PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama humiliates Netanyahu at White House


thecoffeeguy
03-26-2010, 08:46 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

Christ.

Way to go Obama. One fuck up after another!

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 08:53 AM
Our new approach to abandoning Israel has scared the Brits, French, and Germany knowing this president will stop at nothing selling out allies to be buddies with the hamas', Castro's, and the rest of the worst.

The cost in reputation and in the effort to rebuild after he is defeated will be huge.

KC native
03-26-2010, 08:53 AM
so are you an American citizen or Israeli?

KC native
03-26-2010, 08:58 AM
Our new approach to abandoning Israel has scared the Brits, French, and Germany knowing this president will stop at nothing selling out allies to be buddies with the hamas', Castro's, and the rest of the worst.

The cost in reputation and in the effort to rebuild after he is defeated will be huge.

I must have missed when we quit giving Israel millions in loans and military aid.

Jenson71
03-26-2010, 08:59 AM
Our new approach to abandoning Israel has scared the Brits, French, and Germany knowing this president will stop at nothing selling out allies to be buddies with the hamas', Castro's, and the rest of the worst.

The cost in reputation and in the effort to rebuild after he is defeated will be huge.

Abandoning? Europe is really angry at Israel, too, right now. Hence the expelling of diplomats.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 09:07 AM
Well, Reagan boxed Begin's ears.

penchief
03-26-2010, 09:07 AM
Abandoning? Europe is really angry at Israel, too, right now. Hence the expelling of diplomats.

Who cares what "Old Europe" thinks? We don't need them. We've got Romania on our side.

BIG_DADDY
03-26-2010, 09:19 AM
Of course, Osama hates Israel.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 09:20 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

Christ.

Way to go Obama. One **** up after another!This is some guys blog/opinion you are posting as factual news?

orange
03-26-2010, 09:32 AM
This is some guys blog/opinion you are posting as factual news?

Without reading that, the general sentiment is that "Obama humiliates Netanyahu at White House" is correct. I've read it in Times of London and Haaretz.


To which I say "Way to go!"

Netanyahu needed to be dressed down. He has cobbled together a government including far-right parties who are dedicated to derailing the peace process - to the detriment of this country's interests. America is not obliged to help them.

orange
03-26-2010, 09:38 AM
Our new approach to abandoning Israel has scared the Brits, French, and Germany knowing this president will stop at nothing selling out allies to be buddies with the hamas', Castro's, and the rest of the worst.

The cost in reputation and in the effort to rebuild after he is defeated will be huge.

You are a complete and utter joke. You know nothing about what's going on in America ... and astoundingly even less about what's going on around the world.


Quartet blasts Israel over East Jerusalem settlements
Strongly worded statement from Middle East peace envoys calls for pullout from Palestinian territories within 24 months

March 2010 10.15 GMT Article history
Hillary Clinton speaks with the US special envoy for Middle East peace, George Mitchell, during quartet talks in Moscow. Photograph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP



The Middle East quartet has strongly denounced Israeli moves to build 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem and urged the Israeli government and Palestinians to resume peace negotiations.

In a hard-hitting statement after a meeting in Moscow, the UN, the EU, Russia and the US condemned Israel's "unilateral" construction plans and said the status of Jerusalem could only be resolved through negotiations between both parties.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said: "The quartet condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem."

The quartet expected that talks between Israelis and Palestinians should lead to a negotiated settlement that "within 24 months" ends the occupation of Palestinian territories begun in 1967. The settlement should result "in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours".

The quartet includes Hillary Clinton for the US; Russia's foreign secretary, Sergei Lavrov; Tony Blair, the quartet's special representative; and Lady Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief.

The statement expressed deep alarm at the deteriorating situation in Gaza, urging Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip for both humanitarian and commercial traffic and calling for a "durable resolution to the Gaza crisis".

