« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Breaking: Mahmoud Abbas claims USA committed to ending West Bank settlements.

Is this correct, Mr. President?

A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do.

‘Obama committed to ejecting Jews from Judea-Samaria,’ says Abbas

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Abbas spoke to the press after briefing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to the White House late last week, during which Obama apparently agreed with his guest that existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria must not even be allowed to experience “natural growth.”

(Via Fausta) While I am willing to believe that there may have been either a breakdown in communications somewhere – or that yet another Palestinian leader is willfully never missing a chance to miss a chance – there needs to be some clarification on this issue. Israel is not going to even freeze settlements in the West Bank, let alone dismantle them.  Meanwhile, the Palestinians apparently expect that the settlements will be removed, because that’s what the USA has decided to do.  The two positions cannot be reconciled.  This really does need to be addressed: if the President goes to Cairo without everybody involved already knowing precisely where his administration stands on this issue, the President’s Cairo speech will fail.  And by ‘fail’ I mean ‘start up another round of violence.’

Which will not be the President’s intent, but that won’t matter.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • mas1916

    Obama probably is committed to removing the settlements. The chosen one is also committed to allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

    Team Obama will use its popularity to try to force Israel to withdraw these settlements, but Netanyahu will resist. The Israeli PM may be preparing a deal that the US will allow Israel (with US assistance) to take out the Iranian nuclear threat in exchange for removing a few of the settlements.

  • janis

    in taking out the Iran’s nukes. His administration has already made it fairly clear that they are prepared to just live with the fact of a nuclear Iran. On the other hand, if you’re right in your calculations, Ahmadinejad may have to prepare himself for a strongly worded letter or two on the subject.

    Hope his feelings won’t be hurt.

  • The_Gadfly

    defacto if not pronounced policy. Even under Bush the “professionals” worked out an “agreement” which had Israeli police forcibly removing recalcitrant settlers who didn’t want to leave.

    And what mean ‘um “another round of violence”? I’m not aware the previous round ever ended. Well, other than the papers reporting about it that is.

  • red4ever

    Israel is deciding what happens on their own territory regardless of what the USA wants to give away. Think Munich. The big 4 powers got together and agreed that Czechoslovavia would give up territory to Germany. No one asked the Czech government’s opinion on the matter. Netanyahu is refusing another Munich.

    Or else the President said what he thought Abbas wanted to hear, with no intention of following through. Never, of course imagining in these days of 24/7 information and instant communication anyone would find out what he said to some foreign guy.

    Okay, maybe it is both. It’s Obama, it’s highly possible.

  • http://www.RedState.com/ETCartman Kenny Solomon

    This is “the tip of the iceberg”.

    U.S. Support Of Israel Only With Construction Freeze