Netanyahu told Obama that Israel was willing to make compromises for peace but flatly rejected the idea of going back to 1967 borders, which he described as "indefensible."The headline of this NYT article totally threw me: "Divisions Clear as Netanyahu and Obama Discuss Peace." I read the second word as a verb, but it's an adjective.
May 20, 2011
"Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality."
Said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Barack Obama today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
149 comments:
If Obama wanted to instigate a genocide in Israel, what would he have said differently yesterday? Nothing.
It is easly to make flipant peace proposals when you really do not have a stake if things go badly.
Proof once again that this Administration is packed with incompetents.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall had Netanyahu told Little Zero what he was really thinking.
Ann Althouse said...
I read the second word as a verb, but it's an adjective.
Good little Commie that Zero's always been, were they ever unclear?
PS Anybody want to bet Netanyahu has one of those "Miss me?" posters of Dubya in his office?
Wretchard just wrote:
“Israel’s non-negotiably needed to live. Palestine’s nonnegotiable demand was that Israel needed to die.”
And they reminded me that they gave up Gaza for peace.
And the Won knew that when he wrote the speech & tore up W's guarantees.
So there will be a state 9/11 because of Israel's
"intransegence."
This will not end well for any of us.
Netanyahu is waiting out Obama's presidency like the rest of us. The one thing Obama, unlike other Presidents, doesn't seem to understand is that our allies and enemies only take seriously the consistencies in U.S. policies.
Administrations come and go. The only thing he's been effective at is following W.'s policies, thereby making them U.S. policy. Obama's own policies are writ in water, and our allies and enemies known it.
No - his policies are or will be written in blood.
Did you see this part of the speech? http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/20/obamateurism-of-the-day-511/
What a sad day for our country when we are slowly but surely walking away from our one, true ally in the middle east.
The good news is that Israel will ignore this foolishness. I hope they take even more land after they win the next war.
Trey
There will be peace in Palestine when the parties there get ready for it and not before.
That happy development appear to still be a generation or two away, but in the meantime meddling by outsiders is only going to make things worse, not better.
Obama and Hamas, on the same side, as usual. Death to the Jews, Death to Israel, Death to the Great Satan.
He is as clueless as he is dangerous.
Obama is naive. But we already knew that.
It's gotta be eye-opening to wake up thinking your the smartest person on the planet, and then spending the day having that delusion demolished.....by some really smart people.
Obama is just being loyal to his core constituency. He looks downright pussilanimous compared to Netanyahu.
"your the smartest person on the planet"
Interesting...
There will never be peace between the Palestinians and Israel. Israel is an educated, liberal, wealthy country. I don't understand why anyone would live there. Let go of the land and move to the U.S. It is not worth getting killed over.
The planet is more than 4 billion years old. There is no need to cling to an ancient myth that the land there is sacred. Let the Palestinians have it. They will starve to death within 50 years.
The good news is that Israel will ignore this foolishness. I hope they take even more land after they win the next war.
Trey
I think it will come to that. Iran is ruled by maniacs and, unless the green revolution succeeds, without any help from Obama, there will be war. When that happens, Israel, what is left of it, will take no prisoners. I suspect that Iran will not be the only recipient of nuclear strikes. Egypt and Saudi will be targets.
I don't understand why anyone would live there. Let go of the land and move to the U.S. It is not worth getting killed over.
It is obvious that you don't understand. Some things are worth getting killed for and those who don't believe that get themselves killed for nothing.
(The Crypto Jew)
I suspect that Iran will not be the only recipient of nuclear strikes. Egypt and Saudi will be targets.
Let’s not get TOO Apocalyptic…
This was a courageous speech that will draw fire from many sides. Peace talks have been obstructed from both sides with Israel colonizing the West Bank, rather than freezing the expansion, and Hamas refusing to recognize the existence of Israel. In reality only the US will be able to broker a needed two-state solution, and many recognize this need. Given the population growth the Jews will become a minority in their own country, and to suggest that they will take more land after the next war is sadly absurd. Of course the statement about where to start with the l967 borders is a place to begin. I give this quote from a column in Haaretz, which I suggest folks read, by Zeev Sternhell to get a sense of the wide range of opinions on this topic:
Were Netanyahu a leader worthy of the name, one who understood the deep processes taking place under his nose and tried to make the most of them, he would not think and speak like a leader of the Betar youth movement. But on his upcoming trip to the United States, Netanyahu will prefer to rely on AIPAC, an organization that represents the right-wing minority of American Jews and symbolizes the Jewish community's disappearing past"
You have to wonder whether Obama is going to get the same knee jerk support from American Jews that he got last time around? I suspect that even if they don't bad mouth Obama (same sort of closed ranks support DSK got from his socialist friends), more checkbooks will be closed and while professing to be voting Democrat, more Jews will pull the lever for the GOP once inside the voting booth.
The Drill SGT said...
You have to wonder whether Obama is going to get the same knee jerk support from American Jews that he got last time around?
It wouldn't surprise me if they did support him. I've never been able to figure out Jews. They never seem to believe in anything.
Where's Cedarford when we need him?
