Roadmap to HELL - One man caught on a barbed wire fence ....

[Earnie Shavers]

"He is one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here ... who ate Arabs for breakfast, lunch and dinner. When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."

Israel government 'reckless and irresponsible' says ex-Mossad chief | World news | The Guardian

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by INDY500

In diplomatic negotiations yes. But no public speeches that I remember.

I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is (and I'm guessing it is at least less a case of it not being mentioned at all, and more a case of it usually being crowded in diplo-speak, i.e. Obama was just more blunt) I'm not sure why that would matter?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

In diplomatic negotiations yes. But no public speeches that I remember.

I'm confused: why does publicly stating something that has been a diplomatic standard for decades amount to betraying Israel?

Care to explain?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm confused: why does publicly stating something that has been a diplomatic standard for decades amount to betraying Israel?

Care to explain?

I should imagine it's same reason the #1 drafted quarterback doesn't say in the papers or on TV what $ amount he'll accept to sign. It's a bargaining chip. Not that I'm a diplomat.

Anyway, here's a few public quotes from Obama's and Netanyahu's predecessors.

“The border of the State of Israel … will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War.” We will not return to the June 1967 lines.”
--Yitzhak Rabin

A 2004 letter from GW Bush and the U.S. Congress to Ariel Sharon stated “It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and i agree that this is one of the preconditions for peace. while Hamas is a much more complex organization than most people in the US understand it to be, Israel absolutely has a basic right to exist.

this is Obama's position too.

When you can find bumper stickers in the Gaza strip then I'd say it's time for Israel to start talking '67 borders.

[BVS]

You've done a smash up job answering Diemen's and Irvine's very straight forward questions

INDY, are you even capable of discussing this issue? You seem at a lost, you seem to really only know what Hannity tells you about the subject.

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I should imagine it's same reason the #1 drafted quarterback doesn't say in the papers or on TV what $ amount he'll accept to sign. It's a bargaining chip. Not that I'm a diplomat.

But it's very well publicly known. It's not a secret, private, hush-hush bargaining chip. It's been the basis of US policy for decades. Everyone knows that. Or at least everyone who pays attention to news beyond screaming Drudge headlines, squawking Palin quotes, whining Hannity rants and illogical Beck freakouts. And it's widely and well known to anyone who actually is either interested or invested in the peace process, and so pays attention to the ongoing negotiations. '1967 + Land Swaps' is absolutely public, widely known, widely published, and widely, publicly pushed, and has been for a long, long time. When Obama said that, I didn't bat an eyelid. It was absolutely nothing new, to anyone. The *only* interesting/new component to his speech was the Jordan/Palestine border. That's something that it would be fair to say that the US has from time to time wanted, to some degree (President depending), but never publicly declared or pushed for in such a way. THAT was new. 1967+Land Swaps? Not in the slightest.

Originally Posted by INDY500

“The border of the State of Israel … will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War.” We will not return to the June 1967 lines.”
--Yitzhak Rabin

And no-one has ever said they have to. 1967 basis + land swaps beyond.

Originally Posted by INDY500

A 2004 letter from GW Bush and the U.S. Congress to Ariel Sharon stated “It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

1949. Again, that's never, ever been anywhere near the table.

[INDY500]

Here's the difference and I'll quote from a Charles Krauthamer piece as he can expalin it better than I.

He (President Obama) declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.

It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the U.N. to get the world to ratify precisely that: a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

Thanks for your response but now I'm going to spend the rest of this beautiful weekend not thinking about this 3000+ year conflict.

[Earnie Shavers]

Yep. Well, we weren't debating whether or not it is a hotly contested and/or widely accepted good idea or basis, or it's realistic chances of working - just whether or not Obamas mention of it in that speech was him "throwing Israel under the bus", and given exactly that has been the foundation/starting point of US policy for decades, the answer is 'no'. The Krauthamer points aren't wrong (although he's being very, very cheeky with his wording there in regards to the reasons why the Palestinians rejected some of those deals) they're just points for a different debate.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Earnie Shavers

Yep. Well, we weren't debating whether or not it is a hotly contested and/or widely accepted good idea or basis, or it's realistic chances of working - just whether or not Obamas mention of it in that speech was him "throwing Israel under the bus", and given exactly that has been the foundation/starting point of US policy for decades, the answer is 'no'. The Krauthamer points aren't wrong (although he's being very, very cheeky with his wording there in regards to the reasons why the Palestinians rejected some of those deals) they're just points for a different debate.

