The Israel Discussion Thread

[rumborak]

While that is true, I don't think it was ever reflected by actual US-Israeli politics. Continuing settlemens were usually met with "the US does not condone this", and that was it.
 I think the outrage is partially because people realize that Obama means this seriously.

rumborak

[rumborak]

I'm still wondering whether Netanyahu really meant a Palestinian state allowing unlimited Jewish immigration. That's just so out there, it can't be right.
EDIT: CNN says he was talking about Palestinians returning to Palestine if they want to. That makes more sense.

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

Obama reversing GWBs and all other Presidenst postion on Israel not having to go back to the 67 lines was more of an aggresive move by Obama to rub salt in the already open wound.

“These permanent status negotiations, and the negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, will take place on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Invitation by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker for Arab-Israeli peace talks, in October 1991

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders. These should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Prepared statement by President George W. Bush in April 2005

There is no reversing.

There is.. and no American President had ever been so hostile to an Israeli PM..and that was TWICE Obama acted like a louse to Bibi.

even Obama had to back track.. polls show America supports Bibi more then Obama... who wouldnt?

[rumborak]

"Bibi"? There couldn't be a possible bias, could there?

rumborak

[Rathma]

I think most who care about Israel are mad at Obama for many things, I think the worst was the disdain Obama had on his face when Bibi was speaking..

I think the relationship of the two administrations turned to poop when the Israeli government okayed the construction of hundreds of settlements just as Biden arrived a while back.

[rumborak]

The active continuation of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip under the pretense of arms blocking probably didn't help either with the relations.

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

I think most who care about Israel are mad at Obama for many things, I think the worst was the disdain Obama had on his face when Bibi was speaking..

I think the relationship of the two administrations turned to poop when the Israeli government okayed the construction of hundreds of settlements just as Biden arrived a while back.

Thats a debatable point, its possible.. but the issue is why would Obama care about the natural growth of complexes.. the use of the term "settlement" is even debatable when one looks at what this is and its well within an already known area...

certainly Id point ot the Hamas charter and the indoctrination of hatred preached against the Jews as the real issue that needs to be solved..and unless that changes ( slim to no chance sadly) I dont see these minor issues ( settlements) as a valid reason for Obama to be so hostile .. but Obama is a far left radical, with radical associations, and Obama has a tilt against Israel with any looking into his past assocations..

[Rathma]

Eh, Zionism has little to do with American values.

Actually, its possible that the proto-U.S.A. spirit of escaping persecution sympathizes with the Zionist movement. But I don't know of any American support for Zionism in its early stages. It was the British who were supporting early Zionism, and they also seemed to have believed at that point that they themselves (British) were Israelite descendants.

[EPICVIEW]

Eh, Zionism has little to do with American values.

Actually, its possible that the proto-U.S.A. spirit of escaping persecution sympathizes with the Zionist movement. But I don't know of any American support for Zionism in its early stages. It was the British who were supporting early Zionism, and they also seemed to have believed at that point that they themselves (British) were Israelite descendants.

Thats a good observation..

[Super Dude]

Obama reversing GWBs and all other Presidenst postion on Israel not having to go back to the 67 lines was more of an aggresive move by Obama to rub salt in the already open wound.

“These permanent status negotiations, and the negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, will take place on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Invitation by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker for Arab-Israeli peace talks, in October 1991

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders. These should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Prepared statement by President George W. Bush in April 2005

There is no reversing.

I wouldn't say it's a reverse per se; the change Obama made to the usual U.S. policy is that previous Presidents saw the restoration of 1967 borders as the desired result of negotiations, whereas Obama has made it essentially into a prerequisite for further negotiations.  That's all good and well, but it does give Hamas precedent to ask for even more if these negotiations do go through.

[El Barto]

Obama reversing GWBs and all other Presidenst postion on Israel not having to go back to the 67 lines was more of an aggresive move by Obama to rub salt in the already open wound.

“These permanent status negotiations, and the negotiations between Israel and the Arab states, will take place on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Invitation by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker for Arab-Israeli peace talks, in October 1991

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders. These should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

— Prepared statement by President George W. Bush in April 2005

There is no reversing.

I wouldn't say it's a reverse per se; the change Obama made to the usual U.S. policy is that previous Presidents saw the restoration of 1967 borders as the desired result of negotiations, whereas Obama has made it essentially into a prerequisite for further negotiations.  That's all good and well, but it does give Hamas precedent to ask for even more if these negotiations do go through.

From what I gather, that's not what he said or meant.  As I understand it, he suggested that the '67 borders should be used as a basis for further negotiations.  Big difference.  And it is no different than US policy has been for decades. 

Interestingly, it doesn't appear to have been a problem for Benji either:
https://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/a-joint-statement-from-clinton-and-netanyahu.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+andrewsullivan%2FrApM+%28The+Daily+Dish%29

The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

[EPICVIEW]

The active continuation of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip under the pretense of arms blocking probably didn't help either with the relations.

rumborak

amazing..

