Palestinians Angry at Obama

US NewsOctober 2009 • Views: 2,100

The rumors that President Obama would throw Israel under the bus appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

Palestinian moderates say hope in President Obama has “evaporated.”

That’s the damning message contained in a memo circulated among the top leadership of the Palestinian faction Fatah, the faction which is led by the moderate President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority.

A copy of the internal memorandum was obtained by the Associated Press in Ramallah and its contents confirmed to ABC News by senior Palestinian sources. It accuses the Obama administration of backing down on its calls for an Israeli settlement freeze, a move that sources say has damaged the political credibility of moderate Palestinians.

Jump to bottom

109 comments

Kragar Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:11:19am

Thats so sad.

///

[deleted] Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:11:27am

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:11:33am

I've heard the POTUS repeat his call for settlements to be frozen by Israel. If the palis are "disappointed" with Obama, perhaps it is because they are the ones who refuse to fulfill their OWN obligations.

Political Atheist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:12:09am

Gee if both sides are pissed has he found the moderate middle ground? Like a buyer and seller at a Horse trade, if both are grumbling

redshirt Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:12:25am

Well, I still don't think he's a friend to Israel, but he backs down on every stand he takes. Did we ever think the Palestinians would love him?

vxbush Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:12:30am

Yes, but you have to wonder about Obama's commitment to Israel if he's letting Iran develop nukes, who have stated repeatedly their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

Racer X Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:12:36am

Left wing radicals' heads explode.

Kragar Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:12:44am

re: #3 _RememberTonyC

I've heard the POTUS repeat his call for settlements to be frozen by Israel. If the palis are "disappointed" with Obama, perhaps it is because they are the ones who refuse to fulfill their OWN obligations.

No one has held them accountable for their actions in over 40 years. Why start now?

///

Charles Johnson Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:13:46am

Uh ... so now we're going to bash Obama for "backing down" on his promises to the Palestinians? Wowee.

Political Atheist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:13:48am

re: #6 vxbush

How likely is that since it is a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario same as us and the old Sov Union?

DaddyG Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:13:52am

Do they like us yet?

Right mind left Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:14:02am

Maybe the Palis are not satisfied with Israeljust under the bus, maybe they want them off the face of the map and O is just not allowing THAT...?

///

Gearhead Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:15:11am

Palestinian moderates say hope in President Obama has “evaporated.”

I guess that just leaves Change.

SeaMonkey Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:16:02am

He's a great compromiser, which is why both sides think he's screwing them.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:16:09am

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No one has held them accountable for their actions in over 40 years. Why start now?

///

If Obama stands firm and refuses to let the palis continue their doubletalk, he is doing a very good thing.

Guanxi88 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:16:17am

re: #5 redshirt

Well, I still don't think he's a friend to Israel, but he backs down on every stand he takes. Did we ever think the Palestinians would love him?

Well, those folk working the phone banks for him in Gaza certainly seemed to have some sort of expectations from him.

Youtube Video

pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:17:25am

re: #9 Charles

Uh ... so now we're going to bash Obama for "backing down" on his promises to the Palestinians? Wowee.

(not why I updinged the thread)

Walter L. Newton Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:18:38am

re: #9 Charles

Uh ... so now we're going to bash Obama for "backing down" on his promises to the Palestinians? Wowee.

It's possible that some of the far left, who is already not very happy with some of the direction that he has moved, may have something to say about this report.

Gearhead Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:18:49am

Rahm: Well, Mr. President, it seems we have only one option remaining.

Barack: Tell them what they want to hear?

Rahm: Absolutely, sir. I've invited the teleprompter in to give us its thoughts...

reloadingisnotahobby Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:19:04am

Unfrigging believable!!
I HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH THE PALI'S!!!

middy Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:19:05am

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

How likely is that since it is a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario same as us and the old Sov Union?

The Soviets weren't religious fanatics who believed in Paradise for the martyrs of the Jihad.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:19:12am

I think the Pali's will not like any American President who doesn't send them the arms and the training to destroy Israel.

