May 19, 2011

"Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world..."

"... President Obama for the first time on Thursday publicly called for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a non-militarized Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s borders before the 1967 war that led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza."

ADDED: Reactions:
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Obama, whom he served as U.S. ambassador to China until last month, undercut an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to build trust. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."

178 comments:

Seven Machos said...

Obama has called for what ultimately has to happen. I'm not sure, however, what good it does Obama or the United States to call for it. Foreign policy is not about moral force.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Obama is for Obama, nothing else.

Trooper York said...

This will not end well.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Drudge-

OBAMA SIDES WITH THE PALESTINIANS...
U.S. must 'change approach' to bridge division with Muslims...
Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders...
Abbas calls emergency Palestinian Authority meeting...
Knesset member: Obama is the new Arafat...
Jewish donors warn Obama on Israel...

Seven Machos said...

NotYour... demonstrates why it is foolish for Obama and the United States to call publicly for any action by another state. The fact that it's in an official speech must gall Israel and many Jews to no end.

Quayle said...

Obama is so utterly confused that he doesn't know which direction is up.

With this "bold" stroke, he has now taken all the focus off of the Arab dictators, and put it back on Israel.

Assad must be laughing all the way to the armory.

The left complained that Bush wanted to bring on Armageddon, but the reality is that, with this, Obama has done more to bring it on than Bush ever did.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Obama has called for what ultimately has to happen.




Yes and No. Yes, probably some revisions will be necessary, but NO, not back to the 1967 boundaries, which were indefensible and which have been rendered moot by settlements. Lastly, I wonder about Jerusalem…I KNOW that if we return Jerusalem to the like of Abbas or Hamas, then the Wailing Wall is going to be a “No-Go” area for Jews. Historically, Muslims have not “shared” Jerusalem with Kuffirs, why would anyone think they will start now?

DADvocate said...

That'll work. It worked so well the first time.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Obama has done nothing but work to strengthen the enemies of our ally Israel since his first day in office.

Scott M said...

How many times have the Palestinians gotten exactly what they asked for only to demand after it's finally offered?

Fred4Pres said...

Buffers, schmuffers, the Jooos just should be happy he is letting them keep that much.

mccullough said...

A prudent, practical, thoughtful President would probably wait to see how things shake out in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria before issuing decrees like this. The days when the Israeli-Palestianian conflict were the main issue in the Middle East have long since passed.

This type of decree seems like a McCain campaign type stunt.

There's not a day that goes by that I'm not astonished that this fool got elected President. What the hell were people thinking?

Fred4Pres said...

Being Palestinian is never having to say you were wrong, or sorry, or even Joos have a right to live.

edutcher said...

Netanyahu has already told him to take it someplace else.

To invoke a legendary American marksman, "You have to ask yourself one big question, 'Do I feel lucky?'".

If they let him do it, this would be Little Zero's ultimate kowtow because it would return the Golan Heights to Syria. But that's what the Commies have wanted all along.

Seven Machos said...

The problem is that Israel's required territory for military defense is coming at the expense of a lot of people living an experience very much like blacks in South Africa under apartheid or the Jim Crow South or the Japanese internment.

Ultimately, there is going to have to be a Palestinian state. Anything else is unjust either to the Jews or the Muslims in the region. What the state's borders are is a vexing question, but that's the issue.

Why the United States should be involved in any of this publicly is beyond me. It's just terrible diplomacy.

RuyDiaz said...

Historically, Muslims have not “shared” Jerusalem with Kuffirs, why would anyone think they will start now?

Obviously, things have changed. Now we have nearly magical powers of self-deception, so we'll assume things will be different this time.

windbag said...

There aren't enough bad words to describe that man.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

expense of a lot of people living an experience very much like blacks in South Africa under apartheid or the Jim Crow South or the Japanese internment.




What the Israelis have sub-contracted their Internal Security to the ARABS, please tell lies small enough you’ll believe them yourself…….I guess you have and you do, but that doesn’t make them any less untrue. Really “Jim Crow” South, funny I thought that Hamas and Fatah controlled the Gaza and West Bank, so if there is misery and oppression it sure ain’t the Joos imposing it. If you’re living inside the Green Line you’ve got access to Civil Liberties almost no other Arab has access to.

Seven Machos said...

I also add that I believe that Obama believes that he himself brought about the various revolutions in the North Africa by his Cairo speech. In his heart of hearts he believes that, as he is a terrible narcissist.

Obama must be thinking that this speech will have the same revolutionary effect. It won't. The first one didn't, either.

Lincolntf said...

Obama's hatred for Israel couldn't be more clear. He always equates them with the savages and child-killers who make up their opposition. Fortunately, I belive that the Israelis (and rapidly, the Europeans) are realizing that the world just has to survive 18 more months of the toddler in the driver's seat. If we survive that long, we'll be half way there. Appeasement will have failed for the umpteenth time, and the next President will be obligated to denounce it (and try to repair the Obama-damage), no matter what his Party's position on enabling the destruction of Israel.

SteveR said...

"a nonmilitarized Palestinian state"

bwahahahahahaha!

Seven Machos said...

the Israelis have sub-contracted their Internal Security to the ARABS

I don't disagree. Follow me here in an analogy. I own a mall. I subcontract security to a group of political thugs. There's a signed contract and everything. These thugs beat, rape, and steal from people on my property, while wearing security uniforms. The victims sue me. Do they have a case?

Here's another analogy. I have a country. My country's Constitution ensures that black people may vote. However, officials in a certain region of my country have a de facto policy of forcibly keeping black people from voting. Am I responsible to change the situation?

RuyDiaz said...

I don't disagree. Follow me here in an analogy. I own a mall. I subcontract security to a group of political thugs. There's a signed contract and everything. These thugs beat, rape, and steal from people on my property, while wearing security uniforms. The victims sue me. Do they have a case?

Your analogy assumes that the Palestinian People are independent of the thugs. They are the one's sharing genocide on, and thus morally responsible.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Seven Machos said...




Uh no you don’t have a case….the people oppressing the Blacks, ARE BLACKS and Blacks that the oppressed Blacks ELECTED…so again, NO, Israel bears no responsibility for the appalling conditions political/economic/social in the PALESTINIAN –controlled areas.

Is the US responsible for the crime in the barrios of Mexico City?

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Limbaugh reaction to president’s speech: Obama urging Israel to destroy itself

BarryD said...

Awesome! Obama may not believe in American Exceptionalism, but that doesn't mean he can't believe in American Exceptionalism.

gerry said...

An interesting take by Walter Russell Mead.

Seven Machos said...

Your analogy assumes that the Palestinian People are independent of the thugs.

But, Ruy, you simply must agree that Israel has military control over these areas. Thus, the chain of control goes from Israel to thugs to Palestinians.

The United States can -- and should, publicly and officially -- say: this Israel/Palestine thing is not our problem. We are in no way caught up in it.

However, Israel cannot make such a claim. If Israel decamps from these areas, it could make such a claim. Just as Israel can claim now that it is not part of any internal political problem in, say, Syria.

But Israel says it cannot leave these areas for military reasons. Fine. But that makes the treatment of the people in these areas Israel's problem.

Issob Morocco said...

His international version of Altgeld Gardens Housing Project.

Richard Dolan said...

For O, it's all about a speech. But putting that aside, what's supposed to happen now that the speech has been delivered?

