E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Washington Post previewing Obama's speech this morning at the U.N. General Assembly: "Obama will specifically address, his advisers say, the lack of progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue he made a priority on taking office. Obama will seek to draw a distinction between his support for Palestinian statehood and his opposition to pursuing that goal through the United Nations."
More: "He will be doing so for two audiences — one suspicious of his intentions toward Israel, the other seeking to understand how he can encourage self-rule in some places and not in others. His ability to make his case has implications for his reelection prospects — highlighted Tuesday when a leading GOP rival forcefully criticized his handling of Israel — and for his diplomatic overture to Muslims abroad."
Leave a Comment:
"...when a leading GOP rival forcefully criticized his handling of Israel"
Taken from Glen Kessler, The Facts:
"Perry's statement had three parts: Palestinians must recognize Israel's existence; they have to denounce terrorism; they have to negotiate with Israel directly. "Anything short of that is a non-starter in my opinion," he declared.
Perry is stuck in a time warp. He's describing a situation that existed in the 1980s, not really today. (Some people might argue about some of that, but we will explain below.)
As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, in an exchange of letters between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Palestine Liberation Organization met all of these conditions nearly 20 years ago. The letters are posted on the Web site of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security," the letter from Arafat said. "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. … Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators."
In 1996, by a vote of 504 to 54, the Palestinian National Council removed the sections in the Palestinian charter that had denied Israel's right to exist.
Ironically, on the same day Perry's remarks to Time were published, an opinion article appeared under Perry's name in the Jerusalem Post. The article — surely written by a more knowledgeable campaign aide — made reference to the Oslo Accords and noted that "the Palestinian leadership has dealt directly with Israel since 1993, but has refused to do so since March 2010."
One can certainly make an argument that the Palestinians have not always lived up to ending terrorism "by deed" (though the Palestinian security forces have been much improved in recent years.) One can also argue that Palestinians need to return to direct talks.
The PLO has long recognized Israel's existence — though not the militant group Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip, so maybe that's what Perry meant. Israeli officials in recent years have also demanded Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" — which Palestinians have refused — but Perry did not make that distinction.
Just to be sure, we sent Perry's remarks to three experts on Middle East diplomacy — an Israeli, a Palestinian and an American. All three said he appeared to be remarkably uninformed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-perrys-newbie-mistake-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/2011/09/16/gIQAvIHKYK_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
To say that Perry is "naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous" on issues here at home, is being too kind. Truth is he is anti-everything that makes life worth living for ordinary people anywhere. Perry seems to have very little regard for the value of life.
As for seeing Israel from his backyard, the 'op-ed' Perry 'wrote' on Israel was obviously written by someone else. Did anyone ever ever accuse President Bush of 'appeasement' during difficult negotiations at the UN?
Will Perry and Romney stop at nothing for political gain? Low?
How ef..ing unpatriotic can you get?
Backhouse - I assume you are talking about Glenn Kissler of the Washington Post. Maybe he should list who his so called "three middle experts are".
Maybe he, or you, should answer the following questions?
Has Hamas agreed to Israels "right to exist?" The answer is NO.
Can the PLO enter into an agreement with Israel without the consent and approval of Hamas? NO
Can Fatah and Hamas agree on talking to Israel one on one? NO
Is Hamas part of the PLO? The answer is YES
Is Hamas continuing to conduct terrorist attacks against Israel? The answer is YES. (The U.S. position is that we do not negotiate with terrorist).
Did anyone ever ever accuse President Bush of 'appeasement' during difficult negotiations at the UN?
Former Rep Joe Scarborough today said Perry and Romney were "posing for political purposes and undermining our President...that is dangerous, and it's not good for our country".
Regardless of anyone's stance on the issues you raise,
What here concerns me greatly is the giant and myopic lack of patriotism and disrespect for the office of the Presidency ~~ shown by presidential candidates, yes presidential candidates, on the right.
Say what you want about Perry on the Israeli/Palestinian issue . The truth is, Obama got himself into this mess ALL BY HIMSELF. He is responsible for this current U.N. Palestinian request for nationhood. Let's NOT try to shift focus onto a Republican,in an attempt to shift the focus off what Obama did ! Obama took the Palestinian side of the issue and came out for it in a speech vs. what the Israeli's wanted for a negotiated peace. It's Obama's fault that the Palestinians now think they can achieve nation status without sitting down with Israel at the negotiation table first. Call it what it is. Mr. Obungle at it again.
Many countries are working together to find solutions to your point about the negotiating table.
One solution here may be that the US along with many other countries, will abstain from voting.
This issue has a very long, history and it is way facile to point fingers,
Though it may please you to do so.
President Obama certainly did NOT "get himself into this mess all by himself." His statement about a two-state solution based on "1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps" has been the policy of the United States for many years, yet Republicans picked THIS President to lie about it being a radical change of some sort.
Backhouse, that's great information you've assembled, obviously this is an issue on which you've made an effort to be informed and educated. Nice posts.
Yep, and the truth is it has happened to Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, etc.
That is what most politicians do and have always done, blast the other side.
