- Rudy Giuliani attacks Obama over Israel record
- Surrogate Giuliani fires up crowd for Romney in Boca Raton
- Rudy Giuliani gives pep talk at Mitt Romney's Tampa headquarters
- VP audition: 8 hopefuls fan out for Romney
- Romney Will Push Immigration Reform, Giuliani Says
- Rudy Giuliani- Obama Friend to Israel, “The Biggest Joke I’ve Ever Heard”
Showing posts with label 1967. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1967. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Rudy Giuliani Rips President Obama's Record on Israel
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Poll Watch: J Street/GBA (D) National Survey of American Jews
J Street/GBA (D) National Survey of American Jews
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
The Israeli government says its blockade of Gaza is legal and justified by security concerns, primarily stopping Hamas from smuggling rockets and weapons into Gaza from Iran. It says the flotilla must be stopped, and that the boats' food, medicine and other aid will be delivered to Gaza if it is first brought to an Israeli port for security inspection.
The flotilla supporters say their work is the modern-day equivalent of the Freedom Rides in the South in the 1960s, exposing the injustice and suffering imposed by Israel on Palestinians living in Gaza. They say that Israel's blockade is illegal and that only international pressure like these flotillas will force Israel to improve life for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza.
Do you think Israel should allow the flotilla to reach Gaza or do you think Israel should prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza?
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?
- Strongly approve 12%
- Somewhat approve 48%
- Somewhat disapprove 21%
- Strongly disapprove 18%
- Strongly approve 8%
- Somewhat approve 42%
- Somewhat disapprove 27%
- Strongly disapprove 22%
- Strongly approve 9%
- Somewhat approve 35%
- Somewhat disapprove 31%
- Strongly disapprove 26%
- Bill Clinton 66% / 22% {+44%}
- Benjamin Netanyahu 50% / 20% {+30%}
- Barack Obama 56% / 34% {+22%}
- Democratic Party 49% / 33% {+16%}
- Tzipi Livni 16% / 11% {+5%}
- The United Nations 37% / 40% {-3%}
- Jonathan Pollard 10% / 20% {-10%}
- Mitt Romney 16% / 60% {-44%}
- Michele Bachmann 12% / 57% {-45%}
- Republican Party 18% / 67% {-49%}
- Glenn Beck 10% / 66% {-56%}
- George W. Bush 16% / 73% {-57%}
- The Tea Party Movement 12% / 74% {-62%}
- Barack Obama 63%
- Mitt Romney 24%
- Barack Obama 67%
- Michele Bachmann 19%
- Democratic candidate 62%
- Republican candidate 20%
- Strongly support 31%
- Somewhat support 52%
- Somewhat oppose 14%
- Strongly oppose 4%
- Strongly support 30%
- Somewhat support 51%
- Somewhat oppose 15%
- Strongly oppose 3%
- Strongly support 18%
- Somewhat support 35%
- Somewhat oppose 31%
- Strongly oppose 15%
- Strongly support 21%
- Somewhat support 50%
- Somewhat oppose 20%
- Strongly oppose 9%
- Very important role 25%
- Somewhat important role 42%
- Somewhat not important role 19%
- Not at all important role 14%
- Excellent job 4%
- Good job 24%
- Only fair job 49%
- Poor job 22%
- Very fairly 6%
- Somewhat fairly 37%
- Somewhat unfairly 32%
- Not at all fairly 25%
- Vote for recognizing an independent Palestinian state 34%
- Vote against recognizing an independent Palestinian state 47%
- A demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
- Internationally recognized borders based on the borders that existed in 1967, with mutually agreed land swaps that allow for most Jewish settlers in the West Bank to be inside Israel while the Palestinians get comparable land areas in return.
- Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem become part of the new Palestinian state while Israel retains control of Jewish neighborhoods and the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
- International forces to monitor the new Palestinian state and border crossings.
- Financial compensation for Palestinian refugees while allowing some refugees to return to Israel if they meet specific family reunification criteria and the Israeli government approves.