Clinton said she had spoken last night to the Israel prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, following his apparent offer of "confidence-building measures" to encourage the renewal of peace talks. She described the conversation as "very useful and productive … We don't believe unilateral action by any parties are helpful. We've made this clear."

None of the quartet parties were willing to say what pressure they were prepared to put on Israel should it ignore today's statement.


The quartet called on Israel to freeze all settlement activity "including natural growth", to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001, and to "refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem". It also appealed for the international community to back the Palestinians' commitment to build an independent state by offering immediate and concrete support.


A statement from Netanyahu's office said he proposed a series of steps that would make it easier for the Palestinians to join the talks. He did not specify what these would be, but they could include easing Israeli roadblocks in the West Bank, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from more parts of the West Bank and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

He did not announce, as the US had demanded, a freeze on the construction of Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem, the key sticking point.

But diplomats in Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem said Netanyahu had privately promised a temporary freeze on new construction. The work, while not cancelled, is to be postponed for several years.

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, told the Washington Post: "The goal of both sides at this point is to put this behind us and go forward with the proximity talks as quickly as possible."


This morning Ban said the Israeli government had approved several long-standing UN humanitarian programmes in Gaza, including a water and sanitation project, a flour mill, temporary schools and 150 houses. The UN secretary general said he would be travelling to Gaza on Sunday to see the situation on the ground there himself, following yesterday's visit by Lady Ashton. The EU foreign policy chief is understood to have been shocked by her trip to Gaza, privately describing it as "worse than Haiti".

Asked about her phone conversation with Netanyahu, Clinton today struck a more conciliatory note following her comments last week that Israel's building plans for East Jerusalem – announced during a visit by the US vice-president, Joe Biden – were "insulting". Of US-Israeli ties, she said: "Our relationship is ongoing. It is deep and broad. It is strong and enduring."

She went on: "We believe that the launch of the proximity talks is very much in Israel's interests, as it is in the interests of the Palestinians. We hope to see these talks commence as soon as possible."


A US state department spokesman, PJ Crowley, said Clinton and Netanyahu had discussed "specific steps" to improve the outlook for Middle East peace talks. Netanyahu's spokesman, Nir Chefetz, said the prime minister had proposed "mutual confidence-building steps" that both Israel and the Palestinians could take.

Last night Israel retaliated for a Palestinian rocket attack that killed a Thai agricultural worker. Israeli planes struck at least two targets in Gaza, officials and witnesses said.

The quartet condemned yesterday's rocket attack from Gaza and called for "an immediate end to violence and terror and for calm to be respected". It also urged the release of the captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/israel-backdown-revives-palestinian-talks

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 09:38 AM
Without reading that, the general sentiment is that "Obama humiliates Netanyahu at White House" is correct. I've read it in Times of London and Haaretz.


To which I say "Way to go!"

Netanyahu needed to be dressed down. He has cobbled together a government including far-right parties who are dedicated to derailing the peace process - to the detriment of this country's interests. America is not obliged to help them.He friggin embrassed the USA with his settlement announcement while the VP was there. His far right coalition is dangerous. A two state solution is the only workable solution in the middle east and Netanyahu is still not buying into it.

BTW, I've met Netanyahu and talked with him for about 2 hours one time. A very smart and charismatic man.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 09:40 AM
March 26, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'


The President was said to have walked out of the meeting, saying to Mr Netanyahu: 'Let me know if there is anything new'

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.


Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

orange
03-26-2010, 09:50 AM
What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in Israel
Jeffrey Goldberg
Mar 16 2010, 11:07 AM ET

There is much speculation that this kerfluffle over 1,600 theoretical apartments on the wrong side of the green line in Jerusalem will lead to a rupture in American-Israeli relations, but analysts who suggest this are missing the point of President Obama's maneuverings. I've been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it's fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America's relations with Israel; he's trying to organize Tzipi Livni's campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I'm not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it's clear to everyone -- at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog -- that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman's far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai's fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu's surpassingly fragile coalition.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni's centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It's up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel's best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all -- people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- but he'd rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/what-obama-is-actually-trying-to-do-in-israel/37548/

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 09:53 AM
Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright,

Well, there you go, who do you believe, BRC or Obama?

