

So only Obama loses here, and nobody wins.

"Oh that poor Obama, that poor soul always getting picked on"
-Liberals :laugh:

[Sasha]

No Obama wins... he presented an plan which he knew was unacceptable to the leadership of both the Palestinians and the Israelis but thats sounds totally acceptable and obvious for the liberal/centrist majority of the rest of the worlds leadership.
He now can say he tried and pull his hands of it and still his carefully cultivated image of the world most responsible and centrist guy gets another boost.

[L.A.P.]

Obama speech lacked any form of meaningful change or objectivity

That's what Obama does best, adds fluff to his meaningless and vague speeches.

[freepalestine]

obama and the usa,have only done their recent initiatives because of the unity deal amongst palestinian factions.
and also PLO taking statehood recognition to u.n. in septemeber..
Obama is said to be electioneering?i doubt the timing of the unity deal in Palestine and the recent arab protests in the mideast will help.
the u.s.a. know that no Palestinian will accept the u.s. isreali plan of borders.the countless u.n. resolutions and international law seem irrelevant,even by oslo standards..
as for hamas the isrealis will use them as an excuse,ie "not recognising isreal" etc...

[Red Commissar]

Obama is said to be electioneering?i doubt the timing of the unity deal in Palestine and the recent arab protests in the mideast will help.
the u.s.a. know that no Palestinian will accept the u.s. isreali plan of borders.the countless u.n. resolutions and international law seem irrelevant,even by oslo standards..
as for hamas the isrealis will use them as an excuse,ie "not recognising isreal" etc...

No, it has happened a lot here with Presidents regarding the Israel-Palestine "peace" deals. What ever president sitting in office at the time will drum up the next "big" thing to try and get some move towards peace and it doesn't succeed, due to Israeli and/or PLO rejection. President can essentially say "oh well, we tried, they're just too stubborn to come to the peace table". That's how it always rolled.

When it comes to foreign policy debates the Republicans have in particular have attempted to latch on to the pro-Israel sentiment to its zionist extent. Michael Cain, one of the Republican Party's presidential hopefuls, has said along the lines "If you mess with Israel you mess with us". Obama is trying to find ways to block off that line of debate or at least not make it a major point- that is electioneering. For much of the same reason that the Bin Laden mission came as a relief to them since their opponents can no longer say he's "weak" on foreign policy. He wants to seem like a good ol' centrist candidate and seem "pragmatic".

[Mather]

He now can say he tried and pull his hands of it and still his carefully cultivated image of the world most responsible and centrist guy gets another boost.

That may be true in the US, where Obama could get a boost amongst voters. However in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama has long lost the initial support and goodwill he had from the Arab people. Obama's failure to support the Palestinians, his pro-Israeli bias and the hypocritical and self-serving approach his government took to the Arab popular uprisings has not gone unnoticed in the Middle East and North Africa.

[Red Commissar]

That may be true in the US, where Obama could get a boost amongst voters. However in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama has long lost the initial support and goodwill he had from the Arab people. Obama's failure to support the Palestinians, his pro-Israeli bias and the hypocritical and self-serving approach his government took to the Arab popular uprisings has not gone unnoticed in the Middle East and North Africa.

Yes, it has. For Obama and the rest of the establishment though though, the only Arabs who have influence in the United States are from the kingdoms they are on good terms with.

It is amusing though when you have wingnuts here claim Obama is "anti-Israel" though :rolleyes:

Guess it takes people standing outside of the whole thing to really see where all the US administrations have been in regards to the Middle-East.

[freepalestine]

Comrade Mizher: Obama's AIPAC speech a declaration of war on Palestinian rights

http://pflp.ps/english/files/images/obama.jpg (http://pflp.ps/english/?q=node/1101)



Comrade Jamil Mizher, member of the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation, said that the speech of US President Barack Obama at the annual conference of AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest Zionist lobby organization in the US, was a "declaration of war in Washington upon the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, our existence and our life in Palestine," and an attempt to reverse international law and UN resolutions recognizing the rights of our people.


Speaking on May 22, 2011, Comrade Mizher said in an interview on Palestine TV that "Obama's speech makes his true face - and that of his administration - fully clear. They are aligned fully with the occupying power. At first glance, you may have believed that the speaker you were hearing was Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking on behalf of the Israeli government - he referenced 'Israeli security' in his speech 23 times while saying not a word about the national rights - or the security - of the Palestinian people."


