Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[Steely Dan]

Succintly stated opinion and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual suspects who dominate any thread dealing with the Palestine/Israel conflict. It would be nice to have an intelligent and rational discourse on this topic but that seems to be out of the realm of possibilities.

So you find an anti semitic racist a breath of fresh air do you?

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/09/alan-hart-the-face-of-genteel-british-an/index.shtml

Alan Hart was the British journalist who wrote that if fellow journalist Alan Johnston were killed by his Gaza captors, it must have been the Israelis who did it (see the links). After all, when have the Palestinian Arabs ever done anything that didn't seem to square with their interests?

Of course his starting point is that Israel had no right to exist in the first place which means any debate (as per the original topic) of whether the 1967 borders are practical or possible is entirely moot. So I wonder what 'other possibilities' you would find acceptable.

[bobbin]

Succintly stated opinion and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual suspects who dominate any thread dealing with the Palestine/Israel conflict. It would be nice to have an intelligent and rational discourse on this topic but that seems to be out of the realm of possibilities.

Better get used to it Dan....

They will not allow an open debate because that does not suit their agenda. One could be forgiven for assuming they are either retired Israeli military or retired Israeli lobbyists.

How else to explain their almost apoplectic rejection of anything other than "Israel right or wrong"?

Open debate between non-involved world citizens is off the table....

But aren't they non-involved also? Or are they? If parties to the conflict, what are they doing here in Thailand?

[bobbin]

internet slowdown

Edited May 22, 2011 by bobbin

[bobbin]

same. getting a lot of timeout on TV only these days. Sometimes aserver overloaded message. Time to get more bandwidth I guess, George

Edited May 22, 2011 by bobbin

[dananderson]

Bobbin, Unfortunatlly I am all too used to it. If you noticed, I did not take sides but merely pointed out the obvious before this thread gets closed, as it usually does. It's like trying to have a rational discourse with a Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh devotee. Just not going to happen when the words Israel or Palestine appear in the topic. Shame

[Steely Dan]

Succintly stated opinion and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual suspects who dominate any thread dealing with the Palestine/Israel conflict. It would be nice to have an intelligent and rational discourse on this topic but that seems to be out of the realm of possibilities.

Better get used to it Dan....

They will not allow an open debate because that does not suit their agenda. One could be forgiven for assuming they are either retired Israeli military or retired Israeli lobbyists.

How else to explain their almost apoplectic rejection of anything other than "Israel right or wrong"?

Open debate between non-involved world citizens is off the table....

But aren't they non-involved also? Or are they? If parties to the conflict, what are they doing here in Thailand?

So it's us who have an agenda and you who don't? Your 'rational discourse', usually means being a mouthpiece for Islamist fanatics or left wing antisemitic bigots. And seeing as you are so bold to speculate whether or not posters here are Israeli lobbyists I would ask myself how many posters here are in the pay of the Palestine return centre or similar bodies.

[Scott]

Please stick to the topic of the thread and not necessarily to the off-topic opinions of posters.

[samurai]

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

When Bush said it, everyone knew "mutually agreed" meant the results would be in favor of our ally and best friend in the region - Israel.

When Obama said it, there is every reason to believe that he meant it to benefit the people who love to dress their children up in suicide vests, bomb buses & cafes when given the chance, cheered 9/11 and mourn UBL's death - the Palestinians.

dam_n right there's outrage.

Yes, the outrage is there because Obama said it. Everyone knows that. So simple, isn't it.

[Steely Dan]

Yes, the outrage is there because Obama said it. Everyone knows that. So simple, isn't it.

Simple if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la to drown out the sound of anything that conflicts with your prejudices. The distinction has been clealy explained in more than one link posted here. You can kid yourself this is a Republican-Democrat issue if you like, but dont try to kid others. The link puts Obama's speech into a broader context.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/05/crisis-of-west.html

[bobbin]

Succintly stated opinion and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual suspects who dominate any thread dealing with the Palestine/Israel conflict. It would be nice to have an intelligent and rational discourse on this topic but that seems to be out of the realm of possibilities.

Better get used to it Dan....

They will not allow an open debate because that does not suit their agenda. One could be forgiven for assuming they are either retired Israeli military or retired Israeli lobbyists.

How else to explain their almost apoplectic rejection of anything other than "Israel right or wrong"?

Open debate between non-involved world citizens is off the table....

But aren't they non-involved also? Or are they? If parties to the conflict, what are they doing here in Thailand?

So it's us who have an agenda and you who don't? Your 'rational discourse', usually means being a mouthpiece for Islamist fanatics or left wing antisemitic bigots. And seeing as you are so bold to speculate whether or not posters here are Israeli lobbyists I would ask myself how many posters here are in the pay of the Palestine return centre or similar bodies.

Talk about making my point!! If I wanted to discredit you, I could not have written it better myself!