Hahaha, puss-illanimous, that's a good one.
Syrian forces fire into their own citizens, but Israel is the villain.
Obama is a prime example of how to be so educated and well counseled that you loos sight of plain, simple truth.
(The Crypto Jew)
Given the population growth the Jews will become a minority in their own country,
Make a bet R-V….I’ll bet this does NOT happen…Arabs, living in a Westernized State and Economy will no more have large families than Jews living in such a state….
As to the rest of the drivel…AIPAC is the PAST, what is J Street the Future of Eretz Ysrael?
More and more I am liking the idea of Jordan as the Palestinian State.
Between this and Pakistan, is he deliberately TRYING to start WWIII on his watch?
The Palestinians left Palestine of their own free will, inveigled by the Arab governments, who were probably given the line by the Russians.
They could go back any time they wanted and, within a generation would be running the place (into the ground, in all likelihood), all they have to do is forsake outfits like Hamas.
They don't seem to be smart enough to see that.
Yitzhak Rabin might have managed to get a two-state solution; apparently some in Israel thought so too, so they shot him.
Now they will rock along like Northern Ireland, until the Likud faction no longer have the votes, and then they will "make peace." But in one state, not two.
Why is it that the borders set out in the 1920 San Remo Accord, as amended in 1922, are essentially inviolate for Arab portions of the old British and French Mandates (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, et al.), but apparently not for Israel?
The Post-1967 borders of Israel today almost exactly match the original "Jewish Palestine" set out by the 1922 amended accord.
Why is it that Israel can't maintain those borders, while Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc. can?
Who the hell is Obama, and State, to tell them otherwise?
Why is it that the borders set out in the 1920 San Remo Accord, as amended in 1922, are essentially inviolate for Arab portions of the old British and French Mandates (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, et al.), but apparently not for Israel?
The Post-1967 borders of Israel today almost exactly match the original "Jewish Palestine" set out by the 1922 amended accord.
Why is it that Israel can't maintain those borders, while Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc. can?
Why the hell are we to tell them otherwise?
[Pssst: if this posts twice, blame Blogger]
Jordan doesn't want the Palestinians either.
This could easily be solved by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, they said countries have no interest in solving the issue.
It has served them all so very well these many years.
Netanyahu just spend six minutes during a press conference praising America and slapping down our President as detached from reality.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/20/netanyahu_only_peace_that_will_endure_is_one_based_on_reality.html
Back to the pre-OBL normal for our President.
AllenS said...
Where's Cedarford when we need him?
I think Cedarford is part of that "core constituency" I mentioned.
It's not just Obama's tilting towards the Palestinians that is the problem, although that is certainly one of them. That's been the view from the faculty lounge for a while now. But the longer term problem is that the whole left-osphere is starting to tack the same way, and pulling the Democrats as a party with it.
It would be very nice if all the players at each other's throats in the Middle East would lay down their arms, get over ancient antagonisms and join in a hearty round of kumbaya. But that will never happen until the countries around Israel finally accept its existence, and get past their determination to drive Israel and its Jewish citizenry into the sea. Hard to see the Iranian proxies running Hezbolah in southern Lebanon doing that; same with the Hamas gang running Gaza and whoever is running the West Bank.
Progress, if it comes, will be in small steps. The first step has to be a commitment, particularly among the many contending groups trying to speak for the Palestinians, to accept Israel's permanence, along with a demonstration of an ability to control their side and make that policy stick. The Israelis have shown, by their actions over many years, a willingness to concede land for peace. That past is the best guide to what the future might bring if a permanent peace were possible. But the realities today are very different. Until they change, more concessions of the same sort now would be madness.
Obama might have stressed some of that in his speech. But that's not where his heart is at.
I've never understood this drive to put the borders back to 1967. The Arab countries went to war with Israel and got their asses handed to them on a platter, with garnish.
The Arabs wanted war, got it and badly lost. Tough nuts.
(If that wasn't humiliating enough, the Arabs decided to suffering another humiliating ass kicking in 1973. So fuck them.)
Bibi was much more diplomatic than I would have been.
I would have told Obama that Israel will revert to pre-1967 borders, right after the United States reverts to pre-1846 borders with Mexico.
Joe I am just quoting from a paper published in Israel-- maybe you should read a few to get a sense of the variety of opinion amongst its citizens particularly those looking towards the future.
Don't worry about our borders - the reconquistas are making sure that our sovereignty in the west and southwest will be gone in a very short time. Say "Hola" to the new USA.
Think about it for a second and really let it sink in as to the surrounding geography wherever you may be. People that want to kill you...actually want you dead for no other reason than you are who you are, living less than 50 miles away.
Aren't you sick of the 247 'all president- all the time' news cycle?
The news for 20-30 years now [since Watergate ?] is nothing but "the president this and the president that" or "the president wiped his ass today". Jeez - we don't need more than one news organization when they all report the same damn story.
One thing Obama knows: the oil is in the Arab countries and we need the Suez Canal. And he thinks selling out Israel will help the U.S.-Arab relations and stabilize the mideast. That's too risky of a gamble and he is naive to take it. We need to see how the Arab spring shakes out first. If the governments there turn out to be acceptable, then the U.S. should sell Israel out. (I would let all of the Israelis become U.S. citizens immediately if they wanted).
