I think that Obama is trying to bring things on the track, which are very important to him and that (hopefully) can't be easily reversed by Trump after the 20th jan.
He could also attempt to show the world and history books his point of view on the issue and probably give the next democratic candidate ammunition if things are getting worse in that region.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Higgin's answer has the advantage of making some sense. Still, it seems like a strange move. If he had doen the same at the start of his second move and backed it up with threaths of cuts in foreign aid to Israel (and some compareable moves towards the Palestinians it's posible he might have done some good, but this seems a bit pointless.
The Israel thing is an attempt by the Obama administration to cement its legacy and bind Trump. Whatever one's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in my opinion it's a ham-fisted, desperate move (as Number24 points out, now this comes up?) -- a middle finger to Trump and especially to Netanyahu, with whom Obama and Kerry have been unable to find any common ground. I frequently disagree with President Obama politically, but one thing he has never been up to now is childish. Sadly, in this case, he seems to be taking on the President-elect's demeanor.
We sure do keep it classy in the U S of A, don't we? 8-)
Higgin's answer has the advantage of making some sense. Still, it seems like a strange move. If he had doen the same at the start of his second move and backed it up with threaths of cuts in foreign aid to Israel (and some compareable moves towards the Palestinians it's posible he might have done some good, but this seems a bit pointless.
That would have meant to ammo the republicans with more in the campainings. Seems that he waited until here was nothing to lose
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The impression I got was that Obama wanted to draw a line in the sand - the timing may not be ideal but it needed to be done now to strike while the iron was hot (sorry to lob in as many metaphors as that).
Your question was "why now"? My opinion was related purely to the timing.
Yes, that was my question. But your reply raises new questions. Deniability from what? No-one believes the UN ambasador or Kerry after on their own, so I don't see how Obama could claim deniability. Even if Obama could claim deniability, what would he gain from it?
I'm watching a program about the UN resolution against Israel's settlements and Kerry's speech on the issue. While there are very strong views on this, my main question is this: why now? What does Obama and Kerry's hope to gain in the Israeli/Palestinian problem just weeks before the end of the administration?
Perhaps something like this could have changed things four or six years ago, but it seems pointless now.
"President Obama has used the American veto and its diplomatic muscle more assiduously than any previous American president to shield Israel from unwarranted criticism." - NY Times editorial, 12/28/16
Obama also signed a $38,000,000,000.00 military aid package for Israel (and Bibi said $38 billion wasn't enough).
The US position has generally been - and has been publicly stated by at least three Democratic administrations and two Republican ones over the past 50 years - that settlements are a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and an impediment to the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
It's always amusing to hear accusations that "The United Nations hates Israel" when in fact it was the United Nations that partitioned Palestine into Arab and Jewish sections, thus allowing the creation of Israel in the first place. The settlements resolution was simply a case of holding Israel to the same international standards that other nations are held to. Obama's abstention was a courtesy to Israel, not an insult.
This is true, but some Americans view the system that allowed Trump to win as unfair and therefore undemocratic
The system that allowed Trump to win is indeed undemocratic, but some believe it is actually more fair than a democratic system would be.
It's different than a pure democratic system would be, and one must acknowledge that the candidates have to campaign based on how the Electoral College system is set up rather than on simply amassing a popular vote lead. You can't just take a static look at the popular vote and say that HRC should have won, because the campaign and voting dynamics of large "safe" states like California, New York and Texas, as well as "swing" states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, would totally change. A campaign targeting a popular vote victory would simply consist of flights between New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and Phoenix. By making the election a series of state-by-state contests, the candidates have to look for votes not only in urban areas (i.e. Cleveland) but suburban/rural areas (i.e. Medina).
This is true, but some Americans view the system that allowed Trump to win as unfair and therefore undemocratic
The system that allowed Trump to win is indeed undemocratic, but some believe it is actually more fair than a democratic system would be.
It's different than a pure democratic system would be, and one must acknowledge that the candidates have to campaign based on how the Electoral College system is set up rather than on simply amassing a popular vote lead. You can't just take a static look at the popular vote and say that HRC should have won, because the campaign and voting dynamics of large "safe" states like California, New York and Texas, as well as "swing" states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, would totally change. A campaign targeting a popular vote victory would simply consist of flights between New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and Phoenix. By making the election a series of state-by-state contests, the candidates have to look for votes not only in urban areas (i.e. Cleveland) but suburban/rural areas (i.e. Medina).
Right now candidates still only look for votes in limited places: mostly the swing states. Why is okay that some places are ignored in one system but not in another? In a popular system where every vote counts equally, the candidates need to look everywhere for votes. Are you afraid that liberal candidates will always win? Perhaps if a conservative candidate campaigned in the cities, that candidate could have a chance of getting more votes in those places, and those conservative votes in states like California would actually count.