Doesn't matter who it is.

My little opinion anyway.

albusteve Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:20:24am

did you catch the misprint there about damaged political credibility?

researchok Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:20:26am

I wouldn't attach a whole lot of credibility to anything the Palestinian leadership has to say, be it from the PA or Hamas.

I'm not of the opinion that Obama wanted to throw Israel under the bus. Rather, I believe he wanted to bring them into the middle of the street for a while. Why? Because no matter how you put it, dress it up or see it, the status quo will only hurt the Israelis.

That's the same message he sent to the Palestinians.

There is no question the Israelis hold the moral high ground vs the terror loving Palestinians. Still, the moral high ground is of little comfort when under constant assault. The same is true for the Palestinians. They have nothing to show but failure and dysfunction as a result of all the years of hate, racism and bigotry.

The staus quo serves no one.

The Optimist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:21:27am

It only counts if Obama says that he really really really really really really really really really really means it this time.

It must be a problem in the translation. Perhaps the Palis had the same translator their leaders use to go from Arabic to English in which everything bad gets deleted. Or when going from English to Arabic bad things are added to the text.

Charles Johnson Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:21:56am

Time after time, Obama has turned out to be not nearly as radical as I feared during the campaign. There are many examples -- this is just the latest one.

erraticsphinx Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:24:39am

re: #26 Charles

Exxagerating his positions is only hurting the GOP, and firing up a crazy nutburger theocratic base which the party does not need.

astronmr20 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:25:44am

This doesn't mean he is NOT throwing Israel under the bus.

The issue is we're just not sure what he will do.

Otherwise, of course the Palis are pissed-- they will be happy with nothing less than a president that would kick Israel down a hole. Somehow, they had their hopes up that Obama would be some sort of "Muslim avenger," which of course he is not. So they are disappointed, naturally.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:26:11am

re: #26 Charles

Charles? Do you think he's not as radical, or do you think he is just realistic.

Not sure what I even think about him anymore. But I am beginning to trust him more than the people that are offering him advice.

bratwurst Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:26:14am

OT:

Stay classy, Obama haters:

[Link: www1.whdh.com...]

bosforus Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:26:45am

Are we still sending them millions of dollars like Bush?

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:27:39am

re: #30 bratwurst

OT:

Stay classy, Obama haters:

[Link: www1.whdh.com...]

No, nothing racist about that...

Guanxi88 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:28:06am

Thing is, there was no need to exaggerate the man's opinions. He was deliberately vague about them, but had surrounded and allied himself with the worst of the worst in terms of leftist rabble. The very fact that he had folk in Gaza manning phone banks for him during the primaries shows that the opinion of his radicalism was not unique to the American Right.

The fellow either looks a good deal more radical than he really is, or else he appears to stake out positions more radical than those he actually holds, in order to cause a sigh of relief to go up when he turns out to be less radical than feared.

DaddyG Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:28:54am

re: #26 Charles

Time after time, Obama has turned out to be not nearly as radical as I feared during the campaign. There are many examples -- this is just the latest one.

Obama wasn't as radical as he was a relatively blank slate. Many groups placed their expectations upon that slate and are now disappointed that he isn't living up to their utopian self-imposed expectations.

vxbush Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:28:55am

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

How likely is that since it is a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario same as us and the old Sov Union?

I don't think it is a MAD situation. I have no idea of the amount of arsenal in Israel's pockets, but I am led to believe that it is a great deal less than the US or Russia.

researchok Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:28:57am

re: #29 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Charles? Do you think he's not as radical, or do you think he is just realistic.

Not sure what I even think about him anymore. But I am beginning to trust him more than the people that are offering him advice.

Trust his intentions or trust his judgement? Two very different things.

Hss intentions may indeed be good, I do believe that. The jury is still out on his judgment and the judgment of those advising him.