Comrade Mizher further commented that the U.S. president ignored the suffering of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in the dungeons of the occupation, while emphasizing a demand to release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured from a military base launching attacks against women and children in the Gaza Strip.


Comrade Mizher said that all forms of reliance on the U.S. administration must end and illusions be cast aside; it is clear that the U.S. is aligned fully to the occupation. Instead, he said, Palestinians must engage in new policies to confront American policies, reject useless negotiations, and build a strategy based on adherence to national principles and the resistance project in the face of the occupation and U.S. imperialism.


He also called upon the international community to reject U.S. bullying and act to enforce international law and UN resolutions, as these are not subject to bargaining away by any party, and the Palestinian people continue to suffer from the ongoing violations daily through settlement-building, military assaults and ethnic cleansing at the hands of the extremist right-wing regime of Netanyahu.


Comrade Mizher also noted that the U.S. government and the Israeli occupation are united in their opposition to any Palestinian unity and reconciliation, because they recognize that such unity strengthens Palestinian resistance to their policies and practices on the ground. "They want to fragment the Palestinian people in order to maintain their dominance in the region; consequently, our response to their statements will strengthen national reconciliation as the unity of our people is essential to confront occupation and imperialism."


He said that this racist, fascist speech by Obama will not be accepted by Palestinians, including Fateh and Hamas, who must recognize today that they need unity in order to confront the settler regime. Comrade Mizher said that the Palestinian people will continue to struggle for their national rights, including liberation, self-determination and particularly the right of return for Palestinian refugees.


http://pflp.ps/english/?q=comrade-mizher-obamas-aipac-speech-declaration-war

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

As of always, the ever so slight action of Liberalism targets the self-determination of Palestine, its not surprising that Obama would use these tactics in order to parade himself along as if he were progressive towards the idea of a Palestinian state, when he has continually worked alongside Israeli Imperialism and has been attempting to insert his own Imperialist goals towards the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia geared around American capital. I'm glad that the PFLP decided to comment on this, its quite clear that this a renewed Imperialism on Obama's part, attempting to change the face of Imperialism in order to allow for Imperialism to operate further.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

IMO, Obama, the US, and Israel can stfu about the Hamas-Fatah deal as long as Shas and YB remains in the Netenyahu coalition. It's so fucking hypocritical to have people *****ing about the Palestinian unity deal when borderline-genocidal maniacs have fucking ministries to themselves.

:crying:


In an October 2010 sermon, Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-32) In the same article on the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Ovadia Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys who's life has the sole purpose to serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."
"Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel."[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-33)
The American Jewish Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_Committee) condemned the Yosef's remarks, stating that "Rabbi Yosef’s remarks -- suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews -- are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality [...] Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition." [35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-34) The remark was also condemned by the Anti-Defamation League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-35)

"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-36) Yosef later said that his sermon was misquoted, that he was referring to annihilation of Arab terrorists and not of all Arab people.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-ynet-37) He called for improving the living conditions of Arabs in Israel, and said that he has deep respect for peace seeking Arabs.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-ynet2-38) Israeli Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Sheetrit) condemned the sermon, saying: "A person of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's stature must refrain from acrid remarks such as these. (...) I suggest that we not learn from the ways of the Palestinians and speak in verbal blows like these." Salah Tarif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_Tarif), an Arab Israeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli) minister, also criticized Yosef, saying "his remarks add nothing but hatred".
Rabbi Yosef drew criticism from the US State Department in August 2010 following a Saturday morning sermon in which he called for "all the nasty people who hate Israel, like Abu Mazen (Abbas), vanish from our world... May God strike them down with the plague along with all the nasty Palestinians who persecute Israel."[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#cite_note-39)
To be fair, apparently he later delivered another sermon apologizing ... but then again, most bigots when confronted with the irrationality of their opinions will attempt to reduce the backlash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#Remarks_regarding_Gentiles



