Relations between Obama, Netanyahu camps hit rock bottom

[Morch]

16 hours ago, AlexRRR said:

 

Jews always win because the Americans arm them to the teeth with the best weapons systems going around, if the Americans did an embargo on Israel like they did with Cuba over the lack of action in getting them to negotiate a settlement in time there maybe an outcome.

 

Israel did not receive US arms until the 1960's. By then it had fought and won two major wars (1948, 1956). The surge in US military aid was post 1967. It ought to be taken in context of the USSR acting as the military patron for Israel's opponents.

 

You are also neglecting to mention that neither the Arab states nor the Palestinians were much into negotiations at the time.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, daveAustin said:

 

Look who they 'fought' against lol. Take away their nukes and the billions upon billions of handouts from the States and see how they fair against the Iran of today. People have a right to exist, and that includes the Palestinians. It's the Israelis that are preventing peace by this constant poking in the ribs building on that land, which nobody in the rest of the world (bar Trump) agrees with. Regards the op, yes it's late in the day from damp squib Obama, but all this has come about from that UN resolution. Frankly, I don't get Trump's hard-on with Israel. Jews are not special, they are the same as everyone else, but I guess when there's lots of money to be made, you could make anyone your best buddy.

 

A military expert, no doubt. Israel had wars against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, with active, if limited participation by forces from other Arab countries. Israel's opponents were mostly armed by the USSR, not that you'd speculate on how things would have been if they weren't. Iran, at the time, wasn't much to write home about form a military standpoint. And "take away their nukes" is cute, but just an arbitrary meaningless condition imposed on an already flawed argument.

 

The Palestinians, same as the Israelis have the right to exist and have the right to their own state. Contrary to your pronouncement both the Arab world and the Palestinians themselves rejected both Israel's existence and, of course, negotiations for years on end. Laying all the blame for the current situation on one of the sides ignores that Palestinians had their fare share of broken promises, breached agreements and general intransigence of their own. It does not condone nor justify Israel's transgressions (including the illegal settlement effort) but this is far from being a one sided affair.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

There's not another country in this wide  world that it's very existence is at perils any given moment, With Hezbollah in the north with it's formidable and well trained army and 10 of thousand or mid and long range rockets aim at Israel, Hamas in the south with it's own menacing army of terrorists and huge stockpile of missiles and rockets, The threats from ISIOL in the Sini desert to burn Israel to the ground, several splinter terrorist groups to close to the Syrian Israel borders lobbing rockets on villages and towns, The Palestinian  with their own suicide army of adults and youngsters, bombing and knifing their way into mayhem and carnage, Now imagine you living in such environments of death at any day and time, than you'll

have an idea what's like to be an Israeli....

 

The sky is falling? Hyperbole.

 

None of the threats you describe in an over-blown way constitutes an existential danger to the state of Israel. If they were, might as well shut down the state and move elsewhere. By and large, these threats do not feature in the daily lives of most Israelis, certainly not as a constant state of alarm.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

15 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Wrong.  The first war (since WWII) the Jews fought against Arabs, Israeli fighters just had rifles and were manning a single stone-walled bastion.  Amazingly, they held off repeated attacks against larger numbers and better weapons.  If that small defensive position had fallen, the outcome would have been drastically different.  The State of Israel would have been but a brief footnote in history, and and its people would have been run-off, killed or imprisoned. 

 

I've absolutely no idea what you're on about. There was no situation in which Israel's existence or coming into being was determined by such a battle as described.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

Yes, but what would Netanyahu be able to offer the Palestinians in a peace deal, no Jerusalem, no return of refugees, and very little land left?

 

I think the Palestinians should, in the words of Trump, simply stay strong, offer passive resistance, keep their smartphones handy, and agitate for equal civil rights in a one state solution.

 

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

All the more reason for Israel to make a realistic permanent peace with Palestinians...the only kind worth having.

