15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 05:46 pm
@georgeob1,
The Pals woud eventually get 91 % of the lands captured during the '67 War. There would, of course, be further concessions by Israel.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 07:55 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Israel claimed continuing control of air and water rights and complete physical control of all external borders, save only the Gaza border with Egypt.


And how is that bad?
IF, and I repeat IF, Israel was to go ahead and give the Pals all they want, and the Pals create their own state, they would still be pretty much landlocked.

So if Israel were to give them what they want, but then not allow any supplies to go thru their territory to reach the Pals, would that be legal?
The Israeli's could block all electricity, water, fuel, food, medical supplies, or anything else destined to go to the Pal state from crossing their borders.

That would be perfectly legal.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:17 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

There was no possibility of the creation or operation of a functioning state under these circumstances - Israel claimed continuing control of air and water rights and complete physical control of all external borders, save only the Gaza border with Egypt. The "offer" contained nothing that was new, and instead would require that the Palestinians accept and ratify all of the illegal actions Israel has taken since 1967. There was never any possibility that any serious negotiator on the Palestinian side would accept this utterly one-sided offer.

The support of the American people and of our government for the increasingly racist and tribal government in Israel has been steadily waning for severaL years. We are likely to see a significant shift in American policy in the coming year. AIPAC will likely do its best to limit it, but the tide is decidely against them.


It seems like you continue to harp on 1967 as to when Israel began their supposed wrongful acts? Why does Israel have to win a war and then coddle the enemy? I guess our achieving our manifest destiny is far enough in the past to not think we are just as unethical.

I agree all the folks that dislike AIPAC for its apparent disproportionate influence, for a comparatively small group of Americans, will lessen to the cheers of many. And, I agree the results will be seen in the policy towards Israel. I believe this will just balkanize the country more, since 60 million bible believing Protestants seem to like Israel, just the way it is.

If I was a betting person, I would still put my money on the Israelis. Why? Simple animal husbandry. The stupid and weak were killed off during the last two-thousand years.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 11:04 pm
@Foofie,
Not according to what I can see on this foram.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 08:41 am
@rabel22,
"Not according to what I can see on this foram[sic]."

Cute retort, but weakened by your poor spelling.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 09:47 am
Here is a truly freightening piece that concludes that the total disintegration of Pakistan is definitely in the cards. This is a very populous country that has 100 nukes.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/1005589.html
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 10:04 am
@Advocate,
And what, if anything, can or should the US do to prevent it from happening?
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 10:49 am
@Advocate,
Gee. Another put down comment by a put down expert with no real meaning.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 10:51 am
@rabel22,
When they can't defend the issue at hand, they love to divert the issue to something else. This is just another evidence of that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 11:32 am
I apologize for interrupting the mud slinging fest with more news of the growing Israel/Iran crisis which seems to be generating an unusually remarkable lack of interest on the part of the participants on this thread.

But in case some are actually interested in what is happening, it appears that the USA has become quite heavily involved and, depending on your perspective, in a good way or not in a good way:

Quote:
Obama's stance worries Israelis
Jason Koutsoukis
April 18, 2009

CAN Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media.

Watching the drama unfold inside Israel, the increasingly tense dialogue between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking on all the trappings of a duel.

Almost every day brings news of another sore point between the two countries, a source of yet further inflammation of their once warm relations.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the more immediate threat to Israel's national security lay across the Atlantic rather than from closer to home.

It is bad enough that President Obama uses almost every opportunity he can to set the parameters of a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now US officials are openly using Israeli anxiety over Iran's fledging nuclear program as a bargaining chip to force Israel's hand on giving up control of the West Bank Palestinian territory.

No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel " whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials " was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.

If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank.

Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day, as Israelis protested that no US official had the right to tell them where to live.

Then on Thursday came the news that Mr Netanyahu's planned first meeting with President Obama in Washington next month had been called off.

Mr Netanyahu had hoped to capitalise on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House.