I wonder how intelligent Obama would think BRC is? :Poke:

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 09:56 AM
Can Israel survive friends like these?

By Wesley Pruden


This is the moment a certain number of a certain breed of Democrats have been waiting for. The latest outburst of bad feeling between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu can be the cover they seek for finally putting the Jews in their place.


First the president went to the Middle East to apologize to the Muslims for America being America, and couldn't find the time for a stopover in Israel, America's only true friend in the region. Then he dispatched Joe Biden, the vice president who says he is an "ardent Zionist," to Jerusalem to try to mollify the Israelis with a cheap and sentimental love song with lyrics that nobody believes. The mission quickly blew up when the veep used the occasion to lecture the Israelis for building 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinian bomb-throwers and their American apologists insist on calling "settlements". Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, followed up with some nasty remarks.


Then came Mr. Netanyahu's long-scheduled visit to Washington, and things went from troubling to bad, and then to really bad. The Israeli prime minister, speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee reminded everyone that "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Israel's enemies are real: "The ingathering of the Jewish people to Israel has not deterred these fanatics. In fact, it has only whetted their appetite. Iran's rulers say, 'Israel is a one-bomb country.' The head of Hizbullah says, 'If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide . . . ' The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself."


Who could argue with that? But for this statement of mere fact, Mr. Netanyahu is rebuked as "defiant," and accused of trying to drive a wedge between Mr. Obama, who wishes the Israelis wouldn't be so beastly to the Palestinians, and Congress, which can sometimes do the right thing when propped up by angry constituents.


Democrats were once regarded as the best friends Israel had — Harry S. Truman, a Democratic president and a Southern Baptist, was the first head of state to recognize Israel — but now it's the Republicans who are steadfast in support of the Jewish state. Says Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference: "I never thought I'd live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem."





Some Democrats comfort themselves with the notion, understandable in the light of history, that American Jews will continue to vote Democratic no matter what Mr. Obama and his party do to undermine the Jewish state. The Israelis, under constant siege and occasional bombardment, are not so easily taken in. Benjamin Netanyahu's brother-in-law was widely scolded after he told an Israeli radio interviewer that he thinks Mr. Obama is "an anti-Semite." The prime minister distanced himself from the sentiment.


Accusations of anti-Semitism against the president are over-the-top, like the accusations of racism against anyone who sharply criticizes Mr. Obama, but it is certainly true that Mr. Obama has enjoyed the company of anti-Semites in the past — a "milieu," in the words of New Yorker magazine, "supposedly composed of incendiary preachers, black nationalists, fading Weathermen and . . . Palestinian intellectuals." (Milieus are fashionable on the Upper East Side and Chicago's South Side.) Mr. Obama has explained that while he did indeed submit his family to the moral guidance of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and he sat through 20 years of the preacher's Sunday-morning harangues about perfidious Jews and other evil white folks, he never heard the anti-Semitic rants, thus establishing a mark worthy of the Guinness Book of Records for sleeping through more than a thousand fiery sermons.


Benjamin Netanyahu is the bane of the Democrats, who only wish he would go away (or be taken away). That's because he understands the stakes in the Middle East, and wastes no time on prissy conversation over diplomatic tea cups. "Throughout history," he said, "the slanders against the Jewish people always preceded the physical assaults and were used to justify these assaults."


This is the kind of rhetoric that strengthens resolve in sensible and prudent men aware of the threat to their own extinction, but it upsets the tummies of certain Democrats secure behind the protection of better men than they. It makes their teeth itch. Better to think of bunnies, enjoy the music of little fairies and early spring flowers, and maybe trouble will go away. Barack Obama insists he's a friend of Israel. Some friend. Israel won't long survive if it has to depend on friends like him.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

orange
03-26-2010, 10:01 AM
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Gee, the American right is against Obama. I guess the Israeli middle must be, too.