The Jews in the U.S. largely support Obama because they are Americans. They are wise enough not to live their lives or raise their families surrounded by the world's ghetto.
AJ Lynch wrote:
Jeez - we don't need more than one news organization when they all report the same damn story.
I'll add that the old "Big-Three" CBS, NBS, ABC, no longer even compete with one another to dig out news in Washington, nor do their jobs like they used to. I wouldn't seeing one of them go the way of the Gremlin and Pacer.
@mccullough wrote:
We need to see how the Arab spring shakes out first.
I'm sorry but the term "Arab Spring" sound like the name of a deodorant. Wasn't bin Laden just praising the Arab spring in his last farewell?
Urkel the muslim sympathizer yet again is a clueless idiot. Has he even seen a map of pre-67 borders? Fucking fool.
In reality only the US will be able to broker a needed two-state solution, and many recognize this need.
No.
When the Palis start acting like grownups they can broker it themselves.
Get the garbage picked up, show they can run something. Show they can feed their own people, show they can function.
$15 million for the greenhouses and they're used to run arms, not grow food.
A ship of state doesn't "crash" does it? .. It can run aground, hit a sand bar.
"Crashing on the rocks" sounds a bit melodramatic.
I do agree with the premise that going back to 1967 its a physical impossibility ;)
Bibi was much more diplomatic than I would have been.
I would have told Obama that Israel will revert to pre-1967 borders, right after the United States reverts to pre-1846 borders with Mexico.
Hah. I wish he had said that.
Obama is naive
The go-to excuse when the leftist need to cloak their treachery.
Fen said...
Bibi was much more diplomatic than I would have been.
I would have told Obama that Israel will revert to pre-1967 borders, right after the United States reverts to pre-1846 borders with Mexico.
Hah. I wish he had said that.
Knowing how Obama needs the Hispanic vote for 2012, in his eyes the 1846 borders would be negotiable.
C-little:
I scratch my head when I hear like CBS has let's say 900 employees in its news division! I think what the hell do they all do all day? They sure aren't generating 900 different stories a week.
There will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Never. Obama is trying to ingratiate the U.S. with the Arab countries. He knows there will be no peace, no 2-state solution, no pre-1967 borders. This is all about the U.S. trying to get stable relationships with the Arab countries. Unfortunately for Israel and "Palestine," they have no oil on their lands.
Let's face it: the Arabs are rather infantile in their comportment.
They slosh back and forth between socialism, pan-Arabism, verious strains of Islamism, and back to socialism, all the time blaming someone else for their lack of economic growth and modernization.
They allow dictators to sell them a bill of goods, then complain that the US is to blame.
They have universities and engineering schools, but when they need to build a bridge or a complex building they have to go to Germany for the skill and expertise.
I'd be happy to help them move into modernity, but, like Germany said to Greece today, you've got to grow up and stop blaming everyone else for your own problems.
There will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
But but Communism can REALLY work if we TRY really hard!!!
Visiting Israel last September and standing on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and hearing our guide talk about how close various countries were who wished Israel harm you got a sense of how it must feel every day to wake up and truly never know exactly how your day was going to be.
Visiting Israel has opened my eyes in a way that truly makes me marvel and respect the country of Israel and its people.
A good map of what Obama wants Israel to give away.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/rewarding-evil-obama-rewards-hamas-fatah-with-most-sacred-holy-sites-of-christianity/
I heard what Bibi said and I got the impression he was being totally honest.
I do not understand why Obama even made any reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It has paid virtually no part in the recent unrest in the Arab world..why create this controversy now?
Obama's anti-semitismm has moved from the theoretical realm to a far more dangerous one. His speech was the first ingredient of a recipe for genocide, and he knows it.
The extra "m" was for moron.
Jug-Eared Jesus (and his tireless pro-Holocaust apologia choir) got themselves schooled good and hard today, by a man demonstrably both smarter and ballsier than they could ever hope to be.
Gave me a happy, it did.
Obambi got shown to be the amateur he is by a pro. Bibi understands American politics FAR better then Obambi.
Lincolntf,
Obama is a fool, but he is not an anti-Semite. He wants to have workable, stable relationships with the Arab countries, that's all. He thinks buy selling Israel out, he can get there. If I thought he was right, I'd be all for it. The U.S. isn't interested in resolving some holy war over land, that's impossible. We're trying to keep oil prices stable. you might as well say Obama is anti-black because he doesn't want to intervene in Sudan. Obama, like W. and every POTUS who has had to deal with this issue, doesn't believe there is anything mystical about Judaism, Islam, or Christianity or anything holy about the land over there. It's about oil. That's it.
I can see the headlines now
'OBAMA SUPPORTS PALESTINE'
what's that gonna do to his polls?
Obama thinks he's president of the whole world. Who elected him to that position? At least when he's busy with the rest of the world he doesn't have so much time to be a busybody in this country, telling us what insurance we have to buy, or what news programs we can watch.
