Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[Scott]

Under fair use policy, you may quote the first three sentences of an article and then a link to the article. This rule has been violated multiple times in this topic.

Many posts deleted.

[kuffki]

You're probably right, Wallaby.

But Netanyahu's actions are so recklessly dangerous we can only hope for someone in Israel to take control of the situation.

Recklessly dangerous in whose opinion? Yours or .....?

As Uly pointed out, just because someone does nor like an opinion or action of another - it does not make it right or wrong for that matter.

Clearly Israeli PM opinion and actions are liked by majority of Israeli people, otherwise he would not be a PM.

As for Jesus speaking, since when did he become a role model?for the entire human race.

[Ulysses G.]

It is funny how some posters are full of support for every Jew who supports their agenda.

[up-country_sinclair]

It is funny how some posters are full of support for every Jew who supports their agenda.

Indeed!

Paging columnist Krauthammer, paging columnist Krauthamer!

[up-country_sinclair]

You're probably right, Wallaby.

But Netanyahu's actions are so recklessly dangerous we can only hope for someone in Israel to take control of the situation.

Recklessly dangerous in whose opinion? Yours or .....?

As Uly pointed out, just because someone does nor like an opinion or action of another - it does not make it right or wrong for that matter.

Mine and many others. Including the former head of the Mossad. And as you and "Uly" pointed out, just because someone doesn't like an opinion or action of another - it does not make it right or wrong for that matter.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

Under fair use policy, you may quote the first three sentences of an article and then a link to the article. This rule has been violated multiple times in this topic.

Apologies. I was unaware of this policy.

Here is the link to the former head of the Mossad calling for a return to the 1967 borders.

The man who ran Israel’s Mossad spy agency until January contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment and that the anticipated pressures of international isolation as the Palestinians campaign for statehood could lead to rash decisions — like an airstrike on Iran.

The former intelligence chief, Meir Dagan, who stepped down after eight years in the post, has made several unusual public appearances and statements in recent weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/world/middleeast/04mossad.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=world

In the article linked above, the former head of the Mossad say the current Israeli govt. was "foolish" for not accepting peace on the 1967 borders.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[kuffki]

Many others like who?

Please post names and links confirming what you said .

You're probably right, Wallaby.

But Netanyahu's actions are so recklessly dangerous we can only hope for someone in Israel to take control of the situation.

Recklessly dangerous in whose opinion? Yours or .....?

As Uly pointed out, just because someone does nor like an opinion or action of another - it does not make it right or wrong for that matter.

Mine and many others. And as you and "Uly" pointed out, just because someone doesn't like an opinion or action of another - it does not make it right or wrong for that matter.

[up-country_sinclair]

Many others like who?

Please post names and links confirming what you said .

Several former Israeli govt. officials names are included in the bottom third of the link posted above. I can not quote the article because of the fair use policy. Also, the opposition leader Livni spoke out strongly against Netanyahu last week about putting the US/Israel relationship at risk.

And I must add that I find it hard to believe that are unaware that many people find Netanyahu's actions to be recklessly dangerous.

[Ulysses G.]

...the opposition leader Livni spoke out strongly against Netanyahu...

Well that certainly proves your point. I'm sure that the opposition leader is very sincere and not just trying to make political points!

[up-country_sinclair]

I'm sure that the opposition leader is very sincere and not just trying to make political points!

Kuffki requested names, and I provided them. It's unfortunate that you doubt the sincerity of Tzipi Livni. But as you posted earlier,

It is funny how some posters are full of support for every Jew who supports their agenda.

And I feel I must add that we seem to be straying off topic of late. This thread is about Israel returning to the 1967 borders. This afternoon I posted that the former head of the Mossad called the current Israeli govt. "foolish" for turning down a peace agreement with the Saudis which included a return to said borders. Surely this is worthy of debate and simply can't be dismissed as one man's opinion. He was the head of the Mossad for eight years, for God's sake.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

There are plenty of other leaders with the opposite opinion.

[kuffki]

I'm sure that the opposition leader is very sincere and not just trying to make political points!

