Ya Libnan

Romney: ‘President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus’

Share:

While several Republicans who are potential opponents for Obama in the 2012 presidential race criticized his speech last Thursday on US Mideast Policy calling it ” insufficiently dedicated to Israel’s security”, former Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora said he was disappointed in Obama’s speech for completely opposite reasons.

“There were expectations that during his speech, he will address a specific mechanism to find a just, final solution to the Arab-Israeli struggle and the Palestinian cause, particularly in issues related to the Palestinians’ right of return.” Siniora said in a statement issued by his press office on Sunday commenting on president Barack Obama’s speech

Commenting on Obama’s speech former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said

“Insistence on a return to the 1967 border is a mistaken and very dangerous demand.”

“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said in a statement.

Obama told the nation’s largest pro-Israel lobby yesterday that the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is “ironclad” and he will block any moves that would undermine it.

Obama repeated that the template for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should use the 1967 borders as a starting point in peace talks.

“This basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations,” Obama said in an address Saturday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington.

One analyst commented about Obama’s speech by saying : “Poor Obama he cannot seem to grasp the point that the US, just like Palestine is an Israeli occupied territory. He added : All the presidential candidates care more about pleasing Israel and its US lobby than the whole country. “

Share:

Comments

28 responses to “Romney: ‘President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus’”

  1. Sebouh80 Avatar
    Sebouh80

    It appears that Obama is now appeasing his AIPAC lobby so that he would be reelected next year.  For the record so far he has proven himself to be more Zionist then the Zionists.

    1. eblashko Avatar
      eblashko

      And through his demands of settlement freeze and the 1967 borders, he has proven to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians. 

      He’s a politician. What do you want?

      1. Sebouh80 Avatar
        Sebouh80

         I know that Obama is a Politician. The point that I’m trying to raise is that few days ago in his speech he insisted on the return to the 1967 borders.

        Fair enough,  the next day in front of the right wing Israeli prime minister  he started to change the Palestinian rethoric and today in front of the AIPAC he contradicted his earlier views.

        This is what Mr. Obama said in front of the AIPAC today in regards to the return to June 4 1967.

        I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.[…]That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Who is Obama fooling????????

        1. eblashko Avatar
          eblashko

          Dude, that speech is pro-Israel, but I fail to see how it’s anti-Palestine, and, like he said, it’s not much different from the speech he gave on Thursday. It’s a good solution and fair for both sides. That’s why Hamas and Netanyahu are both so upset about it. Because neither of them wants what’s fair. They both want it all.

          The 1967 borders are “indefensible” and the demographic situation has changed in the past 44 years, which is why you have “swaps”. Palestinians still get the same amount of land. Jews can give up some land without having to live in fear.

          So he is not more Zionist than the Zionists when we calls for this, or more Palestinians than the Palestinians when we says 1967. He’s both, he’s a optimist, and in order to earn his nobel prize, he has to make friends with both sides and bring them both to the table.

          Let the man work. The odds are against him, but maybe it will work.

      2. Crossed Avatar
        Crossed

         He’s a politician, yes…. At the head of the world’s greatest power. By letting Israel off easy, allowing it to build settlements and terrorize Palestinians off their land, he is full accordance with the laws of Zionism. He doesn’t have to come out and say he supports all of this, but by doing nothing, when he has the power to make some real changes, he is behaving like a zionist.

        1. eblashko Avatar
          eblashko

          By refusing to negotiate with Israel to stop all that, the Palestinians are also doing nothing to stop the “terrorization” of their land and the building of settlements. So I guess you could say the Palestinians are behaving like Zionists too.

          Can’t be argued that if they’d accepted any of the Partition Plans of 1936, 1947, 1967, 2000, or 2008, there would be a lot less settlements than there are today… leave it to the Palestinians to have aid the “terrorization” of their own land.

          And by the way, I consider myself a proud, unapologetic Zionist, but I strongly oppose settlement construction, and strongly support an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 lines. So before you go talking about the “Laws of Zionism”, remember that the original point of Zionism, a secular, nationalist movement that believed in the Jews settling in their ancient land (though not necessarily all of it), has been totally hijacked by the religious and is becoming a movement that believes in Jews settling in ALL of their ancient land because it was promised to us by God. Being from Lebanon, I could imagine you understand a thing or two about the religious hijacking something that was once so beautiful beautiful and making it ugly. And unless we solve this problem soon, the hopeless of the region will get more religious and more extreme until we all kill each other in the name of our God.

          Religion is poison.

    2. eblashko Avatar
      eblashko

      And through his demands of settlement freeze and the 1967 borders, he has proven to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians. 

      He’s a politician. What do you want?

      1. Sebouh80 Avatar
        Sebouh80

         I know that Obama is a Politician. The point that I’m trying to raise is that few days ago in his speech he insisted on the return to the 1967 borders.

        Fair enough,  the next day in front of the right wing Israeli prime minister  he started to change the Palestinian rethoric and today in front of the AIPAC he contradicted his earlier views.

        This is what Mr. Obama said in front of the AIPAC today in regards to the return to June 4 1967.

        I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.[…]That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Who is Obama fooling????????

        1. eblashko Avatar
          eblashko

          Dude, that speech is pro-Israel, but I fail to see how it’s anti-Palestine, and, like he said, it’s not much different from the speech he gave on Thursday. It’s a good solution and fair for both sides. That’s why Hamas and Netanyahu are both so upset about it. Because neither of them wants what’s fair. They both want it all.

          The 1967 borders are “indefensible” and the demographic situation has changed in the past 44 years, which is why you have “swaps”. Palestinians still get the same amount of land. Jews can give up some land without having to live in fear.

