Roadmap to HELL - One man caught on a barbed wire fence .... - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2011, 03:48 AM   #341
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
If you are living in the West Bank you should make plans to leave. I would recommend a move to inside the 1967 boarders.


Strong faith in G-d is fine. He may or may not exist.
If he does exist he yawns and scratches as babies are butchered in their beds.

So the smart thing to do is get out of the West Bank.
First of all I don't live in the West Bank but that's besides the point.

Are you really that naive as to think that it will end THERE?......Hamas was established with only one goal in mind - the total destruction of the state of Israel. Do you really think that they will stop at seizing power in the west bank? They have declared that they will NEVER recognize Israel and their entire existance is devoted to our destruction. They want us out of Jerusalem, out of Ashdod, out of Haifa, out of Tiberias, out of Ashkelon...and basically off the map.

Let's for the sake of argument say that Israel withdraws from ALL the territories captured in 1967 - including East Jerusalem. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that they will be satisfied with that. I guarantee that once the last Israeli withdraws from the west bank Hamas will be moving their missiles closer to our coastal and central cities - just like they did when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005. How long do you think it will take before the missiles start landing in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem?

Don't be taken in by these liars and deceivers. This truce is only the first step in their master plan to annihalate the state of Israel - which, again, will never happen.
__________________

AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:03 AM   #342
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
There are elements in the *official* Israeli Government that do not recognize the right of Palestinians to exist anywhere inside of the Palestinian territories, what we are referring to as The West Bank.

Your FM Liberman is an extremist that should not be recognized for his extreme views. His coalition would push out all Palestinians, just like you claim Hamas would do to the Jews.

What reasonable people should do is marginalize the extremists in both groups, and empower the more reasonable people in their groups to gain more influence to reach some accommodation that is possible for both sides to live with.
__________________

deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2011, 03:43 PM   #343
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Egypt Invites Palestinian Factions to Sign Unity Deal | Middle East

Egypt to open Gaza border in policy shift.



The ground in the Middle-East is shifting at a steady rate. There will be big changes in Syria, too.

This is very unsettling for many in Israel. The status-quo of the last couple of decades was not sustainable. Israel behaved as is they would always have the upper hand.

Bold statements and threats are not the way to go.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 01:39 AM   #344
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:
Hamas says prepared to give peace with Israel 'another chance'

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on Wednesday challenged Israel to peace, offering to work with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt on a new strategy to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But Meshaal, addressing a meeting in Cairo to announce a reconciliation agreement between his Islamist group and its secular Fatah rival, said he did not believe Israel was ready for peace with any Palestinians.

"We have given peace since Madrid till now 20 years, and I say we are ready to agree among us Palestinians and with Arab support to give an additional chance," Meshaal said, referring to the 1991 international Middle East peace conference that launched Israeli-Arab peace talks.

"But, dear brothers, because Israel does not respect us, and because Israel has rejected all our initiatives and because Israel deliberately rejects Palestinian rights, rejects Fatah members as well as Hamas...it wants the land, security and claims to want peace," he said.

Israel regards Hamas, whose founding charter calls for its destruction of the Jewish state, as a terrorist organization. Hamas has opposed Abbas' peace efforts with Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the new unity pact between Hamas and Fatah as a "mortal blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism".

Meshaal said that Egypt, the Arab League and the Muslim World's largest body, the Islamic Organisation Conference, must work together to search for a new strategy.

"We don't want to declare war on any one," Meshaal said.

"We want to wrench our rights and draft a new strategy for ourselves, to master all forms of power that will force Netanyahu to withdraw from our lands and to recognize our rights," he added.

"We are telling the world: stand with us."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...hance-1.359836

Give peace a chance.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 10:04 AM   #345
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
I know you probably didn't intend this Deep, but you just posted one of the funniest posts on this board.

If you believe that Hamas is willing to talk peace with Israel then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale if you're interested....

When was Hamas ever prepared to give ONE chance for peace with Israel, let alone ANOTHER chance.....? Their entire existance is based on one goal - the destruction of the state of Israel - no more and no less.

Since their establishment in 1987, during the first Palestinian uprising, their only purpose in life was to kill as many Israelis as possible. For over 20 years they haven't ONCE joined in any of the peace talks that the legitimate Palestinian leadership held with Israel - including the Madrid conference in 1991 and the subsequent conferences at Camp David, Wye Plantation, etc. Moreoever, they said that any of the agreements that have been signed between the Palestinian authority and Israel are not-binding to them and they're not obliged to adhere to them.......

