ADL’s Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus

He does not agree with the claim by some Republican 2012 presidential candidates and conservative commentators that Obama threw Israel under the bus in his Arab Spring speech yesterday.

The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.

“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/adls-abraham-foxman-obama-didnt-throw-israel-under-the-bus/2011/03/03/AFV3Rv7G_blog.html

Every time Israel gives something back, they say "next time we will thank you and what about the rest of what we want".

In fact the opposition leader agrees whole-heartedly with President Obama..

Israel opposition leader and former foreign minister Tzipi Livni blasted Netanyahu for “harming the relationship” between the US and Israel by challenging Obama in Washington today.

"Netanyahu spoke about consensus," Livni said, "and if there is a consensus in Israel, it's that the relationship with the US is essential to Israel, and a prime minister that harms the relationship with the US over something unsubstantial is harming Israel's security and deterrence."

Obama’s speech, she said, was pro-Israel. "An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni, the leader of Israel’s Kadima Party, said.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/149348/20110520/livni-netanyahu-israel-obama.htm

I am sure they would love to sign a document giving away their land for peace:

"Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister. His premiership was dominated by the question of policy towards the increasingly aggressive Germany, and his actions at Munich were widely popular among Britons at the time."

depends how you would define ownership.

Its come time to finally make it happen.

Oh excuse me. The last time the Palestinians tried to make Jordan their country, the King of Jordan expelled them. In fact, the Palestinians have been expelled from almost every country in the region. But now they make a convenient excuse by these same countries to go on the attack over how Israel has their land...

Obama-the-Great is on it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This will, in my opinion, result in a more stable region and ultimately better security for Israel. BTW, I dont care if you are the High Priest of Jerusalem, you are still wrong.

And I also have Jewish roots, and plenty of relatives in Israel itself.

Many Israelis - on the Centre as well as the Left- support Obama on this. I would say that continuing with the status quo is more of a danger to Israel than a peace agreement with land swaps.

And ALL examples of giving up land are equivalent to Munich? What about the end of the British (and later French, and later Soviet) Empire?

It's a one size fits all sort of accusation/insult for anybody that wants to think. And yes there ought to be some Godwin equivalent for Chamberlain comparisons.

He has told the Israelis that the issue on which they would negotiate (borders) is essentially non-negotiable, and that the issue which they consider absolutely non-negotiable (right of return) is negotiable. Why should the Israelis go into negotiations to talk about what is to them a deal breaker issue? Why should the Palestinians offer to negotiate on borders when the US is taking their side? Why should they not push for right of return when the US is saying that's negotiable? Obama may be right that the ultimate deal is going to be for the entire West Bank less some small negotiated changes, but if he was going to say that, then he also should have clearly come down on saying that right of return wasn't going to be negotiable either. What he has done is to sabotage any talks before they even start.

...for posting a response from the ADL about Obama's speech and representing that the ADL was in support of Obama, and specifically in Obama's assertion that land negotiations begin with the 1967 border and work from there. You have my sincere apology.

Any embarrassment on my part is more than made up for the fact that if even Abe Foxman is not going to stick to Netanyahu's infantile rejection, that even among the block of the hardest-core Israeli supporters...that even among that group...that there still might be dissent and the clarity of vision to see this is a workable plan. And that is heartening.

:hi:

PB

They have done and said some stupid things in the recent past (i.e. getting on Roger Waters for something quite innocuous in his tour videos), but I think Foxman and the ADL ought to get some credit here for their response to Obama's speech.

Barack Obama will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron, insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders – a proposal rejected by Israel's prime minister as "unrealistic" and "indefensible".

The issue will be raised in private talks between the two men during the state visit by Obama and his wife to London, only the third by a US president in 100 years. Afghanistan, Libya, relations with Pakistan and the global economy – as well as the vacancy for the top job at the IMF – will also make up the agenda.

Despite the outright rejection by the Israeli premier, Binyamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the Six Day War, when Israel captured and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, Obama has already secured the political backing of the United Nations, European Union and Russia who, with America, are collectively known as the "quartet".

more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/obama-cameron-pre-1967-palestinian-borders

I suspect he already has a deal with Cameron otherwise this wouldnt have come out in the news.

And the ADL have a lot more reason to want Israel to survive than a bunch of Republican candidates who just want to whip up the anti-Obama vote.

:thumbsup: Abe!