 

There are no "Palestinians". There's the PA, headed by Abbas and Fatah (both commanding doubtful popular support), and then there's the Hamas. The former can hardly guarantee anything being delivered, and the latter aren't that keen on peace. What do the Palestinians have on offer, in realistic terms? And which Palestinians are you referring to?

 

What you think the Palestinians ought to do has nothing whatsoever to do with their wishes, goals and actions. Nothing. The Palestinians do not, generally speaking, place high value on passive resistance. Similarly, they are not much interested in a peaceful one state solution such as you prescribe. 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, dexterm said:

Well, they didn't, did they. The deal was unfair - we've been there many times. It's history. 20:20 hindsight vision is wonderful counsel.

 

So let's stop punishing the children, grandchildren and great grand children of those Palestinians and look to the future.

 

So UN resolutions are fair only when they go in one side's favor? It's alright to reject them if not satisfied with the result? Thought that was the argument used against Israel in the current context, double standard much?

 

And yes, we have been there many times, any time you feel it would serve to make a point, in fact. Suits you fine to bring up history, and engage in hindsight on any number of similar topics, then the usual cop out - "look to the future".

 

It's all too funny, you have no issues with holding Israelis responsible for things that happened 70 or even 100 years ago, but heavens forbid should someone hint at Palestinian accountability.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, xylophone said:

 

And that's what I really don't get about this whole mess........what right did they have to enact this and form a state when there wasn't one previously?

 

 

 

I doubt that you don't get it. But if you have issues with it, may want to cancel many of the other countries in the ME, and perhaps India, Pakistan, most African countries too.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, dexterm said:

The same old myths and cliches recycled from a one sided narrative that have been debunked many times on this forum. Such strong opinions from new member...hmm!

 

I suggest readers view www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7FML0wzJ6A for a more balanced side of the story.

 

With Trump as President and Obama long gone, you may have to shelve the old schticks critical of a two state solution, and find some new ones to rationalize a 100% land grab of historic Palestine.

 

You seriously attempt to "debunk" a partisan post by linking to an opposite partisan source (Al Jazeera) while daring to call it "balanced"?

 

And as usual, jumping the gun with the sky is falling predictions.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

What a silly statement.  Of course it wants peace.  ....and security.   How could Israelis not want peace?  Do you think they want continued conflict?  Ridiculous statement.

 

Ok, on 2nd thought, if they all thought like Dick Cheney then yea, maybe they want war, because people like Cheney fatten their bank accounts by financing wars.   However, I don't think Israelis think like that.

 

Neither side wants peace, but rather a peace. That is peace as defined by their respective interests. This way both can claim their all for peace, while each means a different peace. This isn't much of novelty, the thing that makes it interesting is that the realistic terms of almost any conceivable future agreement are pretty much known, and been this way for a long while. 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

Just another thought. Obama's is the sort of chess move a clever player would make. 

 

Obama is perhaps copping all the flak he is taking now..."too little too late" from the left, .."you #!?* upsetting our best friend Israel" from the right .....as a sacrifice, to get Trump and Netanyahu to bluster and blunder into the endgame of a one state solution, and all the international opprobrium that would entail. Possibly even inadvertently bringing about a binational state with equal rights for all.

 

Whether a clever preplanned political move or not. That may be the end result when Trump's  knee jerk response plays out.

 

The only one drooling over the possibility of a one state solution seems to be you.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Cook my sock said:

Ok just to educate people who don't know, the British controlled Palestine until 1948, prior to that a Partition Plan was drawn up by the UN. Unfortunately some Zionist dude decided not to recognize this and declared a Jewish state (on the day of the end of British rule) - this was an unspecified area with no borders, infuriating the Neighbouring countries and inevitably led to a war which the Jews had kind of planned for

It's been like this ever since.

 

Obvious troll is obvious, and now engages in posting fake history as well.