I support Israel's continued existence but that assumes they are rational about their situation.

The borders don't matter. Not when they have The Bomb.

[samurai]

Yes, the outrage is there because Obama said it. Everyone knows that. So simple, isn't it.

Simple if you stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la to drown out the sound of anything that conflicts with your prejudices. The distinction has been clealy explained in more than one link posted here. You can kid yourself this is a Republican-Democrat issue if you like, but dont try to kid others. The link puts Obama's speech into a broader context.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/05/crisis-of-west.html

What you said about prejudices?

Btw. The name of your blog *Gates of Vienna* - referring to an historic event. An event that brought the coffee to Vienna. Best thing you can get in Austria, next to Thomas Bernhard of course.

Edited May 22, 2011 by samurai

[Steely Dan]

Talk about making my point!! If I wanted to discredit you, I could not have written it better myself!

I support Israel's continued existence but that assumes they are rational about their situation.

The borders don't matter. Not when they have The Bomb.

The bomb is irrelevant when your potential adversaries are living right on top of you, besides which I can't decide whether your naevity is deliberate or not - If your adversary values your death above their own life then no deterrant works. This was not the situation with secular despots who value their own hide above everything, as oppose to fundamentalist whack jobs who value your death above their own lives - and you talk about rational

Edited May 22, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

When Bush said it, everyone knew "mutually agreed" meant the results would be in favor of our ally and best friend in the region - Israel.

When Obama said it, there is every reason to believe that he meant it to benefit the people who love to dress their children up in suicide vests, bomb buses & cafes when given the chance, cheered 9/11 and mourn UBL's death - the Palestinians.

dam_n right there's outrage.

Exactly. The Hamas fan-club hypocrites are trying to spin this issue on the left-wing blogs and all over the Internet, but it is obvious that Obama means to change long term US policy and violate agreements if he can get away with it. However, there is real outrage in both political parties and he will most likely have to change his rancid tune yet once again.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[cheeryble]

Is this a plain enough explanation?

I'm sure what you cited from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explains something to someone on a different topic, but it's not what we were discussing on the previous page. And that was the fact that Bush said essentially the same thing about the two state solution in 2008 that Obama said last week. By any chance did you make a post at the time comparing Bush to Neville Chamberlain like you did with Obama on page one of this thread?

By no means is this a personal attack on you, and I hope you don't perceive it that way. I'm simply illustrating what is apparent to me to be selective outrage on this issue.

I tend to agree.

I had the misfortune to be watching Fox News for the speech. It was astonishing to me how prepared they were with the damning comments about how Israel was going to be so furious (I found it odd that this should matter so much to them because it obviously did). The newscaster was visibly distrubed. To anyone sensitive to normal human signalling it was clearly pre-prepared outrage. They merely want Obama out.

Edited May 22, 2011 by cheeryble

[Ulysses G.]

The newscaster was visibly distrubed.

A LOT of Americans are. First Obama gives Britain the bust of Churchill back and now he tries to throw Israel under the bus.

[WarpSpeed]

Obama just lost the $upport of the Jewish community back home who were foolish enough to back him the first time around. I think he is trying to throw the election just so he can retire with all those cool presidential benefits before he is 52. Then he can have his own show on ESPN or the Golf Channel.

http://blogs.jta.org..._medium=twitter

Jewish groups respond to Obama's Mideast speech

Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

Jewish donors and fund-raisers are warning the Obama re-election campaign that the president is at risk of losing financial support because of concerns about his handling of Israel.

The complaints began early in President Barack Obama's term, centered on a perception that Mr. Obama has been too tough on Israel.

This is what I tried in vain to point out during his campaign for President in which he was naively proclaiming to be all things to all people and sadly the voters and world revered him so much they were blinded by their fantasies. Enough to give him a Noble peace prize before he had even done a single thing for world peace ..

[Ulysses G.]

Enough to give him a Noble peace prize before he had even done a single thing for world peace ..

I bet that someone on the committee is embarrassed about that now!

[WarpSpeed]

Enough to give him a Noble peace prize before he had even done a single thing for world peace ..

I bet that someone on the committee is embarrassed about that now!

Reality's a bitch slap ain't it??

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies to them have been deleted. Please stay on-topic.

[bobbin]

You might want to check your punctuation for this sentence, unless you are calling the Israeli government 'Nazis'.

You don't really think he is, do you....

The World had to watch daily coverage and was outraged.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

What's so hard to understand about that?

As for The Bomb...it worked for USA and will work for Israel. Nobody is going to be pushed into the sea when their final act is to unleash Fire from Heaven.

Edited May 22, 2011 by bobbin

[Huey]

Fortunately, Obama has to get reelected and very few Americans agree with him on this. My guess is that he will be forced to backtrack on the 1967 borders as he has had to do so many of his silliest PC policies.

