Tag Archives: Settlements

Obama’s Growing List of Omitted Facts

In a speech on December 16, 2011 at the 71st general assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism, President Obama proudly mentioned a list of his administration’s actions in support of Israel as ‘facts’.

Some ‘facts’ he listed included…:

– “On my watch, the United States of America has led the way, from Durban to the United Nations, against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize Israel.”

– “In fact, I am proud to say that no U.S. administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours. None. Don’t let anybody else tell you otherwise. It is a fact.”

Obama's Speech at the Union for Reform Judaism
Here are some facts about the Obama Administration’s relations and support of Israel and handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – facts Obama has failed to mention in his speech:

Snubbing Netanyahu. On March 23, 2010, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu visited President Obama in the White House.

Obama treated his guest to a series of slights. Photographs of the meeting were forbidden and an Israeli request to issue a joint-statement once it was over were turned down.

In the meeting, Obama has presented Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. When Netanyahu refused to heed to these demands – Obama had left the room to ‘have dinner with Michelle and the girls’ leaving Netanyahu and his aids all to themselves for over an hour in the Roosevelt Room.

As he left, Mr. Netanyahu was told to consider the ‘error of his ways’. “I’m still around,” Mr. Obama is quoted as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”


Panetta Reprimanding Israel.  It is well documented that it was the Palestinians who have walked out of direct peace negotiations with Israel back in October 2010.

Speaking in Washington on December 2, 2011 at the Saban Conference, an annual forum sponsored by entertainment mogul Chaim Saban and the Brookings Institution, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was asked: “Mr. Secretary, you made a strong statement about Israel’s responsibility to make peace. What steps should it [Israel] take now? Withdraw the Israeli army from Palestinian territories?” “No”, said Panetta, “Just get to the damn table!“.



Expressing Disdain for Netanyahu. The president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, told President Obama that he could no longer bear Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, and went on to call Mr. Netanyahu a “liar” in a private conversation overheard by several French journalists in November 2011 at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Cannes. Obama repliedYou are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”


Obama’s Ambassador Blames Israel for Anti-Semitism. On November 30, 2011, in his introduction to a gathering about anti-Semitism in Europe titled: “Conference on Fighting Anti-Semitism in Europe: What is Next?” U.S. ambassador to Belgium Mr. Howard Gutman, said that Muslim hatred for Jews stemming from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be construed as anti-Semitism.


Imposing a Peace Arrangement on Israel.  In his aforementioned speech on December 16, 2011 at the 71st general assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism, President Obama declared that “Peace can’t be imposed from the outside. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them.”

Yet, in a different speech on May 19, 2001, Mr. Obama declared: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…”


Insisting on Halt To Settlements as Pre-Condition to Peace Talks. In May 2009, after the first meeting in the White House between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Obama has declared: “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward“.

Palestinians, who until that point had never made a total settlement freeze – including in areas beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem – a condition for negotiations, heard Obama and pounced. If this was what the American president was saying, how could they ask for anything less?


Hillary Clinton Scolds Netanyahu; David Axelrod blisters Israel on East Jerusalem Settlement ‘Affront’ while the Palestinian Authority Names a Public Square in a Terrorist’s Honor. While Obama administration’s officials are busy condemning Israel‘s decision to build some housing units in its own capital, and while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is busy scolding Prime Minister Netanyahu for 45 minutes over the phone, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to the memory of a brutal murderer who in 1979 led the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history, slaughtering 37 innocent civilians, including children, and the Obama administration is silent.


Breaking America’s Promise to Israel NOT to Call for its Return to 1967 Borders. In 2004, The Unites States of America made a promise to Israel that it would not be forced back to the pre-1967 lines.

In his speech on May 19, 2001, Mr. Obama declared: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…”

Israeli-Palestinian Stalemate – Straight from Obama’s Playbook (Part III)

The pattern of Obama making declarations and the Palestinians adopting those declarations as their tactics keeps repeating itself.

1st – and for the first time ever – Obama made an Israeli settlement-freeze in the West Bank a new precondition for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

  • Such a freeze has never before been set by an American President as a precondition for bilateral talks.
  • Such position has never been taken by any Israeli administration ('dove-ish' or 'hawk-ish') since 1967.
  • Further more – Such position as a precondition to negotiations has never before been taken by the Palestinians!

Learn more…


2nd – Obama declared that by September 2011 there should be an independent Palestinian state.

  • It wasn't until Obama spoke of Palestine as a new member of the UN by September 2011 that this date suddenly became a benchmark.
  • Before too long, the Europeans put this deadline in their statements, consistently setting September 2011 as a deadline of sorts.
  • Before too long, the Palestinians have expressed their determination to fulfill Obama's prophecy in September 2011 by asking for UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

Learn more…


And then… In his State Department speech on the Middle East on May 19, 2011, Obama 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" Obama continued, "should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…"


Obama also laid out his policy toward the sequencing of negotiations (essentially adopting the Palestinian position) by saying that the "two wrenching and emotional issues" of the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees should be deferred and discussed after questions of territory and security were addressed.

Learn more…


If you want to know what the Palestinians are going to do tomorrow, just listen to what US President Barack Obama says today.

If Obama said that the basis of negotiations should be the 1967 lines and that Jerusalem and refugees should be deferred to a later date, then who were the Palestinians to quibble?

Indeed, they did not quibble.

Palestinian senior official Saeb Erekat, on June 7, 2011, during a speech at the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution in Washington 'staked out a new position' (according to The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl), saying that talks would only commence if Netanyahu formally accepted Obama's 1967-lines parameters, something Netanyahu has made abundantly clear he has no intention of doing.

If Netanyahu "wants to be a partner he has to say it: Two states on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," Erekat said, adding that without that declaration, there would be no talks, and the PA would go ahead with its UN push.

"I have no quarrel with the United States," Erekat stated. "If Mr. Netanyahu says he accepts the two-state solution on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, he's on."

Erekat, Diehl said, "left little doubt that he was staking out a position in response to the Obama administration's efforts to restart negotiations – a position that appears aimed less at advancing the process than at deepening the discord between the Israeli and US governments."

In an interview to FoxNews on September 19, 2011, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that any future negotiations would have to include Israeli recognition of borders based on the 1967 lines.

Speaking in front of some 200 representatives from the Palestinian community in the US at his New York hotel, just hours before he is due to speak at the UN General Assembly (Friday, September 24, 2011) and submit an application for full membership of the global body, Mahmoud Abbas reiterated: "All parties are demanding that we return to negotiations but we say that if (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu does not announce his recognition of the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and the halt of settlements, we will not return to negotiations."

*          *          *

Here's the pattern: Obama makes a declaration ('settlements must stop'; Independent Palestine by Sep. 2011; pre-1967 borders) – a declaration Israel cannot accept – and it becomes the newest Palestinian pre-negotiating position.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, meanwhile, remain non-existent, while Obama has revealed himself as being the chief orchestrator of such stymied.