Does the push for restoring borders make Obama like Hitler? Is Obama anti semitic because he has taken a position Israel does not like?
Think about that the next time some lefty calls a conservative policy racist.
Who's talking "mystical"? Those considerationms are long gone. Israel cannot survive under the conditions laid out by Obama, and that's exactly why he laid them out. Keep thinking he's harmless, he's counting on it.
They're not stable.
We have the oil, we have the energy.
No one ever asks what happens when oil really isn't needed as much anymore.
They have nothing to offer the world.
They're not happy now, just wait.
And if we're going into another cold spell, less food grown.
Niall Ferguson wrote an article for the WJS back around 2004 - we have 4 choices US, Chicoms, Islamofascism or armed camps.
It's almost like we're heading toward the perfect storm.............
Fun (and representative) sampling of responses, over at Hot Air:
"Good lord. The One looked like he was trying to pass a kidney stone at one point. Worst photo op evah."
"Obama might be pregnant after that."
"Bibi took him to school, took his lunch money, gave him a wedgie, and shoved him into the girls’ room."
"Here you see the differences between man and boy perfectly expressed."
"I don’t think Michelle needs to worry about birth control anymore."
Heh.
I can see the headlines now
'OBAMA SUPPORTS PALESTINE'
what's that gonna do to his polls?
Keep the 45% base who r happy with him?
You really have to watch the Netanyahu statement as Obama looks on. A remarkable job of actually speaking truth to power by a very serious man. Obama was utterly upstaged, in a quiet and eloquent way. Obama kept his hand half over his face during the entire statement, as if hiding.
Unfortunately for Israel and "Palestine," they have no oil on their lands.
But they do; it turns out there is quite a bit of oil and other goodies in the "Southern District."
And with your definition of "Palestine" (anywhere but in Palestine) there are really loads of it, though of course not directly available to Israel.
Hamas has made it quite clear that it has NO interest in getting a better deal from Isreal. It's not as if they're reticent about saying that all they want is the ELIMINATION of Israel.
Of course, they'll take whatever they can get that might hasten that event.
Is it truly so difficult to understand that there is "partner" in seeking peace?
"who r happy" blah blah - dude, are you really that fucking retarded? Learn to type and spell. You write like a teenage girl.
WV: religess - there you go...
Obama kept his hand half over his face during the entire statement, as if hiding.
Nah, he was just suppressing an allergic cough.
The last big game is afoot. Obama's prize remains placing Jerusalem under a UN viceroy guaranteeing peace in the world. That is tempting to both the habitual anti-Semites and also to the new Jew haters everywhere, including many Jews, who feel like uppity Jewish leaders are fulfilling the Hebrew prophets words!
The last big game is afoot. Obama's prize...
Yeah, it could start to appear that the nations are being called into the valley of decision, but it ain't Obama doin' the calling.
Gt ovr it 60
A "teachable moment" for the Empty Suit, to be sure. Legs pretzeled awkwardly over one another, with lips pursed tight: he looked like a small child, struggling desperately to keep from peeing himself on camera.
Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle east reality
The scissors of peace are broken by the rocks of Middle east reality.
Bibi should offer this compromise:
"Yes, you may return if you convert to Judaism."
David said...
Does the push for restoring borders ...
I'm all for restoring borders. Just like those of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc., haven't changed from the 1922 British and French Mandate days ... neither should Israel's.
Oh wait, Israel already restored those borders in June 1967
We need a constitutional amendment- we'll call it 'the escape clause'- in case we ever elect an idiot as President again
Awesome: David Gregory Defends Obama By Claiming "Prominent Views" In Israel Supported His Speech, But, When Asked "Who?," Stammers And Literally Cannot Name Anyone.
HEH.
Be interesting to compare the Situation Room photo with Little Zero hunched in a corner to the tape of him sucking on a sour persimmon as Netanyahu laid down the law.
Might give more credence to the idea that the first Zero knew of the bin Laden hit was when they pulled him off the 10th tee.
PS Netanyahu's kid brother commanded the Entebbe raid, so I'm betting there was a special zing in the delivery when it came time to tell Barry to take a flying leap.
Ha! Fun watching Bibi speak to a liberal the only effective way...like a child! And obama was all but sucking his thumb! "Oh no, REALITY, make it go away!"
Terrye: "I do not understand why Obama even made any reference to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It has paid virtually no part in the recent unrest in the Arab world..why create this controversy now? "
I agree. Especially since so much of his speech was in not making really specific demands of other countries in the region.
I really think Obama threw the 1967 border thing in to sound balance-y. I don't think he meant much by it, I don't think he's going to do anything about it. It's like when he was running and he said Jerusalem couldn't be divided but later explained he just meant it couldn't have barbed wire or anything like he pictured it to have decades ago.
Obama just likes to make speeches and say stuff and that's his foreign policy. You can't really take it seriously.
What I'm wondering is this. Does Barack Hussein Obama really believe that peace will be had if and only if Israel reverts to its 1967 borders? Where does he get this idea? Tell me, Professor, is this notion part of the academic liberal group-think?