Killgore Trout Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:29:03am

Obama surging...
Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

Walter L. Newton Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:29:21am

re: #30 bratwurst

OT:

Stay classy, Obama haters:

[Link: www1.whdh.com...]

You know what's so cool. I can disagree with Obama and never even go near any of this craziness, or support the far right and I can even show my distaste with all this kind of vileness, theatrics and rhetoric.

It's fun to be a conservative.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:30:00am

I think that more than anything else, Saudi refusal to offer anything substantive coupled with endless intelligence reports on the shenanigans of the terrorist groups and their masters has made Obama rethink many of his views.

Walter L. Newton Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:30:01am

re: #33 Guanxi88

Thing is, there was no need to exaggerate the man's opinions. He was deliberately vague about them, but had surrounded and allied himself with the worst of the worst in terms of leftist rabble. The very fact that he had folk in Gaza manning phone banks for him during the primaries shows that the opinion of his radicalism was not unique to the American Right.

The fellow either looks a good deal more radical than he really is, or else he appears to stake out positions more radical than those he actually holds, in order to cause a sigh of relief to go up when he turns out to be less radical than feared.

Or maybe he doesn't know what he is doing?

The Optimist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:30:29am

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize panel wants to reconsider now that it is not clear if Israel is being thrown under a bus.

lurking faith Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:30:53am

re: #26 Charles

I still think he's a radical, but not a completely irresponsible one.

It's one thing to be the opposition, and quite another to be in charge.

SeaMonkey Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:00am

re: #34 DaddyG

Right. Hence, this.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:05am

re: #35 vxbush

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

MAD does not obtain as a viable theory if one side thinks it gets 72 virgins in heaven to rape after dying in a genocidal war.

Guanxi88 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:27am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

Or maybe he doesn't know what he is doing?

This is a possibility too terrifying to ponder for any length of time. Give me a competent radical over a floundering, grab-asstic moderate any day. With the guy who knows what he's doing, you can at least sorta anticipate what's next.

vxbush Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:41am

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

MAD does not obtain as a viable theory if one side thinks it gets 72 virgins in heaven to rape after dying in a genocidal war.

True; there is no mitigating factor there, also know as the desire to survive.

pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:56am

re: #41 venezuela lover

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize panel wants to reconsider now that it is not clear if Israel is being thrown under a bus.

(up-dinged for the LOL regarding European Leftist politics)

vxbush Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:57am

Gotta work...

erraticsphinx Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:31:57am

I see very little difference between GW's policy towards Israel and Obama's, is that just me?

I think we're seeing more conflict now because the government in Israel is different.

reloadingisnotahobby Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:32:15am

re: #26 Charles

re: #29 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
He said whatever it would take to be elected...entering office had to have been a shock!
I don't think he intends to throw Isreal anywhere near a bus but the Pali's have never backed down when they think they have
someone they can bluff!
They too will say whatever it takes to achieve thier puposes.
Then, as history has proved,well Crawfish on the deal!

bratwurst Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:32:28am

re: #38 Walter L. Newton

You know what's so cool. I can disagree with Obama and never even go near any of this craziness, or support the far right and I can even show my distaste with all this kind of vileness, theatrics and rhetoric.

It's fun to be a conservative.

This is the reason I love LGF.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:32:43am

if the palestinians really want to impress Obama, abbas could publicly condemn iran and its meddling into the affairs of the palestinian people. I guarantee that will have a beneficial effect on the palestinian/Israeli/USA relationship.

But does anyone think this is a realistic possibility?

bosforus Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:33:22am

re: #42 lurking faith

I still think he's a radical, but not a completely irresponsible one.

It's one thing to be the opposition, and quite another to be in charge.

As a wise man once told me, it's fun being captain 'till your ship starts sinking. Not that Obama's ship is sinking. It's just a good thought that's stuck with me.

pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:34:04am

re: #45 Guanxi88

This is a possibility too terrifying to ponder for any length of time. Give me a competent radical over a floundering, grab-asstic moderate any day. With the guy who knows what he's doing, you can at least sorta anticipate what's next.

