Obama More Zionist Than Most Israelis

Mahmoud Abbas presented his case to the UN today for full recognition of Palestine, while the Obama administration and the Israeli government threatened to fight it to the end. While Obama has repeatedly said that he supports statehood for Palestine, once it became clear that the Palestinian Authority would go to the UN, he made an about turn, probably to prove to his Republican opponents that he was more pro-Israel than anyone else

Nevertheless, 70% of Jewish Israelis and well over 80% of Palestinians support a two state solution, while President Obama has taken the ultra-Zionist stance and done everything possible to block it from even being presented to the UN (see Democracy Now, 9/24/11)http://www.democracynow.org/

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-more-zionist-than-most-israelis.html

What you could do instead is try explaining why you think it's a ridiculous assertion...

Just because reasonable individuals see that interjecting the UN will not result in any positive outcome, does not make them one thing or another. The article is silly.

Reasonable people aren't opposed to Palestinian statehood. I've been wondering how the US would behave if Israel did support Palestinian statehood. Assuming that the behaviour of the US at the UN is driven by what it thinks the US population wants, and that we all know that most 'supporters' of Israel would think for themselves and not just blindly go with whatever the Israeli government wants them to think, it'd be quite a sight to see the US standing almost alone against Israel at the UN ;)

J-Street is against the bid too.

These refugees and J-Streeters are just blindly going with what the Israeli government wants them to think?

You're sticking with that?

To answer like this when you feel your argument is inferior , and you are outclassed.


(my prediction is your answer will be : Thats Nice )

I don't feel inferior or outclassed. I've just learnt from experience that there's no point engaging too much with someone who's more interested in telling me what I supposedly think than in having any genuine conversation...

Is it possible for you to reply to me without the nastiness? It would be nice to see if yr capable of being civil...

Definitely .

Please do the same with myself and the other

posters who deserve respect such as Shira.

Thank you .

Hope you are having a wonderful day .

A word of caution on respect. Respect is something that's earned and can't be demanded. I find I'm able to lack any respect for some folk based on a long history of how they've behaved, yet do the civility thing when they insist on replying to my posts. The rest of the time I can't be bothered with wasting any time on them, so I let them roam free to earn respect from their kindred spirits...

And I hope you are having an absolutely marvellous day!

And it's not just the refugees. The people on the Arab side who oppose the UN bid are the rejectionists from Hamas to the BDS movement. They oppose Palestinian statehood because it might lead to an end to the war against Israel's existence. They certainly aren't doing what israel wants them to do, but how does that make their position a good thing?

Now, J-Street is really another matter. But I wouldn't lump them in with Hamas or BDS. They want completely different things for completely different reasons.

Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisons Issa Karake is quoted as saying: "The recognition of the state means recognition of the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle that the Palestinian nation fought, in the search for freedom and independence. In addition, it indicates that the struggles of the prisoners are legitimized and legal according to UN Resolutions..." http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?p=1058036777

Now, I would not call that "reasonable". In fact, I would offer that this is the major challenge of awarding this failed state a free pass and arbitrarily recognize it at the UN.

The UN bid won't make Palestine a state, so how does opposing it make Obama anti-statehood? Conversely, just because some governments support this initiative at the UN, it doesn't mean that they support Palestinian statehood. Governments take all sorts of positions at the UN for reasons having nothing to do with the alleged substance of the resolution at issue. In fact, as a general rule, most General Assembly resolutions don't make real what they say. Did the Zionism is Racism resolution really mean that Zionism is racist, or did it just mean that a lot of governments were either under the Soviet thumb or were pandering to Arab oil interests? The current bid is little different. Admitting Palestine as a member state, when it plainly is not yet a state, won't make it so. That's why, although I don't often agree with Netanyahu, I have to say that when he describes the UN as a theater of the absurd, he's spot on.

By the way, as an American, I'm pretty sure that in most cases US foreign policy is driven by what our elected leaders believe is in the country's best interest, and not by what the American people may want at any particular moment. Obama was elected to be President, not chief poll reader. And if Israel supported the Palestinian bid without also withdrawing from the West Bank, I and many Americans would wonder what the Hell they were thinking, and wouldn't support it. The big problem remains that Palestine isn't a state yet. Fayyadism seems to be working, but they have a little ways to go.

What the General Assembly vote will do is confer legitimacy upon the new state, but the US is opposed to even that, let alone being opposed to the Palestinians being a full member of the UN. If Obama genuinely (I'm talking about Obama the President, rather than Obama who may have his own personal views) supported a Palestinian state, the US wouldn't be blocking its emergence every step of the way.