Or is the idea that Israel's armed forces are so utterly invincible that even if they revert to indefensible borders that the IDF could defeat any and all future efforts by their neighboring countries to wipe Israel off the map once and for all?
I'm with Seeing_Red back at the top of this thread, I'm not sanguine that this will end well for anybody involved.
Notice immature leftwing knee jerks never pause to consider that maybe the Palestinians should make some concessions of their own. Maybe the Palestinians could stop teaching and preaching only
hatred to their children. Stop immersing their own in nothing but a culture of death cult and victim. Oh that's right, the left identify with that dead-end sentiment.
Breaking news on Twitter: Prosser wins the recount.
I love it when a Demo plan comes totally apart.
"It is easly to make flipant peace proposals when you really do not have a stake if things go badly."
What you're seeing is the Nazification of the Democrat Party by Adolph Hussein Obama.
He wants to partition Poland again ... er, rather Israel.
The music has changed.
The danse macabre is the same.
If Jews continue to donate to the Democrat Party then they will sadly deserve the coming Holocaust they are themselves financing.
The Family Radio end of the world eastern time zone asx server seems to have crashed.
The western time zone one is still running, but with buffering gaps.
It's the predicted world server overload.
I love how the moral urgency of change led us to a President who, unlike his "War-mongering" predecessor, is all-too-willing to outright ignore the War Powers Act when it is convenient is now lecturing others to abide by laws that neither side fully agreed to.
The only plus of this is that, for the remainder of his term, the US will have virtually no control over Israeli actions. They can do what they want and ignore Obama's whining because the Congress isn't about to cut off one of the few consistent allies we have.
Why does Obama seem to loathe our allies and support our foes so frequently?
Kent good to see you.
Well, Obama wants to scare Netanyahu with words.
Words really don't work. That's why we have a 2nd Amendment. That's why Israel went to three wars with the arabs. Who still don't recognize that state's right to exist.
And, George Mitchell QUIT! Why did the Lebanese born Mitchell pull out? What does he know about epic fail ... that he wanted to skirt?
Even if the UN goes "whole hog" against Israel, don't they currently have their hands full in Libya?
You think arabs get along? Heck, they kill each other "locally," be in in Iraq. Or Lebanon.
While in the USA, the real ploy is to pull the rug out from under our own military. And, leave the State Department in charge.
Hence, the locale of the speech. Since the bamster couldn't go back to Cairo, safely.
Dubya gave Arik Sharon a stroke! (Yes, Sharon is still alive. But a vegetable.)
And, Condi Rice, whom Dubya went to, instead of Dick Cheney ... where Dick Cheney was supposed to get a heart attack ... Didn't do much for Condi's own reputation, either.
Unless you thought that "dance" In July of 2006, with the French, was really workable.
What I learned? Israel with never step foot into an arab country ever again. At the borders? Death to those who try to move it. But going in? They'll never be that lucky!
Oh, and the arab spring? Smells as much as Lebanon's cedar revolution, already.
Carol, you should drink more. Seriously.
People need to remember that Israel is a democracy. Ben Gurion, back in May 1967, was told by LBJ, not to go to war! Ben Gurion didn't listen.
LBJ actually said he didn't want to help Israel "and get stuck for years" over there; while we were stuck for years in Vietnam. Which, for some reason, LBJ would be easy.
June 1967 speaks for itself. As done the response to the arabs attack in 1973. Where Nixon worried that his reputation would be ruined if Israel went under. But learned his reputation was ruined, anyway.
We've seen LBJ, Nixon and Carter get the reputations they deserve.
And, Dubya? How far did he run away from the troubles he caused? His brother's not making up to the nomination at the GOP convention, ya know? Maybe, it's the Bush's that got cooked?
And, Obama's speech brought out the best in Mark Steyn. For sure, we've got a president who was "marinated in the sewer of faculty lounges.
If I had to guess? The left's in trouble! (Israel has a left. It also has a woman, Livni, in charge of Arik Sharon's old party. And, Ha'Aretz, is a left wing newspaper. "The Dirt." Sure is.
All you know when you read about countries that are democratic, they'll have all sorts of opinions flying about.
In syria? Your opinion is a death sentence. Does that mean Obama's words cleaned it up for Assad, the Ophthalmologist? I doubt it.
I still think Q-Daffy is also holding on. Though Libya's port in Tripoli is burning. Meaning? Tell me, how do the oil tankers arrive?
Stop getting so excited. If America decides not to sell to Israel, India will step in and ask to become a key player.
As to Israel's borders ... India got hers in 1947. And, with the dumb luck of the UN involved, lost the area seeded to Pakistan.
Pakistan's nuke technology is so 1970's. STUXNET is loose. And, if iran really had their Bashir plant going, there would be a mushroom cloud overhead, hard to miss.
Stop believing propaganda. It's the only "art" that works Orwellian, with words.
Obama comes in close to bottom on my favorite presidents list, but even so it burns my buns when I see American politicians taking Netanyahu's side over his. Obama is at least trying to represent America's best interests. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is pushing hard as he can for the interests of a foreign power and stupid Republicans, who ought to know better, are buying it.