Can I therefore assume that you might not have liked Carter?

/sarc in the qualification

The Optimist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:34:25am

Whether men go the restroom or to lead a nation, they need to know why they are there and also what to do. It could get messy otherwise.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:35:01am

re: #41 venezuela lover

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize panel wants to reconsider now that it is not clear if Israel is being thrown under a bus.

In many ways, I think that Bush's vocal support of Israel fueled anti-Israel sentiment around the world. To the Europeans Bush was pure evil, so by extension, since he made speeches in support of Israel, Israel must have been evil too.

The rhetoric against Israel has died down a bit.

Of course this is also due to the fact that everyone saw the Arabs and Iran reject Obama's peace strategies too.

This does not mean that European anti-semitism or hatred of Israel has gone away. It does however mean that they can't splutter about W. while they are bashing Israel.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:35:10am

re: #39 LudwigVanQuixote

I think that more than anything else, Saudi refusal to offer anything substantive coupled with endless intelligence reports on the shenanigans of the terrorist groups and their masters has made Obama rethink many of his views.

I think you're right. I think he thought that he could pressure Israel, they'd give in, and the Arabs would be glad to make peace.
The Saudi peace plan was nothing but a disguised way to turn Israel into another Arab state.
He's finding out the Arabs aren't going to make peace with a Jewish state.
I do wonder why he keeps sending Mitchell there; perhaps he just wants to make it look like he's doing something.

S'latch Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:35:18am

The scale of Palestinian satisfaction actually runs between suicidally dissatisfied and homicidally dissatisfied. It isn't a measure of much.

AZDave Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:35:37am

re: #6 vxbush

Yes, but you have to wonder about Obama's commitment to Israel if he's letting Iran develop nukes, who have stated repeatedly their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

If the Iranians nuke Israel, the Palestinian question becomes moot. One problem solved: no more pesky Jews to contend with.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:36:06am

re: #57 Kosh's Shadow

I think you're right. I think he thought that he could pressure Israel, they'd give in, and the Arabs would be glad to make peace.
The Saudi peace plan was nothing but a disguised way to turn Israel into another Arab state.
He's finding out the Arabs aren't going to make peace with a Jewish state.
I do wonder why he keeps sending Mitchell there; perhaps he just wants to make it look like he's doing something.

I think your right too. Particularly about Mitchell.

researchok Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:37:09am

re: #57 Kosh's Shadow

I think you're right. I think he thought that he could pressure Israel, they'd give in, and the Arabs would be glad to make peace.
The Saudi peace plan was nothing but a disguised way to turn Israel into another Arab state.
He's finding out the Arabs aren't going to make peace with a Jewish state.
I do wonder why he keeps sending Mitchell there; perhaps he just wants to make it look like he's doing something.

Like his predecessors, he's chasing after a (mythical) legacy.

The Optimist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:38:22am

re: #59 AZDave

If the Iranians nuke Israel, the Palestinian question becomes moot. One problem solved: no more pesky Jews to contend with.

About 20 minutes later, The "Iran problem" will be moot also.

Spare O'Lake Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:38:47am

re: #26 Charles

Time after time, Obama has turned out to be not nearly as radical as I feared during the campaign. There are many examples -- this is just the latest one.

I agree.
Thank goodness he is unprincipled.

The Sanity Inspector Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:39:55am

Somewhat on topic: Yale University Press book on the Motoons affair falls victim to not-so-creeping shariah.

AZDave Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:40:53am

re: #28 astronmr20

This doesn't mean he is NOT throwing Israel under the bus.

[snip]

True. There'll be another bus along shortly.

astronmr20 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:41:34am

re: #24 researchok

I wouldn't attach a whole lot of credibility to anything the Palestinian leadership has to say, be it from the PA or Hamas.