So what chance for peace have they ever been willing to take? NONE.
They know that peace with Israel means that they will have to recognize Israel's right to exist (which will never happen) and to disarm themselves and cease their terror operations against us (which will ALSO never happen).

Not to mention the fact that Israel will never even think about sitting down with Hamas until they release our soldier Gilad Shalit, who's been held captive in a booby-trapped bunker somewhere in Gaza for the past five years.....

They are desperate now to legitimize themselves in the eyes of the world and they will lie through their teeth to do so. This circus in Cairo is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors act designed to put on a facade of unity to the world - when actually I'm sure that Haled Masha'l would have liked nothing more than for Abu Mazen to join Bin Laden in hell....and visa versa.

Again, don't be fooled by this PR stunt in Cairo......it means absolutely nothing.
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 01:22 AM   #346
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Quote:

Barak: We can't have it both ways with Palestinian unity
By JPOST.COM

Israel can't have it both ways opposing holding negotiations with a unified Palestinian government all the while insisting it cannot negotiate with a divided Palestinian government, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Monday.

For years, Israel has been telling the world that there's a problem in negotiating with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas because he doesn't control the whole of Palestinian territories, Barak told Israel Radio in a Memorial Day interview.

Barak noted that the moment Hamas joins a Palestinian government, Israel cannot say: "'Oh no,' we can't talk to [Abbas] now" because Hamas is in the government.

The defense minister said that if Hamas accepts the principles laid out by the Quartet, that Israel would be willing to hold talks with the Palestinians.

Discussing the issue in a wider regional context, he said, "In every development, from Bahrain and especially with the Palestinians, there are dangers and there are opportunities" in the changes taking place.

Asked whether recent statements by Hamas indicating a new willingness to think in terms of a two-state solution represent a change in the terrorist organization, Barak said, "If the Hamas ceases to be the Hamas that we know [today]," then we'll be in a different situation.

An Israeli leader saying something sensible.
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 03:16 AM   #347
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
An Israeli leader saying something sensible.
Hello Deep,

I agree with Ehud Barak about this:

The defense minister said that if Hamas accepts the principles laid out by the Quartet, that Israel would be willing to hold talks with the Palestinians.

and about this:

Asked whether recent statements by Hamas indicating a new willingness to think in terms of a two-state solution represent a change in the terrorist organization, Barak said, "If the Hamas ceases to be the Hamas that we know [today]," then we'll be in a different situation.

I remember that for 30-or-so years, way before Hamas was founded, our harshest enemy was the PLO led by Yassar Arafat who also dedicated itself to Israel's destruction (hence the name: Palestine Liberation Organization). They committed numerous atrocities and terrorist attacks against us and for all those years Israel said that it would never sit down with them and even passed a law making it a criminal offence to meet with any member of the PLO.

But then came the 90's and Arafat finally realized that Palestinian statehood would never be achieved by violent means and that Israel isn't going anywhere, and therefore decided to take the important step of face-to-face negotiations which culminated in the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords with Israel. The Oslo agreement called for the PLO and Israel to recognize each other (which they did) and for negotiations to take place that will ultimately lead to an independent Palestinian state within 5 years (i.e., 1998).

Unfortunately, Hamas not only didn't recognize Oslo as binding, but rather they stepped up their vicious attacks against us and began a bloody streak of suicide bombings which claimed the lives of scores of Israeli citizens.

Also unfortunately, Arafat rejected nearly every peace proposal put forth by Israel, including Ehud Barak's unprecedented proposal of returning 97% of the West Bank to the Palestinians (including dismantling of settlements).

Moreoever, the Oslo agreement stipulated that the newly-formed Palestinian authority would disarm Hamas and stop terrorist activities against us from other organizations as well......which Arafat didn't do.

So you see, even though the PLO was considered our mortal enemy for decades, we were willing to sit down with them because they were willing to give up their terrorist activities and negotiate peace. Therein lies the difference between them and Hamas - Hamas has made their position very clear: Israel has no right to exist and all its citizens are "fair game". How can we think of sitting with them with that kind of attitude?