He's just trying to keep the base happy, realizing that there is a good chance that voters "in the middle" can be fooled again by his promises.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is pushing hard as he can for the interests of a foreign power
The unmitigated gall of that fucking Jew bastard! Who does he think he is?
Obama comes in close to bottom on my favorite presidents list, but even so it burns my buns when I see American politicians taking Netanyahu's side over his. Obama is at least trying to represent America's best interests. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is pushing hard as he can for the interests of a foreign power and stupid Republicans, who ought to know better, are buying it.
FAIL. Israel is our best ally and Republicans are with our ally. Why are you against our ally?
Alex: FAIL. Israel is our best ally and Republicans are with our ally. Why are you against our ally?"
Since when do the interests of American allies come before those of America itself?
If this is about appeasing oil producers, Obama is as dumb as a bag of hammers. By far the largest provider of oil to the US is Canada, which sells more than twice as much to the US as Saudi Arabia, which is in second place. And guess whose country's Prime Minister basically stated Obama was full of sh&t today.. yeah Canada - which is now the only civilized nation to stand with Israel.
Y'all need to do something about your 'bamster if you don't want to piss-off your biggest source of oil.
So is nevadabob the newest moby on the block?
I think nevadabob is a moby. He said something the other day that made no sense at all unless it was an intelligent person being too clever by a half.
Fuck you, moby.
Since when do the interests of American allies come before those of America itself?
Since when is ensuring Israel's existence against America's interest? Have you no morality?
And Jeffrey Goldberg chides him for talking to his President that way. Personally, I think it's good for Obama to be forced to face reality. It'll help him deal with defeat next year easier.
Gene,
"Since when do the interests of American allies come before those of America itself?"
They don't, but in many cases, including this, the interests of American allies are the same as the interests of America.
The next arab "wave" to hit Israel's borders is set to occur on June 5th. I'm sure the syrians, attacking from the north, will say the "Golan is theirs. Israel has no business being there."
Obama's speech will come back to haunt him!
Don't know how. But I do know you can stop this human invation with bullets. And, as the arabs do, I hope the photo-journalists get shot. They can pack their bodies over to Libya.
No. It's not funny.
But the journalists gave Vietnam a victory it didn't deserve. Put Vietnam under China's thumb. So, it proves "winning isn't everything."
Perhaps the frontal assault will push women and baby carriages to the front of the line?
For Israel, there is nothing new. Giving gaza back unilaterally brought no benefits at all. And, Condi Rice, in 2006, pulled down Dubya's reputation. Even if you think he's missed. He's really not. Or his brother, Jeb, would be a shoo-in come November 2012.
Ben-Gurion discovered LBJ was a stinker. Nixon, in 1973, thought if Israel lost his reputation would be gone, only to have to resign, himself, in 1974. For a whole other reason.
Jimmy Carter? If the current Mideast ploy was actually successful, it would raise Carter's reputation, too.
Pretty good rule of thumb: It's not genocide when people fight back!
Israelis have a draft. Currently, even religious kids are finding it pays to be drafted. To learn how to use military hardware.
In America, learning to use a gun is strictly voluntary.
Seven Machos: The unmitigated gall of that fucking Jew bastard! Who does he think he is?
Netanyahu is not the problem. He’s just doing what he gets paid to do—look out for his own country. My complaint is rather with those American politicians who seem to think their job is to represent his country too.
My complaint is rather with those American politicians who seem to think their job is to represent his country too.
Thats naive. Israel is a key ally in this war with radical islam. Her interests are ours.
And even if she wasn't, abandoning her to the forces of radical islam will weaken America and create a "Rhineland" moment for the Jihad:
"In March 1936, Hitler took what for him was a huge gamble - he ordered that his troops should openly re-enter the Rhineland thus breaking the terms of Versailles once again. He did order his generals that the military should retreat out of the Rhineland if the French showed the slightest hint of making a military stand against him. This did not occur. Over 32,000 soldiers and armed policemen crossed into the Rhineland.
Hitler learned from this episode that he could all but gamble on France not doing anything.... It appeared that in 1936 that France was not even willing to fight for this. Therefore, Hitler concluded that it he turned his attentions to the east of Europe, France would be even less willing to involve herself."
You want to list the Nazi-occupied nations that thought they had no interest in the fate of the Rhineland? The Holocaust could have been prevented in March of 1936. But people with your view prevailed instead.
BTW, its ironic that your very line of reasoning is what led to the need for the creation of the State of Israel in the first place.
The "Palestinians" have no legitimate grievances. Everything they have suffered has been of their own choosing. Their one singular contribution to humanity has been the spread of terrorism and the elevation of barbarism to an art form. We only encourage them by pretending otherwise.
As far as Obama goes... he just isn't very bright. Did he expect the Jews to willingly line up and march into the sea at his say so?
Damn Jews, desperately clinging to their guns and their religion.
The "Palestinians" have no legitimate grievances.
Of course they do. They are people in political, stateless limbo.
This situation is the ultimate shoe-on-the-other-foot situation. Obama's policy is the policy of Bush, which was the policy of Clinton, which was the policy of...