I'm watching a program about the UN resolution against Israel's settlements and Kerry's speech on the issue. While there are very strong views on this, my main question is this: why now? What does Obama and Kerry's hope to gain in the Israeli/Palestinian problem just weeks before the end of the administration?
Perhaps something like this could have changed things four or six years ago, but it seems pointless now.
"President Obama has used the American veto and its diplomatic muscle more assiduously than any previous American president to shield Israel from unwarranted criticism." - NY Times editorial, 12/28/16
Obama also signed a $38,000,000,000.00 military aid package for Israel (and Bibi said $38 billion wasn't enough).
The US position has generally been - and has been publicly stated by at least three Democratic administrations and two Republican ones over the past 50 years - that settlements are a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and an impediment to the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
It's always amusing to hear accusations that "The United Nations hates Israel" when in fact it was the United Nations that partitioned Palestine into Arab and Jewish sections, thus allowing the creation of Israel in the first place. The settlements resolution was simply a case of holding Israel to the same international standards that other nations are held to. Obama's abstention was a courtesy to Israel, not an insult.
We have been often labelled as liberal dreamers here from our US brothers, not sure if the new Putin-Romantics on the US right will soon wake up from their dreams. They should know better.
Another evidence how the internet media crap can disorient people.
BTW.
One of the fav media from the new and old right: Breitbart.
Comments
I think this is so Trump can deny that he had anything to do with it- "it was the previous administration".
He could also attempt to show the world and history books his point of view on the issue and probably give the next democratic candidate ammunition if things are getting worse in that region.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Of course not. To quote from "Independence Day";
"Two words, Mr President: plausible deniability."
We sure do keep it classy in the U S of A, don't we? 8-)
That would have meant to ammo the republicans with more in the campainings. Seems that he waited until here was nothing to lose
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
How?
Yes, that was my question. But your reply raises new questions. Deniability from what? No-one believes the UN ambasador or Kerry after on their own, so I don't see how Obama could claim deniability. Even if Obama could claim deniability, what would he gain from it?
"President Obama has used the American veto and its diplomatic muscle more assiduously than any previous American president to shield Israel from unwarranted criticism." - NY Times editorial, 12/28/16
Obama also signed a $38,000,000,000.00 military aid package for Israel (and Bibi said $38 billion wasn't enough).
The US position has generally been - and has been publicly stated by at least three Democratic administrations and two Republican ones over the past 50 years - that settlements are a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and an impediment to the goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
It's always amusing to hear accusations that "The United Nations hates Israel" when in fact it was the United Nations that partitioned Palestine into Arab and Jewish sections, thus allowing the creation of Israel in the first place. The settlements resolution was simply a case of holding Israel to the same international standards that other nations are held to. Obama's abstention was a courtesy to Israel, not an insult.
It's different than a pure democratic system would be, and one must acknowledge that the candidates have to campaign based on how the Electoral College system is set up rather than on simply amassing a popular vote lead. You can't just take a static look at the popular vote and say that HRC should have won, because the campaign and voting dynamics of large "safe" states like California, New York and Texas, as well as "swing" states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, would totally change. A campaign targeting a popular vote victory would simply consist of flights between New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and Phoenix. By making the election a series of state-by-state contests, the candidates have to look for votes not only in urban areas (i.e. Cleveland) but suburban/rural areas (i.e. Medina).
Right now candidates still only look for votes in limited places: mostly the swing states. Why is okay that some places are ignored in one system but not in another? In a popular system where every vote counts equally, the candidates need to look everywhere for votes. Are you afraid that liberal candidates will always win? Perhaps if a conservative candidate campaigned in the cities, that candidate could have a chance of getting more votes in those places, and those conservative votes in states like California would actually count.
I agree.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
And we all know the CIA has a perfect record of telling the truth.
In America we like evidence to go along with our accusations. So far none has been presented.
I will let you know the answer to that question once the Democratic National Committee permits a liberal to be the Democratic nominee for President.
Oh, that's interesting as you haven't been like that "american" with your accusations against Hillary and the Clinton Foundation
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
so left wing to support " Mother Russia "
And Brian E,no doubt..
We have been often labelled as liberal dreamers here from our US brothers, not sure if the new Putin-Romantics on the US right will soon wake up from their dreams. They should know better.
Another evidence how the internet media crap can disorient people.
BTW.
One of the fav media from the new and old right: Breitbart.
They've published a horror story about NYE in Dortmund.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/
Amazing is that no-one in Dortmund remembers that "Allahu Akbar" chanting mob.
Normal people celebrating with some firework.
Some firework (nobody knows if it really came from the folks around the church) caught a little fire.
Here is a response:
https://www.thelocal.de/20170105/german-media-blasts-misleading-breitbart-reports-of-violence-on-new-years
Nothing to be seen - move on, people.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I love the idea that some people have moved to far to the right, they're now on the left !