When it came to doing major deals with The Other, trust but verify was Ronnie's bottom line, and that at least bore fruit. So who to trust and how to verify? The answer to the first is that none of the principals trusts the other side, and from the Israeli perspective, they don't even have an entity on the other side about which the question even makes sense to ask. As for the second, the answer follows from the first -- having no trust that the other side would stick to a deal (and for the Israelis, not even having an identifiable 'other side' in control of its part of the deal), the notion of verifying anything becomes an impossibility.

Obama's starting point (the "Arab Spring") is strange, and makes sense only as rhetoric. For the immediate future, that "Spring" introduces more uncertainty into an already vastly uncertain landscape. For starters, no one knows who will be running the show 6 months from now in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, some of the Gulf states and Libya; whether the political upheaval will spread to other states; or whether the Iranians, Pakistanis or others will be up to more mischief in the region. Not knowing who will be in charge makes all the talk about a "pivotal moment" misdirected at best. Pivotal, yes, but in the original sense -- events can swing in almost any direction.

As always with Obama, it pays to ignore his speechifying and just watch what he does. My guess: nothing productive.

Scott M said...

We are in no way caught up in it.

How much is Israel reliant on our foreign aid? How much are the Palestinians?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


But, Ruy, you simply must agree that Israel has military control over these areas. Thus, the chain of control goes from Israel to thugs to Palestinians.



No Israel does NOT have military control of those areas, or did you miss the Goldstone Report about the Israeli Incursion into Gaza or did you miss the Outrage at the “Massacre” at Jenin? The West bank and Gaza are under ELECTED Palestinian control….

Paddy O said...

"Seeking to suggest something that doesn't have anything to do with the other thing, and something which would almost certainly not be done, thus making him seem even more irrelevant, Obama today..."

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- The United States has no military presence in Mexico City. The United States does have a military presence in Oxford, Mississippi. Thus, the United States was required to get its shit together and clean up the political shithouse down there some 50 years ago.

Does Israel have a political presence in these areas? Yes or no?

You'll note that, according to Walter Russell Mead, Obama's policy has become Bush's policy (which was essentially Clinton's policy). You'll also recall that Bush had the decency to work behind the scenes and use lesser messengers to convey his policy.

RuyDiaz said...

But, Ruy, you simply must agree that Israel has military control over these areas.

Over the areas in which Palestinians oppress other Palestinians? No. Israel could, at enormous expense (in blood and treasury) take and hold those areas. But it doesn't control them--Palestinian thugs, hell-bent on Israel's destruction, do.

By that reasoning, the United States controls those areas. I mean, if we really, really wanted to, we could take those areas and hold them. It would take us longer to take them, as we are farther away and short on air and sea transport, but it would be easy for us to hold them, as we don't have expose civilian populations nearby.

So, it is our fault. We control the area.

E.M. Davis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seven Machos said...

The West bank and Gaza are under ELECTED Palestinian control

The people in charge in those areas are certainly equally culpable. What is keeping them from declaring a state and moving forward? -- Not a rhetorical question...

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Does Israel have a political presence in these areas? Yes or no?



No Israel does NOT have a military presence in those areas. Israel has a military presence inside the Green Line and the Border Fence area, and THERE Arabs aren’t living like Blacks in Oxford MS, or Johannesburg South Africa. Where they ARE is areas controlled by their OWN PEOPLE….

edutcher said...

For those who missed the Six Day War, may I suggest a quick look at this map.

Peano said...

Yet another "community" The Zero cannot organize.

McConnell was right. The highest priority must be to see that Zero is one-term president. What an abysmal disaster he is.

Seven Machos said...

Which is it, people? Does Israel control areas militarily beyond the 1967 borders? Or does Israel have its 1967 borders? But those are indefensible.

The fact is that there are multiple areas involved here, each with its own terrible political mess.

Two simple things need to happen:

1. Israel needs to figure out what it would like its borders to be, and try to defend them, and offer political equality within them.

2. The areas outside those borders should declare themselves one or more free and independent states.

Problem solved. To whom do I send the bill?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


The people in charge in those areas are certainly equally culpable. What is keeping them from declaring a state and moving forward? -- Not a rhetorical question...



1) No they are CULPABLE, not "equally" culpable;
2) The US has opposed any such move in the UN General Assembly. Though, there are rumours that this fall the Palestinians will declare just such a state, then the question becomes who will recognize it? No one recognized the Ibo in Nigeria or the Turks in Cyprus, so a simple declaration may mean little unless the EU and the US recognize them…..

Paddy O said...

I think I'd agree with this if Obama insisted every country return to it's 1967 border.

It is frankly anti-Semitic to have the Jews do what no other country would do. Obama wants the Jews to go back to their ghetto, and he'll look the other way if violence is used against them to make them do so.

Maybe it's because I'm writing this from Germany right now that making the Middle East dictators an issue of Israel seems especially egregious.

Never again, they said after 1945. And Obama has certainly not even the slightest bit of trustworthiness for him to be the one the Jewish people trust with their lives.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




Not all lands beyond the 1967 borders are controlled by Israel, Seven….where Israel does NOT, Palestinians are exploited, by OTHER PALESTINIANS….

DADvocate said...

By the time Obama's fully implemented his smart diplomacy, the entire Mideast will be at war.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Never again, they said after 1945.


What they meant was, “Never again…shall we FAIL to kill all the Jooos”-after all it was the FAILURE that has led to all the problems we currently have with that sh!tty little country.

Seven Machos said...

The US has opposed any such move in the UN General Assembly.

Since when does the UN and its vast army decide who gets to be a country and who doesn't? Where is such power in the noble and glorious UN Charter?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Since when does the UN and its vast army decide who gets to be a country and who doesn't? Where is such power in the noble and glorious UN Charter?



You might want to ask the Ibo or the Turks in the Cypriot Republic about that…as compared to the Slovenes and Croatians…..ask George Washington, too and his friend Ben Franklin. Alternatively, Jefferson Davis can tell you about the problems and fickleness of European recognition….

MikeR said...

Apparently, this story is misquoting what Mr. Obama said. He did not refer to pre-1967 borders.

rdkraus said...

Memo to Zero - The Palestinian "good" guys have joined up with Hamas to form - what? - nothing good.

The answer here has nothing to do with where borders are. It has everything to do with miilions of Non-Israelis who want to push the Jews into the sea and then have their usual "Arab street" dance of joy. When they give that up there can be peace. Don't hold your breath.

On the day I was born (in 1953) the story was - unrest in the Middle East. Same today. Hasn't changed. The Arabs want to kill the Jews and take their land.

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment, with Croatians and George Washington.

Maybe I should spell my point out for you: the United Nations doesn't have dick to do with who is a country and who isn't. The United States can, if it wants to. Does anyone here suggest that the United States would do anything but accede if Palestine declared itself a country tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.? Really? All that would be left to do is...wait for it...negotiate the borders.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Apparently, this story is misquoting what Mr. Obama said. He did not refer to pre-1967 borders.



What eh H3ll does that mean? There were the borders roughly 1948-1967…and then the POST-’67 borders, Gaza and the West bank became The Occupied Territories (Shin Bet Land). NOW, there is the Gaza and lots of the West bank in Palestinian, hands…the ONLY THING WE CAN BE TALKING ABOUT is a return to the Pre-1967 boundaries! The boundaries that do not include the West Bank…but probably make some “accommodation” for the City of Jerusalem. Sorry that’s the ONLY thing it can mean…Instead of Jordanian forces being 13 Kilometres from the Mediterranean Sea, it will PALESTINIAN Forces only 13 Kilometres from the Sea…that’s what the 1967 borders mean!

