Obama: US-Israel alliance 'eternal, forever'

[oberliner]

TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma'an) -- US President Barack Obama said at the start of his first official visit to Israel on Wednesday that US commitment to its security was rock solid.

"I see this visit as an opportunity to reaffirm the unbreakable bond between our nations, to restate America's unwavering commitment to Israel's security and to speak directly to the people of Israel and to your neighbors," Obama said at a welcoming ceremony.

"I am confident in declaring that our alliance is eternal, is forever," he added.

Obama arrived aboard Air Force One at Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport shortly after noon on Wednesday, starting a three-day trip to the region.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=576951

[King_David]

1. Obama sound like he's a Zionist

LOL

[holdencaufield]

2. Something tells me ...

... not everyone here would welcome President Obama a a poster on DU. A bit too "Zio-friendly" for them.

[Scootaloo]

33. Hell, he'd be kibble long before I/P got around to the guy

Three words - "Obama Social Security" can incite a GD feeding frenzy faster than a thread about pit bulls watching porn at Olive Garden.

I'd just ask him where his hatred of Palestinians came from in the last three years, 'cause I admit to being deeply puzzled.

[leftynyc]

3. Of course he is

The only ones who doubted that were the far left loons who think if they speak loud enough nobody will notice they're a tiny minority and the far right loons who hate the President with every fiber of their being and think the Jews are morons for voting Democratic. Both groups are pretty irrelevant.

[King_David]

5. +1

Agreed

[azurnoir]

24. yawn and yawn again but hey your "prediction" of ffrothing hateful Arabs (palestinians) came true

well sort of anyway

[leftynyc]

26. Prediction? What are you babbling about now?

I know this visit must be a terrible thing for you to watch but since you represent such a tiny minority, you'll get used to the disappointment.

[azurnoir]

30. well right here :)

leftynyc (9,935 posts)
15. You're thinking intellectually

View profile
And that's not what I'm talking about. When the visual is an angry mob - complete with effigy and burning flags, the visceral reaction will be to rally around the President. I'm not talking about birthers...they're beyond hope. I'm talking about middle of the road Democrats and independents who may not be sure about Pres Obama's feelings about Israel. I'm Jewish and I don't know one person personally who is calling for Pollard to be released.....I think he should spend the rest of his life behind bars and like you stated, cutting off aid will not happen.

I don't think voters were paying much attention to the Arab world and their demonstrations during the election season. The economy, supreme court and issues much closer to home decided it. This will be a here and now news story complete with video. Much different.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=35280

leftynyc (9,936 posts)
22. There is no fantasy involved

View profile
in the angry mob description in my post. You may not want to acknowledge it but I can post video after video of the last 10 years that show exactly that and when people are already inclined to believe a stereotype, it doesn't take much. I'm also not sure what happenings on 9/11/12 you're referring to. Benghazi?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=35318

and we are "used" to it

[leftynyc]

35. And where is the prediction?

I was speaking of what already is in the universe and I'm pretty sure you already know that.

[azurnoir]

37. well that's nice

but it seems you were expecting more

[leftynyc]

77. I wouldn't have been surprised at all

What thinking person would have?

[azurnoir]

25. and oh yes we do realize that we are a "tiny vocal minority" just like we were

at the beginning of the Iraq war, just like we were at the beginning of the US civil rights movement, just like we were at the beginning of the movement against Southn Africa's apartheid, just like we were at the beginning of many movements and ya know what you pretty much quoted what was being said about those back when

[leftynyc]

27. Awwww, you're cute when

you're frustrated.

[azurnoir]

31. Not frustrated not disappointed either, this trip is going exactly as expected

but your comment is greatly appreciated really it is

[leftynyc]

36. You're most welcome

and yes, it's going exactly as I thought it would.

[azurnoir]

38. Glad to hear it :)

[ocpagu]

75. Really?

Israel dominated by far right loons is the way to go then?

[leftynyc]

78. Sigh

If you can point to a post where I've defended Bibi and his crew, feel free to post it now. Just like I didn't support Bush even though he was our President. Is it really so hard to understand that?

