obama tells Israel to go back to 1967 borders

#27
#27
rjd970 said:
Is there really a correct solution here? People are going to complain no matter what. According to the Foxnews article posted in this thread (for offset I should post a MSNBC article, though I doubt it would get the same traction around here) he said in the speech that Israeli security is still paramount, and had some pretty tough language directed at Syria and Libya.

I have a question for the board, and I am honestly torn on it. If Bush were president, with his foreign policy hardlines, tough talking, and favored support of Israel...do you think we would be seeing the widespread protests and calls for democracy we are seeing in the middle east now? I don't know if Obama language/policies, etc have caused, helped, or had no effect in this regard.

I mean, what has changed? When Bush was president Egyptian, Libyian, Syrian rulers were still the same maniacs they were today, yet we continued to give aid and never heard of atrocities.

I will probably get flamed for this, but whatever. Obama, in my opinion, has come across as very pro-democracy and peace in the region, supporting people having the right to choose for themselves. While every other president before him said the same, the tacit support of corrupt regimes either isn't there now, or isn't near as strong. From the average ME point of view, there doesn't seem to be as much hypocrisy as with past administrations. I absolutely disagree that he hasn't won any hearts and minds over there.

Call me liberal, soft, whatever. But I don't have any major problems with how he has handled the ME situation thus far in his presidency.
Click to expand...

Here's my take:

He laid out a non-policy policy today. We support the Arab Spring but will look at each country individually. Translation: we will go to war with Libya without calling it a war; finally call the "reformer" Assad in Syria out - mildly; hem and haw about Bahrain; Yemen and continue to do jack squat about Iran other than posture. Nothing really new here and not that Bush wouldn't do the same but the BIG PICTURE is the speech WRT to these countries today was some words that are essentially meaningless.

On the Israeli/Palestinian front: 1) He had told Israel a few days ago that there would be "no news" in the speech. However, the statement today is in direct conflict with our most recent signed agreement with Israel. This a few days prior to the head of Israel doing an official visit. At a minimum this is bad diplomatic form. Saw an article that his advisors were split up until the last minute on whether or not to go with the 1967 borders. He screwed Netanyahu anyway you look at it.

2) He effectively set conditions for negotiation of a deal that neither side will agree to. Why? So he doesn't have to deal with it (my opinion). He effectively gave away negotiating chits for both sides (Israel more so since we are the only ones backing them). The result will be no real reconciliation efforts are made and the "status quo" he *****ed about will be guaranteed through November 2012. Yep - he punted on US efforts to broker a deal.

Now - the big question is should we be the deal brokers and I can see both sides of that argument. However, if we decide not to be deal brokers lets be upfront about it and not posture some BS crap like we saw today about working something out. Between Mitchell pulling out last week and this speech, Obama has officially put our role in brokering a deal off the table all while lecturing the parties on why they need to work out a deal.

Bottomline - it was another speech of words that will not be followed by any meaningful actions.
 
#28
#28
Jewbaccah said:
The 1967 borders would require having families uproot and go where? We are not talking about a few but thousands. These people are viable humans who pay taxes and love life. He would have them get up and leave the home they built...
Click to expand...
And why are those families in the West Bank? It's because the Israeli government has allowed squatters to move onto land that is not legally theirs so it will become a part of Israel by default.

In what way have the Israelis ever done anything for us to qualify as our Allies? They will do whatever it takes to anyone necessary, by whatever means necessary to accomplish their aims. Including us, if necessary. (Remember the Liberty?) I just love pictures of Israeli tanks crushing Palestinian houses. I love pictures of Israeli soldiers in full regalia confronting Palestinian children throwing rocks.

Who are the terrorists, really? Oh, they're the ones with the rocks and overgrown Roman candles, not the ones the ones with the tanks, F-16s and nuclear weapons. Of course.

I saw a video clip on tv several years ago. It showed a large Israeli house in the West Bank with a huge lawn surrounded by a wall. The sprinklers were running full blast keeping that lawn GREEN! And out in the street was a rusty old water truck surrounded by Palestinians fighting to get water. Sorry, guys, that's horse____ of the first rank.

I have NO use for radical Islamist such as Hamas, and I am certainly NOT an anti-Semite, but the Israelis have led us around by the nose for over 60 years sucking down hundreds of billions of our foreign aid, and I believe it's time for that to stop.

Flame on.



[/]
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
therealUT said:
It would be nice if the US just left Israel to deal with their own problems.
Click to expand...

Just about the only post I agree with in this thread, other than my own. They captured the land in a war, let them deal with the fallout. Otherwise, give it back if it will help peace. This isn't our problem.

Ron Paul's view on Israel is one of his few foreign policy stances I agree with.
 
#30
#30
rjd970 said:
Just about the only post I agree with in this thread, other than my own. They captured the land in a war, let them deal with the fallout. Otherwise, give it back if it will help peace. This isn't our problem.

Ron Paul's view on Israel is one of his few foreign policy stances I agree with.
Click to expand...


I can buy this view as well. If I do though, I have to rate today's speech as a big failure. Why should we set the conditions for them dealing with it? That applies to Bush, Obama or whoever. If we are setting terms then we better be involved. If we aren't involved, then let them work it out. I'm good either way.
 
