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

outhere69 -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 7:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Well, DK joined and didnt latch onto it, so for all you ME geniuses, the one non-negotiable item Netanyahu told Obama in December must be a part of any peace settlement is for Palestine to formally relinquish the Right of Return. That is far more critical to Israel than 1967 borders, because while loss of the Golan Heights in particular would be a military setback, they can still defeat any conventional attack. With Right of Return Israel would be gone in two generations. It is also far more important than formal recognition of Israels right to exist, which is a fairy tale the Palestinians might try to tell with "forked tongue". Give that up and Netanyahu said a two state solution would be feasible. Again, he may have taken that position knowing it would never come to that, but the offer is out there. Didja hear of the researcher who found that only about 10% would actually return, while the rest would rather have financial compensation? It made a major stink: "Just ten percent of Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon are interested in coming back to their former homes in Israel, according to a survey conducted by a Ramallah research institute, Israel Radio reported Sunday night. The director of the survey, Khalil Shikaki, says that most of the refugees understand that returning to Israel entails accepting an Israeli citizenship, in addition to conforming to laws and life in Israeli society. The survey included interviews with 4,500 people. Approximately half said they would like to live in an independent Palestinian state, while 17 percent preferred to stay in their current home. Similar surveys conducted in the past have reported some 95 percent demanding the right of return, but the question of whether the refugees would actually put their right into action was never posed to them. Dozens of furious Palestinian refugees wrecked Shikaki's office on Sunday to stop him releasing the survey, pelting him with eggs, overturning tables and smashing windows. Shikaki, whose think-tank monitors the Palestinian political pulse through periodic surveys, found that "the vast majority" of refugees were willing to accept monetary compensation in lieu of a return to homes and land they abandoned or were forced to flee when Israel was established in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. " " This was back in '03, and appeared via Haaretz and Reuters. I heard it on NPR back then. Obama's entire position (most folks, especially the republicans, are quoting it out of context) is less radical than what Carter proposed in the past. Aylee, if we kept what we won in war, we'd own Japan, and have shares in Germany and Italy!

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 8:07:45 PM)
"Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions. When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.." http://nicademia.blogspot.com/

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 9:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Well, DK joined and didnt latch onto it, so for all you ME geniuses, the one non-negotiable item Netanyahu told Obama in December must be a part of any peace settlement is for Palestine to formally relinquish the Right of Return. That is far more critical to Israel than 1967 borders, because while loss of the Golan Heights in particular would be a military setback, they can still defeat any conventional attack. With Right of Return Israel would be gone in two generations. It is also far more important than formal recognition of Israels right to exist, which is a fairy tale the Palestinians might try to tell with "forked tongue". Give that up and Netanyahu said a two state solution would be feasible. Again, he may have taken that position knowing it would never come to that, but the offer is out there. Didja hear of the researcher who found that only about 10% would actually return, while the rest would rather have financial compensation? It made a major stink: "Just ten percent of Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon are interested in coming back to their former homes in Israel, according to a survey conducted by a Ramallah research institute, Israel Radio reported Sunday night. The director of the survey, Khalil Shikaki, says that most of the refugees understand that returning to Israel entails accepting an Israeli citizenship, in addition to conforming to laws and life in Israeli society. The survey included interviews with 4,500 people. Approximately half said they would like to live in an independent Palestinian state, while 17 percent preferred to stay in their current home. Similar surveys conducted in the past have reported some 95 percent demanding the right of return, but the question of whether the refugees would actually put their right into action was never posed to them. Dozens of furious Palestinian refugees wrecked Shikaki's office on Sunday to stop him releasing the survey, pelting him with eggs, overturning tables and smashing windows. Shikaki, whose think-tank monitors the Palestinian political pulse through periodic surveys, found that "the vast majority" of refugees were willing to accept monetary compensation in lieu of a return to homes and land they abandoned or were forced to flee when Israel was established in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. " " This was back in '03, and appeared via Haaretz and Reuters. I heard it on NPR back then. Obama's entire position (most folks, especially the republicans, are quoting it out of context) is less radical than what Carter proposed in the past. Aylee, if we kept what we won in war, we'd own Japan, and have shares in Germany and Italy! You must be joking. Do you know how much money would be thrown at Palestinians with valid ties to a former residence to entice them to move back? A "what would you do if peace ever happened" survey isnt worth the pixels that died copying it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 9:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster "Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions. When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.." http://nicademia.blogspot.com/ Yeah, nothings changed since 1973. Idiocy. Yeah, Jordan will be a friend of Israels after a two state solution. Idiocy. Yeah, Egypt, with the strongest most organized group the Muslim Brotherhood is going to be a steadfast friend of Israel. Idiocy, Learn to think about what you post, instead of cutting and pasting with no understanding, like Brain.

BamaD -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 9:58:38 PM)
Obviously Israel did not defend the the 67 borders in 73 that war was fought in the Sinai part of the buffer zone Israel had as a result of 67.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/20/2011 10:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Obviously Israel did not defend the the 67 borders in 73 that war was fought in the Sinai part of the buffer zone Israel had as a result of 67. I keep forgetting to not feed the trolls...sorry! (Shhh..dont tell them that they didnt defend the 67 borders in 67 either).