[delrem]

11. Pres B Obama:

“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 these settlements to stop.”
President Barack Obama in Cairo – June 4, 2009

[King_David]

18. What you think about what Obama

Said YESTERDAY ??

Kol Hakavod la-Nasi Obama ...

[delrem]

20. I expected it. I see you're avoiding the issue.

Do you or don't you agree with the Obama admin, that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are *illegitimate*?

Why would you avoid such a simple question?

[Jefferson23]

40. I see you have yet to receive any direct confirmations...there should be 3, I believe.

I don't think I need to tell you to hold off on breathing until you do.

[delrem]

48. I think perhaps KD has a split personality.

So what he says has, how to put it, a "fluid interpretation" that changes as quick as a weasel can streak through a cabin door.

[Jefferson23]

57. It's a fair question and is based on international law..which is not big around these parts..

as you well know, good luck.

Last I looked one poster came around to respond, but not really..lol.

[delrem]

63. I see a lot of squirming.

No, there won't be a response to the clear declarations of Pres. Obama, Sectretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, Pres. Carter. These pricks want it all and are content to bide their time, with US backing, while their social engineering project creates a total apartheid state, with all Arabs and other non-Jews confined to small isolated and economically worthless locales in both Israel proper and the soon to be absorbed "territories". This is dead obvious after any quick look at the "facts on the ground" that these extremists and their leaders have brought into being, then tout as justification for confirming as an ineluctable status quo. Meanwhile it's just a game to them - one they enjoy playing.

I didn't realize how bad it was until I started posting here. I didn't realize the element of cruelty in it. It isn't heartening. But extreme right-wing Zionist mouthpieces aren't all even though the extreme right-wing faction has the upper hand, and fortunately there are a large number of Israelis who have a heart, who want to safeguard their country and know that this is only possible if the country is built on a strong foundation of equality, of truly sharing the land among all who live in it. Maybe there's something in the saying that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

I don't think the way forward is by arguing details incessantly with extreme right-wingers. If it were we'd all be over at Free Republic lost in the endless inanity of it. It wastes energy. I'd like to see more proactive discussions which ignore the extremist freeper-like trolls. Discussions about how to change things for the better, rather than always switching focus to this brutality or that, committed by this faction or that, whether 2,000 years ago or 84 yrs ago or yesterday - as justification for ever new brutalities and preemptive brutalities and more war.

I see I/P issues as being intrinsically connected with general WoT problems. To be upfront about it, I think the WoT is a totally artificial construct invented to take the place of the cold war, and I think both Reps and Dems are equally and identically supportive of it, and the powers behind it. It is self-perpetuating by design and anti-democratic in effect.

[Jefferson23]

70. Some squirm better than others.

I'm a bystander watching and waiting for the other shoe to drop. There is a mix of variables
that move slowly forward on this conflict, but they do move. Unfortunately many innocents are victims
of this politically perpetuated situation in the mean time, all needlessly, I agree.

[King_David]

45. I support the Geneva Accord initiatives,

And I know that this vocal minority here is desperatly trying to deflect and change the topic but I am not dissapointed at all with Obama's visit and speeches.

I am happy and proud to be an Obama supporter.

[delrem]

47. Then you agree with the Obama administration that the settlements are *illegal*.

Or were you "fibbing"?

[King_David]

50. I support disengagement of the settlements

as part of a secure comprehensive peace treaty... Or unilateral .. With security paramount

[delrem]

51. Then you *disagree* with the Democratic party position that the settlements are illegal?

Come on now, is it that hard to answer?

There's a big difference between "I support disengagement of the settlements", as though there'd be something *generous* on Israel's part in doing so as part of a deal, as though that land was something Israel owned, to "give", and the position of Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carter, that Israel has to end the settlements because they are illegal, plain and simple.

But you've been justifying your views with the argument from authority that you're some total "Democratic" and your opinions are supported by all major Democrats, and vice versa, all major Democrats support your views. So put up or shut up on this very core issue in I/P negotiations.