#31
#31
The 1967 borders included the Sinai Peninsula. :)



history-of-israel1.gif




Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
dave956 said:
And why are those families in the West Bank? It's because the Israeli government has allowed squatters to move onto land that is not legally theirs so it will become a part of Israel by default.

In what way have the Israelis ever done anything for us to qualify as our Allies? They will do whatever it takes to anyone necessary, by whatever means necessary to accomplish their aims. Including us, if necessary. (Remember the Liberty?) I just love pictures of Israeli tanks crushing Palestinian houses. I love pictures of Israeli soldiers in full regalia confronting Palestinian children throwing rocks.

Who are the terrorists, really? Oh, they're the ones with the rocks and overgrown Roman candles, not the ones the ones with the tanks, F-16s and nuclear weapons. Of course.

I saw a video clip on tv several years ago. It showed a large Israeli house in the West Bank with a huge lawn surrounded by a wall. The sprinklers were running full blast keeping that lawn GREEN! And out in the street was a rusty old water truck surrounded by Palestinians fighting to get water. Sorry, guys, that's horse____ of the first rank.

I have NO use for radical Islamist such as Hamas, and I am certainly NOT an anti-Semite, but the Israelis have led us around by the nose for over 60 years sucking down hundreds of billions of our foreign aid, and I believe it's time for that to stop.

Flame on.



[/]
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am not going to flame. You have obviously told some lies in this post and are now being put to ignore. Israeli land cost are high much like buying land on the California coast. They have laws regulating water use. No one has sprinklers. I do not know your reasons for spreading the lies you have in this post but clearly you have issues. Goodnight and Good Luck.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
I can buy this view as well. I rate any speech by Obama at any time, about any subject, no matter what he says, a big failure because I, like the rest of the mindless drones, am duty bound to always criticize him, no matter what. Why should we set the conditions for them dealing with it? That applies to Bush, Obama or whoever (even though I of course ignore the many times Bush set conditions on other countries). If we are setting terms then we better be involved. If we aren't involved, then let them work it out. I'm good either way because it gives me more chances to repeat my mantra that Obama bad.
Click to expand...


fyp
 
#37
#37
"do you think we would be seeing the widespread protests and calls for democracy we are seeing in the middle east now?"

i think you are high if you really believe that there is a great move towards democracy in that region.
 
#38
#38
Oh, almost forgot. OP and the rest of you Fox minions, in your knee-jerk "everything he says is wrong" comments, keep forgetting to note that Obama said roughly use the pre-67 borders and then negotiate and swap parts from there. I can see why you'd ignore that, though, as it undermines your entire argument.
 
#39
#39
dave956 said:
And why are those families in the West Bank? It's because the Israeli government has allowed squatters to move onto land that is not legally theirs so it will become a part of Israel by default.

In what way have the Israelis ever done anything for us to qualify as our Allies? They will do whatever it takes to anyone necessary, by whatever means necessary to accomplish their aims. Including us, if necessary. (Remember the Liberty?) I just love pictures of Israeli tanks crushing Palestinian houses. I love pictures of Israeli soldiers in full regalia confronting Palestinian children throwing rocks.

Who are the terrorists, really? Oh, they're the ones with the rocks and overgrown Roman candles, not the ones the ones with the tanks, F-16s and nuclear weapons. Of course.

I saw a video clip on tv several years ago. It showed a large Israeli house in the West Bank with a huge lawn surrounded by a wall. The sprinklers were running full blast keeping that lawn GREEN! And out in the street was a rusty old water truck surrounded by Palestinians fighting to get water. Sorry, guys, that's horse____ of the first rank.

I have NO use for radical Islamist such as Hamas, and I am certainly NOT an anti-Semite, but the Israelis have led us around by the nose for over 60 years sucking down hundreds of billions of our foreign aid, and I believe it's time for that to stop.

Flame on.



[/]
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

they were attacked, defended themselves, and took out the people attacking them and that is why they have more land. not sure why they should give it back. so people can invade more easily in the future?
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Oh, almost forgot. OP and the rest of you Fox minions, in your knee-jerk "everything he says is wrong" comments, keep forgetting to note that Obama said roughly use the pre-67 borders and then negotiate and swap parts from there. I can see why you'd ignore that, though, as it undermines your entire argument.
Click to expand...

wait obama hedged his position. shocking i tell you. absolutely shocking.
 
#41
#41
droski said:
wait obama hedged his position. shocking i tell you. absolutely shocking.
Click to expand...


So you start a thread claiming (falsely) that he said go back to '67 borders and you argue this is too rigid and bad policy. When it is pointed out to you that he actually said use roughly those borders to start negotiating and trade land between the parties to get to a solution that guarantees Israel peace and security, you claim he's not rigid enough.

I think I see the game plan here.

:good!:
 
#42
#42
droski said:
"do you think we would be seeing the widespread protests and calls for democracy we are seeing in the middle east now?"

i think you are high if you really believe that there is a great move towards democracy in that region.
Click to expand...

