Obama Addresses AIPAC: “Israel’s Legitimacy Is Not Up for Debate”


obama-aipacPresident Barack Obama spoke before an AIPAC (American Israeli Political Activity Committee) conference in Washington today, amid rumored tensions with both Yerushalayim and the Jewish community in the United States, following his Mideast policy speech last week.

Obama’s speech, where he endorsed the 1967 borders as the basis for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, has chafed the tense relations between Jerusalem and Washington further, as well as sparked rumors that the Jewish American community was, for the large part, rethinking its support for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

Nevertheless, the American president is expected to try and reassure the Jewish lobby in Washington – considered one of the strongest in US politics – of his support for Israel, in an attempt to stave off further deterioration in US-Israeli relations.

The conference is known as AIPAC’s annual show of strength and true to form, some 10,000 people from all over the US attended the meeting. An increased presence of senators and congressmen from all across the political spectrum was also noted.

Prior to Obama’s arrival, pro-Israel demonstrators rallied outside the gathering’s venue, protesting what they believed would be the US president’s reiteration of his support of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.

{Ynet/Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. ynet news is not news, its a fairy tale.
    an interview conducted on Friday may 20 by Andrew Marr of the BBC was asked about the speech and he reiterated what he says is the same thing:
    President Obama: “The basis for negotiations will be looking at that 1967 border recognizing that the conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides, that’s on the one hand. On the other hand, this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel’s going to have to feel confident about its security on the WB and that security element is going to be important to the Israeli’s. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they’ve seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.
    So our argument is let’s get started on a conversation about territory and about security. That doesn’t resolve all the issues you still end up having the problem of Jerusalem and you still end up having the problem of refugees. But if we make progress on what two states would look like, a reality sets in among the parties, “ this is how it’s going to end up” then it becomes easier for both sides to make difficult concessions to resolve those two other issues.”

    As for the settlement building prior to FINAL negotiations, Obama simply has always stated Bush’s position—

    Jerusalem Post January 8, 2009:

    On the eve of US President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel and the region, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice placed the issue of settlement activity in the West Bank and east Jerusalem at center stage, telling The Jerusalem Post that quote, “Har Homa is a settlement the United States has opposed from the very beginning”…
    Rice, who was accompanying Bush en route to Israel overnight Tuesday, said that “the United States doesn’t make a distinction between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel’s road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to settlement activity generally.”

    “Rice’s comments underlined that the settlement issue will be high on the agenda of the talks between Bush and Prime Rice, with her comments, went further than US officials have previously gone toward clarifying the US position on east Jerusalem…..

    “.Nevertheless, senior diplomatic officials said that they did not see much new in Rice’s position, and that the US has consistently opposed all construction beyond the Green Line, including inside Jerusalem….
    [Regarding Bush’s 2004 letter written in response to the Ariel Sharon Disengagement from Gaza…]… Rice described the letter as “the president’s acknowledgement that these changes have taken place and have to be accommodated. This president also said it needs to be mutually agreed [upon]. So the negotiation, the agreement itself, will finally resolve these issues, and we can stop having the discussion about what’s a settlement and what isn’t.”

    May 21, 2011: Jay Carney White House spokeperson in response to question on the Bush 2004 letter ( from Whitehose.gov):
    Jay Carney “There is nothing that the president said yesterday that contradicts the 2004 letters that were exchanged between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, or what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today in the Oval Office,”

  2. The white house has refused to accept the binding nature of the 2004 letters of Bush, so to say they haven’t contracdicted the letters is more than disengenuous. The truth is that we can only rely on Hashem to protect the Yidden living in Eretz Yisroel, not a sonei yisroel like Obama or a even someone who was more of a Oheiv Yisroel like Bush. Similarly we can’t place our hopes in the vaunted Israeli military. Only in Hashem will the yideen have a yeshua from the terrible situation we are now in.

  3. Obama needs the Jewish money and the Jewish vote beware of people who speak with a split tongue. Obama will say one thing before 2012 and then say another thing after 2012. I am sure he will be happy to give Israel up to his friends after 2012, for then he has nothing to lose.