[azurnoir]

43. what did he say -yesterday? n/t

[King_David]

52. I'm looking to see , if I find an inconsistency ill let u know. nt

[delrem]

12. SoS H. Clinton:

“And yes, I underscored the longstanding American policy that does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements.”
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton at AIPAC – March 22, 2009

"With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point."
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit – May 28, 2009

[delrem]

13. Ambassador Susan Rice

(edited for completeness)

"We reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.”

“While we agree with our fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians."
Ambassador Susan Rice – February 18, 2011

[delrem]

14. The Carter Administration:

“Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.”
President Jimmy Carter – April 1980 interview

"U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process…Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.”
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Committee on Foreign Affairs – March 21, 1980

[delrem]

15. King_David:

" My opinions on Israel ,The Jewish State, The Zionist Entity
Are in perfect sync with most Democratic Party reps, Senators and President Obama."
March 17, 2013

[oberliner]

16. You couldn't put that all in one post?

I'm not sure what you are establishing here.

The poster opposes the settlements, just like Obama does.

He also supports Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state.

Just like Obama does.

[delrem]

17. I just want to be clear on the fact that you agree: the settlements are *illegal*

(edited to correct attribution)

Oops, thought I was responding to King_David.
I presume that King_David agrees 100% with the position that the settlements in the occupied territories are *illegal*, since otherwise he wouldn't claim to be a 100% onside Dem, secure in his opinions because all his opinions are officially sanctioned Dem ones, secure in his rejection of those who would challenge them because such uppity challenges contradict officially sanctioned Dem policy.
What about you oberliner. Do you agree with the Obama administration? If not, why not?

[King_David]

19. +1

Indeed I do !

[delrem]

22. OK, so I can take it as given that you and oberliner, at any rate,

oppose Israeli settlements, the development of their infrastructure including Israeli only roads, the annexation of water supplies, and so on, on the grounds that they are *illegal*, as Carter says explicitly, illegal under international law, 4th Geneva convention.

I hadn't known that, and now that I do I realize that there's at least this point of agreement between us.

[leftynyc]

28. You'd have a hard time

finding anyone on the left that supports the settlements. Illegal? Whatever.

[delrem]

34. What do you mean "Illegal? Whatever." ?

That's an unapt comment if I've ever seen one.

Anyway, it's good to know that leftynyc is opposed to the settlements, the Israeli only roads, and in general Israel's massive social engineering project in the West Bank for which settlements provide the heart and lifeblood, the "fact on the ground". This is very good to know, and it isn't something I would have guessed after the considerable discussion about this very topic in I/P.

[leftynyc]

76. You could have asked

instead of assuming which happens far too much around here. Yes, my sympathies are with Israel and I make no secrets or apologies for that but that doesn't mean I don't think Bibi is an asshole or that the settlements are an obstacle or that the settlers have their country's best interest at heart. All you had to do was ask.

[delrem]

82. I want to thank you and oberliner for clarifying your views. nt

[Scootaloo]

42. Don't hold your breath waiting for rhetoric to match the claims n/t

[oberliner]

49. I realize you are new here

But these positions have been made clear literally hundreds of times.

[delrem]

53. Really?

So, you agree that the settlements are illegal and Israel must abandon them.

[oberliner]

56. I support the Geneva Initiative

I have repeated this on numerous occasions over the years.

I wish that that proposal would get more traction.

http://www.geneva-accord.org/

[delrem]

58. Well, slick, that isn't the bloody issue. And you know it.

[oberliner]

59. It isn't?

I think it deals with the issue of settlements pretty effectively.

[Jefferson23]

60. The settlements are considered illegal to you or not?

Was the ICJ advisory ruling one of those writings you didn't like?

[oberliner]

61. The writers I don't like are op-ed writers for various news sites

Which ICJ advisory ruling are you talking about?

Did you read the Geneva Accord site?

Do you not agree with the proposal outlined there?

[Jefferson23]

62. The settlements are considered illegal to you or not?

It's not that hard a question.

[oberliner]

64. The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal.

Israel is the only country that disputes this.

