Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks,Concerned Americans.First, a look at some of the other trash coming out on what was basically a reiteration of longstanding official U.S. policy on Israel's borders:
President Obama reverses the policy of Harry Truman, Ike Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.The issue that Obama is being trashed over is his statement:
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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.First, he said "1967 lines." That rules out Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
Lyndon Johnson was aware that those borders were about to be assaulted but did not warn the Egyptians, who were about to have their air force completely destroyed on the ground. Yet, during the Six-Day War, Israelis, through their supporters in the USA, held massive June 7th 1967 demonstrations in Lafayette Park, condemning LBJ. When he was approached by his aides Larry Levinson and Ben Wattenberg, with their request he address or send a message to the rally, he blew up (pp. 106-107, The Attack on the Liberty, James Scott):
The president exploded on Levinson soon afterward in a hallway confrontation outside the Oval Office that left the aide "shaken to the marrow." "You Zionist dupe!" the president shouted, raising his right fist. "Why can't you see I'm doing all I can for Israel. That's what you should be telling people."The official US post-Six-Day War positions on the borders of Israel have essentially been those of the United Nations:
Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.The Nixon administration followed suit:
You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol's Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.and:
My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . .
Israel, as occupant of the territories seized during the fighting in 1967, is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention--that for the protection of civilians--but Israel refuses to apply the convention.President Ford's administration:
Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the location of the borders of States of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.President Carter's administration:
This matter of settlements in the occupied territories has always been characterized by our Government, by me and my predecessors as an illegal action.Again, Carter:
And I let Mr. Begin know very clearly that our Government policy, before I became President and now, is that these settlements are illegal and contravene the Geneva conference terms.President Reagan's administration:
Mr. Begin disagrees with this. But we've spelled this out very clearly on several occasions in the United Nations and other places that these settlements are illegal.
The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.President Bush I's administration:
Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation.and:
My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.President Clinton's administration:
The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.President Bush II's administration:
Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.There is nothing in President Obama's statement that is significantly different from statements from the administrations of all his predecessors, dating back to the beginning of the present occupation.
All of the GOP candidates are aware that Zionist organizations are openly threatening to withhold funding from his 2012 campaign. Palin has been the most cynical in her approach to this, as she believes all Jews who don't to convert not just to Christianity, but to her particular flavor, will roast in Hell for eternity.
The 2012 campaign funding from traditional Jewish sources is more in play than it has perhaps ever been in American presidential contests. The organizations, PACs and post-Citizens United groups that hate Obama because he is black or who always tend to back the candidate most supportive of continuing Israeli expansion no matter what else, are ill at ease over the recent changes in the Middle East and North Africa. Their traditional support of Democrats is very much in play.
Palin's fake Star-of-David is on the rise.