Livni to Kadima activists: Netanyahu's declarations foolish

Published: 03.16.10, 22:49 / Israel News

Kadima Chairman Tzipi Livni said in a convention for Kadima activists in the north, "The difference between us and Netanyahu is the difference between the wisdom of action and the foolishness of declarations."

"The issue is not Jerusalem, but the conduct that resulted in Israel's weakening. There are those who will want you to think that Jerusalem is the issue in order to erase the conduct here," said Livni. (Attila Somfalvi)


Or maybe not.

orange
03-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Last update - 10:32 26/03/2010


Netanyahu and Obama are at point of no return

By Akiva Eldar


The strife between Israel and the United States concerns something far bigger than the proximity talks with the Palestinians. As far as President Barack Obama and his senior advisers are concerned, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to blame for nothing less than damaging the standing of the U.S.in the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Just as Netanyahu received his standing ovation at the AIPAC conference, Obama and his advisers were ruminating over an altogether different convention - the Arab League begins a meeting Tripoli on Saturday. For the Americans, Netanyahu's Likudnik speech and the Shpeherd Hotel project matched in embarrassment the scandalous announcement of construction in East Jerusalem during Vice President Joe Biden's visit here.

This year's Arab League summit will be the scene of struggle between the allies of Iran and the allies of American, and the violation of the status quo in Al Quds - Jerusalem - has direct implications for the balance of power between the sides. Over the last few weeks, Americans have been giving life support to the Arab Peace Initiative, born at the League's summit in Beirut 2002 and set to be on the agenda this week.

The absence of Egyptian President Mubarak, who is recovering from an operation in Berlin, doesn't make it any easier for the U.S. to resist the efforts of Syria and Libya to suspend or possibly even terminate the peace initiative. The al-Mabhouh assassination, insulting as it was to the rulers of the Gulf, doesn't do much for the other proponents of the initiative, King Abdullah of Saudia and King Abdullah II of Jordan. The Saudi king had asked the Quartet for clarifications about Israel's latest moves in Jerusalem and specifically about Netanyahu's statement of intent for the Arab part of the city.

The messages coming to the White House from Riyadh and Amman, then, were starkly clear: If you don't rein in your Israeli friends, Tehran won't be the only Middle East capital where American flags will burn.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decisively supported General David Petraeus, the first American military man in years to describe Israel as a strategic burden on the U.S. Gates said America's rivals in the Middle East are abusing the standstill of the political process between Israel and the Arabs. He stressed that he had no doubt a lack of peace in the region was influencing American interests there.

Netanyahu had been hoping to buy time until November's Congressional elections, which coincide with the deadline he set for the settlement freeze. But with America's strategic interest on the line, Bibi's favorite political game (playing the Jewish community and Congress against the White House and the State Department) isn't working anymore. Obama decided his moderate Middle East coalition is more important than Netanyahu's extremist one. This is a point of no return.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159300.html

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 10:07 AM
This seems to be a pretty big deal since Israelli-US relations have been so important over the decades but yet this story doesn't even make it (at least by my quick view) on cnn or msnbc or NYT's websites. strange...