          So he is not more Zionist than the Zionists when we calls for this, or more Palestinians than the Palestinians when we says 1967. He’s both, he’s a optimist, and in order to earn his nobel prize, he has to make friends with both sides and bring them both to the table.

          Let the man work. The odds are against him, but maybe it will work.

      2. Crossed Avatar
        Crossed

         He’s a politician, yes…. At the head of the world’s greatest power. By letting Israel off easy, allowing it to build settlements and terrorize Palestinians off their land, he is full accordance with the laws of Zionism. He doesn’t have to come out and say he supports all of this, but by doing nothing, when he has the power to make some real changes, he is behaving like a zionist.

  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    It appears that Obama is now appeasing his AIPAC lobby so that he would be reelected next year.  For the record so far he has proven himself to be more Zionist then the Zionists.

    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      And through his demands of settlement freeze and the 1967 borders, he has proven to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians. 

      He’s a politician. What do you want?

      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

         I know that Obama is a Politician. The point that I’m trying to raise is that few days ago in his speech he insisted on the return to the 1967 borders.

        Fair enough,  the next day in front of the right wing Israeli prime minister  he started to change the Palestinian rethoric and today in front of the AIPAC he contradicted his earlier views.

        This is what Mr. Obama said in front of the AIPAC today in regards to the return to June 4 1967.

        I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.[…]That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Who is Obama fooling????????

        1. Avatar
          Anonymous

          Dude, that speech is pro-Israel, but I fail to see how it’s anti-Palestine, and, like he said, it’s not much different from the speech he gave on Thursday. It’s a good solution and fair for both sides. That’s why Hamas and Netanyahu are both so upset about it. Because neither of them wants what’s fair. They both want it all.

          The 1967 borders are “indefensible” and the demographic situation has changed in the past 44 years, which is why you have “swaps”. Palestinians still get the same amount of land. Jews can give up some land without having to live in fear.

          So he is not more Zionist than the Zionists when we calls for this, or more Palestinians than the Palestinians when we says 1967. He’s both, he’s a optimist, and in order to earn his nobel prize, he has to make friends with both sides and bring them both to the table.

          Let the man work. The odds are against him, but maybe it will work.

      2. Avatar
        Anonymous

         I know that Obama is a Politician. The point that I’m trying to raise is that few days ago in his speech he insisted on the return to the 1967 borders.

        Fair enough,  the next day in front of the right wing Israeli prime minister  he started to change the Palestinian rethoric and today in front of the AIPAC he contradicted his earlier views.

        This is what Mr. Obama said in front of the AIPAC today in regards to the return to June 4 1967.

        I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.[…]That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Who is Obama fooling????????

      3. Avatar
        Anonymous

         I know that Obama is a Politician. The point that I’m trying to raise is that few days ago in his speech he insisted on the return to the 1967 borders.

        Fair enough,  the next day in front of the right wing Israeli prime minister  he started to change the Palestinian rethoric and today in front of the AIPAC he contradicted his earlier views.

        This is what Mr. Obama said in front of the AIPAC today in regards to the return to June 4 1967.

        I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.[…]That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.Who is Obama fooling????????

      4. Avatar
        Anonymous

         He’s a politician, yes…. At the head of the world’s greatest power. By letting Israel off easy, allowing it to build settlements and terrorize Palestinians off their land, he is full accordance with the laws of Zionism. He doesn’t have to come out and say he supports all of this, but by doing nothing, when he has the power to make some real changes, he is behaving like a zionist.

        1. Avatar
          Anonymous

          By refusing to negotiate with Israel to stop all that, the Palestinians are also doing nothing to stop the “terrorization” of their land and the building of settlements. So I guess you could say the Palestinians are behaving like Zionists too.

          Can’t be argued that if they’d accepted any of the Partition Plans of 1936, 1947, 1967, 2000, or 2008, there would be a lot less settlements than there are today… leave it to the Palestinians to have aid the “terrorization” of their own land.

          And by the way, I consider myself a proud, unapologetic Zionist, but I strongly oppose settlement construction, and strongly support an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 lines. So before you go talking about the “Laws of Zionism”, remember that the original point of Zionism, a secular, nationalist movement that believed in the Jews settling in their ancient land (though not necessarily all of it), has been totally hijacked by the religious and is becoming a movement that believes in Jews settling in ALL of their ancient land because it was promised to us by God. Being from Lebanon, I could imagine you understand a thing or two about the religious hijacking something that was once so beautiful beautiful and making it ugly. And unless we solve this problem soon, the hopeless of the region will get more religious and more extreme until we all kill each other in the name of our God.

          Religion is poison.

  3. PROPHET.T Avatar
    PROPHET.T

    Obama’s  Insistence on a return to the 1967 border is a major step for American  diplomacy  regardless of His appeasement  of AIPAC  and Natanyahu,by  not clearly saying that the  pre 67 territories  are indeed  occupied  illegally  by  Israel.

  4. PROPHET.T Avatar
    PROPHET.T

    Obama’s  Insistence on a return to the 1967 border is a major step for American  diplomacy  regardless of His appeasement  of AIPAC  and Natanyahu,by  not clearly saying that the  pre 67 territories  are indeed  occupied  illegally  by  Israel.

  5. Patience2 Avatar
    Patience2

    Maybe he’ll throw the “Israel Lobby” under the bus too, ‘spose ??

  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Maybe he’ll throw the “Israel Lobby” under the bus too, ‘spose ??

  7. antar2011 Avatar
    antar2011

    but i thought the zioinist lobby was not a major factor in Obama’s election? 

  8. antar2011 Avatar
    antar2011

    but i thought the zioinist lobby was not a major factor in Obama’s election? 

  9. Avatar
    Anonymous

    but i thought the zioinist lobby was not a major factor in Obama’s election? 

  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    but i thought the zioinist lobby was not a major factor in Obama’s election? 

Leave a Reply