 

Resolution 181 was accepted on 29 November 1947. The Jews accepted almost immediately. Civil war broke out afterwards. British Mandate was set to end on 14 May 1948.  The Israeli Deceleration of Independence was announced on the afternoon of 14 May 1948, and went into effect at midnight that day. The Deceleration did cite the UN resolution (which did include a specified area), but intentionally left the issue of border ambiguous, seeing as the Arab side rejected the resolution. As the hostilities were already in swing, this bit can't be claimed as what led to war.

 

I feel rather ashamed for those who clicked a like for the drivel quoted above.

 

 

Israeli Declaration of Independence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence

 

Borders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Borders

 

After World War II: the Partition Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#After_World_War_II:_the_Partition_Plan

 

Termination of the Mandate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Termination_of_the_Mandate

Edited December 30, 2016 by Morch

[Morch]

13 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

No country?  Really?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine

 

Sure seems like a country to me.  And one that's having it's land taken...great reason to fight back.  I'd fight back also:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#Captured_territories_and_Arab_displaced_populations
 

 

Sounds like what Russia did to countries they captured.  Displace native populations and replace them with their own.  No wonder both countries are not well liked by some.

 

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were conquered from Egypt and Jordan. Nothing prevented these countries from allowing the creation of a Palestinian state at the territories they held, nothing prevented the Palestinians from attempting it themselves. The same goes for years of rejectionism. There's just so much mileage a nation can go without being held accountable for choices made and decisions taken - what's fine for Israel ought to be applied with regard to the Palestinians as well.

 

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank

 

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt

 

Khartoum Resolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

[Morch]

13 hours ago, yardrunner said:

Perhaps they would if they felt they could trust the Israeli government to keep their word

 

Whereas the Palestinians were always true to their promises and followed agreements signed to the letter? Hardly.

 

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The only one drooling over the possibility of a one state solution seems to be you.

No....Trump, Freidman, and Netanyahu's cabinet too!

 

I am drooling over the mistake they are about to make. 

 

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You seriously attempt to "debunk" a partisan post by linking to an opposite partisan source (Al Jazeera) while daring to call it "balanced"?

 

And as usual, jumping the gun with the sky is falling predictions.

 

The Al Jazeera documentaries Al Nackba are very well balanced, with eye witness and other evidence from both sides of the political spectrum. I leave it to readers to judge for themselves. I assume you have actually viewed the series to be able to comment so authoritatively?

 

Most of the politicians and commentators such as yourself are bogged down with the minutiae of why things can't be done, I think deliberately sometimes as a distraction. I am more optimistic than you.

 

We've just had 70 years of illegal Zionist colonization of the West Bank, and 24 years since the Oslo Accords with negotiators haggling on again off again over the small details of a 2 state solution supposedly to unravel this Israeli illegal expansion, while Israel continued to accelerate the building of settlements during the charade of peace conferences and direct negotiations. It's been a very handy smokescreen. I suppose if HRC had won , we would have had 8 more years of that.

 

Then unexpectedly along comes Trump , blundering into promoting a one state solution, thinking he is helping his right wing Zionist buddies, sweeping away Obama's and other Presidents' efforts at a two state solution, all the while not realizing he is making a binational state more of a probability. That's not the sky is falling. That's wonderful. It means we may be moving more closely to the endgame of an odious ideology.

Edited December 30, 2016 by dexterm
spelling

[boomerangutang]

Well written detailed chronicle of the initial battles which galvanized Israel.  Recommended reading for anyone who wants to get a good perspective on the struggles inherent in forming the Jewish state, and how tenuous its existence was in those early violent days.   More than a few times, Israel's existence hinged on skirmishes involving a handful of men on either side.