What do you think makes something a state? When does that moment happen when a piece of territory crossed that magical threshold into statehood?

Ah, Nutty and his gang of RW thugs are the theatre of the absurd, not the UN, of which Israel, like it or not, is a part of. I've read some of his speech, and it was full of the same overly dramatic dribble that's to be expected from him and his ilk...

By the way, as an American, I'm pretty sure that in most cases US foreign policy is driven by what our elected leaders believe is in the country's best interest, and not by what the American people may want at any particular moment.

Okay, here's a question about that. Why is it in the best interests of the US to constantly support Israel the way it does? When threatening to veto the Palestinian application to the Security Council is so clearly going against what the vast majority of the international community wants to see happen, I'm struggling to see what the best interests of the US are in this.

Very true -- but the number that support it without decided borders, a decision on RoR, no security guarantees for Israel, no decision on the fate of Jerusalem and without agreement of any kind with Israel is a significantly smaller number (very low indeed).

I agree with Obama -- only through direct negotiation with the involved parties can a Palestinian State become a reality.

Different standards are being applied when it comes to the Palestinians, who have every bit as much right to their own state as Israelis do. And anyone who claims that if a Palestinian state comes into being (which is going to happen regardless of what the US, Israel and 'supporters' of Israel want) there won't be any negotiations is being either ignorant or dishonest, as whether a Palestinian state exists or not has nothing to do with whether there'll be future negotiations...

... there was literally no one to negotiate with.

The Arab League took it upon themselves to speak for the Palestinians (notably, an organisation that, to this day, the Palestinian government has no voice in). A people who had NO right to speak for the Palestinians refused to accept either the partition plan or the state of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

If the Palestinians had been able to represent themselves in 1948 instead of being the pawn of their aggressive neighbours, the history of the region would be written quite differently.

If Israelis can have a state, so can Palestinians. The state's going to come into being whether 'supporters' of Israel like it or not (and far too many seem to not like it). They're just going to have to suck it up...

Why was UN involvement ok then, but not now?

Don't you get it yet? The UN is evil, antisemitic, and full of hatred for Israel unless it's done something that benefits Israel and then all of a sudden it's treated like the highest authority on the matter ;)

The UN admitted Israel as a member, that's it. It didn't make Israel a state, nor did it recognize Israel. Recognition can only come from other states; not the UN.

The UN did not create Israel, nor does the Partition Resolution justify Israel's existence. Both Israel's creation and legitimacy stem from other sources than the UN. Why on earth do you believe that the UN created Israel? What is the evidence?

Can't you argue a point honestly? I've never said any such thing as, "it's a myth that there are any such things as Palestinians." Not only that, what does one have to do with the other? So why imply that if I believe one, that I must believe the other? That makes no sense, as well as being completely untrue. And if you really believe that the UN "created" Israel, perhaps you'd like to explain how, and why you believe it?

there's no point in talking to you. Ignore from now on.

Putting aranthus on ignore, that is. I read the exchange and think that was nothing but one of those moments where there's been a miscommunication, and neither of you were lying or anything. While I agree with them at times, and other times strongly disagree, one thing about Aranthus is that I always know when they reply to me that it's going to be something worth reading, and devoid of personal attacks and demonisation of Palestinians....

Without the Partition Plan the state wouldn't have ended up coming into being. And the legitimacy came through being admitted as a full member of the UN, something they're trying their damndest to deny to the Palestinians.

on edit: I should have given you a bit more detail, but it's late and I'm tired, so I don't know how well I'll do. If Ken had said 'the UN created Israel', I would have pointed out that's not how it worked. But Ken said ' And Israel exists because of...wait for it...a decision made by the UN...', which is completely correct. If becoming a state had been a mere matter of announcing it and waiting to see who agreed Chaim Weizmann would have declared a state way back in the early years of the 20th century. He wanted a state desperately, but the conditions weren't there for it. Where it changed was the Partition Plan, which gave the green light for a declaration of statehood. That was the UN decision that did the trick. That's why there were celebrations in the Yishuv, even if Ben-Gurion wasn't happy with it, but decided to take what was on offer and iron out the rest later. If that resolution had said something else, like outlining a plan for a single binational state, Israel wouldn't have come into being as a state, because the declaration of statehood wouldn't have carried the authority of an existing UN resolution. And it's the UN's early involvement with Palestine that's led to (I read this somewhere a few days ago, and can try and find a link to it if you want) the issue of Palestine being a standing agenda for the Security Council where they have to submit a monthly report on progress in the area.