Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama/Bibi Speeches

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Obama/Bibi Speeches
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am surprised (or maybe not since I guess the Arab/Israeli conflict can be quite tiresome and boring) that no one brought this up so far.

And since I am a marginal Israel who thinks the world is centered around me, I decided after a long enough wait to ask if anyone here even bothered with hearing the speeches of these two distingueshed personas and what do you think?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I'm a bit confused at the kerfuffle here over the "1967 borders" statement. I'd always understood "1967 borders + land swaps" to be the general template for negotiations, and verbiage almost identical to Obama's showed up last November in a joint statement from sec. state Clinton and Netanyahu:
quote:
The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Joint_statement_PM_Netanyahu_US_Sec_Clinton_11-Nov-2010.htm

Was there some nuanced difference in Obama's speech that made it a fundamentally different position that he was espousing, or was it something that was supposed be buried in press releases rather than being spoken in a high profile speech?

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The difference is that Obama said it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason is clearly visible in your quote Matt.

There are two different goals listed:

Palestinian goal:
1) Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps

2) Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

The kerfuffle is the interpretation that President Obama has come down on the Palestinian side of the argument.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
The reason is clearly visible in your quote Matt.

There are two different goals listed:

Palestinian goal:
1) Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps

2) Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

The kerfuffle is the interpretation that President Obama has come down on the Palestinian side of the argument.

These are different goals, but they have long been understood to be mutually achievable (at least, in the slender corridor of Israel/Palestine moderates). Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Clinton's speech explicitly stated that any agreement would have to meet *both* conditions.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was very impressed with PM Netanyahu. I had never heard him speak before, and I listened to both speeches in their entirety.

He has many of the qualities that I look for in the leaders of our own nation. He is calm, confident, and speaks plainly and straightforward. I don't get a sense of 'political speech' when I hear him talk.

Just from those two speeches, he seems to be a great leader for his nation.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
1) Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps

That has never been a goal of theirs.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He has many of the qualities that I look for in the leaders of our own nation. He is calm, confident, and speaks plainly and straightforward. I don't get a sense of 'political speech' when I hear him talk.
These are perceptions of his characteristics based on his public presence. How do you feel about his policies and what he has actually done?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was very impressed with PM Netanyahu. I had never heard him speak before, and I listened to both speeches in their entirety.

He has many of the qualities that I look for in the leaders of our own nation. He is calm, confident, and speaks plainly and straightforward. I don't get a sense of 'political speech' when I hear him talk.

Edgmatt -- shouldn't the qualities you seek relate a bit also to the *content* of the speech, not just its presentation?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's a gifted speaker, but horrible at actually leading. If he had any intention of making it possible for Obama to work against the impending UN resolution declaring a Palestinian state, he failed miserably. I do not personally think that he even meant to try to achieve this goal. I think he wants the declaration, and intends to use it to trigger a large-scale armed conflict in hopes of changing the demographic realities in the West Bank.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
These are different goals, but they have long been understood to be mutually achievable (at least, in the slender corridor of Israel/Palestine moderates). Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Clinton's speech explicitly stated that any agreement would have to meet *both* conditions.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from Clinton's statement that she very diplomatically phrased the argument with an equal emphasis on both goals.

The impression is that Obama came down firmly on one side, the Palestinian side. Which would be a dramatic departure from previous US policy. Thus the kerfuffle.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The impression is that Obama came down firmly on one side, the Palestinian side."

This impression can only be formed if you're totally used to the US being nothing more than a mouthpiece for what Israel wants to hear.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aw, Ricky. Proving again that no matter how much danger is presented by the rest of the world, the real threat always comes from rebel Jews.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

The impression is that Obama came down firmly on one side, the Palestinian side

But where did you get that impression? Certainly not from his actual words: Full speech.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Aw, Ricky. Proving again that no matter how much danger is presented by the rest of the world, the real threat always comes from rebel Jews."