Therefore, I agree with Barak - we can only talk with them if they renounce terrorism and are willing to negotiate in good faith on a two-state solution (which I totally support).
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 03:41 PM   #348
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Meanwhile back in Manhattan,

Quote:
...City University of New York’s decision to deny playwright Tony Kushner an honorary degree—and now perhaps reinstate it—is cutting-edge. It is cutting-edge because the debate over Kushner’s degree is, at heart, a debate over whether people who want Israel to be a secular rather than a Jewish state can be tolerated in public life. That’s a debate that Americans, and particularly American Jews, haven’t had since the 1940s. But it’s returning in a big way.
Quote:
...Well into the 20th century, many American Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state. Many Reform Jews were anti-Zionist because they feared a Jewish state would raise questions about Jewish loyalty to the US. Many Socialist Jews were anti-Zionist because they believed the proletariat should unite across religious and ethnic lines. Many Orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist because they believed that returning Jews to the land of Israel was God’s job, not man’s. Even when Jews began arriving in Palestine in large numbers, prominent Jewish intellectuals like Martin Buber, Albert Einstein, Henrietta Szold, the founder of the American Jewish women’s organization, Hadassah, and Judah Magnes, the American-born founder of Hebrew University, argued for the creation of a secular state in which neither Jews nor Arabs would have pride of place.

The Holocaust and the wars that followed Israel’s creation largely obliterated that vision, and by 1967, when Israel conquered the West Bank, Zionism was as uncontroversial an element of American Jewish identity as matzo ball soup. But that’s starting to change. The reason is that for many liberal American Jews, Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state is bound up with its status as a democratic state. As former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have acknowledged, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank imperils that. Ever since 1967—for more than two-thirds of its existence—Israel has held dominion over millions of West Bank Palestinians who lack citizenship simply because they are not Jews. Creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would remedy that, but with 300,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and an additional 200,000 in East Jerusalem, more and more close observers fear the window for creating such a state has closed. As former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg wrote last month in Haaretz, “I am not at all sure that a two-state solution formula is alive.”

Enter Tony Kushner. Kushner says he believes that Buber and Magnes were right: “that democratic government must be free of ethnic or religious affiliation.”
Quote:
Still, I think he’s wrong. Israel was created not merely to be a Jewish democracy, but to be a Jewish refuge, and even though most American Jews can’t imagine needing one, the long history of Jewish persecution suggests that we should not blithely assume that diaspora Jewish communities will always be as fortunate as us. Secondly, while there is certainly a tension between Israel’s Jewish and democratic character, Israel’s Arab citizens (those within its 1967 borders) do serve in Israel’s parliament and supreme court. Indeed, they enjoy more rights and live better lives than do their cousins in most of the Arab world, which is why most Israeli Arabs would rather live in a Jewish state than a Palestinian one. In the real world, replacing this flawed but nonetheless genuine democracy with a secular bi-national state would mean a leap into the dark. Bi-nationalism, after all, barely works in Belgium, let alone Israel, where Palestinians and Jews have been at war for a century. Does anyone really believe that an Israeli Defense Force composed half of Jews and half of Palestinians would be anything but a cloak for rival militias? As Reinhold Niebuhr often stressed, liberalism is not a utopian creed, and if you think dismantling Israeli settlements is unrealistic, think what it would mean to dismantle the IDF.
Quote:
But while I disagree with Kushner, there’s something valuable about his challenge. The American Jewish establishment has answered people like him by trying to bar bi-nationalists from the Jewish conversation. In accordance with Hillel’s national guidelines, its Brandeis affiliate recently spurned Jewish Voices for Peace, of which Kushner is a member, because it “den[ies] the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.” Maybe we should hold them to that standard. If Kushner is traif for questioning Israel’s Jewish character, shouldn’t Hillel also shun people who by entrenching Israel’s occupation threaten its democratic character? The platform of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, for instance, explicitly opposes a Palestinian state, which means Likud wants to permanently disenfranchise millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, which means it wants at least part of Israel to be a permanent non-democracy. Maybe Hillel should bar Likud officials until that platform is revoked? I wonder if Jeffrey Wiesenfeld—the CUNY trustee who spearheaded the anti-Kushner effort—could pass Hillel’s test.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 02:00 AM   #349
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
Israel is getting away with robbing Palestinian taxes - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2011, 04:08 AM   #350
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Why should Israel send money to the very government who wants to destroy it? If someone puts a gun to our head should we give them the money to buy the bullets?

As long as the PA was a partner to negotiations (albeit an unwilling one), Israel kept sending the money through, but now that he has decided to turn his back on any prospect for peace and has placed his lot with terrorists committed to our destruction, we have every right to withhold these funds to make sure they're not used to buy weapons against us.

How would you feel if the U.S. aid that Israel receives was used to purchase weapons to be used against the United States?

I'm sorry that, once again, the Palestinian people are being made to suffer because of their government.

Abbas made his bed and now he must lie in it.
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:11 PM   #351
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Live blog of Obama’s Middle East address – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I sat through President Obama's speech (which was truly stunning) and I really want to believe with all my heart that his vision of a new Middle East can actually come true.