Kuffki requested names, and I provided them. It's unfortunate that you doubt the sincerity of Tzipi Livni. But as you posted earlier,

It is funny how some posters are full of support for every Jew who supports their agenda.

Its not about sincerity, but about agenda, and i am afraid opposition leader is hardly a useable example.

You did say many other(S) but gave an example of opposition leader-common lets be realistic.

Perhaps you want to correct your earlier statement to "in your opinion and possibly others who oppose Israel or current Israeli administration) rather than (many others)

[Scott]

A question was asked and an answer given. If you don't like the answer, tough.

Continuing down that path will get you a posting holiday.

[Steely Dan]

I think some people are being hasty taking statements made by the ex-Mossad chief at face value. If he mentions not only the border issue but the possibility of an air strike on Iran I'm tempted to conclude that matters of such import are mentioned for a reason, and that reason may even be a bit of psy-ops. It would be idle to speculate too much more, but perhaps Obama may read this as a warning that Netanyahu is intending to order strikes on Iran should the U.S not pull their fingers out. There may or may not be many other veiled meanings but something does not add up to me, whereas the motivations of Tzipi Livni are perhaps easier to understand.

[Ulysses G.]

In the article linked above, the former head of the Mossad say the current Israeli govt. was "foolish" for not accepting peace on the 1967 borders.

Be honest now. The Palestinians have never agreed to that deal and it has been offered numerous times by Israel and I'm pretty sure that he knows that.

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.

http://www.washingto...YJCH_story.html

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[JUDAS]

In the article linked above, the former head of the Mossad say the current Israeli govt. was "foolish" for not accepting peace on the 1967 borders.

Bo honest. The Palestinians have never agreed to that deal and it has been offered numerous times by Israel.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-did-to-israel/2011/05/26/AGJfYJCH_story.html

Confusing indeed. This deal that Obama offered has be proposed three times before by Israel? Yet now Obama gets slated and the 1967 borders are not acceptable to Israel? I need enlightenment.

[kuffki]

In the article linked above, the former head of the Mossad say the current Israeli govt. was "foolish" for not accepting peace on the 1967 borders.

Bo honest. The Palestinians have never agreed to that deal and it has been offered numerous times by Israel.

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.

http://www.washingto...YJCH_story.html

Confusing indeed. This deal that Obama offered has be proposed three times before by Israel? Yet now Obama gets slated and the 1967 borders are not acceptable to Israel? I need enlightenment.

Need to keep in mind, first deal was offered over 10 years ago and another 3 years ago, many things have changed over the years. Also there is an issue of Jerusalem, not sure on the Palestinian position right now, but before they demanded Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine

[up-country_sinclair]

^^ It's selective outrage. And it stems from the fact that Netanyahu has to appease the far right fundamentalist radicals in his coalition to stay in power, and apparently that trumps peace.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

I would guess it has something to do with being turned down over and over again since 1948 and Israel has seen what happens when they give away land for "peace" - it turns into a military base to drive them into the sea,

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

In the article linked above, the former head of the Mossad say the current Israeli govt. was "foolish" for not accepting peace on the 1967 borders.

Be honest now. The Palestinians have never agreed to that deal and it has been offered numerous times by Israel and I'm pretty sure that he knows that.

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.

http://www.washingto...YJCH_story.html

OK, now I'm starting to think that I've entered some sort of bizarro world. Am I reading this wrong, or are you now in agreement that returning to the 1967 borders were part of the negotiations during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations? Because unless I'm losing my mind, I'm fairly certain there are several posts by you on previous pages of this thread stating exactly the opposite.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Steely Dan]

OK, now I'm starting to think that I've entered some sort of bizarro world. Am I reading this wrong, or are you now in agreement that returning to the 1967 borders were part of the negotiations during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations? Because unless I'm losing my mind, I'm fairly certain there are several posts by you on previous pages of this thread stating exactly the opposite.

Perhaps Hamas are a material change in the situation as demonstrated when Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza partly due to president Bush's assurances that Israel would have to have defensible borders as part of any peace treaty. Here, this may make it clearer.