Right. Cause if only us sane Jews had gone along, you Sicarii would have defeated the Romans! It's all our fault. And burning the food? That was necessary to teach us a lesson!

Again, just like the nazis, who obssessed about how they would've won WW1 if not for the traitorous backstabbers...

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

The impression is that Obama came down firmly on one side, the Palestinian side

But where did you get that impression? Certainly not from his actual words: Full speech.
Ditto. This speech is the very definition of neutral and balanced. He didn't dodge any issues on either side, which I'm sure may have ruffled some feathers, but simply mentioning the painfully obvious fact that settlement building is provocation and an obstacle to peace isn't taking sides; its candor.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:

The impression is that Obama came down firmly on one side, the Palestinian side

But where did you get that impression? Certainly not from his actual words: Full speech.
I didn't say it was my impression, but it is obvious that Netanyahu obtained that impression.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doubtful. Netanyahu is far more likely to be simply focusing on specific parts of Obama's statement for political purposes than for he and his advisors to have misunderstood the plain words (especially after Obama reiterated the salient point after the initial misinterpretation). I am absolutely sure he is not that stupid.

Besides which you were initially contrasting Clinton's phrasing with Obama's; or were you really contrasting Clinton's statements with how Netanyahu had misrepresented Obama's statements, and that you were implicitly decrying that misinterpretation?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was very dissapointed from my PM.

Granted, he is probably the best orator in Israeli History. People who need to make presentations in their line of work should realy learn from him.

I know I intend to.

However, as pretty as the vase was built. it was hollow in the inside.

What I did like about his speach was the section where he said how Israel is already a democracy, and that there is no need for the US to send troops to help us because we defend ourselves.

However, the entire section regarding the Palestinians was very poor. I felt like I was sent back to the 1990's where the Israeli PM says that Israel is willing to give generous consessions for a peace agreement and whatnot.

Serioudly dude... we are in 2011 we are tired of the "generous consessions" rethoric. It means nothing.

Say something concrete. A grand master of the english language like Benjamin Netanyahu could have easilly said exactly what Obama said but in a way that will sound more right wingish.

The entire speech was simply about repeating Israeli cliches about how Israel is the only side interested in peace and how the palestinians want to destroy us.

You want to prove that the palestinians want to destroy us? (which might very possibly be true)

go in line with Obama return to the negotiations with the palestinians and bring them to the place where they need to decide between a peace agreement with Israel and the right of return. Make the palestinians fail in this place. their fall will be much greater than now.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg and Aris:

quote:
These are perceptions of his characteristics based on his public presence.
Yes.

quote:
How do you feel about his policies and what he has actually done?
I don't know yet, I am not studied on what his policies are or anything he has done.

quote:
Edgmatt -- shouldn't the qualities you seek relate a bit also to the *content* of the speech, not just its presentation?
Certainly. I also liked what he had to say in both speeches, I guess I could have mentioned that.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
remlind
Member
Member # 6672

 - posted      Profile for remlind         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
...ask if anyone here even bothered with hearing the speeches of these two distingueshed personas and what do you think?

I watched them both, and I think they both have great speechwriters, and good personal presentation skills. However, I think they both have a hidden agenda!
Posts: 37 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to the blogs I have read, Netanyahu made a better impression than Obama for many Americans.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends which blogs you read, although I saw a study purporting to examine thousans of sites and blogs which reached the same conclusion.

Then again, the US public is famously pro-Israeli compared to the rest of the world. The US public is also woefully misinformed on the particulars of the conflict. For instance, most Americans have no idea whatsoever that the Palestinians in the occupied territories have no civil rights in Israel. They think the residents of the WB can vote for Knesset and thus impact what Israel decides regarding them.

In practical terms, of changing the global diplomatic situation, Bibi's speech was a failure. It did not give Obama anything to work with in convincing other countries to help thwart the Palestinian plans for getting a UN vote. There will come a point where the price of the automatic US veto becomes too high.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1