I want to believe the the newly created state of Palestine will co-exist peacefully with Israel. I want to believe that the forces of terrorism will be routed from the region and that the influences of Iran and Al Qaida will be replaced by forces for good and prosperity.

I want to believe that the Palestinian people will see a way in which our two states can help each other to prosper and grow in a region flourishing with growth and hope rather than drowing in seas of blood, tears and despair.

At this moment, I will be as naive as a two-year old and I will say with a hopefull voice: I embrace Pres. Obama's vision and I will do everything I am able to do within my limitations to help facilitate this change for the better.

I LOVED this speech - I actually had visions of blue skies, birds chirping, sun shining, and me actually going to work in the morning, knowing that there are no terrorists waiting to shoot me in the street or plant a bomb on my train or run me down in a car......and that I don't cringe in fear when an Arab man or woman gets on the train and sits next to me.

It is a wonderful vision....and I support it entirely. One can only hope that someone in Gaza or Ramallah or Damascus or Tehran or Beirut listened as attentively as I did and is thinking the exact same thing.

Only time will tell and only concrete actions will make the change.

Peace to all of you.

Shalom
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:23 PM   #352
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:30 PM
In order to truly believe, you must drop the "I will be naive as a two-year old..." preface to your statement, and be an adult that believes.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:27 PM   #353
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
In order to truly believe, you must drop the "I will be naive as a two-year old..." preface to your statement, and be an adult that believes.
As an adult, I've seen two many hopes dashed, I've seen too many innocents killed and I've been disappointed time and time again.

This time I choose to be a child, to see the world through fresh eyes and put all cynicism aside. I choose to trust in a better way of life for everyone in the region. I choose to believe that it is truly possible this time.

The child is hope for the future, the adult is the reality of the present - I choose the hope for the future.
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:29 PM   #354
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 11:30 PM
I understand what you are saying, my point is that hope and optimism doesn't need to be "naive".
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:38 PM   #355
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I understand what you are saying, my point is that hope and optimism doesn't need to be "naive".
Unfortunately it does in this region....but my naivite(sp?) is fused with a healthy dosage of hope and promise.
AchtungBono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 04:19 PM   #356
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 09:30 PM
One of the most important things to come out of the speech is that the 1967 borders are the basis for the Palestinian State.

Building settlements in the West Bank is a Roadmap straight to more abandonment for legitimacy for the State of Israel.

Israel Ehud Barak: Israel's Barak says Netanyahu must take 'daring' steps toward peace - latimes.com
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 05:04 AM   #357
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Kind of on topic - so many of the commentators/shouters on the right in the US really don't seem to bother to read or watch something like this, do they? It seems so much of it is just based on a Drudge headline, and that's it? The only new thing Obama really dropped in there in regards to Israel-Palestine was to do with borders with Jordan. The whole 1967 + Land Swap is nothing new, at all. Yet everyone on the right seems to be screaming about this treacherous back stabbing over him mentioning '1967'. Bush did. Clinton did. Bush the elder did. What of it? They're also leaping all over Obama saying that Israel needs to be able to defend itself 'by itself' and saying that this means the US is leaving them hanging. I read that like this Isreal needs to defend itself - by itself***




***i.e. we're going to continue arming them to the teeth, so STFU about all of that.
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 11:00 AM   #358
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers View Post
It seems so much of it is just based on a Drudge headline, and that's it?[/I]


this is what happens when you're a political party that has mastered the tactics, but has no actual strategy.

who wins the day? that's what matters.
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 07:13 PM   #359
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Netanyahu addresses AIPAC tonight and Congress tomorrow; will be interesting to see if he revises his tone towards Obama's speech any.


Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, May 23:
Quote:
In a few months, the UN General Assembly will vote, probably overwhelmingly, to recognize a Palestinian state along Israel’s 1967 borders. No one knows exactly what will happen after that, but from the Israeli government’s point of view, it won’t be good. According to international law, Israel will be occupying a sovereign nation. The result will likely be a bonanza of lawsuits, divestment campaigns and cancelled business deals. Israelis will feel more and more besieged. More and more of the country’s educated, tech-savvy young will realize you can get pretty good falafel in Menlo Park.