- Strongly support 13%
- Somewhat support 44%
- Somewhat oppose 27%
- Strongly oppose 16%
The Israeli government says its blockade of Gaza is legal and justified by security concerns, primarily stopping Hamas from smuggling rockets and weapons into Gaza from Iran. It says the flotilla must be stopped, and that the boats' food, medicine and other aid will be delivered to Gaza if it is first brought to an Israeli port for security inspection.
The flotilla supporters say their work is the modern-day equivalent of the Freedom Rides in the South in the 1960s, exposing the injustice and suffering imposed by Israel on Palestinians living in Gaza. They say that Israel's blockade is illegal and that only international pressure like these flotillas will force Israel to improve life for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza.
Do you think Israel should allow the flotilla to reach Gaza or do you think Israel should prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza?
- Allow the flotilla to reach Gaza 22%
- Prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza 78%
- Yes 39%
- No 61%
- Every week 11%
- Once or twice a month 11%
- A few times a year 30%
- Hardly ever 31%
- Never 17%
- Yes 35%
- No 65%
- Reform 34%
- Conservative 27%
- Unaffiliated 27%
- Orthodox 9%
- Reconstructionist 1%
- College graduate 38%
- Post-graduate school 32%
- Some college 23%
- High School graduate 6%
- Non-college post H.S. 1%
- 1-11th grade 0%
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Poll Watch: Quinnipiac Survey on President Obama and the Situation Between Israel and the Palestinians
Quinnipiac Survey on President Obama and the Situation Between Israel and the Palestinians
How closely have you been following news about President Obama's handling of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians - Would you say you have been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?
How closely have you been following news about President Obama's handling of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians - Would you say you have been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?
- Very closely 20%
- Somewhat closely 37%
- Not too closely 29%
- Not at all 12%
- Approve 35%
- Disapprove 47%
- Approve 61%
- Disapprove 20%
- Approve 15%
- Disapprove 75%
- Approve 35%
- Disapprove 45%
- Approve 29%
- Disapprove 68%
- Israel 55%
- Palestinians 12%
- Israel 38%
- Palestinians 19%
- Israel 76%
- Palestinians 4%
- Israel 53%
- Palestinians 14%
- Israel 74%
- Palestinians 14%
- Favorable 34%
- Unfavorable 15%
- Favorable 16%
- Unfavorable 22%
- Favorable 50%
- Unfavorable 5%
- Favorable 37%
- Unfavorable 17%
- Favorable 70%
- Unfavorable 21%
- Yes/Should 66%
- No/Should not 18%
- Yes/Should 53%
- No/Should not 24%
- Yes/Should 79%
- No/Should not 10%
- Yes/Should 64%
- No/Should not 18%
- Yes/Should 84%
- No/Should not 10%
- Yes/Strong 40%
- No/Not strong 39%
- Yes/Strong 57%
- No/Not strong 15%
- Yes/Strong 22%
- No/Not strong 64%
- Yes/Strong 42%
- No/Not strong 37%
- Yes/Strong 32%
- No/Not strong 64%
- More likely 10%
- Less likely 27%
- Doesn't make difference 58%
- More likely 19%
- Less likely 4%
- Doesn't make difference 72%
- More likely 3%
- Less likely 50%
- Doesn't make difference 43%
- More likely 8%
- Less likely 27%
- Doesn't make difference 61%
- More likely 14%
- Less likely 52%
- Doesn't make difference 31%
- Support 45%
- Oppose 30%
- Support 52%
- Oppose 19%
- Support 36%
- Oppose 43%
- Support 49%
- Oppose 25%
- Support 55%
- Oppose 35%
- Support 42%
- Oppose 30%
- Support 50%
- Oppose 17%
- Support 34%
- Oppose 45%
- Support 44%
- Oppose 28%
- Support 39%
- Oppose 54%
- Support 5%
- Oppose 79%
- Support 6%
- Oppose 74%
- Support 4%
- Oppose 86%
- Support 6%
- Oppose 80%
- Support 4%
- Oppose 90%
- Support 9%
- Oppose 76%
- Support 10%
- Oppose 73%
- Support 7%
- Oppose 81%
- Support 10%
- Oppose 77%
- Support 9%
- Oppose 85%
- Yes 22%
- No 63%
- Yes 29%
- No 52%
- Yes 14%
- No 76%
- Yes 21%
- No 63%
- Yes 23%
- No 73%
- Israel decides 46%
- All allowed 27%
- Israel decides 33%
- All allowed 37%
- Israel decides 61%
- All allowed 19%
- Israel decides 47%
- All allowed 24%
- Israel decides 65%
- All allowed 22%
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Robert Wexler Puts President Obama's '1967 Lines' Comment Concerning Israel Into Proper Perspective