Baloney. 400 bills passed the House in the last Congress only to die of filibuster in the Senate. That's FAR HIGHER than the previous record. What Republicans have done with this President in terms of their willingness to torpedo society to harm him is unequaled. The only thing that even comes close is the Republican government shut downs of '94 & '95.
History will not look well upon this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.
Cloture filings to end fillibusters were actually down in the 111th Congress compared to the 110th.
There are no innocent here! Both sides of the aisle are pathetic. It's easy to name call one side of the other because objectively they are both useless.
Cloture filings were down only because Republicans were so hardened in their positions the results of voting were a foregone conclusion. It just further illustrates the determination of the GOPTP to not give the Democrats or the President anything that could be represented as a win.
"...when a leading GOP rival forcefully criticized his handling of Israel."
Perry already admitted that the Bible made him do it.
When was the last time we heard that kind of political reasoning?
Obama probably won't point out the fact that Israel has lived up to none of it's Camp David peace agreements.
But, he will still highlight the long overdue need for a two state solution.
And that's that's the thing. The Christian fundamentalist Conservatives who insist on being "on Israel's side" aren't ACTUALLY on Israel's side...their concern is being able to say they're on Israel's side when Armageddon comes. That's actually the OPPOSITE of trying to make sure that the Middle East is a stable place with room for all players such that long term peace becomes possible.
In other words religious Conservatives aren't on the side of the one thing that will ensure the survival of Israel -- peace. They're on the side of war in the Middle East.
I will wait to hear Obama's speech today. He is following former presidents in his opposition to Palestinians request to the UN for recognition. And he needs to speak to the Arab world at the same time. Not easy.
Perry on the other hand just waded into the water of foreign diplomacy to only further his political support of his base in the republican nomination process. His reference of his religion "as a Christian" to his support of Israel needs to be further clarified/ what exactly does he mean?
No kidding, since when do U.S. politicians identify themselves by their religion in the international arena? Even George Bush made it clear he wasn't a modern day Crusader, invading Islamic countries in the name of God. Bush made it clear we are a country of Muslim Americans and every other kind of Americans, we are not just a "Christian" country. Perry is playing a dangerous game.
"His reference of his religion "as a Christian" to his support of Israel needs to be further clarified/ what exactly does he mean?"
He knows the secret handshake - the veiled nod - the shrouded word.
Otherwise, he would have to flat out say that he believes that the 'rapture' will occur in Israel, and that 2/3 of Israelis will convert to Christianity and therefore be saved, leaving the rest behind to die a fiery death.
But, then he doesn't have to. His base knows the secret handshake, too.
Richard,
paranoid much?
Not at all, Bob.
richard, I agree Perry will never clarify his remark because his answer would be the same as your post. Most Americans do not keep track of those Christian sects and their apocalyptic dogmas.
bob188, It is not paranoid. do a goggle search about Christian millennium ism and the state of Israel. It will give you an education.
Liebama is used to
talking-reading the telepromter- out of both sides of his mouth. The world now sees him as incompetent and inept.canman, I think you need a eye exam. Your" world" is very myopic.
Critique of using a teleprompter in giving a formal speech is so juvenile.
The point is he can't speak effectively or own his own without one. For instance, he needed two telepromters to give a 3 minute speech nominating Alan Krueger. On the rare occasions he doesn't use them, it's ah, ah ,ah, .......
Wow, first use of "teleprompter" this week! I think that's a new record!
Next time call him a Socialist and a Nazi in the same sentence. That one REALLY hits it out of the park!
One can only hope the verbiage used in opposing the use of the UN for statehood versus support for becoming a state is coherent and non-inflammatory. Unfortunately there is no way to placate all the stakeholders. Some groups are destined to be pissed. Perhaps the President should be measured on how equally he pisses off both sides of the conflict.
The Independent, I like your way to measure his effectiveness!!
canman, I disagree. I heard Obama in person twice while he was campaigning in MN. Both speeches last about a half hour . He never used a teleprompter and he spoke passionately with a lot of give and take.
So ,which candidate is your orator of choice?
OK, so the Bungler in Chief tells Israel it should revert back to the 1967 borders, without putting forth any security arrangement, and the "Palestinians" use that as a means to seek a vote in the UN for statehood. Now Obama is put in the position of having to try and justify blocking the vote for statehood, after saying the "Palestinians" should have their own state. And when Obama veto's the vote he sets in play a new wave of anti US hatred from the "Palestinians" and their terrorist puppets. In the meantime, with US assistance, radical elements within the ME are poised to assert themselves as the new governors of Egypt and Libya, further inflaming the entire situation. The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, that had a very significant stabilizing effect on the region for decades, is all but shredded to bits, thereby lending even more fuel to the radicals.
Good job Obama!!!!! Could you manage to %$@%$#% it up any more?