HonestChieffan
03-26-2010, 10:08 AM
They report on Carter and Obama doing his crazy batshit Love for Hamas instead

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 10:09 AM
Obama decided his moderate Middle East coalition is more important than Netanyahu's extremist one. This is a point of no return.
ie...muslim coalition...he is isolating Israel to strongarm them the Chicago way.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:11 AM
Reagan wanted to work with the moderates to squeeze out the extremists for a resolution too. He criticized this wing in Israel as belligerent and egging on for war. The quotes are in a thread from last week.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:12 AM
This seems to be a pretty big deal since Israelli-US relations have been so important over the decades but yet this story doesn't even make it (at least by my quick view) on cnn or msnbc or NYT's websites. strange...A minor story. We both need each other. It's in our interest to have the Israeli/Palestenian conflict resolved. There are many people in Israel that feel the best way to provided security for Israel is settlements in the West Bank. There is always going to be friction.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:14 AM
Reagan wanted to work with the moderates to squeeze out the extremists for a resolution too. He criticized this wing in Israel as belligerent and egging on for war. The quotes are in a thread from last week.I bet a google search would bring back the same quotes in the Reagan era.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 10:14 AM
Ron Paul would have had dinner with him. Who's the isolationist? ;)

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 10:15 AM
A minor story.
Only a minor story according to those supporting this action as they don't want to piss off jews thus losing votes in November. That is why its a "minor" story to them. This is this administrations' MO. Criticize, humiliate, then dismiss...move ahead with initial plan

orange
03-26-2010, 10:15 AM
ie...muslim coalition...he is isolating Israel to strongarm them the Chicago way.

Actually, he's isolating Netanyahu - not Israel.

Despite U.S. anger over settlements, defense ties are flourishing

By Amos Harel

Even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Defense Ministry and Pentagon were concluding yet another huge deal.

Israel will buy three new Hercules-J transport aircraft, built by Lockheed Martin, at a cost of $250 million. The planes will be manufactured according to Israeli specifications and include many systems produced by Israeli military suppliers.

The deal goes to show that a continuing diplomatic crisis between Israel and the United States has still to make itself felt as far as defense relations are concerned.

During a previous row earlier in the decade, when Israeli agreed to sell Phalcon early-warning and reconnaissance aircraft to China, the Pentagon made its displeausure clear. Relations took years to return to normal.

But over the past two years defense ties have flourished. The air force now holds extensive exercises with its American counterpart, while this November a large joint missile defense exercise, code-named Juniper-Cobra, is due to take place in Israel.

Against a background of high-level tensions between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu, now rumbling on into a second year, the U.S. defense establishment has been careful to build an alternative in the form of direct and friendly links with Israeli defense officials. To a considerable extent, these links center on Defense Minister Ehud Barak's personal relationship with U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Under present circumstances, it appears that the U.S. administration is keen to maintain this relationship, even while stepping up political pressure on Netanyahu.

The bigger problem, from the defense point of view, lies in the implications of Palestinian-Israeli tensions on the number-one strategic issue: the Iranian nuclear program. A series of visits to Israel by senior U.S. officials in recent months was meant to make clear that Washington has no intention of giving Israel a green light to strike Iran - or even a yellow one.

Defense officials are certainly getting the message. With relations so tense, it is becoming hard to coordinate international diplomatic steps against Iran. If Israel needs to improve its readiness in the event of a further escalation in the region - against Iran, or against Hezbollah, Hamas and possibly Syria - it might be difficult to find a friendly audience.

One of America's demands to Israel is a goodwill gesture toward the Palestinian Authority that would restore security conditions in the West Bank to their state on September 28, 2000, the eve of the second intifada.

This would give the PA complete control over regions of the West Bank designated 'Area A' by the Oslo Accords - meaning that Israel would agree to limit its powers arrest there. For some months now, defense officials have been discussing at least partial implementation of the idea.

So far, neither the IDF nor the Shin Bet security service has entirely rejected the plan, in view of the improved security coordination with the Palestinian Authority.

Only that under the current American political pressure, agreeing to such a demand may lead the Palestinians to assume that the balance of power has shifted - and that they owe Israel nothing. In view of the dwindling trust between Israel and the PA, such an assumption is a guaranteed recipe for trouble.

Posted by Amos Harel, March 26, 2010

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159293.html


Republicans - what about that red part?

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:16 AM
Well, there you go, who do you believe, BRC or Obama?