Trooper York said...

Obama makes Cedarford look like Jackie Mason.

Lance said...

There can be no Palestinian state until the Palestinians show a willingness to govern themselves.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Joe -- I'm not sure what you mean by your last comment, with Croatians and George Washington.

Maybe I should spell my point out for you: the United Nations doesn't have dick to do with who is a country and who isn't. The United States can, if it wants to. Does anyone here suggest that the United States would do anything but accede if Palestine declared itself a country tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.? Really? All that would be left to do is...wait for it...negotiate the borders.



Actually the UNGA has a certain philosophical/political/PR cachet…The Ibo did NOT receive recognition for their Nigerian stae and were CRUSHED in a Civil War…the Croatians RECEIVED recognition and their departure from Yugoslavia was easy…George Washing and Franklin struggled for Frnch, Spanish and Dutch recognition, achieving it after Saratoga, meaning that the US could receive outside aid in its “rebellion.”

IF tomorrow the Palestinians declare a state and the US DOESN’T Accede guess what, there’s nothing to do but go to war or starve….no US and EU recognition, no IMF/IBRD money, no Foreign Aid, no arms sales, none of the things that STATES have. So YES, the US has a lot to do with the success or failure of “Palestine.” I’m sure Syria and Iran will recognize “Palestine” but that merely leads to a war that destroys Palestine….

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think President Obama sees this as "... a rare historic opportunity... (for the Palestinians ) to free (themselves) from servitude to the desires of the rulers, man-made law, and Western dominance."

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




Oh and Trooper I just caught the Fred Thompson quote…..

Seven Machos said...

There can be no Palestinian state until the Palestinians show a willingness to govern themselves.

1. Why?

2. I am getting pelted here with the notion that Palestinians are actually totally and autonomously in control and Israel has nothing to do with anything. Which is it, people? Are Palestinians totally in charge and raping and robbing each other under some sort of sovereign anarchy? Or is some other force or collection of forces somehow governing in these areas?

3. If it's true that that Palestinians are actually totally and autonomously in control and Israel has nothing to do with anything, then why can't Palestine be a country? Wouldn't it piss you off, personally, if you were totally and autonomously in control of your life yet somehow, for reasons left unstated, not your own person? That would be weird, wouldn't it?

Seven Machos said...

the Croatians RECEIVED recognition and their departure from Yugoslavia was easy

What? Hello? Yeah, dude, easy except for the big civil war. Perhaps you are thinking of Slovenia.

IF tomorrow the Palestinians declare a state and the US DOESN’T Accede guess what, there’s nothing to do but go to war or starve

Go to war with whom exactly?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Are Palestinians totally in charge and raping and robbing each other under some sort of sovereign anarchy


Yes

If it's true that that Palestinians are actually totally and autonomously in control and Israel has nothing to do with anything, then why can't Palestine be a country?
Because they are not YET a nation, that’s what the on-going negotiations are about, ACHIEVING the Palestinian State….

Lance said...

Maybe I should spell my point out for you: the United Nations doesn't have dick to do with who is a country and who isn't.

Oh really?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

What? Hello? Yeah, dude, easy except for the big civil war. Perhaps you are thinking of Slovenia.
No you’re thinking Bosnia-Hercegovina..Croatia had very little fighting, just a massive Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs in the Krajina region….

IF tomorrow the Palestinians declare a state and the US DOESN’T Accede guess what, there’s nothing to do but go to war or starve

Go to war with whom exactly?



Most likely Syria and Egypt, with Iran providing support, possibly even Nuclear Weapons…
1) Palestinians declare a unilateral state.
2) No US or EU recognition.
3) Syria, Iran and a Brotherhood-controlled Egypt DO recognize the State of Palestine.
4) Long story short, the Palestinians, Syrians, and Egyptians will make demands upon Israel rsulting in a 1967/73 war.
5) “Palestine” is short-lived….

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call
for Palestinian State Based
on 1967 Borders


Obama calls for it, Israel rejects.

With one speech Obama makes an American ally the bad guy.

Obama is for Obama, nothing more, nothing less.

WV: gores, what he's doing to Israel.

Seven Machos said...

that’s what the on-going negotiations are about, ACHIEVING the Palestinian State

Dude, listen to me. There are no negotiations when you declare a state. The United States didn't negotiate in 1776. Slovenia didn't negotiate. Croatia didn't negotiate. Montenegro didn't negotiate. Isreal didn't negotiate in 1948.

You want me to go on?

You negotiate borders. You negotiate land transfer. You don't negotiate statehood. And that, my friend, is the crucial mistake Israel has been making all these years: expecting a group of people (who have largely taken to calling themselves Palestinians) to negotiate something that is not negotiable.

Trooper York said...

Joe said...
(The Crypto Jew)
Oh and Trooper I just caught the Fred Thompson quote….."

My favorite Fred Thompson quote:

"Check out my wife's tits boys! Ain't they sumtin! Who gives a shit about being president when you can motorboat those puppies!"

Phil 3:14 said...

The two state solution is like two guy sitting comfortable on the porch of the North Rim Lodge and glancing across the Grand Canyon to the south rim.

Its right there! We just have to do the hard hike across.


You go first


Well, the view is nice from here and this beer is tasting mighty fine. Why don't you start and I'll catch up with you?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Isreal didn't negotiate in 1948.


But it did…hence the 1947 UN Partition Plan….which the ARABS ignored in May 1948….

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- What I should have said, I suppose, was: go to war against whom.

At any rate, you are now contending that the declaration of Palestine will cause -- somehow -- a bunch of Arab countries to attack Israel.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Seven Machos said...

hence the 1947 UN Partition Plan

No, dude. That was the British.

Phil 3:14 said...

And why do we continue to buy into the notion that
if only the Israeli/Palestinian conflict could be resolved we could see real progress in the Middle East

I'm sure an independent Palestinian state would make the lives of Arabs in Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq ..... SO MUCH BETTER.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Not Your Typical NY er

"Obama is for Obama, nothing more, nothing less."

Yes.

BO: 'We must not dictate further to other countries'.
BO: 'Mubarak must step down.'
BO: 'Gaddafi must step down.'
BO: 'Israel must capitulate to Palestine.'

Zero, step off.

Penny said...

"MikeR said...

Apparently, this story is misquoting what Mr. Obama said. He did not refer to pre-1967 borders."

The first and fourth paragraph of this NYT's article are at odds with each other...unless of course, the "subtle change" in Obama's stance is to just say "1967 boundaries" instead of pre 6 day war and post 6 day war boundaries.

In any case, the NYT's article is either misleading on purpose, or wrong. Care to wager?

Lance said...

3. If it's true that that Palestinians are actually totally and autonomously in control and Israel has nothing to do with anything, then why can't Palestine be a country?

"Autonomous" is not the same as "self-governed". Consider Somalia or Afghanistan. These are clearly autonomous nations, but they're hardly self-governing.

The issue is whether Palestinians are willing to govern themselves. Will they negotiate for peace, making necessary concessions, or are they committed to destroying Israel at all costs? Once peace is negotiated, will they punish their own peace-breakers, or will they wink and offer excuses for not being able to police themselves?

Roger J. said...

Mr Obama has set himself up for having Israel telling him to go fuck himself.