But Administration officials informed Mr Netanyahu's office that the President would not be "in town". Continued...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/obamas-stance-worries-israelis-20090417-aa90.html
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 11:51 am
@mysteryman,
Nothing that I know of. Do you have any solutions?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 12:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
The conservative British (Sunday) Telegraph looks at the situation from a different angle to the conservative Australian Age:

Quote:
US Jewish lobby challenged by "pro-peace" rival

Leonard Doyle in Washington
Last Updated: 7:11PM BST 18 Apr 2009

The most powerful Jewish lobby in America is facing an unprecedented threat from a rival pro-peace pressure group that is vying for the ear of President Barack Obama

For the past 25 years, the influential and hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has helped thwart every US presidential effort to deliver Middle East peace through the creation of a Palestinian state. The lobby’s legendary stranglehold over US foreign policy is now receding with the rise of J Street, which describes itself as the “political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement”.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, said: “We want to give a voice to the majority of the American Jewish community that is liberal and open and isn’t supportive of settlements, opposed the Iraq war and isn’t keen on a war with Iran.”

J Street recently released a YouTube video, complete with threatening sound effects, which condemned the “incendiary and racist” campaigning tactics of Israel’s new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Even activists were stunned by the boldness of the attack.

It argues that despite the liberal sympathies of most Jewish Americans, a narrow group of Right-wingers have skewed the debate over Israel in the US. While American Jews will reflexively support Israel if they feel the security of the state is threatened by an enemy like Iran, a majority is also in favour of a “two-state solution” for Israel and the Palestinians and favours diplomacy over military force. More than 78 per cent of American Jews supported Mr Obama in November’s US election.

In the past, however, many senators, congressmen and presidential candidates who favour a negotiated two-state solution have been afraid to declare their hands and incur the wrath of Aipac.

J Street’s rise to prominence comes as the Obama administration is preparing to lock horns with Israel’s new hardline government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is due to meet the US president in Washington next month.

The meeting may also prove to be the first time in decades that a US president engages in a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that the settlement activity - including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions - does to the peacemaking process.

Thanks to J Street’s video, the mood in the US towards Mr Lieberman is now so hostile that he may not even come to Washington.

J Street, which marked its first anniversary last week, was founded with the specific aim of ending Aipac’s influence over US foreign policy. J Street alleges that Aipac has needlessly prolonged the Middle East conflict and its activities are not in the best interests of either Israel or America. Aipac which rarely seeks publicity, declined to discuss J Street or its aims with the Sunday Telegraph.

Staffed by just three three people and run on a shoestring budget, J Street’s name is a reference to their Jewish roots and to Washington’s nearby K Street, the epicentre of America’s vast political lobbying industry and home of Aipac.

It started out modestly hoping to raise about $50,000 from pro-peace
American Jews, which they intended to channel to a handful of congressional candidates who were willing to directly challenge Israel’s policies and withstand pressure from Aipac. Instead, they managed to raise about $600,000, securing victory for dozens of Democrats and a few Republicans in the 2008 elections. J Street claims that 33 of the 41 candidates it backed won their seats.

Alone among Jewish groups, J Street sharply criticised Israel’s recent military offensive against Hamas in Gaza.

“While there is nothing 'right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ’right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them,” the organisation told its members.

In twelve months J Street has mushroomed, becoming Washington’s leading pro-Israel political action committee. Its success has surprised founding members like Joel Rubin, who expected Aipac to act more aggressively to try to snuff out the new organisation, perhaps by leaning on its major donors. “They missed an opportunity and it is too late now,” he said.

Using sophisticated online organising techniques, fundraising and YouTube attack videos - as Mr Obama did in his run for the White House - the peace lobby has managed to outmanoeuvre the better funded Aipac.

It attracted more than 100 co-sponsors in Congress for a resolution welcoming Mr Obama’s appointment of the former Northern Ireland peace negotiator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. Aipac has remained conspicuously silent about Mr Mitchell’s appointment.

“The notion that 100 members of Congress are willing to sign on is a real accomplishment,” said Mr Ben-Ami. “We’re not changing the world, but it’s a signal that things are shifting.”