I wonder how intelligent Obama would think BRC is? :Poke:
Holy crap I'd win that poll in a landslide on this board.;)

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:16 AM
We both need each other.
Actually we don't. FDR and Truman weren't even going to recognize it but fel it should be left up to the people in that area. Truman claimed his arm was twisted to change his stand. It's actually more of an albatross than a "need."


It's in our interest to have the Israeli/Palestenian conflict resolved.
I agree with this much.

There are many people in Israel that feel the best way to provided security for Israel is settlements in the West Bank. There is always going to be friction.
There are also many in Israel that feel the settlements are creating more friction. There are also many in Israel that don't know how that land for those settlements was gotten.

Once we recognize there is some wrong committed on both sides of this conflict we can begin to fix it. You can't do it working with the extremists on both sides. You have to work with the moderates.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:17 AM
Only a minor story according to those supporting this action as they don't want to piss off jews thus losing votes in November. That is why its a "minor" story to them. This is this administrations' MO. Criticize, humiliate, then dismiss...move ahead with initial planIs that what you called Reagan when he used the same straegy?

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 10:17 AM
He isolating the Israeli PRIME MINISTER not some two-bit, non-influential nutbag. He is trying to destabilize the PM's gov't thus hoping to change them internally which is what he should be doing in Iran but well...not doing

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:18 AM
I bet a google search would bring back the same quotes in the Reagan era.

I bet if you just use the search here you could get those quotes personally hand type by me from the book. I'll go get it....hold on!

Taco John
03-26-2010, 10:18 AM
I don't see how this can be characterized as a "minor" story.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 10:19 AM
Is that what you called Reagan when he used the same straegy?Had I been posting on this board then, I would. Israel is a critical ally of the United States of America and their enemies are our enemies. We should be working WITH Israel not trying to destabilize them whether it was thirty years ago or today.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:21 AM
He isolating the Israeli PRIME MINISTER not some two-bit, non-influential nutbag. He is trying to destabilize the PM's gov't thus hoping to change them internally which is what he should be doing in Iran but well...not doingNetanyahu has always been viewed as an extremist by the Israeli's. But they realize that and sometimes vote in the extremist for that very reason. They feel that times demand an extremist. Standard Israel politics.

You have to remember that Netanyahu owes his political life to his dead brother who died leading the raid on Entebbe. He's a folk hero to the Israeli's.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:22 AM
I bet if you just use the search here you could get those quotes personally hand type by me from the book. I'll go get it....hold on!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=225052&page=4

As these events were unfolding, we continued to receive what appeared to be credible reports from Israel, that Begin, who believed in the Biblical maxim of "an eye for an eye, " and his defense minister Ariel Sharon, a bellicose man who seemed to be chomping at the bit to start a war, were preparing for a full-scale invasion of Lebanon against the PLO, waiting only for the slightest provocation to launch it. While I urged Begin to practice restraint, Habib continued trying to work out a framework for a settlement. We told Israeli leaders we believed they had lost considerable support in the non-Arab world during the previous year because of the attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant, air strikes in Lebanon that had killed noncombatant Palestinians, the annexation of the Golan Heights, and other actions directed against the Arabs. Each time I communicated with them, however, I emphasized my personal commitment and that of the United States to the support of Israel. I supported its right to defend [emphasis is Reagan's—not mine] itself against attack, but appealed for Israel not to go on the offensive unless it was the victim of a provocation of such magnitude, the the world would easily understand its right to retaliate.

Israel's responses was, in effect: Mind your own business. — RONALD REAGAN


I can understand his fear [Menachem Begin] but feel he took the wrong option," I wrote in the diary June 9, 1981.

[Reagan repeats his support for Israel and what could have been done instead here then wrote in his diary because we could have done something to remove the threat; felt Israel should have told the U.S. at least.]
Under the law I have no choice but to ask Congress to investigate and see if there has been a violation of the law regarding the use of American-produced planes for offensive purposes.