It is too bad Mr Obama's speechifying is not matched with any degree of intelligence in his foreign policy efforts. For example: what exactly is our policy toward Libya? What position are we taking with respect to the Assad dictatorship in Syria?
The list goes on. The quicker this president leaves office the safer we will all be.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Obama demanding that Texas give land back to Mexico cannot be far behind.

Cedarford said...

Scott M said...
How many times have the Palestinians gotten exactly what they asked for only to demand after it's finally offered?

========
Never, really. The Palestinians always demanded a right of return and compensation for property taken by the Jews after two wars. Israel has not budged on either matter, arguing the people either volutarily left and abandoned their land and property - or were casualties of war and the fruits of war go to the winners and survivors living on the land and enjoying the departed Palestinians property.

An almost understandable view - save for the State of Israel and Jews outside Israel suing the crap out of European governments and individuals and even US corporations. To get compensation of stolen Jewish wealth and property, even getting passports and the right to live and enjoy citizenship benefits in Euro nations their ancestors died in or left as refugees. And getting those concessions they denied to Palestinians at past peace negotiations.

Whats good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

Seven Machos said...

Consider Somalia or Afghanistan. These are clearly autonomous nations, but they're hardly self-governing.

And yet Israel has no truck with either, and the United States did not until we...wait for it...invaded Afghanistan. As far as Somalia, we send money and a few soldiers now and then. But Somalia is in way our problem. Nor, by the way, is the 100-year political dump that is Mexico. Yet it's right next door. Crazy, huh?

Let Palestine be Palestine. If there's a war, win it. In dramatic, gruesome fashion. Repeat.

Seven Machos said...

Whats good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

The right of return is not the same as the right of getting money, you anti-Semitic twat.

Lance said...

No, dude. That was the British.

Not really. They'd started the ball rolling with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and they precipitated the crisis by unilaterally ending their Palestinian mandate, but it was the UN Partition Plan (supported by virtually everyone but the Arabs) that sparked the 1948 war.

And there had been MASSIVE negotiations leading up to the UNPP. Both the Jewish Agency and the Arab League worked big time to win US support for their respective sides. Once the resolution was drafted, the Jewish Agency agreed to it, while the Arab League rejected it. Thus when the British ended the Mandate, war broke out.

Seven Machos said...

it was the UN Partition Plan (supported by virtually everyone but the Arabs) that sparked the 1948 war

I don't particularly agree, but I'll grant your facts because it brings up an interesting question: why on earth, if all you say is true, do you think the United Nations should be remotely involved? After all, they are the ass clowns, under your story, who started this on-and-off war since 1948. They suck at this.

Cedarford said...

Remember too that Bush was the 1st President to call for a Palestinian State, with final Borders and compensation in "general alignment with the King Abdullah Plan, with certain adjustments to 1967 Borders".

The US, aside from a few small Pacific Islands getting US or Zionist money, was the last holdout internationally to the Abdullah Plan before Bush's general endorsement.

Obama is just like Bush.(TM)

Lance said...

Let Palestine be Palestine. If there's a war, win it. In dramatic, gruesome fashion. Repeat.

Huh? First you tell us that West Bank and Gaza are living in an Israeli-imposed Jim Crow/Apartheid-like condition. Now you're suggesting we just have an all-out war and let the victor...what? Wipe out the vanquished?

Seven Machos said...

Lance -- My comment was in response to another comment above. But, yes. If Palestine is all independent, then it should be independent, because it is.

If there's a war, then there's a war. I don't expect Israel to start it. I don't see any other country starting it.

The only other just thing to do is to incorporate these areas that Israel controls militarily into Israel.

Politics is hard, dude. And it ain't beanbag.

Dustin said...

It seems to me that calling for one side to do give something up must go along with some kind of reasonable demand for the other side.

In this case, Israel giving up territory always leads to more terrorism. It's a special circumstance, but they should annex more land, rather than give any of their territory up.

Is Obama going to give California to Mexico now? Israel won their terriroty via war. It's theirs now. Perhaps if giving up land would lead to peace, rather than more war, it would make sense for them to obey Obama's orders, but that's stupid.

They can't even get most of these guys to recognize their right to exist.

Lance said...

I don't particularly agree, but I'll grant your facts because it brings up an interesting question: why on earth, if all you say is true, do you think the United Nations should be remotely involved? After all, they are the ass clowns, under your story, who started this on-and-off war since 1948. They suck at this.

When did I ever say that? I started by saying, and I quote, "There can be no Palestinian state until the Palestinians show a willingness to govern themselves." It's you and Joe that keep bringing the UN into this.

I think the Palestinians SHOULD GOVERN THEMSELVES. By which I mean, they should store their weapons, stop using their stupid make-believe noms de guerre, accept Israel's existence, and get back to whatever it was they were doing before 1948.

Juba Doobai! said...

Obama has done what he always does: subject U.S. foreign policy and national interest to Arab Muslim self-interest. If that leads to genocide, as it will if Israel is stupid enough to listen to Obama, then what does he care?

The end result of this speech by Obama is war. He has sided with the Muslims and their genocidal ambition for the Jews. Heaven help us all.

Seven Machos said...

Perhaps if giving up land would lead to peace, rather than more war, it would make sense for them to obey Obama's orders, but that's stupid.

Land for peace was Israel's dumb ass idea, not Obama's dumb ass idea.

Also, Dustin, people above say that Palestine is its own free place that is somehow not an independent state. You say that Israel controls it.

Which is it, people?

Seven Machos said...

I think the Palestinians SHOULD GOVERN THEMSELVES. By which I mean, they should store their weapons, stop using their stupid make-believe noms de guerre, accept Israel's existence, and get back to whatever it was they were doing before 1948.

I agree. Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. Palestine declares. Let's do it!

MikeR said...

Joe, I don't understand why you're claiming that 1967 means pre-1967. For that, he could say 1948 borders. It probably means what every American president has supported: That Israeli settlements are not included in a peace plan, but everything west of the West Bank is. The borders created by the 1967 war.

The Drill SGT said...

The dirty secret of the Middle East Peace process that Obama likely doesn't know, given his appallingly poor history education is that the Palestinians could have had peace 50 years ago, but:

- The Arab dictators find it internally advantagous to keep the Palestinians hopeless, thereby creating an external grievance large enough to channel the hatred of their internal peoples.
- The Palestinians could have their state if they weren't clearly planning on using it as the first step in destroying Israel.
- 60 years of Palestinian school kids have been taight to hate Israel and seek its destruction.

All Obama did (like his last settlement fuck-up) was to ratchet up the demands that serve as the starting point for a peace deal.

At this point, the only thing that is going to change the status quo is another ass whooping of arabs or Israel's destruction.

Fen said...

The only peace Israel will ever have is a Victor's Peace. Kill them all.

Alex said...

Why should Israel negotiate with terrorists?

Cedarford said...

Seven Machos said...
Whats good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

The right of return is not the same as the right of getting money, you anti-Semitic twat.

============
Israel and the Zionists have agreed to neither demand, you Zionist twit...while suing successfully for their own war losses.

A conflict in behavior hardly passing unnoticed by nations observing the Jewish strategy.
And yes, they do know that the :

1. Jewish Right of Return
2. The Palestinian Right of Return
3. WWII Reparation claims of Jews.
4. 1948, 1967 Reparations claims of Palestinians.
5. Jewish suits to restore citizenship rights in various European countries for various advantages sought.
6. Palestinian diaspora suits to restore citizenship rights in Palestine..

are all separate matters..

