HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519.jpg
2.56 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Political commentary / article page / house oversight document
File Size:
2.56 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a political analysis or article discussing the strained relationship between the Obama administration and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It critiques Netanyahu for shifting his stance on the 1967 borders for domestic political gain despite previous agreements with Secretary Clinton. The text also highlights Obama's support for Israel regarding the UN statehood bid and questions Netanyahu's confrontational approach.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin Netanyahu | Prime Minister of Israel |
Critiqued for shifting political positions regarding 1967 borders and creating confrontation with the US.
|
| Barack Obama | US President |
Mentioned regarding US policy shifts and his condemnation of the Palestinian UN strategy.
|
| Hillary Clinton | Secretary of State |
Issued a joint statement with Netanyahu on Nov 11, 2010.
|
| George W. Bush | Former US President |
Mentioned in comparison regarding policy statements.
|
| Condoleezza Rice | Former Secretary of State |
Mentioned in comparison regarding policy statements.
|
| Winston Churchill | Former UK Prime Minister |
Used as a comparison for how Netanyahu sounds versus how he acts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United Nations General Assembly |
Venue where Palestinians sought state recognition.
|
|
| Fatah |
Mentioned regarding an accord with Hamas.
|
|
| Hamas |
Mentioned regarding an accord with Fatah.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (via Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
November 11, 2010
Joint statement issued by Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Unknown
September (Year implied ca. 2011)
Palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state from the U.N. General Assembly.
UN
Palestinian Authority
UN General Assembly
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country central to the discussion.
|
|
|
Implied via 'Palestinian goal' and statehood discussion.
|
|
|
Geopolitical borders being debated.
|
Relationships (2)
Text describes Netanyahu creating public confrontation despite Obama's support on key issues.
Issued joint statement in 2010.
Key Quotes (4)
"That’s not Obama, Bush or Rice, but a statement jointly issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu on Nov. 11, 2010."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519.jpg
Quote #1
"And while Bibi might sound like Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel’s future."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519.jpg
Quote #2
"The newsworthy, and real, shift in U.S. policy was Obama publicly condemning the Palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state from the U.N. General Assembly in September."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519.jpg
Quote #3
"The chief threat to Israel today is not from a Palestinian army."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,003 characters)
3
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.” That’s not
Obama, Bush or Rice, but a statement jointly issued by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu on Nov. 11, 2010.
Today, Netanyahu says that any discussion of the 1967 borders is
treason and that new borders must reflect “dramatic changes” since
then. So in three years, an Israeli prime minister’s position has gone
from “minor corrections” to “dramatic changes.” Netanyahu’s
quarrel, it appears, is with himself. Yet we are to think it is Obama
who has shifted policy?
Why did Netanyahu turn what was at best a minor difference into a
major confrontation? Does it help Israel’s security or otherwise
strengthen it to stoke tensions with its strongest ally and largest
benefactor? Does such behavior further the resolution of Israel’s
problems? No, but it helps Netanyahu stir support at home and
maintain his fragile coalition. And while Bibi might sound like
Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in
holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel’s future.
The newsworthy, and real, shift in U.S. policy was Obama publicly
condemning the Palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state
from the U.N. General Assembly in September. He also questioned
the accord between Fatah and Hamas. Obama endorsed the idea of a
demilitarized Palestinian state, a demand Israel has made in recent
years. Instead of thanking Obama for this, Netanyahu created a public
confrontation to garner applause at home.
Netanyahu’s references to the “indefensible” borders of 1967 reveal
him to be mired in a world that has gone away. The chief threat to
Israel today is not from a Palestinian army. Israel has the region’s
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.” That’s not
Obama, Bush or Rice, but a statement jointly issued by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu on Nov. 11, 2010.
Today, Netanyahu says that any discussion of the 1967 borders is
treason and that new borders must reflect “dramatic changes” since
then. So in three years, an Israeli prime minister’s position has gone
from “minor corrections” to “dramatic changes.” Netanyahu’s
quarrel, it appears, is with himself. Yet we are to think it is Obama
who has shifted policy?
Why did Netanyahu turn what was at best a minor difference into a
major confrontation? Does it help Israel’s security or otherwise
strengthen it to stoke tensions with its strongest ally and largest
benefactor? Does such behavior further the resolution of Israel’s
problems? No, but it helps Netanyahu stir support at home and
maintain his fragile coalition. And while Bibi might sound like
Churchill, he acts like a local ward boss, far more interested in
holding onto his post than using it to secure Israel’s future.
The newsworthy, and real, shift in U.S. policy was Obama publicly
condemning the Palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state
from the U.N. General Assembly in September. He also questioned
the accord between Fatah and Hamas. Obama endorsed the idea of a
demilitarized Palestinian state, a demand Israel has made in recent
years. Instead of thanking Obama for this, Netanyahu created a public
confrontation to garner applause at home.
Netanyahu’s references to the “indefensible” borders of 1967 reveal
him to be mired in a world that has gone away. The chief threat to
Israel today is not from a Palestinian army. Israel has the region’s
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023519
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document