I'm not of the opinion that Obama wanted to throw Israel under the bus. Rather, I believe he wanted to bring them into the middle of the street for a while. Why? Because no matter how you put it, dress it up or see it, the status quo will only hurt the Israelis.

That's the same message he sent to the Palestinians.

There is no question the Israelis hold the moral high ground vs the terror loving Palestinians. Still, the moral high ground is of little comfort when under constant assault. The same is true for the Palestinians. They have nothing to show but failure and dysfunction as a result of all the years of hate, racism and bigotry.

The staus quo serves no one.

...so what about the dozens of time that Israel has come over to the middle of the street in the name of bucking the status quo and "giving it an honest try?" Each time, it's met with another intafada, more rockets, more attacks, etc.

If the "status quo" is bombing the fuck out of Gaza whenever the rockets from there get too numerous, so be it.

And since the wall went up, we haven't seen the bus bombs. So I say let the Palestinians rot in "status quo." When they are ready to change, change will come and they will prosper. In the meantime, why should Israel change anything?

Kosh's Shadow Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:41:35am

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

In many ways, I think that Bush's vocal support of Israel fueled anti-Israel sentiment around the world. To the Europeans Bush was pure evil, so by extension, since he made speeches in support of Israel, Israel must have been evil too.

The rhetoric against Israel has died down a bit.

Of course this is also due to the fact that everyone saw the Arabs and Iran reject Obama's peace strategies too.

This does not mean that European anti-semitism or hatred of Israel has gone away. It does however mean that they can't splutter about W. while they are bashing Israel.

The European hatred of Israel existed before Bush and will continue.
We hear less now because Operation Cast Lead knocked down Hamas enough that the Israelis aren't having to defend themselves as much, so Hamas has fewer "civilian" casualties to show off.
And Fatah is still trying to look moderate, for a little longer.

Even the Europeans are having a hard time making the Palis look like the victims when Israel closed off the Temple Mount because they were throwing rocks on Jews praying at the Wall. Thus, the Europeans aren't saying much.

Sam N Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:42:28am

re: #63 Spare O'Lake

Sounds like spin to me. I would say non-dogmatic, you say unprincipled.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:43:24am

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

How likely is that since it is a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario same as us and the old Sov Union?

I think it is unlikely. And if I am alone in my thinking, something will be done. By Israel, if no one else. I can't imagine Israel not preemptively attacking Iran if its government believes Iran poses an existential threat. What are they going to say - Well Tel Aviv is likely gone, but we can't risk pissing off the Europeans...

The Optimist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:45:15am

Obama is getting an education about foreign policy. His dream world where he smiles and waves and hopes is producing nothing. The knowledge he acquired from James Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and others of the same ilk has proven to be of little assistance. Obama is facing reality in a lands of Muslims who do not want peace and show him little respect. The Muslim countries want nothing less than Israel to disappear and they want Obama to deliver it to them.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:46:15am

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

MAD does not obtain as a viable theory if one side thinks it gets 72 virgins in heaven to rape after dying in a genocidal war.

True, but I don't think the Iranian mullahs are the equivelent of an Al Queda operative. And not all Al Queda are alike either - Osama wasn't personally on any of those planes.

nccanuck Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:46:55am

I don't think this one item in the grand scheme of things shows that Obama is not wanting to throw Israel under the bus. The guy plays fast and loose with everything and "will" throw whoever needs to be thrown under the bus, under the bus. Just look at Rev Wright, he knew the score, Barry did what Barry had to do to get elected and will continue to do so in order to support his ego and narcisistic ways.
As far as being radical, I think he is trying to bring things in play but the awareness of the blogosphere that finds information on idiots like Van Jones, Geitner is able to keep him in check with the public. I have no doubt the guy has radical ideals but will put things in when attention isn't on them.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:47:17am

re: #70 venezuela lover

Obama is getting an education about foreign policy. His dream world where he smiles and waves and hopes is producing nothing. The knowledge he acquired from James Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and others of the same ilk has proven to be of little assistance. Obama is facing reality in a lands of Muslims who do not want peace and show him little respect. The Muslim countries want nothing less than Israel to disappear and they want Obama to deliver it to them.