Trooper York said...

The only solution for Israel is to expell all the Arabs and live in a gated community.

I mean it's works for them in Beverly Hills and Boca. Just sayn'

mccullough said...

Perhaps the Israelis should just move to the U.S. Problem solved. It's just land, and it's not worth getting killed over. And the Palestianians can starve themselves to death with their back-ass ways.

It's a win-win for everyone.

Roger J. said...

Drill has it exactly right--other arab states for the most part dislike and distrust palistinians--the palis are useful foils to deflect criticism for internal regimes. It serves the other rags well to keep the pali pot stirred.

My time in Riyadh was instructive, for when the saud regime went after internal dissidents, the first ones rounded up were the pali expats--

Anyhow--Mr Obama's speechifying notwithstanding, the Israelis will tell him to go fuck himself--Nothing good will come from this misbegotten tirade from a president who doesnt speak austrian.

Comrade X said...

and Sirhan Sirhan's work is done. The same Sirhan who Obama buddy Bill Ayers dedicated his book to.

The Drill SGT said...

mccullough said...
Perhaps the Israelis should just move to the U.S. Problem solved.


LOL, great idea.... Thought experiment.

- US gets a bunch of hard working jews who created a relative paradise out of sand.
- We take the Jews, Christians, but of course no Israeli arabs, cause they are getting liberated from apartheit.
- Palestinians rush across the border, looting and destroying like they did when Israel left its Gaza settlements
- other arab countries demonstrate it was never about palestinians after all... aid dries up

- all the starving Palestinians huddling on beach sand looking like cargo cult rejects.

Roger J. said...

Drill--in the US I think they were and are called Mormons :)

traditionalguy said...

The lingo goes on and on about "settlements" out in the country alon a river bank, which quite frankly neither side wants. The only goal is the Jewish owners who dared to build homes on their own land in East Jerusalem alongside the old walled City of David. Obama just generously signaled he will give it back to the Muslims. And Netanyahu has signaled Obama and his anti-semite administration that it will not ever happen again. In 1947 20% of then Palestine was split in two with 10% to the Jewish state and 10% to the Muslim inhabitants...the other 80% was taken off the table and given to the Hashemite Kingdom that we call Jordan. Today's so called peace makers need to get that 80% of Palestine back from Jordan first.

Quayle said...

Drill--in the US I think they were and are called Mormons :)

Dead Sea -> Great Salt Lake
Sea of Galilee -> Utah Lake
Jordan River -> Jordan River
Goldman Sachs currently building second largest group of employees in Salt Lake City

You could move all Israel to Utah, and it wouldn't be that big of a shock.

After all, Isaiah said Ephraim's and Judah's enmity would go away. Such a move would really test that.*

*(Inside baseball - Mormons consider themselves to be gathered members of the tribe of Ephraim, who Isaiah and Jeremiah said would be the forerunners of the gathering of the tribes of Israel from the lands of their dispersion. Remember that Judah was only one of the 21 tribes - the others are still scattered except, Mormons believe, Ephraim, which is first to gather and call the others to come forth.)

Quayle said...

Remember that Judah was only one of the 21 tribe

one of the 12...

I hope Ann's new blog has commenter edit capabilities.

Roger J. said...

Quayle: thanks for filling in the blanks for me--might want to point out also the LDS folks have been doing quite nicely in the treasure valley (snake river for the unitiated)

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Israel is on her own.


This will not end well.

Quayle said...

New thought: could it be that Obama is throwing in the towel on the Presidency, and is now angling for head of the UN?

prairie wind said...

Obama would never want to give California back to Mexico! But Texas...yeah, it's a red state now, so he'd give back all of it except Austin.

prairie wind said...

Quayle, I say let's push him in that direction! Then let's get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. Kill two birds with one stone.

Freeman Hunt said...

Obama just wants to rile things up before Glenn Beck gets there in August.

Heh.

RuyDiaz said...

New thought: could it be that Obama is throwing in the towel on the Presidency, and is now angling for head of the UN?

No. Obama, truly, honestly-to-God believes that putting pressure on Israel will restart peace negotiations, and that, peace negotiations, once started, may well lead to lasting peace.

I think that's nuts, but he's doing nothing nuts from his perspective.

Tomas said...

Calm down, everyone. The actual Obama quote: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." Not much is new there.

RuyDiaz said...

Obama has called for what ultimately has to happen.

This line bothered me since I first read it, so let me go over it again.

I think you are relying on a very questionable assumption: I don't thing peace based on compromise can be achieved. One side or the other has to win. Their difference is existencial; the Jews want their own state, and the Arabs want to rule the Jews. We may well be all dead and forgotten before there is peace.

ken in sc said...

The Israelis have to decide if they can live without the $3 billion a year we give them, or maybe spend a few hundred million making sure Obama is defeated in the next election. I kinda think they would take the cheaper option, although I wish they wouldn't, for the sake of our political future. We have enough distrust of our electoral process already.

rhhardin said...

"Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world"

Fold-out cards of camel entering collapsing tent used for voter ID.

stealthcook said...

Hey remember the attempt to DEMILITARIZE Lebanon with peace keepers and everything,so that Israel would retreat from Southern Lebanon when they were fighting Hezbollah terrorists. Now Lebanon, once an exquisite tourist destination, is a pathetic country overrun by Hezbollah, militarized to the teeth, and afraid to adjudicate the assassination of their own prime minister. Oh how about sending in UN Peacekeepers - been there, done that- what a joke

Deb said...

"Erekat said that Abbas appreciated Obama’s efforts to resume the peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel so as to reach a final solution on the core issues according to an agreed timetable."

poor choice of words

Deb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Obama has called for what ultimately has to happen.

Why is "Israel returns to its 1967 borders" something that "has to happen"?

What's magical about those exact borders, that precludes negotiating different ones?

madAsHell said...

I remember the Camp David, and the billions of US tax dollars that were required to "buy" the agreement.

Of course, all those dollars only bought 29 years of peace. The Egyptians now want to re-consider the peace treaty. You see, they want more money.

War, and fomenting un-rest is very profitable in the Arab world.

Can Obama be so vain, and believe that a little speech-i-fying is going to placate the Arabs??

prairie wind said...

Can Obama be so vain, and believe that a little speech-i-fying is going to placate the Arabs??

Yes he can.

stealthcook said...

tomas - note that those words
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"
creates a very slippery slope. Proof, while there is nuance there, most people interpret "1967 lines" as just that.You can even determine that the strange wording is meant to be ambiguous, while at the same time drawing a new line in the sand. So Pres BO will be interpreted by Palestinians as encouraging a "1967" border which would be pennies from heaven for them and suicidal for Israel.

The Drill SGT said...

Tomas said...
Calm down, everyone. The actual Obama quote: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."


except three things:

1. 1967 borders? Border before 1967 war or after the 1967 war. The difference of course is the West Bank. That territory captured from Jordan after it was foolish enough to attack Israel in 1967. Better to have said, the post 1948 border if one wanted an unambigious phrase.

2. While the assumption in US policy had always been the Pre-1957 war boundries, US Presidents had never locked that in as the start point of talks, this takes a big chip off the Isrraeli table

3. previous American assurances to recognize “realities on the ground” (aka some settlements contigious to pre-war Israel) had always been the phrase. again, now the Abbas folks will see that as a big change.