[Okay so he says he still give them a waiver...but he still didn't like it either. He goes on in the book with...]

Technically, Israel had violated an agreement with us not to use U.S.—made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge. We sent a note to the Israeli government criticizing the raid, and delayed shipment of several additional military aircraft as a show of our displeasure; but sympathized with Begin's motivations privately believed he should be given the benefit of the doubt. p 413

[Later Begin stabs RR in the back despite RR to ensure Israel's safety: page 415]

...I learned that almost immediately after he [Begin] left the WH, Begin went to Capitol Hill and began lobbying very hard against me, the administration, and the AWACS sale—after he told me he wouldn't do that.— RONALD REAGAN

RR believe in working with the moderate Arab elements to eventually squeeze out the more extreme elements as the only way to bring this conflict to a resolution. So he approved of AWACS planes to moderate Arab govts to get them to trust us. He worked for peace in the ME and states in the book that he wanted to take up where Carter left off. He was not in the Neo Con FP camp— he was in the Realist FP camp. That's what his actions show at least regarding the ME. ( too much to write for now. And my earlier quotes were NOT fabrications as alleged either....more later)

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:23 AM
I don't see how this can be characterized as a "minor" story.It's minor because nothing is going to change. It's just something to talk about. There will never be lasting peace between Israel and the Palenstinians because the extremes on both sides will not allow it to happen.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:24 AM
"From the CS Monitor:


... low point in diplomatic relations since the mid-1970s when the Ford administration reassessed ties with Israel over a disengagement agreement with Egypt and froze arms shipments."


Gerald Ford, a very underrated president.


...

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:24 AM
Had I been posting on this board then, I would. That would have been pretty hard to pull of cicra 1982? Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet.;)

orange
03-26-2010, 10:25 AM
He isolating the Israeli PRIME MINISTER not some two-bit, non-influential nutbag. He is trying to destabilize the PM's gov't thus hoping to change them internally which is what he should be doing in Iran but well...not doing

How can we isolate Iran any more than they are? Obama is calling for sanctions, after all.

And what about this:

During a previous row earlier in the decade, when Israeli agreed to sell Phalcon early-warning and reconnaissance aircraft to China, the Pentagon made its displeausure clear. Relations took years to return to normal.

But over the past two years defense ties have flourished.

I THINK the President at that time was a Republican. Was he an anti-Israel Chicago gangster trying to strongarm some two-bit, non-influential nutbag? Maybe it was the PENTAGON that was the irresponsible, America-hating faction at fault.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 10:34 AM
How can we isolate Iran any more than they are? Obama is calling for sanctions, after all.

That's just part of the ramp up to war too. Same pattern as Iraq. That will lead to war too just as the embargo on oil to the Japs goaded them.



I THINK the President at that time was a Republican. Was he an anti-Israel Chicago gangster trying to strongarm some two-bit, non-influential nutbag? Maybe it was the PENTAGON that was the irresponsible, America-hating faction at fault.

Now what about their spying on us? Some ally.
But, but they never do anything wrong.Ev'r.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Reagan wanted to work with the moderates to squeeze out the extremists for a resolution too. He criticized this wing in Israel as belligerent and egging on for war. The quotes are in a thread from last week.

Irrelevant. Obama is taking this position so therefore it must be bad. Had Bush taken this position, it would have been a sad but necessary move to assert our economic and strategic interests.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 03:00 PM
which is what he should be doing in Iran but well...not doing

I think we have seen over the previous year that this is not really even possible in Iran short of war.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 03:03 PM
Irrelevant. Obama is taking this position so therefore it must be bad. Had Bush taken this position, it would have been a sad but necessary move to assert our economic and strategic interests.No, no & no. This position is wrong no matter who does it from an American standpoint. Israel is our ally. A long-standing and important ally. We should not be treating our ally in this manner. I really don't see how it can be viewed in any other way.