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/21/2011 1:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster "Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions. When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.." http://nicademia.blogspot.com/ Yes HK. The only real dangers to Israel's existence are from within. Will Israeli greed in trying to steal the entire West Bank result, in time, in a civil war between the to-be-displaced settlers and pro-peace Israelis? This is a real prospect further down the line. Or will the growth in Orthodox numbers allied with the hideous trend to the Right mean Israel will end up some kind of weird Ortho-theocracy? The Orthodox aren't noted for their senses of tolerance. The moral compromises needed to justify the ongoing brutality of the Occupation have already made Israel a sad caricature of the egalitarian ideals of so many who helped establish it. The blinkered morality that enables Israelis to justify the excesses of the IDF while screaming blue murder about Palestinian excesses will eventually take a toll. Let's hope it never gets to either of these ends. Avoiding such a disaster requires a return to values that make the current militarised criminal policies and activities impossible. A just lasting with the Palestinians is a pre-requisite for Israel to regain its moral compass and integrity. This point is made in a far more pragmatic way in today's Haaretz, the excellent Israeli paper: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923

farglebargle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/21/2011 7:16:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle This point is made in a far more pragmatic way in today's Haaretz, the excellent Israeli paper: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923 That's pretty out there for Haaretz, it lays out the major issue. Palestinian Statehood ( and a 2 state solution ) is happening, and Israel can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Will the UN resolution be 187 to 2 or 188 to 1 or unanimous really the only question left.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/21/2011 2:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle This point is made in a far more pragmatic way in today's Haaretz, the excellent Israeli paper: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923 That's pretty out there for Haaretz, it lays out the major issue. Palestinian Statehood ( and a 2 state solution ) is happening, and Israel can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Will the UN resolution be 187 to 2 or 188 to 1 or unanimous really the only question left. Yes. I find Haaretz's coverage of the ME among the best available. It's fearless and honest to the extent that some of the more rabid 'Israel can do no wrong' types describe it as "anti-Semitic" [:D] I hope Israel attends the party voluntarily, and doesn't haven to have peace forced on it. But I don't see it with the present Israeli Govt. All the media I've seen suggests Israelis themselves are pretty much split down the middle on this issue. The consequences of the UN vote will be dramatic - for instance, it opens up the possibility of diplomatic penalties, trade embargoes, sanctions, war crimes prosecutions ...... Israeli Defence Minister Barak has described it as a "diplomatic tsunami". In years to come, Israel's current policies will seen as disastrous for Israel itself. It has squandered the opportunity to make peace from a position of maximum strength, and extracting optimal concessions from the Palestinians side. This will be seen as a strategic calamity for Israel, which, IMHO it is.

Moonhead -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 2:20:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Well, if Cuba doesn't count, then Cuba doesn't count. But then, I wasn't defending Aylee's contention... I was merely correcting your misconstruing of the War of 1812 (a back and forth, slapdash affiar that didn't really resolve anything). That's sort of what I was getting at, to be honest: that new territorial possessions aren't a given as a result of a war, even when one side can claim victory.

luckydawg -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 4:11:53 PM)
except when Russia invades Georgia. Or thousands of other examples that could be given. You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 5:09:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion. Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion." Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence.

luckydawg -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 5:12:47 PM)
Asserting that winning a war does not ever grant terrirtory is false Tweak. Finding a war in which no territory changed hands does not mean it doesn't happen. a true fact that does not affect the point is meaningless to the discussion. The assertion that the sky is often blue has no relevance either, despite it being true.

Sanity -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 5:18:07 PM)
The Falkland Islands... quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion. Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion." Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 5:18:47 PM)
So the "true" and "correct" facts relating to the outcomes of wars are "irrelevant" and "meaningless to [this] discussion". Is that what you are saying? Even though you are arguing that a particular outcome of a particular war is justified? So this one is an exception?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 6:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion. Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion." Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence. Its called a non sequiter and yes, irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/22/2011 6:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion. Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion." Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence. Its called a non sequiter and yes, irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion If you wish to take the position that the outcome of wars involving Israel are special cases and the normal rules, the usual "true" and "correct' things don't apply, please feel free. However I should warn you that creating special standards for Israelis is by definition anti-Semitic, and I wouldn't want you to stray inadvertently into that territory. On the other hand, you can take the position that the "true" and "correct' things apply to Israel just as they apply to everyone else. In which case they are both relevant and meaningful to the discussion. So please take your pick.

luckydawg -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/23/2011 4:58:21 AM)
anti-Semitic adj prejudiced against or hostile to Jews anti-Semitically http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti-Semitic Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group — an·ti–Se·mit·ic adjective — an·ti–Sem·ite noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-semitic No it doesn't and we have been through this before, you know you are lying. That you and some of the board neo Nazis want to redefine it doesn't change the meaning, it just shows where you are coming from.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/23/2011 6:14:25 AM)
and you will find racist words in those dictionaries that refer to people of african decent, colloquially. and you will find racist words in those dictionaries that refer to people of asian decent, colloquially. So, that is a racist word, and you're saying it ain't because people don't understand its etymology and its abject ludicrousness in what it implies and entertains is no barrier to the truth. You can pretend what you want, and you do, always wrong and always a laughingstock, but its your pretense. It is sad and pathetic that vile racists are allowed to roam freely on these boards.

juliaoceania -> RE: Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines (5/23/2011 7:14:04 AM)
Debating with those two is an exercise in futility.... for them white is black, up is down, and hot is cold

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02