SCHULTZ: President Obama gave a wide-ranging complex speech on Middle East policy today. But most Republicans only paid attention to this 13 second clip:
OBAMA: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
SCHULTZ: That part of the speech whipped right-wingers into a frenzy. Mitt Romney said "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus." Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, called the president's proposal "a mistake and a very dangerous demand." And Michele Bachmann chimed in on Twitter, saying: "Once again, President Obama has betrayed our friend and ally Israel." And she later tweeted: "I'm calling on President Obama to reverse course on his latest insult of Israel." Well, if Bachmann think President Obama insulted Israel, so did George W. Bush. Bush and Clinton both supported basing Mideast peace talks on the 1967 borders of Israel and Palestine. And President Obama made it very clear today. He intends to stand by Israel.
OBAMA: As for Israel, our frienship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.
SCHULTZ: And the president will have the chance to build on the speech tomorrow morning when he meets with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. For more on this, let's bring in former Florida congressman Robert Wexler. He is now the president of the Center for Middle East Peace. Mr. Wexler, good to have you with us tonight. You heard what the right-wingers are saying. Did the president betray Israel today?
WEXLER: No, not at all. As you correctly showed, the president reiterated America's unshakable commitment to Israel's security. And that follows two years of extraordinary cooperation between the American and the Israeli military and security forces. As to the issue of the 1967 lines, with territorial swaps, ironically, Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, to the Knesset, said that he would accept a resolution that ensured that Israel kept the large settlement blocs. Well, that's the Israeli way of saying '1967 lines with territorial swaps.' What people need to understand -- when the president says '67 lines with mutually agreed swaps' Israel would wind up keeping roughly 80 percent of the Jewish Israelis who today live outside of the '67 lines. They would be incorporated into the internationally-recognized borders of Israel. That would be an extraordinarily positive development for Israel.
From NBC News' First Read:
*** Throwing Israel under the bus? For longtime chroniclers of the Middle East peace process, the most surprising part of President Obama’s speech yesterday was the reaction to his call for the eventual Israel-Palestine borders to be based on the 1967 lines. Israeli PM Netanyahu said it was “indefensible.” Romney fired off this statement: “President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace.” Pawlenty followed by saying it was a “mistaken and very dangerous demand.” Why was this reaction surprising? Because, as the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg writes, the 1967 lines have been the basic Middle-East-peace idea for at least the last 12 years. “This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.”
*** The ’67 borders have become the new individual mandate: So in that respect, you could compare the 1967 lines to the individual health-care mandate or cap-and-trade -- ideas that weren’t really controversial before Obama proposed it. Also, note the difference between the tough Romney/Pawlenty statements and GOP Sen. Marco Rubio’s. In his statement, Rubio began by praising the president, and then he said this on the ’67 borders: “Unfortunately, the President’s reference to Israel’s 1967 borders marks a step back in the peace process, as the U.S. must not pre-determine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.” That’s a fair point -- Obama was negotiating publicly in his speech by mentioning the borders. But it’s hard to see how the president was throwing Israel “under the bus” when he also used his speech demanding that the eventual Palestinian state be “non-militarized” and questioning the Hamas-Fatah agreement. “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” Obama asked. That's a "get out of negotiations" card for Israel, but apparently no one heard THAT? A truth about people who are passionate about this Middle East debate: They only hear what they don’t like.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
