Hoyer just undercut Obama's position on '67 lines at AIPAC.

[Exilednight]

Hoyer just stated that Palestinians and Israelis must go to the bargaining table without any pre-conditions. He then received a standing ovation from the crowd. It's quite clear that he was taking aim at Obama's belief of the '67 lines.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Aw, Jeez.

A rift between Obama & PNAC/AIPAC/DLC?

[DCBob]

2. Surely Steny and Obama discussed this prior to this meeting..

probably a way to help smooth over the "crisis".

[iamtechus]

3. Why is this an issue?

With all the American problems we have to worry about why is my president concerning himself with a bunch of whiney israelis? I'm sick and fuckin' tired of hearing about it.

I've been reading/hearing about the Israelis vs the Arabs since I was a little kid back in the 50s. Cut off all aid to the intolerant bastards and insist on some radical changes to Israel's constitution: equal rights to everyone of every religion; no discrimination based on race, religion, sex or any other damn thing.

[RKP5637]

4. +1, n/t

[here_is_to_hope]

8. Exactly... n/t

[Pirate Smile]

5. Doesn't matter. Obama kicked ass in his speech and did not back down at all.

It does piss me off to no end when Dems in Congress do that though.

Bibi knows (and Obama knows) that even if the Obama Administration wanted to try to cut off anything to Israel, the Congress would override him with legislation passed with bipartisan support. Truly pathetic.

[OHdem10]

6. Typical Hoyer. Remember way back a while, he put his

finger to the wind and said Democrats are for cutting
SS Security.

Politically tone deaf Democrats hang themselves.

[oberliner]

7. Nothing he said there is different from Obama's position

Obama doesn't support any pre-conditions either.

He has said this consistently since 2009:

Obama to UN: Israel, PA must launch peace talks 'without preconditions'

One day after a tripartite summit with Israeli and Palestinian leaders yielded no tangible results, United States President Barack Obama called on Wednesday for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks "without preconditions."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-to-un-israel-pa-must-launch-peace-talks-without-preconditions-1.7382

[Harmony Blue]

9. Obama's speech appeared to me

to say the same message and was received well from AIPAC. I agree with you Oberliner.

[Exilednight]

10. It's totally different from Obama's position. Obama has publically stated that

Israel must be willing to go back to pre 1967 lines, with land swaps, and be willing to turn over large swathes of land. Hoyer did an end run around and stated that no such concession has to be made by Israel.

[oberliner]

11. They both agree that the parties themselves must negotiate the borders

Obama did not call for any concessions nor any preconditions.

Hoyer:

Israel’s borders must be defensible and must reflect reality on the ground.

Obama:

Israel must be able to defend itself against any threat.

Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means.

It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground.

[geek tragedy]

12. Hoyer gave the speech Obama would have been smart to.

Why?

Because it doesn't make sense to tell the Israel Lobby anything other than "we agree with Israel's government 100%."

They view the US government's job to sign checks, veto UN resolutions, and follow orders from Jerusalem.

[azurnoir]

13. No he did not because Obama

undercut er clarified himself for AIPAC. the Palestinians must talk while Israel builds, arms its citizens in the West Bank, and fortifies its military presence in the West Bank oh and BTW he gets to decide who becomes a member of the country clu ah UN and it won't be a bunch of rag tag Arabs unless they do it his way, I mean whats not to love here

[oberliner]

14. Far right and far left are both pissed at Obama for this speech

Guess he must be doing something right then.

[azurnoir]

15. that depends on your defination of far left and far right

as for myself nothing he said was a surprise it's business as usual as for myself I beleive the Palestinians will get just about as much out of negotiations as they did out of oslo nothing less and certainly nothing more

[oberliner]

17. Far Left = Gideon Levy, Far Right = Danny Dayan

Fair enough?

[Exilednight]

20. Levy is not far left. Many right leaning types support him as such, but only because he

admits that Palestinians have legitimate gripes. He doesn't allow ideology to get in way of facts on the ground.

[oberliner]

21. Yes he is

He has been very critical of much of the Israeli left.

Who do you consider to represent the far left in Israel if not Gideon Levy?

[Exilednight]

22. I'm very critical of Obama, but that doesn't make me "far left". Levy takes a

solid stance on occupation, I take a stand against our occupation in Iraq. He took a stance against the 2006 Israel - Lebanon conflict, I'm against our war in Afghanistan. In 2010 he spoke out against Hamas when they attacked Israel, In 2001 I spoke out against Al Queda when they attacked us.

There's nothing in his record that makes him "far left". He's never advocated for hostile take over of the Israeli government and switching to socialist or communist system.

[oberliner]

24. Lots of people take a solid stance on occupation

Pretty much all of the Israel Left that Gideon Levy is so critical of take a solid stance against occupation.

I would point out that I am not using the term "far left" derogatorily.

However if you look at the political continuum in Israel, there are not many who are farther left than Gideon Levy.

I would also note that the Israeli government has always been fairly socialist. This is not a far left view in Israel by any stretch.

[Exilednight]

29. There's not many people in America further left than I am, but that doesn't make me "far left".

[Exilednight]

16. Who exactly is the "far left"? I'm a liberal, but that doesn't make me a communist. n/t

[oberliner]

18. Most liberals seem pretty pleased with the speech

The reception here, for instance, has been generally very positive on most threads related to the speech.

[Exilednight]

19. His policy speech was pretty good. His AIPAC speech, not so much. n/t

[oberliner]

25. What were the key differences?

What made you like one but not the other?

[Exilednight]

26. He failed to address the middle-east as a whole in his AIPAC speech. n/t

[oberliner]

27. "Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday"

From his speech:

Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

<End of Excerpt>

Seems logical that he would not need to go through again on Sunday what he went through in his speech on Thursday.

[Exilednight]

28. No one asked for a policy speech. I'm talking about Israel and its relationship with the

rest of the Arab world and how he could attempted to sway Israel to work with its hopefully new democratic neighbors and attempt to push for goodwill.

[Harmony Blue]

23. I can not disagree

And Obama has traditionally been known to take the centrist position, which is why he is ideal as an "arbiter" for starting the road to a diplomatic process in that region of the world. Such that both sides can feel that their grievances were satisfied.

[Swede]

30. They used different words to say the same thing.

Anyone who doesn't hear that has an agenda.