This dream world existed only in the Republicans hopes I think.

researchok Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:49:25am

re: #66 astronmr20

...so what about the dozens of time that Israel has come over to the middle of the street in the name of bucking the status quo and "giving it an honest try?" Each time, it's met with another intafada, more rockets, more attacks, etc.

If the "status quo" is bombing the fuck out of Gaza whenever the rockets from there get too numerous, so be it.

And since the wall went up, we haven't seen the bus bombs. So I say let the Palestinians rot in "status quo." When they are ready to change, change will come and they will prosper. In the meantime, why should Israel change anything?

I'm not disagreeing with you and I have no issue with the security barrier. My remarks were confined to the political arena only.

The fact is the status quo is not sustainable.

My point is that the status quo is not sustainable.

Guanxi88 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:50:03am

re: #73 Flyers1974

This dream world existed only in the Republicans hopes I think.

Well, Hillary certainly seemed to think that something like this was among the expectations of, if not Obama, then certainly of his supporters.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:50:55am

re: #75 Guanxi88

Well, Hillary certainly seemed to think that something like this was among the expectations of, if not Obama, then certainly of his supporters.

Indeed you are correct. I should have said "political opponents."

ckb Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:53:24am

re: #26 Charles

Time after time, Obama has turned out to be not nearly as radical as I feared during the campaign. There are many examples -- this is just the latest one.

I see this more as Obama having absolutely no clout with Israel at all, and he has no hope of ever gaining any. That's a FAIL to the Palis.

rwmofo Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:56:17am

"Palestinian moderates..."

*Scratching my head.*

Does anyone have a definition for this euphemism?

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:56:34am

re: #77 ckb

I see this more as Obama having absolutely no clout with Israel at all, and he has no hope of ever gaining any. That's a FAIL to the Palis.

The question isn't whether Obama personally has "clout" with Israel. Its not personal between governments. The question is whether the US government in a given situation, has "clout."

Ben Hur Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:59:09am

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

In many ways, I think that Bush's vocal support of Israel fueled anti-Israel sentiment around the world. To the Europeans Bush was pure evil, so by extension, since he made speeches in support of Israel, Israel must have been evil too.

The rhetoric against Israel has died down a bit.

Of course this is also due to the fact that everyone saw the Arabs and Iran reject Obama's peace strategies too.

This does not mean that European anti-semitism or hatred of Israel has gone away. It does however mean that they can't splutter about W. while they are bashing Israel.

You obviously know that Europe didn't need Bush to hate Israel.

NogenDavid Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:59:54am

re: #26 Charles

So far Obama has displayed radical inaction on Iran. Removed the disclosure about its secret reactor from his Security Council speech so he can stay on the utopian plane. Radical inaction can be just as dangerous as radical action.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 11:59:59am

re: #78 rwmofo

"Palestinian moderates..."

*Scratching my head.*

Does anyone have a definition for this euphemism?

Possibly the average Palestinian. I've heard anectdotal evidence that the average Palestinian would accept peace w/o E. Jerusalem or the right of return. The average Palestinian saying this in public, i.e., on the street, might not be able to say this without putting himself in danger.

Ben Hur Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:00:45pm

re: #82 Flyers1974

Possibly the average Palestinian. I've heard anectdotal evidence that the average Palestinian would accept peace w/o E. Jerusalem or the right of return. The average Palestinian saying this in public, i.e., on the street, might not be able to say this without putting himself in danger.

I would say that the average Palestinian would rather live in Israel.

Guanxi88 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:01:07pm

re: #78 rwmofo

"Palestinian moderates..."

*Scratching my head.*

Does anyone have a definition for this euphemism?