BTW, can anyone tell us what Mr Abbas is proposing will be borders of the new "Palestinian" state? Does their proposal include a security arrangement that prevents their proposed state from being utilized as a training base and launching pad for more attacks on Israel, Europe, the US and elsewhere? Do they have a government, with laws and a Constitution, ready to be put into play if statehood is granted? Will it be a democratic state? Or will it be another theocratic state headed by dictators that rely upon Sharia law to subjugate the people to the will of a group of radical dictators? Will they adhere to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, due process,and the UN charter, etc..? It seems to me that these questions, and a host of others, need to be put forth and answered before the UN can even consider voting on statehood. So , at best, it is premature for any such vote.
The "Palestinians" should not be able to avoid these issues by shunning direct negotiations with Israel in favor of a UN vote. Either way(negotiation with Israel or via the UN) the issues have to be addressed and resolved before any vote for statehood can be taken up. If the Palestinians don't want to address the issues and resolve them in an amicable fashion that promotes stability and peace in the region, before seeking a vote on statehood, than they don't deserve a state of their own.
The tea people GOP republicans, don't think the phrase "politics stops at the waters edge" applies to them, just the Democrats. They think they're above everyone else.
I support the president in his actions and maneuvering around this prickly issue. This president know what needs to be done. He has shown he is a leader and is not scared to execute an order. President Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, was president of the The Harvard Law Review, graduated with honors, with specialization in international relations!
There would seem to be no disagreement that the financial collapse and the resulting faltering economy were caused by the greed, dishonesty, selfishness and exploitation indulged in by the few. One can go further and observe that these cycles have been experienced over many years with reoccurring consistency demonstrated in the savings-and loans, banks, dot.coms, corporate corruption, mortgage, investment and financial industries, always being the same, with run-away and aggressive exploitation by the few resulting in substantial losses accruing to the majority. Much like the illegal “pyramid schemes” but here without government ever seeing and outlawing the abusive behavior. Why?
It would be naive not to see that government, actually politics, has become literally controlled by its own excessive financial needs and totally dependent on the capital provided by those sources who actually directly benefit from the exploitation mentioned and also from other government favoritism, which again greatly costs the majority. There really are many “strings” that are tied to the substantial support given the politicians and nowhere is there any conscience about it. We hear rationalizations to justify all of it in wanting “open markets”, “deregulation”, lax-enforcement and even the “trickle down” theory, with claims that they stimulate the economy but what we have seen is that what they stimulate, as human nature dictates, is that run-away greed just takes over and super-egos really have no self-imposed limits.
Solid evidence is seen in Bush-Cheney having totally concentrated on Special Interests and the powerful, influential and extremely wealthy few while giving the majority only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge to rationalize, con and manipulate. The Republican Party completely backed all of that and have, along with their protege Tea Party, continued with that same mentality effectively offering nothing constructive and stubbornly faulting and blocking all efforts to address the resulting problems. There have been those organized, financially supported and closely directed third party efforts to control public opinion and manipulate the voters, like the considerable efforts to sway the Christian block, the Swift-boat propaganda and the Tea Party movement, all aimed to excite and move the public in the same direction. There are those greatly financed groups, like Norquist’s “anti-tax” pledge, Cheney’s, Rove’s and others, who use the vast sums provided them to coerce and intimidate strict unity behind the dedicated pursuit of “big money’s” interests, as they even brag they can “make or break” any politician. We see the financially supported, often bazaar, antics of Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and others, and the arrogant, stubborn and even obnoxious presentations of Boehner, McConnell, Bachmann, Perry, Kyl, Ryan and more, always faulting as “liberal” any consideration for the majority and literally pushing everything that benefits the few, being rationalized as “conservative” (with “ultra-conservative” just being a synonym for “big money”). The point being that it should be totally obvious that there is substantial control and pressure being exerted by the money people with the results being complete partiality shown them and with no conscience or honest consideration for the majority.
Reform is desperately needed, political reform allowing for financial reform and to encourage real bipartisan cooperation, that being what our government was designed for, and to then provide all other needed reform and an honest government. The Democrats are not “pure and holy”, not “all good and clean” by any measure but what they are, because of differences in ideology, is not attractive to “big money” and more oriented toward benefitting the majority, including the total middle-class who constantly loose the most. The Democrats need to be stronger, to be more unified and to be really focused on solving the problems without the results ever being too liberal. Simply, they are closer to accomplishing that then the Republicans are to ever breaking the hold “big money” has on them. It has been said that the Republicans, being owned by and with their concentration totally on benefitting “big money”, are completely incapable of ever honestly and effectively governing for the people. If we really want the Republicans to ever become the Grand Ole Party once again, with an emphasis on the people instead of just on their strong supporters who “pull their strings”, then we need to fully and totally reject what they have become. We need to push towards getting money out of politics and to start by rendering it ineffective, to just reject the manipulation. Good luck!
RGiles, "Solid evidence is seen in Bush-Cheney having totally concentrated on Special Interests and the powerful......"
You sound just like Jay Carney , Debbie Wasserman Schultz and David Axelrod............the talking heads who work for the Obama administration's spin machine. They are so busy trying to shift blame to Republicans because the Democrats are in such deep s%^&, they don't realize how they are making it worse for Obama. They NOT only sound like cry babies with all the blaming, it has gotten to the "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE" point. Spare us, please. Obama is ONE AND DONE.