This article may help forward your understanding:

Of Course Settlements Are Illegal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/15/of-course-settlements-are-illegal.html

[Jefferson23]

66. The settlements are considered illegal to you or not?

Operative word in that sentence is, you.

I am well aware of Israel's opinion. I'm aware of the advisory ruling too.

[oberliner]

68. Is the sky considered blue to you?

It's just blue.

People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

[Jefferson23]

71. The settlements are considered illegal to you or not?

I think it would be easy to say yes or no.

[delrem]

67. Well, do you agree with Israel, or every other country on the planet? nt

[oberliner]

69. How can you even ask such a question?

I gave you a link to an article with the title: "Of Course the Settlements are Illegal"

[delrem]

73. That's Hussein Ibish's opinion, based on Ibish's arguments.

But OK, I take it that you agree that the settlements are illegal according as Geneva Convention 4, and that the entire infrastructure that includes them is both illegal and oppressive, and that's why the world is demanding that Israel roll back the settlements and allow Palestinians the freedom that's their right. Not because the whole world is "antisemitic", or "has it in for Israel", etc., but because it's a matter of basic human rights under international humanitarian law defined as best the world was able after the depravity of WW2.

Because the settlements are flatly illegal, as you and the entire world except Israel agrees, the settlements ought to be rolled back in total, and this illegal annexation of land should be recognized as having no moral power as a bargaining chip in any peace negotiations.

So, I agree with you. What I don't get is why, then, all the antagonism about obviously wrong things like Israeli only roads and highways cutting through Palestinian lands, etc.? Isn't this all obviously to be condemned? Why isn't there more agreement amongst those discussing these matters in I/P, if we all seem to be in agreement on this critical matter?

[delrem]

65. At a certain point one has to conclude that one is dealing with dishonesty. nt

[Jefferson23]

72. I'm pretty sure I know what it must feel like to be a dentist, after a long day at work.

Yes, that is a fair conclusion, all considered.

[pelsar]

74. and you'll answer any question i ask directly?

shall we try a new deal?

you ask me anything i will i give u a direct answer, and any follow up questions as well and keep on answering until you are satisfied..and you same

lets check out this "dishonesty"....... deals goes to any poster here as well...

[delrem]

83. I asked a specific question apropos a specific conversation,

which followed on another specific conversation with a specific person (King_David), not you. That is, KD has repeatedly claimed that his positions on I/P issues mirror that of the Democratic party, the Democratic establishment, and vice versa the position of the Dem party establish mirror his. I asked, in this one very critical regard (the legality/illegality of settlements) whether he disagreed/agreed with the President, SoS, and Secretary of Defense. The question admits only a simple yes/no answer, and doesn't suggest any followups or further inquisition.

In fact two people (who are generally "on KD's side of the street&quot who I did *not* ask replied in the affirmative, and I find that heartening. I didn't expect it.

[pelsar]

84. yes i'm aware of what KD is doing.....

not giving a simple yes or no answer
many do it here and i disagree with the avoidance...

but since you decided to decry his avoidance as "dishonesty" by not answering your simple question directly, i thought it would be appropriate to offer you a similar challenge.

how about you...can you answer questions that are direct that infact are either yes or no? or will your reply at best like KD or worse, just no answer at all?

[delrem]

85. ...

[pelsar]

86. let me translate....

you find that that KD is avoiding answering your very straight foreward question with either a yes or no...and you dont like that, apparantly you believe that he is being "dishonest"

yet at the same time you fully admit that if and when you too are asked a question that requires a yes or a no and you really dont want to answer, you will do what KD is doing.

is that correct?

btw, the cute little icon, i believe is symbolic of exactly that..avoidance

[David__77]

55. He doesn't need to be to support Israel's state security.

Zionism is a particular ideology relating to a people's liberation movement. Israel is a state that one can support without having any position on Zionism. Israel should have the right to pursue its own social system.

But the Obama administration's position of giving active support to Sunni supremacist elements in the region is definitely against Israel's state security interests in the long term.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Eternal? Forever?