Alex said...

Why is "Israel returns to its 1967 borders" something that "has to happen"?

What's magical about those exact borders, that precludes negotiating different ones?


Because it's the conventional wisdom as taught in places like Harvard, Princeton, Yale.

Quaestor said...

Roger J. wrote: The quicker this president leaves office the safer we will all be.

Can I hear an "Amen!" brothers?

Last Xmas I went to my neighborhood B&N looking for a Lord Zero countdown calendar (you known, the kind that were sooo popular back when we had a president who wasn't a jackass. Didn't find one. D'you suppose the management at B&N might be a bit unwilling...

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Seven Machos,
Why is it so hard to envision a war breaking out upon the establishment of a Palestinian State? Things s^ck in Egypt, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Iran. In all these states there are strong Islamicist elements.

Palestine is established. It creates a Security Arrangement with Syria, Iran, and Egypt. It begins to advocate for a Right of Return and other territorial concessions. Along the way it begins to attack Israel. Egyptian forces, Syrian Forces move to the border, Iranian “volunteers” flow into Palestine. Sooner or later there will be a conflict. What’s so difficult to grasp?

A war with the Zionist Entity would be a nice distraction from the internal political/economic turmoil that currently exists in all these states.

Quaestor said...

Here's a bit more on the subject from the execrable BBC

The money quote: "As Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens - a failure to change our approach [in the Middle East] threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities."

I think the majority of American believe the bridge-building is entirely a task for the Muslims these days.

The Drill SGT said...

Joe said...Along the way it begins to attack Israel. Egyptian forces, Syrian Forces move to the border, Iranian “volunteers” flow into Palestine. Sooner or later there will be a conflict. What’s so difficult to grasp

The big difference being the loss of strategic depth. Whereas today, Tel Aviv and other major population centers are 100 miles from a hostile border (e.g. rocket attacks) post-peace treaty they would be 25 miles away. and the range of a Qassam rocket is??????

25 miles. You guessed it.

Henry said...

@Drill Sgt, et al

I think mutually agreed swaps is where the real diplomats take over.

In referencing the 1967 boundaries Obama proclaimed a specific that means nothing at all.

There's nothing earth-shattering or important about this most latest U.S. pronouncement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The silliest thing is the lede that Althouse quoted. Let me do a quick rewrite to illuminate the nonsense: Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama decided to put rhetorical pressure on the single democratic, multi-cultural state in its midst.

Note to reporters STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARK LANDLER. Putting pressure on Israel is the status quo. A is not B.

Seven Machos said...

I think taking in every Israeli citizen as an immigrant to the United States would be fabulous. It does present a host of problems in the long run if those Israeli citizens wish to be a sovereign country. It'd be like Lesotho.

As far as my statement that Obama has called for what has to happen: it actually ties into what that anti-Semite asshole Cedarford said. There is something deeply and morally reprehensible about the plight of the people who left Israel (regardless of the stupidity of their decisions). There's not going to be a Right of Return. But there needs to be a nation for those people, who are victims of political machinations over which they have no control.

As for the sentiments of some here, best represented by Fen:

The only peace Israel will ever have is a Victor's Peace. Kill them all.

Translation: push Palestine into the sea. Remember that next time you hear some jackbooted terrorist thug say that he wants to push Israel into the sea. You both want the same result, just different bodies in the water.

Trooper York said...

Iran is trying to get nukes. Israel already has nukes. Israel will not be pushed into a corner. It had always felt that it had the might of the United States behind it. With Barrack Hussien Obama....not so much.

Nobody puts Bubbe in a corner.

Dustin said...

Let's just be clear:

Obama didn't tell the Palestinians to do a damn thing. He suggested they would be happier if they did a few things, with nice weasel words. He then ordered Israel to give up their own territory.

That's major.

Imagine telling the USA to give up Florida to Al Qaida while merely telling Al Qaida they might be better off if they one day recognize the right for Americans to be alive.

Yeah, thanks Obama. You coddle all the wrong people.

Fen said...

As for the sentiments of some here, best represented by Fen:

"The only peace Israel will ever have is a Victor's Peace. Kill them all."

Translation: push Palestine into the sea. Remember that next time you hear some jackbooted terrorist thug say that he wants to push Israel into the sea. You both want the same result, just different bodies in the water.


Wrong. I wanted the Pali's to learn to coexist with Israel. But how many times have we been down this path? The Pali's do not want peace with Israel, they want it destroyed. Thats why I said Israel will never have any peace until they kill them all.

There is no equivalence.

Fen said...

Why is "Israel returns to its 1967 borders" something that "has to happen"? What's magical about those exact borders, that precludes negotiating different ones?

Those borders give key terrain to the people that want to destroy Israel.

The Drill SGT said...

Fen said...Those borders give key terrain to the people that want to destroy Israel.

In God we trust, everybody else?, "Hands kill. Let me see those hands!!"

"Be Polite, Be Professional, Have a plan to kill everybody you meet"

LOL

Seven Machos said...

I argue that the declaration of a Palestinian state would cause political leaders in Palestine to get their shit together.

It's a lot like Democrats and Republicans out of power who say ridiculous things but, when faced with the prospect of actually governing, tend to moderate.

The Drill SGT said...

Seven Machos said...
I argue that the declaration of a Palestinian state would cause political leaders in Palestine to get their shit together.


You mean like the Hamas guys did when they won the election, took power in Gaza, then prceeded to hunt down the Fatah guys for a few weeks till they tortured and killed all the oposition?

those kind of moderates?

rhhardin said...

Belmont Club doesn't think much of it

John Kennedy added his own embellishment to the theme. “In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding on the back of the tiger ended up inside.”

Bruce Hayden said...

I argue that the declaration of a Palestinian state would cause political leaders in Palestine to get their shit together.

I don't think that is realistic though. Think about how things have gone in Gaza and in other areas controlled by the Palestinians. They seem very susceptible to control by the most violent faction around, with the factions vying for control by their level of violence.

Why do you think that, all of a sudden, they are going to give away their guns, and be happy with rule by the ballot box?

Seven Machos said...

Why do you think that, all of a sudden, they are going to give away their guns, and be happy with rule by the ballot box?

Who said anything about giving away guns? As far as ballots, that's a bit down the line, well past the first McDonald's. I'm not saying we are going to get a place like Stockholm here, or even Camden. Think Belfast.

Seven Machos said...

Things I believe:

1. Black people and old people are not so poor or stupid that they cannot achieve the acquisition of a driver's license.

2. People in these areas of Palestine are not so poor or stupid or politically incapable that they cannot govern themselves like anyone else.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I argue that the declaration of a Palestinian state would cause political leaders in Palestine to get their shit together.



Dood, have you not been keeping with current events, Hamas was ELECTED to run Gaza and Abbas is PRESIDENT of the Palestinian Authority! Helllloooooooo they HAVE a country, in all but name….and have they got their Sh!T together?

Seven Machos said...

Helllloooooooo they HAVE a country, in all but name

What is keeping them from naming it then? Better yet, what is keeping Israel from naming it? What are these mysterious political forces you won't name?

Revenant said...

But there needs to be a nation for those people, who are victims of political machinations over which they have no control.

I have to ask: why?

I mean, I have friends who are refugees from various nations (Vietnam, mostly). They weren't given their own nation to live in. They became citizens of other nations instead. It is doubly ridiculous in the case of the refugees from Israel. If you fled Israel at age 18, you're now... um, 81? How many actual refugees are still alive at this point?