1. there is no humanitarian crisis caused by Israel, millions of pounds of critical goods are sent in each day, most taken by Hamas
2. Galid Shalit could be smuggled out of Gaza
3. Iran is trying to smuggle weapons in ( karin A , for an example)
4. Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing permenently , in violation of all prior agreements.

your jive is strictly jive...sounds pretty biased

[EPICVIEW]

"Bibi"? There couldn't be a possible bias, could there?

rumborak

The only bias is your hypersensitvity to the truth..

[Super Dude]

1. I concede that EV is correct about the humanitarian aid bit.

2. Bibi is what Israelis call him.

[EPICVIEW]

1. I concede that EV is correct about the humanitarian aid bit.

2. Bibi is what Israelis call him.

and Im correct on the Karin A, and how until Gahlid Shalit is returned , Israel has vaild concerns about him being smuggled out of Gaza.

[El Barto]

This is actually a fascinating situation.  This is essentially a foreign leader playing the game of American politics better than Americans.  Benji deliberately misstated what Obama said to throw him under the bus. 

What Bibi gains by misrepresenting Obama's Middle East policy

But Netanyahu did an astonishing thing: he chose to ignore the part about the land swaps. He also chose to ignore some significant, and rather hard-line, statements of principle that Obama made in his May 19 speech on Middle East policy, reiterating that Israel shouldnt have to negotiate with terrorist groups like Hamas that deny its right to exist; that Israels security requires a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley, eventually leading to a full withdrawal (but setting no timetable for that withdrawal); that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized; and that he would actively oppose any unilateral U.N. effort to declare Palestinian statehood. Instead, in a most condescending manner, Netanyahu chose to lecture the President on a position that he knew Obama hadnt taken - a return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders. (Obama Warns Netanyahu: It's not the U.S. You Have to Convince, It's the Palestinians.)

Why on earth would Bibi Netanyahu choose to be so boorish and provocative? Because he can be. He has the U.S. Congress in his pocket, a fact made obvious by the applause tsunami that attended his speech to a joint session (and by the fact that an astonishing 68 Senators and 286 Representatives attended the American Israel Public Affairs Committee banquet the night before he spoke). He also has a stronger argument this time around. The apparent reconciliation of the Palestinian factions allows Netanyahu to focus on Israels greatest fear: when push comes to shove, the Palestinians have never really acknowledged Israels right to exist. The one exception to that rule - Yasser Arafats signing of the Oslo accords - seems hollow, given the subsequent Palestinian rejection of both the Clinton and Olmert offers. But Netanyahus offensive also had an important tactical effect: Israels continued, illegal construction of settlements on Palestinian lands - an impediment to peace every bit as great as the Palestinian refusal to truly acknowledge Israels existence - took a distinct backseat during the week of dueling speeches. Netanyahu was playing offense so he didnt have to play defense.

Netanyahu knows American politics. The ease and eloquence of his address to Congress were stunning evidence of that. And so he must have been aware of the political impact of his cheesy gambit: he has now, overtly, tossed his support to the Republicans in 2012. Mitt Romney was able to say that Obama had thrown Israel under the bus. Given his congressional support, Netanyahu may be able to get away with playing so bold a hand - but it is inappropriate behavior for an American ally, and you can bet that Obama wont forget it

[EPICVIEW]

EB,

There is a Yang to that Yin ( Thank You Slycoordinator).

Obama also was playing politcs sandbagging Bibi.. so it cut both ways. Obama was playing to his far left base.

for Bibi, right now he doesnt have the votes in the knessett to do much anyway, he cant concede land if he wanted to.

I personally dont thing Bibi came to DC to have this even be a subject, Carney said Obama was not going to talk about the 67 borders 24 hours before Obama sandbagged Bibi, so I dont think Bibi did anything but react defesively to Obamas hostility. Bibi didnt have time to really think it out and go with a plan., maybe it worked for him anyway..

[El Barto]

It's not sandbagging when all you do is suggest the same thing that he already agreed to.

[EPICVIEW]

It's not sandbagging when all you do is suggest the same thing that he already agreed to.

I think Superdude, already succinclty pointed out the differences to what Obama said, and how it was a change in long standing US Policy and signed agreements by congress.

again.. Carney stated that Obama would NOT be adressing this..and Obama for some reason decided to go after Bibi the day before he was to arrive. 

[El Barto]

And I quite succinctly pointed out to Superdude why he was wrong.

[slycordinator]

I would think that those earlier presidents wouldn't cling to the 1967 borders as much if they'd found that Hamas was an active part of the negotiations.

There is a Yang to that Ying..

Probably everyone else here wouldn't care, but since I've been studying the past 4 years to be an acupuncturist I need to point out that it's "yin" and not "ying."

