Obama's 'Palestinian' contradiction
Obama: "If the expectation is that we can only have direct negotiations when everything is settled ahead of time," there's no point.
— Jodi Rudoren (@rudoren) March 21, 2013
Very good. So why does he say this three sentences later:
Obama on building in E1: "very difficult to square with a two state solution"
— Jodi Rudoren (@rudoren) March 21, 2013
Aren't borders supposed to be one of the issues on the table? Haven't we shown in the past that we will dismantle 'settlements' for real (and unfortunately even for non-existent) peace? So then why does it matter where we build?
Moreover, if we believe that E-1 will ultimately end up a part of Israel, as was agreed between Abu Mazen and Olmert and as was part of the Clinton parameters, why is staking our claim to it 'very difficult to square with a two state solution'?
And isn't trying to freeze us in position - as has been done for most of the past 46 years - just another way of demanding that all issues be settled ahead of time?
So where's Obama?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, E-1, Judea and Samaria, Judea and Samaria construction, negotiations without preconditions
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:57 PM
1 Comments:
Good question.
Obama is promising things to the Arabs that have no chance of being fulfilled.
The Arabs do not want to negotiate in part because they believe Obama will force Israel in the end to give what they want without their having to compromise or make peace with the Jewish State.
Obama has given them no grounds for assuming they're wrong in their expectation.
What could go wrong indeed
Post a Comment
<< Home