What we ought to be doing is pressuring the nations in which Palestinians now reside to grant them citizenship instead of confining them to "refugee" camps forever.

Seven Machos said...

What we ought to be doing is pressuring the nations in which Palestinians now reside to grant them citizenship instead of confining them to "refugee" camps forever.

That works. Certainly. But, at the end of the day, the problem is that we can't do much. Israel needs to set its own borders and enforce them, and stop dangling out this idea of land for peace. It's stupid. Also, Israel needs to offer equal rights to all the people inside it.

What happens outside of Israel is then not Israel's problem.

At the end of the day, as much as people joking put forth the idea, buying up Israel with petro-dollars and moving Israel to a place where it can have peace would be an optimum solution.

MarkD said...

So this is what that Nobel was for. I'm even less impressed.

Those Palestinians? The other Arabs have no use for them either. Nobody wants troublemakers.

Revenant said...

People in these areas of Palestine are not so poor or stupid or politically incapable that they cannot govern themselves like anyone else.

The question isn't "can they gover themselves". The answer to that question is simple: yes.

The question is "are they capable of forming a government with the will and the power to force the pro-violence segments of their society to be at peace with Israel".

The answer to that question is "heavens no". Which makes it silly for Israel to withdraw and grant them sovereignty. Why withdraw your troops from a country just so you can turn around and invade it again?

I guess you could say "oh, but at least you'll have proven that your occupation is reasonable". But if that line worked it would already be working -- Israel's done the "give back land, get attacked from it, re-invade, get condemned by the UN" thing quite a few times now.

Henry said...

I repeat: mutually agreed swaps is where the real diplomats take over.

Obama has done no more than reassert the status quo.

Israel swaps territory to incorporate settlements and secure defensible borders.

This is the deal that Arafat rejected at Camp David.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Seven Machos said...

Which makes it silly for Israel to withdraw and grant them sovereignty.

But I thought the Palestinians had an autonomous government. Which is it?

Will there be a civil war in an incipient Palestinian state? Yes. I disagree that a country that has a civil war cannot govern itself. Could the United States not govern itself in 1861?

What's more, how much worse would a civil war for power in Palestine be than the nightarish situation right now? I mean, come on.

Fen said...

What is keeping them from naming it then? What are these mysterious political forces you won't name?

Iran.

And to back up what Mark said, the other arab states refuse to take in the Pali's. Because they need to be kept in a constant state of agitation against the Jew.

Fen said...

But I thought the Palestinians had an autonomous government. Which is it?

Under the Pali constitution, the Pali government is not allowed to negotiate with Israel.

Seven, I appreciate your idealism re this, but its all been done before. What would you propose if you became convinced the Pali's were never going to keep the peace with Israel?

Seven Machos said...

How is Iran keeping Israel from simply recognizing Palestine?

Also, if Palestine is a state, nobody needs to take in Palestinians.

Browndog said...

"Ultimately, there is going to have to be a Palestinian state."

Yea. There are two.

One is called Israel, the other is called Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

The Drill SGT said...

Fen said...And to back up what Mark said, the other arab states refuse to take in the Pali's

To be clear, for those that may not be aware, by take them in, he means make them citizens. There are lots of Pali's spread through the arab world. They are in a sense arab jooos. Non-citizens who toil in both technical positions and menial ones. Born, living and dying as refugees. Useful to the despots who either want a loyal swiss guard, or as targets for the wrath of the masses. Condemned to wander as state-less people. Because that is the way the Arab League wants it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
What is keeping them from naming it then? Better yet, what is keeping Israel from naming it? What are these mysterious political forces you won't name?


Seven cease this silliness...Palestinians have limited Self-Government, it is NOT an autonomous state…this is obvious. The fact is unless they can secure foreign recognition, there is no point in declaring statehood…..but they certainly have local self-rule.

And seeing who they have elected so far, in glorified mayoral/state elections we would be fools to think they’d make any better decisions when able to make foreign policy/military decisions?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
How is Iran keeping Israel from simply recognizing Palestine?

Israel is not going to recognize Palestine, not without knowing the borders, and the end of the Right of Return…

Would YOU sign the loan papers with bank without knowing the terms of the loan?

alwaysfiredup said...

"Seven Machos said...
There is something deeply and morally reprehensible about the plight of the people who left Israel (regardless of the stupidity of their decisions). There's not going to be a Right of Return. But there needs to be a nation for those people, who are victims of political machinations over which they have no control.

5/19/11 7:05 PM"

There are refugees all over the world in worse plights than the Palestinians. The Sudanese and Somalians might like to have a word with you about that. And what of a Right of Return for all the middle eastern Jews evicted from their home countries upon the establishment of Israel? It's not as simple as "Jews chased Palestinian Arabs from their homes".

Seven Machos said...

Israel is not going to recognize Palestine, not without knowing the borders

Why? Israel can set the borders and just leave.

As for the rest of you, Israel's policy is all completely analogous to every other crap-ass treatment of a people. Apartheid. Native Americans. American blacks. And just as with all those, the government doing in charge had all kinds of arguments for why it had to continue.

The moral thing to do and the politically astute thing to do is for Israel to set its own territorial lines and defend them. Wash its hands. Land for peace is stupid. It will not work. As long as Israel is ultimately in charge of these areas (and Israel is, as I'm glad to see people forthrightly admitting), Israel is responsible for these people who call themselves Palestinians. And that's true no matter how reprehensible the actions of the Palestinians.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Why? Israel can set the borders and just leave.

Are you really that na├»ve? Once Palestine is a STATE it can enter into security arrangements, find allies, build an army, and like Germany 1933 become a a revanchist power….Israel can’t “set” the borders, what if the Palestinians don’t ACCEPT them?

And you’re back to the Apartheid shtick again? Arabs (within the Green Line) aren’t living in Soweto, they are living in a First World nation, with First World civil rights and amenities…Palestinians living under PALESTINIAN rule ARE living a horrid life.

Seven Machos said...

what if the Palestinians don’t ACCEPT them?

What is Palestine going to say? -- "We don't want this state. Please, Israel, come back."

No. Israel simply has to leave and defend itself, the way it is doing now and the way all countries do.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose the United States decides to leave, say, Delaware. We're out. You are on your own. What is Delaware going to do? Say no? Sorry. Vetoed. You are on your own. And if you invade us or even so much as lob a missile in our direction, we will completely fuck you up.

Sovereignty gives Israel the ability to do all the things, good and bad, that it cannot do now.

But the current situation is just terrible and unnecessary.

hombre said...

Seven Machos wrote: There is something deeply and morally reprehensible about the plight of the people who left Israel...

The conclusion of this sentence should read, "who left Israel in 1948."

A few days ago marked the 63rd anniversary of that leaving. How many of those original leavers do we suppose are still alive?

How many Jews were forced from their homes in Arab lands as a result of the creation of Israel?

Any moral reprehensibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Arabs who have kept the sore festering for decades by refusing to assimilate the so-called Palestinean Arabs as Israel assimilated Jews expelled by the Arabs after Israeli.

hombre said...

10:04 should conclude: "Jews expelled by the Arabs after Israel declared independence."

Seven Machos said...

Hombre -- A combined theory of adverse possession and "they did it, too," no matter how intricate, does not excuse what happened to these emigrants and their descendants.