And this policy is also the policy of everyone involved, including Israel. Land for peace is Israel's stated position. What do you think land for peace is? It's land...for peace. It's land taken in various wars to be made into a Palestinian state or given to various contiguous countries in exchange for a peace treaty.
Israel needs to stop the perpetual negotiation about peace. Instead, Israel needs to make peace.
standard features of an apartment in israel are steel shutters on the windows and a closet-sized bomb shelter.
obama wants to tell these folks that they just have to lighten up and be friendlier to their neighbors and everything will work out swell.
it was sweet to see bibi explain a little bit about reality to him today...but i doubt much sank into mr. i'm-a-genius' brain.
Seven Machos said...
"Land for peace is Israel's stated position. What do you think land for peace is? It's land...for peace."
Well, it have not worked so far. May be Israel should change its position to - peace for peace? If the Arabs get land would Israel get peace? Gaza experience'd shown it's not so.
Alex: Since when is ensuring Israel's existence against America's interest? Have you no morality?
Since you put it that way, I guess not. I think anyone who runs for elected office in this county ought to put American interests first (and all the interests of all other countries a distant second). If your tribal loyalties rule that out then out of common decency you ought to resign your office and become a a registered lobbyist for the county you really love the best. You'll be happier and less conflicted. And I guarantee that we will too.
Since you put it that way [SNIP]
At no point did you actually respond to the posted query: "Since when is ensuring Israel's existence against America's interest?"
Presumably, that was intentional.
"Obama's policy is the policy of Bush, which was the policy of Clinton, which was the policy of..."
WRONG.
Obama and the left want Israel to concede land until Israel is gone. Which will be the ultimate appeasement to the Arab/Islamic world.
Remember, Mr. Zero grew up in a fatherless home. Yesterday, a MAN told a little boy about the facts of life. Life and death. Obama is playing his little political game. Bibi is responsible for the very survival of his country.
The best part was that Bibi did not act like the Zero. There was no name calling, no demonization, no demogoging, no straw men, no Alinsky devices; he simply laid out the facts that are clear to most of us.
Our last two Dem Presidents were both abandoned by their fathers as children. I'm sure there's a correlation between the "Mommy-pleasing" behavior that they by necessity developed and their appeal to emotionally driven (read:female) voters, but I don't care enough to really think about it.
Lincolntf said...
"... their appeal to emotionally driven (read:female) voters ... "
Ou, ou, oh, now you didn't just say THAT did you?
Whoa!!
I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
April -- How are the Bush, Clinton, and Obama positions substantially different?
'OBAMA SUPPORTS PALESTINE'
Oh c'mon, the good stewards at the New York Times saw fit to make the headline ...
"Obama asks Israel to Take Bold Step."
Seriously?
Kent:At no point did you actually respond to the posted query: "Since when is ensuring Israel's existence against America's interest?"
The notion that Israel's existence is at stake if it doesn't get to build another 1400 apartment units in East Jerusalem is absurd. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons. Her neighbors have squat. Israel's existence is not the issue here.
The real issue is whether we want to risk the lives of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention have Homeland Security spend the next 10 years feeling up the underwear of little girls at airports just so Netanyahu can build more apartments in the West Bank. I say the hell with that and the hell with any American politician who takes Netanyahu's side in this instead of America's.
Wrong Gene. Go read a history book (or a few dozen) and then report back on what you find regarding what happens to Jews when they don't have a defensible State. I know genocide and ethnic cleansing are wicked fun, but do the Jews really need to suffer more of both?
ME (repeating Alex): "Since when is ensuring Israel's existence against America's interest?"
YOU: "The notion that Israel's existence" [SNIP]
Second dodging of simple, straightforward question noted.
If and when Gene ever does get around to answering said question (based on his own bald, verbatim assertion, @ 9:53 P.M. upthread): someone send up a flare, please. Otherwise, the steadfast refusal to defend one's own assertion, however minimally, automatically serves as its own special brand of FAIL, ultimately.
If and when Gene ever does get around to answering said question (based on his own bald, verbatim assertion, @ 9:53 P.M. upthread): someone send up a flare, please. Otherwise, the steadfast refusal to defend one's own assertion, however minimally, automatically serves as its own special brand of FAIL, ultimately.
You think all you have to do is say Israel's existence is at stake and you've answered all objections to Israel's settlement policy. But it's not Israel's existence that Netanyahu is worried about, given his uncontested 200 nuclear devices, it's all those apartment houses and settlements he wants to keep building in East Jerusalem and the west bank.
As General Petraeus has observed, the suspicion that America supports Israel right or wrong is getting American soldiers killed in Iraq ans Afghanistan. When American congressmen support Netanyahu over the middle east policy of their own president what they're really saying is these settlements are so important it's more than worth it if a few more of our troops have to come home in body bags.
We've wasted ten years now on never-ending Mid-East wars. Osama's dead. It's time to bring the troops home.
As General Petraeus has observed, the suspicion that America supports Israel right or wrong is getting American soldiers killed in Iraq ans Afghanistan.