All I know is Obama's speech had not only the GOP, Charles Krauthamer, Hannity and Glenn Beck "freaking out," but prominent Jewish groups and high-ranking Democrats such as Steny Hoyer, Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid publicly distancing themselves from the president's comments.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Here's the difference and I'll quote from a Charles Krauthamer piece as he can expalin it better than I.

So, knowing that the Palestinians have been offered that deal 3 times and turned it down each time, your claim that Obama's position is Pro-Palestinian seems illogical.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

So, knowing that the Palestinians have been offered that deal 3 times and turned it down each time, your claim that Obama's position is Pro-Palestinian seems illogical.

Pro-Palestinian, well yes, because it's much like his position on same-sex marriage. We know what he really thinks about gay marriage don't we? and we know what his position would on the law be if he ruled rather than governed the country as an elected official.

President Obama, deep in his heart, I believe wants a two state solution. But his world view is that Israel is the illegal occupier and the major obstacle to peace in the region.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Quote:
Now you'd think....you'd think... it would be the far-Right that would work with religious radicals and be sympathetic to their fights and causes. "Women as chattel, theocracy, kill the gays. Count us in !!" And that the Left... the Left... would shun those parts of the Muslim world that fail to observe gay rights, equality for women, free speech or secular democracy.

But it's just the opposite. It's the far-Left that gives aid to Islamic Totalitarianism. Why is that? Why is it that if a Christian speaks out about the lack of human rights in Muslim countries or if a conservative (Bill O'Reilly) states that "there is a Muslim problem in the world," it's those on the Left that walkout in protest or shout "Islamophobia!!" ?
-Indy 500

except that it's not just the opposite and you've created a situation that's rhetorically beneficial but really not rooted in reality.

Not rooted in reality? The current issue of the Nation magazine has an article entitled "Can Obama Beat the Israel Lobby?" Think you're gonna see an article like that in the Weekly Standard, WSJ or National Review?

Why is it the biggest defenders of Israel for the past 15 years (covering issues including rocket attacks from Lebanon, scandalous U.N. resolutions and reports, the West Bank wall and phoney peace flotillas) on radio and TV are conservatives like Rush, Hannity Levin, Beck, Ingraham, etc? And the Helen Thomases of the world are on the Left?

And which ideology thinks that "Islamophobia" is real and which one thinks it's nothing but political correctness meant to suppress debate?

Originally Posted by Irvine511

look at, say, female genital mutilation in Africa. it was women's groups who brought this issue to right, and i didn't see anyone on the Left supporting the right of societies to slice out the genitalia of an 11-year old girl in the name of "multiculturalism."

and there are many gay organizations that seek to help gay refugees from African and Muslim countries get out of these countries and off to London, New York, or wherever. however, the government of the US seems to be not as sympathetic as it could be to these cases.

Good, thanks for pointing that out. This really shouldn't be a Left vs Right deal. I'd like to think we could work together to end hunger, preventable illnesses, barbaric practices and obvious human rights violations around the world.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Not rooted in reality? The current issue of the Nation magazine has an article entitled "Can Obama Beat the Israel Lobby?" Think you're gonna see an article like that in the Weekly Standard, WSJ or National Review?

right ... the Israel Lobby. not Israel, not the Israeli people, most of whom are to the left of AIPAC. and the Israeli lobby, btw, is hardly filled with Jews. there are lots and lots of fundamentalist Christians.

