AIPAC ATTENDEES SHOULD GET UP AND WALK OUT AS OBAMA DELIVERS HIS SPEECH THIS SUNDAY

WITH HIS ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE WANTS ISRAEL TO RETURN TO AN INDEFENSIBLE 1967 BORDER MORE-OR-LESS (WITH SOME SWAPS), OBAMA HAS UPENDED 7 DECADES OF US-ISRAELI RELATIONS AND INSERTED HIS OWN ANTI-ISRAEL VIEWS INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS.

THIS ENTIRELY NEW POSITION EVEN GOES FURTHER THAN THE UN RESOLUTION WHICH BINDS THE PARTIES - UNSCR 242.

THIS POSITION ATTEMPTS TO UNILATERALLY ERASE THE POSITION BUSH AND CONGRESS SOLIDIFIED IN 2004, AND IT ESSENTIALLY ATTACKS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL; IT ALSO BLIND-SIDED NETANYAHU:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.

In a statement after President Barack Obama's speech outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said before heading to Washington that "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence".

"That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004," the statement added, alluding to a previous letter from Washington suggesting Israel could keep larger settlement blocs as part a peace deal with the Palestinians.

"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."

NETANYAHU'S EXPECTATIONS WERE NOT MET.

AS THIS 2010 OP-ED STATES:

US support for '67 lines would break agreement with Israel

By M. HALBERSTAM

11/21/2010

Failure to honor its commitment would seriously impair America’s ability to negotiate future accords.

Israel is debating whether to impose another 90-day construction freeze in Judea and Samaria in exchange for promises by US President Barack Obama, including a promise to veto a Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines. Would such an agreement be binding under US law? On Obama? On his successor? Would US support for a Palestinian state violate an existing agreement?

Several weeks ago it was reported that to induce PA President Mahmoud Abbas to return to negotiations, Obama offered “to formally endorse a Palestinian state based on the borders [sic] of Israel before the 1967 Middle East war” (“Risks and Advantages in US Effort in Middle East,” New York Times, October 6).

Leaving aside why Abbas needs to be induced to return to negotiations intended to culminate in the creation of a Palestinian state (for the first time in history), such a promise would breach an agreement between the US and Israel entered into on April 14, 2004, by an exchange of letters between president George W. Bush and prime minister Ariel Sharon.

US SUPPORT, or failure to oppose, a Security Council resolution for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 lines (these were armistice lines, not borders) would also be inconsistent with US policy going back to 1967, when the Security Council adopted Resolution 242. Famously, that resolution’s reference to territories, not “all the” territories, or even “the” territories, at the insistence of the US, over the objections of Syria and other Arab states, was intended to ensure that Israel would not be required to give up all the territory it had captured.

The letter from Sharon states:

“I attach for your review the main principles of the Disengagement Plan... According to this plan, the State of Israel intends to relocate military installations and Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip, as well as other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria.

The letter from Bush states:

“We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points...

“Third... In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

The letters were both dated the same day. In carefully drafted language, they listed a series of commitments by Israel and the US, respectively.

A reading of the letters leaves no doubt that they were intended to memorialize an agreement between the US and Israel.

A concurrent resolution, adopted June 22, 2004, states that Congress “strongly endorse[s] the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon...”

Israel implemented the disengagement at great human and material cost. All the Jewish communities in Gaza were destroyed. Thousands of Jews were forcibly removed from the towns and villages they had built and in which they had lived and worked for many years, some all their lives. Many still have no permanent homes or jobs.

Obama’s offer “to formally endorse a Palestinian state based on the borders of Israel before the 1967 Middle East war,” if in fact made, is thus clearly inconsistent with president Bush’s “reassure[ing]” Sharon that “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers... it is realistic to expect that any final-status agreement will... reflect these realities.”

OBAMA HAS FORTIFIED HIS POSITION AS THE FIRST ANTI-ZIONIST POTUS EVER.

THIS IS NO SURPRISE TO THOSE OF US WHO THOUGHT IT VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT OBAMA HONORED EDWARD SAID, WAS VERY CLOSE TO HIS PLO-CONNECTED DISCIPLE RASHID KHALIDI, AND PRAYED AT THE KNEE OF JEREMIAH WRIGHT FOR 20 YEARS.

ALL OTHER AMERICANS - ESPECIALLY JEWISH AMERICANS - WHO BELIEVED OBAMA WAS PRO-ISRAEL HAVE TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR - AND REPENT.

AIPAC ATTENDEES SHOULD GET UP AND WALK OUT AS OBAMA DELIVERS HIS SPEECH THIS SUNDAY.

AND JEWS WHO LOVE ISRAEL SHOULDN'T VOTE DEMOCRAT ANYMORE - EVER.

UPDATE: WILLIAM JACOBSON:

the 2004 letter from Bush linked above was in connection with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, which as we now know resulted in an Iranian proxy on Israel's southern border. So to go back on those pledges is particularly onerous because it shows Israel that land for peace not only is a joke as far as the Palestinians are concerned, but also that U.S. assurances as inducements for territorial withdrawal cannot be relied on.

CORRECTION: Obama's assurances cannot be relied on.

(ASIDE/WARNING: WATCH OUT FOR A MAJOR NEGATIVE EVENT TOMORROW IN THE USA.)