I think you are high if you think I said that. All I said is there is widespread calls for democracy and protests. Whether it happens or not is a different story.

Thanks for the commentary though.
 
#43
#43
Jewbaccah said:
I am not going to flame. You have obviously told some lies in this post and are now being put to ignore. Israeli land cost are high much like buying land on the California coast. They have laws regulating water use. No one has sprinklers. I do not know your reasons for spreading the lies you have in this post but clearly you have issues. Goodnight and Good Luck.
Click to expand...

You're telling me I won't find a privately owned green yard?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Oh, almost forgot. OP and the rest of you Fox minions, in your knee-jerk "everything he says is wrong" comments, keep forgetting to note that Obama said roughly use the pre-67 borders and then negotiate and swap parts from there. I can see why you'd ignore that, though, as it undermines your entire argument.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much abandoned all hope of actually arguing anything and replaced it with sweeping generalizations of dogmatic Obama-haters and brain-washed Fox News viewers. Get a new act.
 
#46
#46
A two state solution, unfortunately, is just not realistic at this time. If you remember back to the Clinton years there was a two state deal on the table, which Israel agreed to, but the Palestinians rejected at the last moment.

One of the main problems is the exchange in a two state deal. Whatever deal emerges it is clear that Israel must give up land, which is a tangible asset. However, the Palestinians only exchange promises: not to attack Israel, to recognize Israel's right to exist, and not slaughter the Israeli's in future Palestinian territory. These promises are not tangible and are largely dependent upon the actions of Hamas. Hamas' platform is to kill every jew (man, woman, and child) in Israel.

This is not to say that Israel does not have blood on its hands either. The status quo is not an acceptable situation, but let's observe reality for a moment. The living conditions in Palestine are terrible, but yet they have their lives. Reverse the situation and have jews living in sovereign Palestine lands and they would all be slaughtered by Hamas on a scale of genocide that would rival Sudan.

President Obama gave a speech and has a plan seeking to accomplish what no American President can in the status quo. The reality is that there is no solution unless there are major geopolitical and attitude shifts of Israel and in particular Palestine.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
they were attacked, defended themselves, and took out the people attacking them and that is why they have more land. not sure why they should give it back. so people can invade more easily in the future?
Click to expand...

The problem is that while yes, Israel was attacked (several times), they conquered land that is not rightfully theirs, confirmed a number of times by international law. They began a silent conquest, the "settlers", in an attempt to legitimize and finalize their presence. Meanwhile, Palestinians are denied the most basic of human rights. Is it so suprising they are PO'd?

As to the accusation that I was lying in a previous post, I must deny that. I will admit to the possibility that the memory of the sprinklers has crept in over the years. If so, I sincerely apologize. The big house and water truck in the street are definitely not fictitious, however.

What I object to the most is that we Americans take for Gospel what we hear about this topic in the mainstream media and are totally unwilling to consider other viewpoints and facts.

Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
kptvol said:
You've pretty much abandoned all hope of actually arguing anything and replaced it with sweeping generalizations of dogmatic Obama-haters and brain-washed Fox News viewers. Get a new act.
Click to expand...


The truth hurts, doesn't it?


jdavis675 said:
A two state solution, unfortunately, is just not realistic at this time. If you remember back to the Clinton years there was a two state deal on the table, which Israel agreed to, but the Palestinians rejected at the last moment.

One of the main problems is the exchange in a two state deal. Whatever deal emerges it is clear that Israel must give up land, which is a tangible asset. However, the Palestinians only exchange promises: not to attack Israel, to recognize Israel's right to exist, and not slaughter the Israeli's in future Palestinian territory. These promises are not tangible and are largely dependent upon the actions of Hamas. Hamas' platform is to kill every jew (man, woman, and child) in Israel.

This is not to say that Israel does not have blood on its hands either. The status quo is not an acceptable situation, but let's observe reality for a moment. The living conditions in Palestine are terrible, but yet they have their lives. Reverse the situation and have jews living in sovereign Palestine lands and they would all be slaughtered by Hamas on a scale of genocide that would rival Sudan.

President Obama gave a speech and has a plan seeking to accomplish what no American President can in the status quo. The reality is that there is no solution unless there are major geopolitical and attitude shifts of Israel and in particular Palestine.
Click to expand...


This is why Obama specifically said that Israel has the right to defend itself. It was a clear statement that Hama has to come to the table and negotiate a two state solution that everyone can live with or that, in our view, Israel is justified in taking action.

The argument that Israel won the land in '67, case closed, ignores the fact that the cost of that position is a source of anti-west terrorism and war that has no end. It ignores the fact that Israel will never be at peace if there is a refusal to negotiate a two state solution. It feeds causes like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

What, you think Israel is simply going to outlast the Arab states? That one day they'll just say, ok, you win. Never mind. No one is saying that Israel doesn't have the upper hand here. No one is saying that Israel can't insist on a deal it can live with. But if there is going to be a solution it will have to include some concession by Israel and Obama is hardly the first person to say so.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
It feeds causes like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Click to expand...

so it's Israel's fault that these people want to kill all the Jews? Poor little AQ and Taliban they just can't help it because of the mean old Jewish people trying to live near them
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top