 

http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm

 

There was another article in Military History magazine detailing the defensive action of a few Jews with rifles holding out in a stone-walled tower - against a larger Arab attacking force, but I can't locate the article at this time.  That battle was key, because the loss of that hold-out would have given the Arab forces a clear run to over-running cities further north.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

sweeping away Obama's and other Presidents' efforts at a two state solution

Trump has clealry taken a one-state solution as his preference with his nomination of David Friedman as ambassador to Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-choice-for-israeli-ambassador-is-a-danger-to-american-lives/2016/12/19/b1909638-c618-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?utm_term=.c76c96d65255

That effectively gives Netanahu a place in Trump's cabinet.

 

[Cook my sock]

Trump will come into serious conflict with his defence secretary over Israel policy.. let's see how it pans out

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, Cook my sock said:

Trump will come into serious conflict with his defence secretary over Israel policy.. let's see how it pans out

There won't be anything to "pan out" for the Defense Secretary.

Foreign policy is a matter for Secretary of State, particularly when US security is not at risk. Currently there is no political or strategic conflict between billionaire Trump and former Exxon CEO billionaire Tillerson.

[Morch]

On 12/31/2016 at 5:23 AM, dexterm said:

The Al Jazeera documentaries Al Nackba are very well balanced, with eye witness and other evidence from both sides of the political spectrum. I leave it to readers to judge for themselves. I assume you have actually viewed the series to be able to comment so authoritatively?

 

Most of the politicians and commentators such as yourself are bogged down with the minutiae of why things can't be done, I think deliberately sometimes as a distraction. I am more optimistic than you.

 

We've just had 70 years of illegal Zionist colonization of the West Bank, and 24 years since the Oslo Accords with negotiators haggling on again off again over the small details of a 2 state solution supposedly to unravel this Israeli illegal expansion, while Israel continued to accelerate the building of settlements during the charade of peace conferences and direct negotiations. It's been a very handy smokescreen. I suppose if HRC had won , we would have had 8 more years of that.

 

Then unexpectedly along comes Trump , blundering into promoting a one state solution, thinking he is helping his right wing Zionist buddies, sweeping away Obama's and other Presidents' efforts at a two state solution, all the while not realizing he is making a binational state more of a probability. That's not the sky is falling. That's wonderful. It means we may be moving more closely to the endgame of an odious ideology.

 

You can safely assume that there's nothing you ever linked on these topics that I haven't read or viewed, usually before it appeared in your posts. I'm not in the habit of commenting extensively on issues which I'm not well versed in. The Al Jazeera documentary have even been specifically discussed in one of these past topics. Guess linking to this documentary would be followed by another bogus claim describing yourself as not obsessed with delving into history, but "looking to the future"....

 

Ah yes, "minutiae" another way of saying - "I don't really know what I'm posting about, but I've got strong opinions about it". If one was to follow your lead, it wouldn't be necessary to know anything about the people involved, their culture, politics and motivations - we could just adopt your imagined narrative and apply some of-the-shelf ideological "solution" - regardless of it's practicality, desirability and acceptability. So yes, understandably anything that comes in the way of your fantasies or rosy visions is a "distraction". AKA reality.

 

Them details (or reality) - like The West Bank being occupied by Israel since 1967, which makes 50 years, rather than 70. 70 would be around the time Israel's been around, and gives away your real position - which sees Israel's existence itself as a transgression. The 20 years difference would be the time of the Jordanian occupation and annexation. Guess it would be too much for you to acknowledge that it was the Palestinians (and their sponsor Arab countries)who rejected negotiations for years on end. Right...distractions. Or better yet, time for another "look for the future" spin, after the"historical" account fails.

 

The Israeli illegal settlement effort never ceased, even when this was against agreements, and contrary to promises. Then again, not as if Palestinian violence ever ceased either. And try to spare me the nonsense about Palestinian violence always being a reaction and always being justified. It's neither.

 

You may think that a one state solution is a wonderful idea. The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians do not agree. Obviously, you feel that you know better than them. The enthusiasm expressed for either attempting a non-realistic utopia, the mayhem and suffering which will undoubtedly be incurred, leads me once again to state this - you have little interest in the welfare of Palestinians, and even less interest in their goals and wishes. Keyboard warriors are the first on any virtual barricade.