That is predicated on the idea that it's ok for America to appease Arab Jew-haters. Why should we?
Gene -- We are in Iraq and Afghanistan and we can't leave until the time is ripe and right. Doing otherwise will harm our long-term interests.
You've been harping on this shit for years. Get over it.
You think all you have to do is say [SNIP]
*sigh* Third consecutive dodge, noted.
Lookit: "Ensuring Israel's existence is against America's interest because _________."
It's your silly assertion, for pity's sake. Either support it plainly and forthrightly, by completing the sentence above... or stop wasting my time.
Kent: it's your silly assertion, for pity's sake. Either support it plainly and forthrightly, by completing the sentence above... or stop wasting my time.
It's not my assertion. You wrote it, not me. Why should I defend it? It's not what I said.
As far as wasting your time, I have no problem wasting the time someone who is more than willing to waste American lives for the sole purpose of protecting Israeli apartment houses in the West Bank. You asked me where is my morality. Now I'm asking you, where the hell is yours?
Gene -- Where are the American soldiers stationed in Israel or Palestine? Please tell us. I am intrigued.
Seven Machos: Gene -- Where are the American soldiers stationed in Israel or Palestine? Please tell us. I am intrigued.
The countries where American solders are at risk are, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan. And one reason they hate us there is that they think everything we do is in concert with Israel. They simply cannot believe the American president couldn't stop new Israeli Israeli settlements in the West Bank if he really wanted to.
Gene - ask yourself why is it Iraqi business about Israelis settlements in the West Bank?
Alex: That is predicated on the idea that it's ok for America to appease Arab Jew-haters. Why should we?
That's one question. Here's another. Why should American soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan just so Israel can build new settlements in the west bank?
Even so my complaint is not so much with Israel, which will always act in its best interests, as it is with American congressmen who put Israel's interests ahead of ours. I wonder sometimes who they think they work for.
That's one question. Here's another. Why should American soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan just so Israel can build new settlements in the west bank?
How did you make the logical connection between Israeli settlements and American presence in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Show your work.
It's not my assertion. You wrote it, not me.
Horseshit, and demonstrably so. If you're now hastily backpedaling from your earlier assmunchery ("Since when do the interests of American allies come before those of America itself?"), I certainly can't blame you for the impulse, nakedly self-serving though it may be... but: unvarnished and upthread it remains, nonetheless.
I have no problem wasting the time someone who is more than willing to waste American lives for the sole purpose of protecting Israeli apartment houses in the West Bank.
... and now, you've elected to thrash things out with the imaginary "kent" squatting rent-free in your head, instead (as you plainly cannot point to any such statement on my own part, and doubtless are well aware of that). Well and good: I'll leave the two of you to get on with that, then. Luck!
[::shakes head, snorting derisively::]
This is the first time, in this cycle, I've seen illusions and reality contrasted so obviously.
Good lesson for a NewAge president (and his supporters) to receive.
Kent: if what you're mad about is my statement that the interests of American allies should never come before those of America itself, then I endorse those worlds, embrace them, and trumpet them to the world. If you hold other opinions on the subject I suggest you reexamine your dual loyalties, since at the moment they're clearly confused.
Alex: How did you make the logical connection between Israeli settlements and American presence in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Well, initially it wasn't me. It was Joe Biden and General Petraeus who did. Here's a paragraph from Scott Horton writing in the March 15, 2010 Harper's on Biden:
Last week, Vice President Joe Biden was publicly slapped in the face by the Netanyahu government during his trip to Jerusalem. The Israeli government used the occasion to announce the settlement of 1,600 Israelis in Arab East Jerusalem, in defiance of America’s calls for a freeze on settlements. According to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, Biden responded: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”
If you have any evidence that there is no connection between Israeli actions in the West Bank and the safety of American soldiers elsewhere in the region, I'd be happy to read it.
According to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, Biden responded: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”
If you have any evidence that there is no connection between Israeli actions in the West Bank and the safety of American soldiers elsewhere in the region, I'd be happy to read it.
What because Biden spewed some nonsense it means something? What proof did Biden give? Why is he an authority on the Middle East?
Alex: What because Biden spewed some nonsense it means something? What proof did Biden give? Why is he an authority on the Middle East?"
Take it up with Abe Foxman. He wrote a column attacking General Petraeus when he said the same thing.
He wrote a column attacking General Petraeus when he said the same thing.
What reasoning did Petraeus give other then "we have to appease the Jew-hating Arab savages"?
Alex: What reasoning did Petraeus give other then "we have to appease the Jew-hating Arab savages"?
Basically he said that the Arabs (along with, I might add, virtually everyone else in the world) think that the US is biased toward Israel. And that places the American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan at grave risk.
Obama himself said nearly the same thing last year, observing that solving the mideast crisis is a vital US priority because when conflicts break out they end up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
I don't know what else you want. Both Obama and his highest-ranking mideast general both believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is getting American soldiers killed.
For me the issue goes beyond the loss of blood. The trillions we waste bombing useless countries like Afghanistan could be put to much better use repairing roads, bridges, schools and otherwise rebuilding America.
Post a Comment