Last week, Obama threw Netanyahu a lifeline. He outlined the parameters that should guide Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: the 1967 border, plus land swaps. Obama’s strategy was clear: He promised to veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the UN Security Council, but also hoped that by getting the Israeli government to endorse a contiguous Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, he could persuade the Palestinians to abandon their United Nations strategy in favor of a return to negotiations. And even if the Palestinians wouldn’t budge, Israel’s acceptance of Obama’s guidelines would make it easier to persuade European governments to oppose the Palestinians at the UN.
Quote:
Netanyahu’s response was, on its face, bizarre. The 1967 borders, he shot back, were “indefensible.” But Obama had not demanded a return to 1967 borders; he had very explicitly endorsed the 1967 borders with land swaps, which is essentially what Bill Clinton endorsed in late 2000 and Ehud Olmert endorsed in 2008. (In fact, Clinton and Olmert went further than Obama: Both endorsed a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and in different ways, signaled an openness to the return of small numbers of Palestinian refugees to Israel). But that was only the beginning of the weirdness of Netanyahu’s response, because if Israel’s 1967 border is indefensible against conventional attack, land swaps of the sort that Clinton and Olmert envisaged actually make the problem worse. The settlement of Ariel, which Olmert hoped to swap for land inside Israel, juts like a bony finger 13 miles into the northern West Bank. According to the 2003 Geneva Initiative, keeping Maale Adumim, another large settlement for which Israel might swap land, requires a thin land bridge across a Palestinian state to Jerusalem. How on earth would keeping these islands of Jewish settlement make Israel’s borders more defensible? To the contrary, if Israel ever did suffer a conventional attack from the West Bank, one of the first things it would do is evacuate places like Ariel and Maale Adumim, precisely because their location makes them, well, indefensible.

Over the course of his career, Benjamin Netanyahu has written a lot about what he considers “defensible borders” for Israel, and his definition has always included far more than just a few land swaps. Again and again, he has demanded an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, Israeli control of the hills overlooking key Palestinian cities, and Israeli access to the major thoroughfares of the West Bank. In other words, Netanyahu’s long career offers no indication that he would support a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state along 1967 lines even with land swaps. What’s more, he has ruled out negotiating with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, ruled out the return of even one Palestinian refugee, and demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” something Ehud Barak never demanded in 2000. The result is that he has made it easy for the Palestinians to eschew negotiations and stick with their UN strategy. Obama threw him a lifeline and he has defiantly tossed it back.
Quote:
It makes you wonder whether Netanyahu has any grasp of the world in which he is living. Does he seriously believe that the Obama administration, having ignominiously failed to get Israel to accept negotiations based upon the 1967 lines, can strong-arm the Europeans into opposing a Palestinian state at the UN? Does he have any strategy for the “diplomatic tsunami”—in Ehud Barak’s words—that is about to hit? He talks a lot about Palestinian violence, but he seems utterly flummoxed by Palestinian nonviolence. Yes, the Palestinians still produce rockets and suicide bombers. But in the Netanyahu era, their focus has moved decisively toward peaceful marches, boycotts and appeals to international law. They are playing on the world’s sympathy and the world’s impatience, and in that effort, this Israeli prime minister is the best friend they could have.

Over the last few days, Netanyahu has defied the president of the United States and forced him, once again, to retreat. He has won Washington. If only he realized that Washington is no longer the world.
Per usual with this topic, the reader comments make for some highly entertaining reading.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 04:52 PM   #360
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Netanyahu addresses AIPAC tonight and Congress tomorrow; will be interesting to see if he revises his tone towards Obama's speech any.
Yeah, well, guess not...


ABC News, May 24
Quote:
Speaking to a packed House chamber with Speaker Boehner and Vice President Biden over his shoulders, Netanyahu was repeatedly interrupted by applause--including 29 standing ovations.

One of his biggest applause lines was aimed directly at President Obama. “Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967,” Netanyahu said, prompting a big standing ovation.

...Netanyahu also got big ovations with hard-line statements on two other perennial sticking points to Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements: No right of return for Palestinian refugees, he insisted, and “Jerusalem will never again be divided. Israel must remain the united Capital of Israel.”

Netanyahu arguably got a warmer reception than President Obama received during his last State of the Union and certainly a warmer reception than he’d received at the Knesset.
Ironically, on this issue I find it increasingly hard to remember that most Americans are considerably further to the right than I am.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who to "Liberate" Next? melon Free Your Mind Archive 95 05-01-2003 04:55 PM
Why I Would Follow Bono Into Hell...... U2Soar The Goal Is Soul 10 10-10-2002 03:41 PM
The MacPhisto Society, Revisited Echo PLEBA Archive 15 11-26-2001 03:01 AM
Hinduism v. Christianity anitram Free Your Mind Archive 26 10-27-2001 09:28 AM
On Hell and Fundamentalism melon Free Your Mind Archive 1 10-07-2001 10:37 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×