Jimmy Carter must love the guy for making the Mr. Peanut presidency look somewhat sensible in comparison.

Lets see in 2012, my money is on he will win it without having to backtrack. This will test all the conspiracy theorists that believe pro israel Lobbies and media run the show when it comes to US politics. While I think they have an very unbalanced amount of sway in comparison to their numbers, I don't think they will be strong enough to stop Obama from getting re-elected and I'd put money on it.

[up-country_sinclair]

the elected "Palestinian" government

Do you insist on putting Palestinian in quotation marks because you're trying to convince yourself that they don't exist?

No matter. The only question of importance now is whether Israel will realize the error of its ways and recognize Palestine before 140 nations do at the UN in September.

[chuckd]

You might want to check your punctuation for this sentence, unless you are calling the Israeli government 'Nazis'.

You don't really think he is, do you....

The World had to watch daily coverage and was outraged.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

What's so hard to understand about that?

As for The Bomb...it worked for USA and will work for Israel. Nobody is going to be pushed into the sea when their final act is to unleash Fire from Heaven.

What ARE you rambling on about?

[bobbin]

You might want to check your punctuation for this sentence, unless you are calling the Israeli government 'Nazis'.

You don't really think he is, do you....

The World had to watch daily coverage and was outraged.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

What's so hard to understand about that?

As for The Bomb...it worked for USA and will work for Israel. Nobody is going to be pushed into the sea when their final act is to unleash Fire from Heaven.

What ARE you rambling on about?

Jeez...

Keep up Chuck..

You responded to his post and I responded to yours.

The Bomb is totally relevant to the discussion of Israeli borders. Anything conventional will just be jostling for position. In the event of Clear and Present Danger, Israel has an ace to play and all the players know it.

[Steely Dan]

Jeez...

Keep up Chuck..

You responded to his post and I responded to yours.

The Bomb is totally relevant to the discussion of Israeli borders. Anything conventional will just be jostling for position. In the event of Clear and Present Danger, Israel has an ace to play and all the players know it.

Your argument is full of holes not only for the geographical proximity of opposing sides but also by some of the well documented flaws which come with so called MAD (Mutual assured destruction). Some of these are as follows;-

Perfect rationality

No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD.

No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process (this is demonstrated with Dr. Strangelove).

All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects (for example, a leader with religious ideas about the end of the world might launch regardless).No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent's response system would fail.

I suggest you brush up on Shiite end of the world theology and how that may apply to the mad mullahs of Iran, who show no sign of caring for any carbon based lifeform.

[bobbin]

Jeez...

Keep up Chuck..

You responded to his post and I responded to yours.

The Bomb is totally relevant to the discussion of Israeli borders. Anything conventional will just be jostling for position. In the event of Clear and Present Danger, Israel has an ace to play and all the players know it.

Your argument is full of holes not only for the geographical proximity of opposing sides but also by some of the well documented flaws which come with so called MAD (Mutual assured destruction). Some of these are as follows;-

Perfect rationality

No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD.

No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process (this is demonstrated with Dr. Strangelove).

All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects (for example, a leader with religious ideas about the end of the world might launch regardless).No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent's response system would fail.

I suggest you brush up on Shiite end of the world theology and how that may apply to the mad mullahs of Iran, who show no sign of caring for any carbon based lifeform.

The geographical proximity would seem to be the linchpin....

Unlike USA/USSR that were well away from each other, the main players are next-door/near neighbors. I didn't miss this.

Attackers will not use The Bomb for this reason. See the problems in Japan or Chernobyl, which are but pale imitations.

No benefit to "regain" unlivable land.

Israel's fear is annihilation or as the phrase goes, being pushed into the sea

As a defense, it works. In a scenario where Israel might cease to exist, they take the enemy with them. Not pretty but an effective deterrent.

And of course "I" am completely rational, but my "enemy" is a complete nutter. That is such an insulting argument. You guys can't help yourselves.

Edited May 22, 2011 by bobbin

[powderpuff]

No matter. The only question of importance now is whether Israel will realize the error of its ways and recognize Palestine before 140 nations do at the UN in September.

Maybe you had better watch the video again. Barack the Deceiver said that he & we (the United States) will not negotiate with Hamas.

So what part of that do you not understand?

He also addressed that bunch of whining libs at the UN. We don't care what 140 nations do. They can go jump for all we care.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think they will be strong enough to stop Obama from getting re-elected and I'd put money on it.

Between ignoring what American voters want at every opportunity as well as the lousy economy and the lack of jobs you better save your money.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

We don't care what 140 nations do. They can go jump for all we care.

We have the veto and even Obama will not dare withhold it after the assurances he has made publicly. He is still hoping to be elected again.

[Ulysses G.]

And of course "I" am completely rational, but my "enemy" is a complete nutter. That is such an insulting argument.

It fits Hamas to a T and the insult is well deserved.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ulysses G.