I understand that the Arabs are being complete and total idiots. The batshit crazy and irresponsible behavior of so many Arab leaders concerning this issue is mind-blowing. The problem for Israel is that Israel is currently, voluntarily in charge of most the land at issue. So it's Israel's problem. Until Israel leaves. Which it should.

traditionalguy said...

To see the motives at work in the "Clash" over whether Jews may live in the Jewish State of Israel, one must understand that the entire clash is over who shall be the political ruler over Jerusalem. Today it is the Jews. The UN and Obama forcing a boundary on the 1949 armistice line with the UN and Obama the new political ruler over Jerusalem means that the Jews will never again rule in Jerusalem. Ergo, the UN and Obama are now at war with the Jews. The Killer of Bin Laden just made that declaration of war today.

hombre said...

...does not excuse what happened to these emigrants and their descendants.

Who's making excuses? The responsiblity and the moral reprehensibility belongs to the Arab nations while Israel is being asked to make the sacrifices.

The goal of the Arabs is the annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state. We know this because they have been saying so for decades.

Seven Machos said...

The goal of the Arabs is the annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state. We know this because they have been saying so for decades.

As we can see in this very thread, the goal of many people supporting Israel is to ensure that the people who left Israel because they did not want to live in a Jewish state are left in perpetual political limbo until they die.

There's going to be a Palestinian state. Everyone who knows about the region understands this. Israel should act now, while it still holds many cards politically, to unilaterally create it even if by doing so they create a political void because, in the real world, there is no such thing as a political void.

No Name said...

0bama hates Jews.

There. I said it.

Revenant said...

But I thought the Palestinians had an autonomous government. Which is it?

What do you mean "which is it"? First of all I never said they had an autonomous government, and second of all "having an autonomous government" and "having sovereignty" are two entirely different things anyway. E.g., California has an autonomous government but it is in no way the sovereign ruler of California.

Will there be a civil war in an incipient Palestinian state? Yes. I disagree that a country that has a civil war cannot govern itself.

I didn't say anything about civil war. I don't think there would be a civil war at all; I think there would be a corrupt government that does nothing to contain the terrorist elements within its borders so long as those terrorists focus their attacks on external targets. See also: Pakistan, Lebanon, and -- oh yeah -- the Palestinian Authority from the mid-90s onwards.

What's more, how much worse would a civil war for power in Palestine be than the nightarish situation right now? I mean, come on.

How much worse would things be if you replaced a controlling military power that abides by western military practices with a set of rival military powers, some of which exist for the specific purpose of killing innocent civilians?

Bit of a silly question, isn't it?

hombre said...

Seven wrote: As we can see in this very thread, the goal of many people supporting Israel is to ensure that the people who left Israel because they did not want to live in a Jewish state are left in perpetual political limbo until they die.

a. We are not talking about people who "left Israel" 60+ years ago. Most of them are already dead. That terminology is jargon perpetuating a myth for the purpose of facilitating the destruction of Israel.

b. A second tactic of Arab sympathizers is to state the problem of the Palestineans in such a way that the solution requires concessions by the Israelis. In fact, the Arab nations have always had the power and the land to solve the problem without any concessions by the Israelis.

hombre said...

BTW, Seven, the goal of most people supporting Israel is the survival of Israel. The survival of Israel is inconsistent with the wet dreams of most middle east Muslims and anti-Semitic lefties and Europeans.

VanderDouchen said...

I didn't read a single comment, because I'm pushed for time. Forgive me if I state the obvious.

Blacks and Jews voted for President Obama by an overwhelming majority. A sickening tale of voting bias, infact. Blacks and Jews can continue to reap our rewards.

Enjoy. I recomend investing in prescious metals.

WV: imenen:

imenen what i say. you got a poblem wid dat?

shana said...

Seven Machos: think of Palestine like Puerto Rico. They have their own border security, their own police force, their own school system, etc. But it's not exactly an independent country.
So perhaps there should be an independent state. But I visited there a couple of years ago, and I had to conclude the biggest obstacle to an independent state was the Palestinans themselves.
There was no civil infrastructure in Bethlehem. The streets were deserted. Garbage piled up. We heard from the local businesses that they were desperate to make money, but no one would cone. And the fear had good cause, as any time a Palestinian would opena successful business like a casino, the local Islamists would come along and blow it up.
You can't blame Israel for that.
If the Palestinians get their state, it will be a pretty crappy one, as the current governments have no interest in the hard work of governance, like picking up the trash and making sure the power stays on.

Michael McNeil said...

“What? Hello? Yeah, dude, easy except for the big civil war. Perhaps you are thinking of Slovenia.”

No you’re thinking Bosnia-Hercegovina..Croatia had very little fighting, just a massive Ethnic Cleansing of Serbs in the Krajina region….


This is quite false. Croatia's war for independence from Serbia during the early '90's (1991-1995) lasted for four years and cost some 20,000 deaths on all sides. There was very heavy fighting; the Croatian city of Vukovar on the Danube, for instance, was nearly destroyed, with thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of refugees.

As for the Serbian Krajina “Republic” to which you refer, that's a massive distortion of what happened there during the Croatian war, as the foregoing link makes clear. (Suffice it to say that the proportion of Serbs in the general population increased from slightly more than majority [52%] in early 1991, to 88% by mid 1992 in the Krajina statelet the Serbs forcibly carved out of Croatia.)

Christopher in MA said...

A man who sits in Jeremiah Wright's "church" for 20 years kicks Israel in the nuts. Gosh, who woulda thunk that?

Seeing Red said...

On the BBC last night, Obama immediately nixed his definitive language on the 1967 borders and reverted to language that sounded more in tune with that of former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush....

Marshal said...

"Seven Machos said...

As we can see in this very thread, the goal of many people supporting Israel is to ensure that the people who left Israel because they did not want to live in a Jewish state are left in perpetual political limbo until they die."

What a strange conclusion. The fact that these people are in limbo is a consequence of their own actions. Recognizing it as such does not make it a "goal".

When you have to twist reality like this in order for your position to make sense it's a pretty strong signal you're wrong.

pst314 said...

"...the people who left Israel because they did not want to live in a Jewish state..."

No, they left because the Arab leaders told them "get out of the area so that our armies will be better able to exterminate the Jews".

Funny how you conveniently "forgot" that.

"the goal of many people supporting Israel is to ensure that [the Palestinians] are left in perpetual political limbo until they die."

No, our goal is to protect the existence of Israel. Funny how you just can't stop lying and defaming.

So what is it about those fascistic Arabs that you love so much? Their foreskins, maybe?

Seven Machos said...

pst -- Anyone who has been here long knows I am not the type who has any desire to see Israel destroyed.

You should probably not be posting here at the big kids table. Come back when you can have a reasonable conversation without hurling disgusting, over-the-top distortions.

Thanks. Bye.

AST said...

"Seeking to harness . . . the change?" It's like it's more going with the flow and sucking up to the Palestinians. This "seismic change" hasn't been to our benefit in Egypt and it's too soon to tell in Libya. Expecting Hamas to be a stable, honest negotiating partner is a fool's errand to begin with, but starting at the 1967 borders doesn't give them much incentive to bargain.

Obama's gone from gutsy to gutless in a pretty short time. We should know by now that trying to negotiate peace with the Palestinians is pointless. They don't budge from the position that Israel should not exist. We've wasted billions in aid to them, but they still don't have a government we can trust or even engage.