RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:24:12 PM)
Their current borders are more defensible how, then?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:34:19 PM)
And still no one, including Jstreet has addressed the real issue. Again Netanyahu already told Obama that 1967 borders was negotiable, *with another non-negotiable* concession from the Palestinians, that Oboy was silent about.**

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:36:19 PM)
Well, if one continues in such a vein as to insure that they are surrounded by enemies without exploring even tenuous peaceful solutions, they haven't a need to get arsed up over the friendly fire situations do they? Shoot in any direction.........

BamaD -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:42:38 PM)
Today's borders are far more defensiblethan the pre 67 borders.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:43:06 PM)
Ja, how is that then?

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:51:12 PM)
How stupid can this discussion get? ANY border is defensible against a non-militarised State, which the demand both Israel and Obama are making of the Palestinians. Especially if you have: The most technologically advanced feared military in the entire region; and/or nuclear weapons; both of which Israel possesses. Just another nonsensical excuse/red herring to avoid peace and continue the theft of the West Bank.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How stupid can this discussion get? ANY border is defensible against a non-militarised State, which the demand both Israel and Obama are making of the Palestinians. Especially if you have both: The most technologically advanced feared military in the entire region; and/or nuclear weapons; both of which Israel possesses. Just another excuse/red herring to avoid peace It reached a new depth of stupidity when the possibility of a non-militarized state was entertained.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 3:58:22 PM)
No, it went stupid with the misinformation spewed by the non compos mentis talking heads surrounding the holocaust.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How stupid can this discussion get? ANY border is defensible against a non-militarised State, which the demand both Israel and Obama are making of the Palestinians. Especially if you have both: The most technologically advanced feared military in the entire region; and/or nuclear weapons; both of which Israel possesses. Just another excuse/red herring to avoid peace It reached a new depth of stupidity when the possibility of a non-militarized state was entertained. It's so nice to hear you condemn Netanyahu's antics Wilbur. Netanyahu and the Likud are the parties responsible for the introduction of the concept of a non-militarized Palestinian entity. Do you agree that Netanyahu is doing his level best to avoid peace too? I suspect he shares your view that a non-military solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict is impossible.

popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:07:50 PM)
Obama threw Israel under the bus. Anyone really "surprised" about that? Israel has no friends in the White House.

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:08:18 PM)
He's spent his whole career doing his damndest to make sure no such solution is possible. What else would you expect?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How stupid can this discussion get? ANY border is defensible against a non-militarised State, which the demand both Israel and Obama are making of the Palestinians. Especially if you have both: The most technologically advanced feared military in the entire region; and/or nuclear weapons; both of which Israel possesses. Just another excuse/red herring to avoid peace It reached a new depth of stupidity when the possibility of a non-militarized state was entertained. It's so nice to hear you criticise Netanyahu's antics Wilbur. Netanyahu and the Likud are the parties responsible for the introduction of the concept of a non-militarized Palestinian entity. Do you agree that Netanyahu is doing his level best to avoid peace too? I suspect he shares your view that a non-military solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict is impossible. No, I dont think he is trying to avoid anything. He has laid out the one concession that the Palestinians refuse to make that would allow a two state solution. 1967 borders becomes a non-issue. "Non-militarized" nonsense becomes a non-issue. Im not criticizing him at all. Obama undercut him today, and made any peace talks that much more difficult, by taking away the border issue as a bargaining chip.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:19:17 PM)
No, not at all, he told Benny to pull in his pissflaps and get ready to seriously parlez. I don't think he gives the glimmer of a fuck that old Benny is pissed off, I know I don't.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How stupid can this discussion get? ANY border is defensible against a non-militarised State, which the demand both Israel and Obama are making of the Palestinians. Especially if you have both: The most technologically advanced feared military in the entire region; and/or nuclear weapons; both of which Israel possesses. Just another excuse/red herring to avoid peace It reached a new depth of stupidity when the possibility of a non-militarized state was entertained. It's so nice to hear you criticise Netanyahu's antics Wilbur. Netanyahu and the Likud are the parties responsible for the introduction of the concept of a non-militarized Palestinian entity. Do you agree that Netanyahu is doing his level best to avoid peace too? I suspect he shares your view that a non-military solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict is impossible. No, I dont think he is trying to avoid anything. He has laid out the one concession that the Palestinians refuse to make that would allow a two state solution. 1967 borders becomes a non-issue. "Non-militarized" nonsense becomes a non-issue. Im not criticizing him at all. Obama undercut him today, and made any peace talks that much more difficult, by taking away the border issue as a bargaining chip. Netanyahu doesn't believe in the two-State solution Wilbur. Netanyahu's party (Likud) Constitution states: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river [ie. the West Bank]".* Netanyahu opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, remember? Nor does Netanyahu believe in a one-State solution - because the Palestinians would have superior numbers and Israel would cease to be a Jewish State. So what does he believe in? We do know he believes in the theft of the West Bank. We do know he rates it a higher priority than peace. Beyond that there's no other option left except a military solution is there? http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:24:14 PM)
He conceded a two state solution to Obama already. Whether he did that knowing that the Palestinians would never make the key concession or was sincere? Im not a mind-reader.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:29:45 PM)
That is a nothing. He is gonna have to pony up a little more than he will start looking around for his non-existant foreskin, and call it compromise. He can read the morning newspaper, there will be a palestine, they cannot keep nailing jelly to a tree in Israel. Same situation as our Iraq, same situation as the fall of the soviet union, nobody can keep it up. Giving in to a state of Palestine is not a consession, it is a durable fact of inevitable. Don't fund the motherfuckers and watch Palestine become a state in how long? Your statecraft and realpolitik is only for armchairs, get out of the kitchen, you can't cook.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:30:57 PM)
Obama has to tell Netanyahu: "You can have the US Alliance or you can have the West Bank, but you can't have both. If you choose the West Bank, you lose all US support. Get out now." When Obama tells Israel that, that will be the beginning of a lasting peace. For as long as the US unconditionally guarantees Israel, Israeli intransigence and the theft of the West Bank will continue. And so will the conflict. Today's events have just made this all the clearer.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Obama has to tell Netanyahu: "You can have the US Alliance or you can have the West Bank, but you can't have both. If you choose the West Bank, you lose all US support. Get out now." When Obama tells Israel that, that will be the beginning of a lasting peace. For as long as the US unconditionally guarantees Israel, Israeli intransigence and the theft of the West Bank will continue. And so will the conflict. Today's events have just made this all the clearer. Nonsense. There is no lasting peace, because the Palestinians wont negotiate on their two key demands ,and while Israel might concede one of them, they wont concede the other, because it would mean the de facto end of Israel.

DomKen -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 4:58:16 PM)
If the PA comes to the table willing to concede the Old City, I guarantee Netanyahu either negotiates or loses a no confidence vote in the Iraeli Parliament. I'm 100% positive the Israeli people will demand the deal gets made as long as they retain absolute control of the Western Wall. As to a non militarized state, no one with any knowledge of the facts on the ground really believes the PA would honor that part of any agreement.

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/19/2011 5:29:38 PM)
FR If the Middle East began to all of a sudden reconstruct itself into a more fair, democratic region in which governments were answerable to their people... what role would Israel play in that? If the answer is that they wouldn't play a role in that, I think this may answer why the White House has taken its position.... The region is changing, how that change comes down will be determined by the people who live there, not by the United States. Our hegemony is ending, and we are preparing for the day that happens. Israel will cease to be the the Third Rail of American international political problems.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875