Why is it the biggest defenders of Israel for the past 15 years (covering issues including rocket attacks from Lebanon, scandalous U.N. resolutions and reports, the West Bank wall and phoney peace flotillas) on radio and TV are conservatives like Rush, Hannity Levin, Beck, Ingraham, etc? And the Helen Thomases of the world are on the Left?

you have a very monolithic view of Israel and what it means to "defend" Israel -- you don't mention or even acknowledge that within Israel itself is a a large peace movement and much internal dissent and debate on Israel's tactics. conservatives love the Israel issue precisely because they know that the big boogeyman out there, now that the Soviets are no more, are Muslims.

the conservatives you mentioned are about one thing: money. and the Israeli issue is a large part of the apocalyptic, clash-of-civilizations paranoia that i mentioned earlier, and they know that the people who spend money on their books are fundamentalist Christians who are quite concerned not just with killing Muslims but also with the Rapture happening in their lifetimes.

and, further, this is precisely the kind of issue where the Right wields political correctness -- ANY criticism of Israel is ANTI-SEMETIC!!! -- in a way that they complain the Left uses racism or sexism.

And which ideology thinks that "Islamophobia" is real and which one thinks it's nothing but political correctness meant to suppress debate?

how is Islamophobia not real? why on earth would people in Okalahoma, of all places, ban Sharia Law if not for some invented boogeyman?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But his world view is that Israel is the illegal occupier and the major obstacle to peace in the region.

I think his world view is decidedly more nuanced than that over-simplification. And if Obama is pro-Palestinian, what does that make former Mossad chief Meir Dagan?

Ex-Mossad Chief Sounds Alarm on Israel's Leaders

Israel government 'reckless and irresponsible' says ex-Mossad chief | World news | The Guardian

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Pro-Palestinian, well yes, because it's much like his position on same-sex marriage. We know what he really thinks about gay marriage don't we? and we know what his position would on the law be if he ruled rather than governed the country as an elected official.

President Obama, deep in his heart, I believe wants a two state solution. But his world view is that Israel is the illegal occupier and the major obstacle to peace in the region.

How are you so good at reading the hearts of people you don't like, yet can't figure out the hearts of those you love?

[AchtungBono]

Hello Everyone,

When Israel first captured the territories in 1967, it was never going to be a permanent situation - at least not in the case of the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai, and it was always known that Israel was going to be negotiating the return of territories in exchange for peace.

Israel has always stated that we have no desire to rule over 1.5 million Palestinians (at that time) and that we are ready to negotiate the return of territories captured in '67 (as clearly stated in UN resolution 242 - it says TERRITORIES and not THE TERRITORIES.....).

Since 1967, the demographics and politics of the region have changed. Israel now has a population of 7 million (compared to 3.5 million in 1967). The security situation has changed as well. The Middle Eastern arms race has produced more sophisticated weapons which negate the need for hand to hand ground combat. Today, nations can sit in their bunkers and fire long-range missiles at each other with almost no need for a ground war.

The latest missile technology acquired by Syria and Lebanon (curteousy of Iran) has created a situation where long-range missiles are now able to cover practically every corner of Israel.

In the past, Israel has negotiated land withdrawls with Egypt and Jordan in exchange for peace (Egypt got the Sinai Peninsula), but Syria and Lebanon have remained stubborn in their positions. Syria is demanding the return of the entire Golan Heights - which is the one of the most strategic points in the country. Israel cannot afford to lose these northern "eyes".

To emphasize these points, and to show you how Israel cannot go back to the pre-'67 borders, I am posting a clip which will show you exactly what Israel's security needs are at the present.

On a side note, we have no problem with the two-state solution - which has been on the table since 1947 when the UN voted for the partition plan. However, this Palestinian state must recognize Israel's existence, must negotiate land for peace and, most importantly, be totally demilitarized. It is madness to think that Israel will accept a Palestinian state armed with rockets and morters and long-range missiles which can target our cities at any time.

So for your convenience and enlightenment, I invite you to watch this clip. Maybe you'll have a better understanding after you've seen it.

Thanks.

YouTube - ‪Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace‬‏

[anitram]

"Israel's security needs" are a result of Israeli illegal settlement policy. Israel would not have such needs if Israel did not have some 400,000+ settlers ILLEGALLY occupying land and making the West Bank look like Swiss cheese. Let's at least be honest about who created the "reality on the ground" here. And that illegality continues day in and day out.

[Earnie Shavers]

Well, to be fair, some Israeli courts and the odd apocalyptic preacher with a Fox News show think they're legal, therefore, the other 99.99999% of the world are wrong.

[INDY500]

The only instance in which you'll hear liberals decrying "illegal" immigration by the way.