J Street’s budget is expected to double to $3 million in its second year, and like the Obama election campaign it is now focused on recruiting on US college campuses.

Few expect J Street to rival Aipac’s $80 million purse and vast influence among US politicians and policymakers soon, however.

Jon Alterman, who runs the Middle East programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said: “Aipac has found a way over a half-century to tremendously energise people about their mission.
“Can J Street build a donor base who believe that it is something that is vital in the way that Aipac does? I don’t know if that’s possible.”

Not all American liberal Jewish leaders are enthusiastic about J Street. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, condemned its position on the Gaza invasion as “morally deficient”, “appallingly naive” and “out of touch” with mainstream Jewish opinion.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 12:43 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, Pro-Israelis have difficulty showing any proof they are wrong.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 01:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
J Street has no credibility.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=175293ef-7f70-408b-a68a-ffffdb56d7bf
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 01:31 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

J Street has no credibility.



Some say the same about about Reform Judaism.

Oops, J Street teamed with the Reform Movement.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 02:52 pm
Israelis stole some of the land the UN gave the PAs (i.e. Palestinian Arabs) in reaction to some of the PAs trying to murder the Israelis. The Israelis responded to the murder of Jews by the PAs by murdering far more PAs than the number of Jews murdered.

The PAs forfeited their equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by their violation of those same rights of the Israelis. Did the Israelis over react to the murderous attacks of the PAs. As a non-resident of Israel and one who has not suffered any family or other people I love being murdered by the PAs, I say, the Israelis have over reacted!

But not having ever experienced what the Israelis have repeatedly experienced--murders by the PAs of those they love--I can sympathize with the Israeli over reactions.

As long as the majority of PAs continue to fail to hold accountable that minority of PAs among them who murder Israelis, I am unable to sympathize with the price the majority of PAs are paying for that failure.

The PAs have had among them ever since 1948, those PAs who have repeatedly initiated the murders of Israelis. The Israelis have repeatedly traded land to the PAs in return for the PAs stopping those murders. Despite agreeing to stop those murders in exchange for that land, the PAs did not stop those murderers. In reaction the Israelis have taken back some of that land, and attempted to murder the PAs trying to murder them.

Those who fail to hold accountable those among them who initiate the murder of others, fail to respect the lives of those who are murdered, and they therefore earn the risk of whatever retaliation they may suffer.

The PAs have not even tried to stop the PAs among them who have initiated the murder of Israeli Jews. Therefore, they should expect the Israelis to retaliate by trying to murder those murdering PAs, and expect the imperfect human Israelis and their imperfect weapons to kill non-initating murderers in the same neighborhoods.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 02:55 pm
@Advocate,
Leave them alone and let them figure it out themselves.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 03:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

IF Israel were to give in and allow the Palestinians to create their own state, what then?

Would any of you then say that Israel could threat them like any other state?
By that I mean would you then say Israel could stop any shipment to the Pal state that crossed Israeli territory?
Would Israel then be allowed to stop any electricity, water, fuel, food, medical supplies, or any other material from crossing its territory going to the Pal state?
Would Israel be allowed to block anyone with a Pal passport from entering Israel?

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 03:49 pm
@mysteryman,
YES! to each question!

But of course such behavior by the Israelis in a two-state Palestine, would lead to more excuses by the left for the PAs murdering Israelis instead of merely denying Israelis entry into their own state.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 06:22 pm
Are there not Arab Israelis living in Israel? Then why would Jewish Israelis have to leave the West Bank, if that became part of a Palestinean state?

A double standard? Or, am I missing something?

Anyway, our esteemed President Obama, if he meets the new Israeli Prime Minister to discuss disagreements, may find that this Prime Minister is not a sycophant of the Obama charisma. In my opinion, it might be very therapeutic for our President's maturation process, as he ages gracefully in his tenure.

Let us remember that in the not too distant past President Bush was held in great esteem (and likely still is) by the Israelis, while the Europeans might have had a few disagreements with President Bush. President Obama is now seeing that the Israelis may seem to look like Europeans to some degree, but really hear a different drummer, so to speak.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.57 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 01:45:00