[delrem]

23. These declarations of eternal fealty are de rigueur for US politicians. n/t

[ocpagu]

6. How cute.

AIPAC can buy you love.

[leftynyc]

7. Or he can read polls:

Q: In the Middle East, are your sympathies more with (Israel) or more with (the Palestinian Authority)?
Hide Results

Israel 55%
Palestinian Authority 9
(VOL) Both 3
(VOL) Neither 14
No opinion 18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/03/18/National-Politics/Polling/release_220.xml?uuid=zmASRo99EeKRc3-Hzac7SQ


One day people on this board will realize they are a vocal tiny minority.

[cali]

8. Polls do not gauge what is right and wrong

President Obama can support Israel and be firm about the settlements and related issues. Or at least that's what the right thing would be.

[oberliner]

9. True

But the implication that "AIPAC" is the sole reason for Obama's position on Israel is, I think, misguided.

[cali]

10. I agree with that. At the same time, I don't think the vast majority of Americans

know jackshit about Israel and Palestine. Not that that's novel. The vast majority of Americans are woefully uninformed on a vast array of issues.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. Americans have a hard time using a map of the world.

Some can't even find Louisiana if asked, but they can answer leading poll questions well.

[ocpagu]

46. It isn't.

Israel is an important tool for US misguided policy for the Middle East. That's the reason for this leniency. But AIPAC also plays an important role at it.

[leftynyc]

29. Nobody said they did

The implication was that AIPAC bought the President. Perhaps he's just representing the majority opinion of his country.

[cali]

32. I hope he's not merely representing majority opinion in the U.S.

It has no business being a directing force is this issue.

[leftynyc]

39. Question

Did you feel that way when President Carter was negotiating the Camp David Accords? Or when President Clinton was helping negotiate? That we shouldn't be directing?

And asking a politician not to pay attention to polls, especially ones that are so one-sided is not really realistic. Maybe in a perfect world but that's not the one we all live in.

[Scootaloo]

41. Regarding Carter and Clinton...

Sadat is the one who opened the channels to Israel. Egypt initiated the peace talks. Carter and the US sort of jumped aboard, and while we did provide a forum at Camp David, it could have been done anywhere else just as easily. Carter more or less stepped up so the Soviets couldn't feather their own cap with it.

Clinton appeared to view the whole affair more as something he wanted for his legacy, than an actual and productive outcome. He really put his signature on the notion of the United States serving as Israel's lawyer in these negotiations, rather than an unbiased arbiter. He famously said to Arafat, "'Mr Chairman, I am not a great man, I am a failure and you have made me one." It was a personal thing for Clinton.

So frankly, yeah, I think we could do without piggybacking and personal gloryhounding. Seems every US president wants to be rembered as the guy who "brought peace to the mideast," but none of 'em are actually willing to put in the effort that would take.

[cali]

44. Uh, I'm talking about the idiot American public and no, I sure as shit don't think

the American public, ignorant as a rock on this issue should be directing policy. That's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. And btw, it was clear that that's what I was talking about.

[leftynyc]

79. It's the same ignorant American public

it was during Presidents Carter and Clinton so no, it certainly was not clear. I'm very well versed in the topic and I don't agree with the vast majority on this board. It doesn't make me wrong.

[cali]

80. I don't know what positions you hold so I can't judge if I believe you're right or wrong

I don't actually really think strictly within that confine anyway.

I know I believe that the occupation is bad for Israelis and worse for Palestinians.

I know I believe that the window on a 2 state solution is nearly shut.

I know I believe that the actions of both Israelis and Palestinians have contributed to that, but the settlements are what have made a 2 state solution nigh on impossible.

[leftynyc]

81. I see nothing to disagree with in your post

except that a 2 state solution is not really possible. Israel has already proven they will dismantle settlements, they did it in Gaza. And they will do so if they felt a real peace is possible. What they wont do is dismantle the settlements as a show if good faith and I don't blame them for that - it certainly didn't stop the rocket attacks from Gaza. Electing terrrorists in Gaza certainly didn't help anything at all. And re-electing Bibi isn't going to help either.