Monday, May 23, 2011

Obama does an Obama and backtracks on Israeli-Palestinian position, then denies it.

Sometimes you have to wonder why Obama makes a speech at all. It really cant be for any other reason that wanting to hear himself talk because, as should have been evident in every speech he made during the Democratic primaries and ever since, nothing he says actually means anything.

Less than 24 hours after saying that a return to the 1967 borders should be the basis for any Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiation, and less than 24 hours after Netanyahu said Obama's statement shows he is out of touch with reality on the ground, Obama back tracked and in a speech before Israel's most influential lobbying group, a speech designed to remove the foot from his mouth that he placed there, said that borders "have to reflect reality on the ground". The only thing he didn't do was turn to Netanyahu and ask, " did I say it right"?

Obama today insists nothing changed about his original position, that it was the simple minded analysts and government officials, presumably including Netanyahu who got it wrong and just didn't understand that he meant 1967 borders should be the start of negotiations and that mutual land swaps would redefine the borders. President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority however didn't exactly understand Obama either, praising him for taking a position that would return a two state solution to the borders that existed pre-1967.

This is what happens when you elect a president with no principles, convictions or vision and who will say anything for political advantage without regard to consequences, because it was only 3 years ago, in a speech to 7,000 Jews in Miami while running for president that Obama said he supported a unified Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. A unified Jerusalem would not mean pre 1967 borders when Jerusalem was divided, east and west, with east under Arab control. True to form, he backtracked three years ago too, and also within 24 hours when the Palestinians went ballistic over his remarks. He revised them the next day using the same excuse -- that everyone just misunderstood him and that what he meant by a unified Jerusalem was a Jerusalem with no barbed wire. Since Jerusalem hadn't had barbed wire in 42 years that attempt at damage control was what one might call lame.

Obama is already taking a political hit in the U.S. for his comments about pre 1967 borders and no doubt Netanyahu who actually is a good orator will rub Obama's nose in it, perhaps gently but also obviously, when he addresses congress on Tuesday.

In the meantime Obama headed to Ireland to get in touch with his roots on his mother's side and her Irish background, the same roots he virtually, politically and temporarily disowned when he filled out his census form a year ago, knowing it would be made public, and  checked the box that said he was black instead of mixed race.

So after having a few bad days in which just about everyone trashed his middle east speech and his press secretary, Jay Carney,had  tried to make sure everyone understood that the heart of Obama's "major speech on the middle east" was that Obama had said "nothing new", Obama may have gone to Ireland looking for a little of the luck of the Irish. The way he is going, when 2012 rolls around he is probably going to need it.


Atlanta Roofing said...

It was interesting to hear Netanyahu say the real remedy for the Middle East is the adoption by the Arab countries of "true democracy" and voting rights "for all, including women and gays". Given his fragile coalition at home and the Republican congress here in the U.S., why would he invoke the issue of gay rights in the Arab world, when there are some in his government coalition who oppose gay rights in EY as a matter of religious belief.

Anonymous said...


I don't think it is quite true Obama has no principles or never says what he means. I think it is more accurate to say he has no liberal, progressive, or left principles, and only means what he says when he is speaking from a right-wing pov.

Marc Rubin said...

".. I think it is more accurate to say he has no liberal, progressive, or left principles,.."

No, he has a 13 year history of having no principles and no convictions about anything whch is why he voted "present" over 100 times in the Illinois state senate so he wouldnt have to vote for or against anything. No president or presidential candidate has lied or been an underhanded as Obama since Nixon.