[JUDAS]

I think some people are being hasty taking statements made by the ex-Mossad chief at face value. If he mentions not only the border issue but the possibility of an air strike on Iran I'm tempted to conclude that matters of such import are mentioned for a reason, and that reason may even be a bit of psy-ops. It would be idle to speculate too much more, but perhaps Obama may read this as a warning that Netanyahu is intending to order strikes on Iran should the U.S not pull their fingers out. There may or may not be many other veiled meanings but something does not add up to me, whereas the motivations of Tzipi Livni are perhaps easier to understand.

SD. You've made it clear that it's only speculation but I would be interested to know exactly what leverage you think Israel has over the USA to try to force America to make a strike on Iran before Israel does. To phrase it another way, why should America feel it needs to deal with Iran before Israel does?

[Ulysses G.]

OK, now I'm starting to think that I've entered some sort of bizarro world. Am I reading this wrong, or are you now in agreement that returning to the 1967 borders were part of the negotiations during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations? Because unless I'm losing my mind, I'm fairly certain there are several posts by you on previous pages of this thread stating exactly the opposite.

Perhaps Hamas are a material change in the situation as demonstrated when Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza partly due to president Bush's assurances that Israel would have to have defensible borders as part of any peace treaty. Here, this may make it clearer.

I have to admit, The Klavan One State Solution makes sense!

[Ulysses G.]

why should America feel it needs to deal with Iran before Israel does?

Because it is the right thing to do.

[JUDAS]

why should America feel it needs to deal with Iran before Israel does?

Because it is the right thing to do.

Lol, I may agree that action needs to be taken against Iran, at least under it's current leadership but that doesn't really address the question. Iran is undoubtedly a greater threat to Israel than the USA directly, yet I'm fairly sure Israel politically would much prefer the USA to deal with the situation.

To keep on topic, Netanyahu's clear rejection of Obama's '67 border proposal will, IMO, have serious consequences for Israel's relationship with the US Govt. Can't see Obama going the extra mile for Israel now, though I may be misreading the President. Will USA help Israel and deal with Iran? I doubt it at this point in time. Netanyahu must be hoping BO doesn't get a second term.

[Ulysses G.]

Did you see how Congress reacted to Netanyahu's speech? 29 standing ovations. If Obama wants to get reelected he better watch his step.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

I think some people are being hasty taking statements made by the ex-Mossad chief at face value. If he mentions not only the border issue but the possibility of an air strike on Iran I'm tempted to conclude that matters of such import are mentioned for a reason, and that reason may even be a bit of psy-ops. It would be idle to speculate too much more, but perhaps Obama may read this as a warning that Netanyahu is intending to order strikes on Iran should the U.S not pull their fingers out. There may or may not be many other veiled meanings but something does not add up to me, whereas the motivations of Tzipi Livni are perhaps easier to understand.

SD. You've made it clear that it's only speculation but I would be interested to know exactly what leverage you think Israel has over the USA to try to force America to make a strike on Iran before Israel does. To phrase it another way, why should America feel it needs to deal with Iran before Israel does?

The only leverage Israel has is for the U.S to conclude they are serious about going after Iran unilaterally, they do have form here as Iraq and Syria would both testify. The U.S would then have to decide what to do. Do they a) Cooperate with Israel if they judge Iran's nuclear installations can be better destroyed with their help? Let Israel go it alone and judge what to do when the dust settles. c) Warn Israel off, which may be done by offering some inducement for Israel not to act unilaterally (defensible borders etc).

As I said this is just speculation and the message (if there is one) could be aimed elsewhere.

[JUDAS]

UG I'm well aware of the 'warm welcome' Netanyahu received from Congress. The reaction in Congress would not have given Obama a nice warm feeling but let's face it, all BO has to do over Iran to put Israel in a really tough spot is, nothing. We all know politicians do there best when they do nothing Even without the latest '67 situation I'm not sure the US public are ready for another military action.

[kuffki]

Asking Israel To Change Its Border is Lunacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghsmgo6z4KY&feature=related

[kuffki]

Here is an interesting debate

Theo Caldwell on Obama & Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBXjmYF0TF4&feature=related