[Morch]

On 12/31/2016 at 8:50 AM, boomerangutang said:

Well written detailed chronicle of the initial battles which galvanized Israel.  Recommended reading for anyone who wants to get a good perspective on the struggles inherent in forming the Jewish state, and how tenuous its existence was in those early violent days.   More than a few times, Israel's existence hinged on skirmishes involving a handful of men on either side.

 

http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm

 

There was another article in Military History magazine detailing the defensive action of a few Jews with rifles holding out in a stone-walled tower - against a larger Arab attacking force, but I can't locate the article at this time.  That battle was key, because the loss of that hold-out would have given the Arab forces a clear run to over-running cities further north.

 

There's nothing in Morris's account that supports "Israel's existence hinged on skirmishes involving a handful of men on either side". Not sure how a handful of enemies could bring down a nation. There were battles which saw superior Arab forces being stopped or delayed, but doubtful that a specific battle can be decisively said to have determined Israel's fate.

[Morch]

On 12/31/2016 at 4:57 AM, dexterm said:

No....Trump, Freidman, and Netanyahu's cabinet too!

 

I am drooling over the mistake they are about to make. 

 

 

I doubt Trump cares much one way or the other, or to put it another way - not a cornerstone policy. Bigger fish to fry.

Hardly all of Netanyahu's cabinet is for it.

And Friedman is an extremist loon....thanks for making my point.

 

The mistakes they may make will, one way or another, spell suffering on both sides. It's understood that doesn't bother you in the least, or that it is deemed a fair price to pay, as long as it is paid by others.

[Morch]

On 12/31/2016 at 11:56 AM, Srikcir said:

Trump has clealry taken a one-state solution as his preference with his nomination of David Friedman as ambassador to Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-choice-for-israeli-ambassador-is-a-danger-to-american-lives/2016/12/19/b1909638-c618-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?utm_term=.c76c96d65255

That effectively gives Netanahu a place in Trump's cabinet.

 

 

Friedman's views are to the right of Netanyahu's. As for Trump, doubt he has much by way of an ideological take on this.

[boomerangutang]

        Trump will continue to blunder onward, as he has thus far in his career devoid of international political awareness or dealings.   Similar to his dufus declarations during the campaign, he will tweet knee-jerk blurbs at 3 am, and the next day, his spokespeople will do double back flips trying to downplay or obfuscate the tweets.

 

          Trump is like a 450 lb gorilla trying to assemble a Swiss watch with his finger tips - when it comes to foreign affairs. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/31/2016 at 5:56 PM, Srikcir said:

Trump has clealry taken a one-state solution as his preference with his nomination of David Friedman as ambassador to Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-choice-for-israeli-ambassador-is-a-danger-to-american-lives/2016/12/19/b1909638-c618-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?utm_term=.c76c96d65255

That effectively gives Netanahu a place in Trump's cabinet.

 

If that is so, then he must want to see the end of Israel as a Jewish state and because of their higher birth rate, an eventual Muslim majority government.

The only alternatives to including Palestinians as citizens in a one state solution would be either apartheid or ethnic cleansing, and would even Bibi try those?

Edited January 2, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If that is so, then he must want to see the end of Israel as a Jewish state and because of their higher birth rate, an eventual Muslim majority government.

The only alternatives to including Palestinians as citizens in a one state solution would be either apartheid or ethnic cleansing, and would even Bibi try those?

 

Trump wishing to appoint a bigoted zealot as the ambassador is one thing. The US ambassador to Israel not being in a position to dictate policy is another. Friedman and Netanyahu are not really on the same page when it comes to political views. Netanyahu could be swayed to a more extreme position, if this was related to his own political survival, but doubt a majority of the public supports anything drastic.