[EPICVIEW]

And I quite succinctly pointed out to Superdude why he was wrong.

but hes not wrong.. this was discussed last night to the nines on TV.. 242 states that Israel does not have to do anythign until they have a vaible partner in peace that has thrown out the charter for their destruction. Obama put it backwards.. on purpose.

that been long standing US postion, congress voted 95 to 0 that thats the US policy.

EB, why are spinning so hard that Obama was not a louse? Bibi was told and everyone was told Obama would not be brining this up, Carney said that 24 hours before Obama sucker punched Bibi.. thats the bigger story

[El Barto]

EB, why are spinning so hard that Obama was not a louse?

Well, I actually think he is a louse.  I've been very clear on that.  I just tend to think so for reasons very different than the majority.

One recurring theme through all of my posts here over the years is that our system is a joke.  Part of the reason it's a joke is because the parties have become more important than the politicians or the constituents (exactly like unions).  As this trend continues, you see more and more people attacking politicians for bullshit reasons which are always related to their party and not their position or character.  You my friend are a very good example of that.  You will attack Obama for any decision he makes, valid or not, just like you will defend his dimwitted predecessor.  You're completely oblivious to the fact that Obama's essentially Bush's third (and fourth) term.  This '67 border nonsense is just more of the same partisan bullshit that makes me come on here and rag on what a joke democracy is.  If Bush had said the exact same words, Romney would have been on his cock, Benjy would have pronounced him Israel's truest friend, you'd defend him, and countless democratic drones would be rambling on about what an idiot he is for throwing Israel under the bus. 

[EPICVIEW]

EB, why are spinning so hard that Obama was not a louse?

Well, I actually think he is a louse.  I've been very clear on that.  I just tend to think so for reasons very different than the majority.

One recurring theme through all of my posts here over the years is that our system is a joke.  Part of the reason it's a joke is because the parties have become more important than the politicians or the constituents (exactly like unions).  As this trend continues, you see more and more people attacking politicians for bullshit reasons which are always related to their party and not their position or character.  You my friend are a very good example of that.  You will attack Obama for any decision he makes, valid or not, just like you will defend his dimwitted predecessor.  You're completely oblivious to the fact that Obama's essentially Bush's third (and fourth) term.  This '67 border nonsense is just more of the same partisan bullshit that makes me come on here and rag on what a joke democracy is.  If Bush had said the exact same words, Romney would have been on his cock, Benjy would have pronounced him Israel's truest friend, you'd defend him, and countless democratic drones would be rambling on about what an idiot he is for throwing Israel under the bus.  

My issue is Obama is so far to the left, his associations make me very uncomfortable. I know your view is "everyone in politcs is the same" I understand that macro pov you have, and I have stated for the most part that view has some merit. thats why I vote party and not politician. but Obama breaks all norms, I will never trust that he loves this country, his associations are horrid, he is Soros's puppet.. GWB was apple pie compared to this Obama.. Im sorry, but I go by my gut on this one, Obama is a wolf in sheeps clothing , what he is doing is proven it cant work anbd he is doubling down on it.. on every single policy..

did you see Steny Hoyer and Reed have backed away from Obamas hostility at Bibi..The Dems are fleeing Obama.. and the top Jewish contributer to Obama is pulling his support to Obama

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/obama_dumped_by_big_dem_donor.html

[GuineaPig]

Your sense of the political spectrum is pretty skewed if you think Obama is far left.  Or even left.

[EPICVIEW]

Your sense of the political spectrum is pretty skewed if you think Obama is far left.  Or even left.

is this a joke? thats an honest question

[Adami]

Hi there.

Before this conversation gets too derailed about Obama, could you guys possibly move it to the Obama thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

[El Barto]

Hi there.

Before this conversation gets too derailed about Obama, could you guys possibly move it to the Obama thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

My bad.  I meant to C/P his question to that thread before I replied for this very reason.  (although it actually is fairly Israel realted   )

[Super Dude]

This thread is getting veeeeery interesting.

[EPICVIEW]

Hi there.

Before this conversation gets too derailed about Obama, could you guys possibly move it to the Obama thread? I would greatly appreciate it.

sure..no problem Adami. I know we all go off topic a bit when "its Obama and Israel" they get a bit merged


Wow.. only 12% think Obama is pro Israel in Israel...I cant believe its not 0%
https://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=222451

[rumborak]

What a stupid poll. What does "pro-Israel" even mean? He is both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel. Yay for things that are not black and white.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Keep in mind JPost is to the Jews as Fox is to Americans.

[EPICVIEW]

Keep in mind JPost is to the Jews as Fox is to Americans.

does Haaretz have a poll discrediting this poll?,,, the answer is NO..

[Super Dude]

Maybe not that poll in particular, but they do have some interesting data on the general opinion on the occupied territories.

[EPICVIEW]

Maybe not that poll in particular, but they do have some interesting data on the general opinion on the occupied territories.

I read it.