Outta rockets/

The Curmudgeon Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:01:52pm

Unlike the Peace Prize committee, who seem to have a Time Machine at their disposal, I'm stuck in the present. I'll wait a while before I make a decision on Obama's Middle East policy.

But if the Palestinians say they're angry at Obama, that's about as persuasive as my saying I'm angry at Megyn Kelly. (But if she winks in my direction ... )

Idle Drifter Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:02:33pm

"...has damaged the political credibility of moderate Palestinians."

That last part made me laugh.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:02:42pm

re: #83 Ben Hur

I would say that the average Palestinian would rather live in Israel.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:02:48pm

re: #82 Flyers1974

Possibly the average Palestinian. I've heard anectdotal evidence that the average Palestinian would accept peace w/o E. Jerusalem or the right of return. The average Palestinian saying this in public, i.e., on the street, might not be able to say this without putting himself in danger.

I believe this is

Idle Drifter Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:03:43pm

re: #88 Kosh's Shadow

Agreed.

Kosh's Shadow Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:04:54pm

re: #82 Flyers1974

Possibly the average Palestinian. I've heard anectdotal evidence that the average Palestinian would accept peace w/o E. Jerusalem or the right of return. The average Palestinian saying this in public, i.e., on the street, might not be able to say this without putting himself in danger.

I made the mistake of putting a less than symbol in my last post.
This is under 50% now, and with the indoctrination going on, it will be heading downward.
Israel can't stop the indoctrination; the rest of the world would have to say "Start teaching your kids to live with Israel, or we cut off money" but they won't

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:05:14pm

re: #5 redshirt

Well, I still don't think he's a friend to Israel, but he backs down on every stand he takes. Did we ever think the Palestinians would love him?

Well, I certainly didn't, but, yes, some folks did.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:05:54pm

re: #6 vxbush

Yes, but you have to wonder about Obama's commitment to Israel if he's letting Iran develop nukes, who have stated repeatedly their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

Iran's been developing nukes for a while.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:07:38pm

re: #21 middy

The Soviets weren't religious fanatics who believed in Paradise for the martyrs of the Jihad.

Oh, COME ON. I mean, technically you're correct, but I'm a child of the 80s, and I remember quite distinctly when we KNEW that the Russians would do ANYTHING for Communism, including blow up the whole frigging world.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:13:38pm

re: #90 Kosh's Shadow

I made the mistake of putting a less than symbol in my last post.This is under 50% now, and with the indoctrination going on, it will be heading downward.
Israel can't stop the indoctrination; the rest of the world would have to say "Start teaching your kids to live with Israel, or we cut off money" but they won't

I'm glad someone besides me does that. My "source" is anecdotal as I said, so for what that's worth. I know a couple Palestinians with family in Gaza who (I believe) gave me their honest opinions. Their opinions were essentially, that the average person there is tired of the situation. Now I'd be curious if they would have said this in the presence of other Palestinians, as opposed to in front of an outsider.

Flyers1974 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:16:43pm

re: #93 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, COME ON. I mean, technically you're correct, but I'm a child of the 80s, and I remember quite distinctly when we KNEW that the Russians would do ANYTHING for Communism, including blow up the whole frigging world.

I think the various intelligence agencies have the mullahs figured out. I'm not sure how they would do that - I'm guessing by looking at evidence of corruption for personal gain, i.e., procuring oil contracts for family members, opulent lifestyles or lack thereof, etc...things like that.

Stuart Leviton Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:16:47pm

How do we know the leaked memo is not political posturing?

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:18:30pm

re: #80 Ben Hur

You obviously know that Europe didn't need Bush to hate Israel.

That is of course true. However, Bush did form a certain focus for it.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:18:49pm

re: #78 rwmofo

"Palestinian moderates..."

*Scratching my head.*

Does anyone have a definition for this euphemism?

One who only carries a grudge for seven generations.

