It’s truly a disgusting site to see our nation’s leaders, who are supposed to be noble in character, bow down and grovel in front of the Jewish Lobby as in the AIPAC conference which has just concluded. Obama gave a speech that offered more to Israel than the US has ever offered, putting Jerusalem on the table, offering the occupied territory of East Jerusalem as Israel’s capital! This is in opposition to several UN Security Council Resolutions which say that the land, which was captured in 1967, must be returned to Palestinians immediately.
Israel Today reports Obama as saying:
“Let me be clear, Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper,” Obama said. “But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16218
However, even the US State Dept. distanced itself from those remarks:
The US State Department also distanced itself from Obama’s remarks, saying any final decisions on the toughest issues in the peace talks were for Israel and the Palestinians to make.
Even moderate Palestinian leader Abbas was infuriated by those remarks (it’s hard to get infuriated when you’re as spineless as Abbas is):
“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSMAC464709
Hamas was, needless to say, not impressed:
“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.
“The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,” he said. “Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/hamas-un-endors.html
It becomes clearer and clearer (there was never really any doubt in my mind anyway) that someone like Nader is the only choice of conscience in this election. Here is what he has to say of recent developements:
Did Obama make one mention of the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people and the UN-documented resulting humanitarian disaster there?
He did not.
Instead, Obama talked about “a Gaza controlled by Hamas with rockets raining down on Israel.”
Did Obama mention U.S. government supplied Israeli firepower resulting in Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza at a ratio of 400 to 1 (Palestinian to Israeli)
He did not.
Many peace loving Israelis and Jewish Americans will be disgusted by Obama’s speech today.
Like the editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who wrote that the Israeli government has “lost its reason” through the brutal incarceration, devastation and deprivation of the innocent people in Gaza.
Obama told AIPAC today that “we must isolate Hamas.” (In its current form.)
Did he mention that a March 2008 Haaretz poll showed that 64 percent of the Israeli people want direct negotiations for peace between Israel and Hamas, while only 28% oppose it?
He did not.
Instead, Obama said this morning that “Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.”
Did he say that Israel must stop bombing the people of Gaza?
He did not.
Obama this morning told AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?
He did not.
So, in a nutshell:
In this critical election year, Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.
Obama/McCain stand with the hard-line minority position of AIPAC.
Go Nader!
The Radical Mormon 
Sovereignty means independance, the US government does not seem to be independent.
the silence of Obama and Bush support for collective crime were actually expected by the entire world.
A coward would never admit to be a coward. For Obama to avoid cowardice he kept silent. As for Bush he is too familiar with collective crimes agaisnt humanity it is no surprise to support a similar scenario.
If Bush condemns Israel action, it would be more stupid… Iraq comes in mind.
The US nazizionist lobby dictate what the state department say or not to say a word…..Obama was told to shut his month and Bush does not need any rehearsal.
Quote:
Obama told AIPAC today that “we must isolate Hamas.” (In its current form.)
Hamas won the election fairly if the Palestinians wants Hamas why would Bush or Obama reject the popular choice.
The election were supervised by the UN reps.
AIPAC have forced everyone in USA to accept their twisted scenario of the middle east.
As long as this scenario is not challenged, Obama will have no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
FOr how long this will go on, Bush for eaight years made no progress to this conflict because his hands were tied by AIPAC vision.
Yes, our entire government is the lapdogs of the Israeli lobby. It’s really ridiculous how much influence they have. It is telling that the litmus test for becoming a serious contender for office in the USA is the measurement of how much of a friend to Israel you can be. It was disgusting to see the candidates fall over each other trying to suck up to Israel and it’s lobbyists here in the presidential campaigns. Thanks for stopping by Phonk.
Phonk, your comment and question remind me of Henry Kissinger’s statement regarding the election of Salvador Allende. He said it was too important a matter to leave in the hands of the Chilean people. Pepsi and ITT on the other hand, had their way.
As I read the history of my country, our foreign policy has never really been about democratic ideals, rather markets and resources; power and gain.