A history of the Obama Administration’s Israel policy (whiplash warning)

In their own words, the Obama Administration’s changing position on Israel, particularly “settlement” building in Jerusalem:

Obama to AIPAC, March 2007:

“We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.”

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

“I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel.”

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Obama to CNN, one day after the AIPAC speech:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”

Obama’s Cairo speech, June 2009:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

Hillary Clinton on Israel halting settlement building except in east Jerusalem, Oct. 31, 2009:

What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements which he has just described – no new starts for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior-to negotiations.

Hillary Clinton on the same subject, Nov. 25, 2009:

Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Hillary Clinton, on the same subject, March 12, 2010:

It was insulting. And– it was insulting not just to the vice president, who– certainly didn’t deserve that. He was there with a very clear message of– commitment to the peace process solidarity with– the Israeli people. But it was an insult to the United States.

David Axelrod, speaking for the Obama administration on NBC, March 14, 2010:

This was an affront, it was an insult, but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region.

Barry Rubin on the hypocrisy of the Obama administration’s ever-changing position on Israel settlements as the “obstacle to peace”:

Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months; made President Brack Obama look very foolish after destroying his publicly announced September plan to have negotiations in two months; broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN; and rejected direct negotiations after months of pleading by the Obama White House, not a single word of criticism has ever been offered by any administration official regarding the PA’s continuous and very public sabotage of peace process efforts.

Israeli Double Standard Time is in effect. As always, it only occurs on days that end with a “y.”

This entry was posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, The One and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A history of the Obama Administration’s Israel policy (whiplash warning)

  1. JDF says:

    On a related note — pls let me know if anybody saw ABC’s Sunday morning show yesterday and whether it disturbed anybody other than me… there was an interview on ABC with David Axelrod — Obama’s advisor. The person filling in for George Stephanopolous was very aggressive and antangonistic about Israel, and Axelrod would not in any way defend Israel. The questioner literally asked “Yes or no, does Israeli intransigence endanger the lives of American soldiers?” — and Axelrod did NOT say NO. Whatever one thinks of the announcement of the housing plans in Jerusalem during Biden’s visit, how can somebody ask that type of question when Arab actions DIRECTLY endanger US soldiers (and civilians) and have for years! They actual kill Americans (and have for years)! Is it me?

  2. Herschel says:

    Before the election Jews were warned about the “dear leader’s” hidden agenda towards Israel and his cast of friends and advisers, and yet they voted him in with an 80% margin. I really am confused by the way the sheep and their leadership are once again willingly being led down the path, and are afraid show outrage at the events enfolding.
    I am hoping that the 2010 elections bring about a citizen backlash and allow the Republicans to check and balance this runaway anti Israel train, but sadly, the “liberal” Jews will probably continue to vote with the dems at a +75% rate unless something really profound happens before November 2010, and 2012.

  3. Karmafish says:

    Oh, yes, what an insult.

    The Jewish state announces that it is going to build housing within the ancient Jewish city of Jerusalem and the American administration is insulted.

    Just who the hell do these people think they are?

    Jews, I’m afraid, can live where ever they want in the old Jewish city… whether Barack Obama likes it or not.

    {I can’t wait to vote against this guy.}

    http://karmafishies.blogspot.com/

Comments are closed.