In November 2006, Lieberman, who described Arab members of the Knesset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_members_of_the_Knesset) that meet with Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) as "terror collaborators", called for their execution: "World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) ended with the Nuremburg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_Trials). The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in [the Knesset]."[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-JpostMay4-70)
The comment was attacked as racist by Eitan Cabel, a Labor party representative, and Ahmad Tibi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Tibi), leader of the Arab party Ta'al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27al) and one-time advisor to Yasser Arafat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat), who demanded that, "a criminal investigation be initiated against Lieberman for violating the law against incitement and racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech)".[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-JpostMay4-70)[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-NAZI-71) Tibi strongly objected to Lieberman's ministerial appointment, describing him as "a racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) and a fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)". Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Party_%28Israel%29) minister Ophir Pines-Paz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophir_Pines-Paz), who resigned over Lieberman's appointment, echoed Tibi's remarks, saying that Lieberman was tainted "by racist declarations and declarations that harm the democratic character of Israel".[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-CHARACTER-72)
In remarks in the Knesset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset) in March 2008, shortly after the 6 March attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre) at Jerusalem's Mercaz HaRav (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav) yeshiva, Lieberman commented that "yesterday's attack can not be disconnected from the Arab MKs incitement, which we hear daily in the Knesset."[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-73) Directing his comments at Arab MKs whose comments Lieberman describes as anti-Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Israel) incitement, he added that "a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you."[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-74)



Following a series of attacks on Israelis perpetrated by Palestinian militants during a three-day period in March 2002, Lieberman proposed issuing an ultimatum to the Palestinian Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority) to halt all militant activity or face wide-ranging attacks. He said, "if it were up to me I would notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we would bomb all their places of business in Ramallah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramallah), for example."[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-hard-84)[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-open-85) This led Foreign Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Affairs_Minister_of_Israel) Shimon Peres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres) to respond that excessive military measures could lead to accusations of war crimes[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-hard-84) and that the Israeli administration must not "escalate the situation".[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-86)
In July 2003, reacting to a commitment made by Ariel Sharon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon) to the US, where amnesty could be given to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners including members of Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) and Islamic Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Movement_in_Palestine), Lieberman rejected a chance to participate in the related committee and said "It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea) if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world,"[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-Guardian1-87)[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-JPost1-88)[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-WSJ1-89) Lieberman continued, according to Galei Tzahal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galei_Tzahal) ('Israel Army Radio'), stating his willingness, as Minister of Transport, to supply buses to take the prisoners there.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-90) Lieberman's suggestion also led to confrontation between Lieberman and Arab-Israeli MKs Ahmed Tibi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Tibi) (Hadash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadash)-Ta'al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27al)), Jamal Zahalka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Zahalka) (Balad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_%28political_party%29)), Taleb el-Sana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taleb_el-Sana), Abdelmalek Dahamsha (United Arab List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_List)) as well as opposition leader Shimon Peres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres).[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-Haaretz2006-91)
In January 2009, during the Gaza conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict), Lieberman argued that Israel "must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Then, too, the occupation of the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan) was unnecessary."[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#cite_note-92) This threat has been interpreted by some media commentators, including Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayyip_Erdogan), as an allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) and as advocacy for a nuclear strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare) on Gaza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman

[Red Commissar]

This was something amsuing I saw- while people on one end cast Obama as the pro-Israeli president he is, there is of course those who will see this whole thing as "anti-Israel"! Case and point,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341212934894494.html

Gist of that editorial rant- Obama doesn't care for Israel, and he's setting up for war. Of course we know that, but his issue is that such a war would be a threat to Israel. Yeah. The wonders of the press :rolleyes:

[freepalestine]

Netanyahu tells US Congress: No return to 1967 borders
Published today (updated) 24/05/2011 20:25

WASHINGTON (AFP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday Israel would be generous with the size of a Palestinian state, but would not return to the 1967 borders or divide the city of Jerusalem.

"Israel will be generous on the size of the Palestinian state, but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle," he said in a landmark address to the US Congress.

"We recognize that a Palestinian state must be big enough to be viable, to be independent, to be prosperous."

But he warned that Israel could not return to the "indefensible" borders which existed in 1967, as US President Barack Obama has insisted should be the basis for negotiations.

"Any peace deal must take into account the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv."

And he further warned: "Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel."
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=390792

[Pyramid]

No Obama wins... he presented an plan which he knew was unacceptable to the leadership of both the Palestinians and the Israelis but thats sounds totally acceptable and obvious for the liberal/centrist majority of the rest of the worlds leadership.

Well said, but more than that, he presented a statement many average people in the region want to hear. Okay, no U.S. President is gonna say, "Israel is an illegal nation, time to work to end it all." The average people with out power, in the area, don't excpect such Disneyland. But they want to hear - "Israel has definate borders, and it doesn't get to solely say what they are." Will this lead to anything is unknown, but the timing is perfect.