Bob Levin Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:35:57pm

In the Western World the meaning of 'throwing Israel under the bus' meant that diplomatically Obama would not be supportive of Israel. To the PLO and Hamas support for them has only one meaning, giving them the means and support to annihilate Israel. Anything less, they consider a betrayal. My impression is that diplomatically, Obama hasn't been supportive of Israel--a phrase which means simply that Israelis have the same right of self-determination, live, liberty, the pursuit of happiness that anyone expects in the Western World. His idea of a complete settlement freeze tacitly supports the idea of Judenrein, which is my idea of being tossed under a diplomatic bus. His self-appointment to the position of Zoning Commissioner of Jerusalem was naive at best. The same naivete can be applied to his foreign policy in general--but this is the exact approach that the State Department has been pushing since the first oil embargo. Now, this may mean that the Israel/Bus analogy has been exaggerated, or it may mean that his attempt to do so has failed--this time. No choice but to let history unfold.

100

captdiggs Tue, Oct 13, 2009 12:47:47pm

Obama is no friend of Israel no matter what the palestinians say.
His quite intentional public spat with Israel on his unilateral demands of only the Israelis, was quite telling. No similar public pressure to end palestinian incitement or anything else. ( Asking them to renounce their various charters that call for the extermination of Israel, comes to mind ).
The only reason Obama's ploy didn't work is that he ran into the large support Israel has within the US as well as the fact that he was ignored by the arab states when they were asked to make some ice breaking gestures.
But he certainly made his public gesture to the arab world in making settlements, and not the arab intolerance for any Jews, his focal point.

101

Sabba Hillel Tue, Oct 13, 2009 1:08:09pm

Actually, things were looking up before the U.S. and the Israelis made the mistake of putting Arafat in charge. Had they kept the terrorists out, the "merchants peace" would have taken hold de facto. Of course, politicians could not allow that to happen as it would have shown them to be the useless parasites that they are.

102

elclynn Tue, Oct 13, 2009 1:08:17pm

Well, the Pals in the US should have known better. I guess his speech in front of them didn't mean much. You get what you vote for. But I am sure they appreciated that bow to the King and of course that wonderful speech in Cairo. Yes, indeed. I often wonder how long the Pals want to continue as the world welfare state.

103

elclynn Tue, Oct 13, 2009 1:15:04pm

re: #101 Sabba Hillel

It seems to be taking hold in the West Bank. When Haniyeh and Salah called for a "day of rage" at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the few people who showed up were the northern branch. I think the world is getting weary of the whole thing. Pals rejecting peace talks will get them nothing. Mitchell isn't doing very well is he?

104

Earth56 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 1:39:20pm

Sometimes I ask myself if Hitler wasn't right when he wanted to finish with that race, through the famous holocaust, because if there are people that are harmful to this country, they are the Jews, the Israelites.

Revolutionary Anti-Semitism Chávez imports Ahmadinejad's ideology to Latin America

I have posted this before but this writer has been talking about the tango going on between Chavez and Amadinijhad for months now in several op-eds. I'm sorry, but the State Dept and this Administration has thrown Honduras under the bus.

105

samsgran1948 Tue, Oct 13, 2009 2:42:39pm

re: #66 astronmr20

I agree with you 100%. To coin a phrase: The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

106

Joven Tue, Oct 13, 2009 3:00:20pm

The Palestinians are angry at everyone 24/7. And given how they have been betrayed by their leaders and other Arabs nations, I can't blame them. They have just misdirected the anger to the Israelis.

107

Mario Wed, Oct 14, 2009 9:14:02am

Any news organization that refers to Abu Mazzen as "moderate" is hardly objective.

108

jordash1212 Fri, Oct 16, 2009 12:28:07am

I would trust any of those memos that "circulate" around the desk of any Palestinian government. If it's not a trick to get more aid from the U.S., it's sheer ignorance of how the people actually feel towards their government and foreign governments.

109

jordash1212 Fri, Oct 16, 2009 12:28:17am

wouldn't*

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Palestinians Angry at Obama

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud