Posted on 06/01/2010 11:29:04 AM PDT by Route797
I’m told there won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists.
Regardless of the details of the flotilla incident, sources say President Obama is focused on what he sees as the longer term issue here: a successful Mideast peace process.
“The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.
The suggestion is that US condemnation of Israel would further isolate that country, and make further peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians even more difficult.
The senior administration official says that President Obama spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu three times on Monday. Mr. Obama pushed the notion that last night – as the United Nations Security Council met to issue a statement about the incident – was the moment when the US had maximum leverage, that the longer the statement was being debated the worse it would ultimately be for Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
I think that was the UN.
Hmmm. Old Obama cronies behind the crazy flotilla. But they attempt to break the Egyptian-Israeli blockade in a fashion that predictably draws Israel out to defend herself—and stir up the crazy Muzzies. Then Obama comes out ‘standing with’ Israel, just in time to crank up those flagging 2010 election donations from American Jews.
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or BREACHING A BLOCKADE, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
More here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
We’re winning.
Redouble the pressure.
Ditto to all of that.
You are right. I posted a correction a few posts down.
Rush had said the U.S., but it was actually the U.N. He misread it, then corrected himself a few minutes later.
Yes, I heard him and thought it weird though with this bunch in charge, nothing surprises me. But the UN, what a waste of prime real estate in NYC.....
Of course not. The US is currently enfolded in deepest darkness. Or inky blackness. There’s not gonna be daylight anywhere in the vicinity of this administration.
“We’re winning.”
Can you elaborate on that? I wish I shared your optimism...
Yes, yes and yes for multiple reasons... Real Estate not first and foremost...
Hussein standing “with” him probably worries Bibi more than Turks and the rest of the Muslim world.
That “snapping” sound you hear is Jewish American wallets, purses and checkbooks closing.
DO, your posts aroused my curiosity, so I did some research. This thing was engineered so Barry could support both sides.
What the Security Council actually did was adopt a "Presidential Statement." Unlike resolutions, presidential statements are nonbinding, but they can only be adopted by consensus of the entire Council. So, the US supported the Presidential Statement as issued. Now, it is true that the US negotiated with Turkey to soften the statement Turkey initially wanted, but it did support the action. Here's the key text:
“The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
There is other language calling on release of the ships and declaring the Gaza situation "unsustainable," you know, the usual drivel.
Now, the world and the news media interpret this language as condemning Israel. To me, that is the clear intention. But Barry and Gibbsie don't interpret it that way and since it's nonbinding to begin with who can issue any ruling that they're wrong? And, as you note, they have a second layer of deniability because the U.S. rep never condemned Israel, if that's what the language means, the President of the Security Council did. Of course, he could only have done that if we agreed he could, but that's just a minor detail.
The Liar in Chief strikes again.
Why is it I believe absolutely nothing or anyone affiliated with the Oliar administration?...
That’s a nice summary. I agree with your logic there. I think it’s important to make the distinctions you did too. We shouldn’t allow Obama to get away with agreeing to one thing, then claiming he didn’t actually agree to anything of the kind.
Thanks. Good job.
The new media, of which we are part, has countered the vast anti-Israel propaganda machine, time and again. Including this time when those who hate the people of Israel hold all the power and all the cards.
And we’re forcing Obama to back off, at least in his public pronouncements.
Our side still doesn’t know it’s own strength.
But we’re getting there.
That’s what I meant by my comment.
Outstanding analysis.
re: “The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,”
That’s rich. So, it’s “Israel” that needs to “make peace”?? Again, the responsibility of “peace” is laid at Israel’s feet. These “peace, humanitarian activits” on the flotilla were hoping for this to happen.
Israel gave them every opportunity, and then some, to turn aside - they warned the respective governments ahead of time. They repeated to the world why they would stop these so-called “humanitarin” activites from smuggling weapons to the Hamas. Everyone knows this is the truth, but they all lie over and over and over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.