For Orange,
We can isolate them more by not lessening potential sanctions as are being done now.

"The U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win support from Russia and China for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among provisions removed from the original draft resolution the U.S. sent to key allies last month were sanctions aimed at choking off Tehran's access to international banking services and capital markets, and closing international airspace and waters to Iran's national air cargo and shipping lines, according to the people."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575142073816248844.html

penchief
03-26-2010, 03:04 PM
Once we recognize there is some wrong committed on both sides of this conflict we can begin to fix it. You can't do it working with the extremists on both sides. You have to work with the moderates.

Something reasonable that I happen to agree with.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 04:22 PM
No, no & no. This position is wrong no matter who does it from an American standpoint. Israel is our ally. A long-standing and important ally. We should not be treating our ally in this manner. I really don't see how it can be viewed in any other way.

For Orange,
We can isolate them more by not lessening potential sanctions as are being done now.

"The U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win support from Russia and China for a new United Nations Security Council resolution on sanctions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among provisions removed from the original draft resolution the U.S. sent to key allies last month were sanctions aimed at choking off Tehran's access to international banking services and capital markets, and closing international airspace and waters to Iran's national air cargo and shipping lines, according to the people."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575142073816248844.html

You are acting as if Israel is a US state or that we are planning an attack.

When an "ally", who depends on enormous amounts of monetary support from us, is led by a government that doesn't seem to be all that interested in peace. When your own generals are telling you that Israel's attitude is beginning to put your troops in more danger.

When that happens, it is permissible to be a little miffed and give them a diplomatic snub.

The truth is, the current government is composed of a very fragile alliance depending on the whims of a minority party that basically doesn't care about peace at all.

It's not like Israel's government is in danger of destabilization, if the Israel government fails, they call for early elections and we either see the PM vindicated at the polls and strengthened, or we see a new PM.

<del>Israel hasn't even had a government make it all the way to the end of the term and regular elections in decades. In the entire history of the Israel nation I think that happened once.</del> <font size = 1>(edit: after research I found this wasn't true I was thinking of something else, but early elections are still very common)</font> They aren't like the US where we have a new president (aside from death or resignation) every 4 or 8 years like clockwork.

Frankly, I think we are hoping that Israel is forced to call early elections, the Kadima party wins a larger majority, and Tzipi Livni becomes the new PM.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 04:57 PM
Frankly, I think we are hoping that Israel is forced to call early elections, the Kadima party wins a larger majority, and Tzipi Livni becomes the new PM.
ie...our gov't wants to force instability and regime change in an ally. great

vailpass
03-26-2010, 05:05 PM
Is that what you called Reagan when he used the same straegy?

Please never mention President Reagan and obama in the same breath unless it is to show a stark contrast.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 05:16 PM
ie...our gov't wants to force instability and regime change in an ally. great

That isn't the goal. If it happens, great. Likud is just about as likely to win more seats and strengthen the PM, its not possible to predict what the people in Israel will vote for.

Right now Israel is taking our money and doing virtually nothing we want, putting our military in more danger in the process. We are therefore a little pissed. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

KC Dan
03-26-2010, 05:24 PM
That isn't the goal. If it happens, great. Likud is just about as likely to win more seats and strengthen the PM, its not possible to predict what the people in Israel will vote for.

Right now Israel is taking our money and doing virtually nothing we want, putting our military in more danger in the process. We are therefore a little pissed. It really isn't much more complicated than that.How about this for simplicity:

The Palestinians have had numerous oppportunities to agree to a peaceful agreement and have refused each time. I could link up proposal after proposal where the Israelies gave up a shit ton to have the Palestinians say no deal. But, I won't. Do some research and maybe you will see the actual true villians in this waste of time called pursuing peace in the Middle East. You can't have peace when one sides' only stated desire is to destroy the other.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 07:12 PM
Irrelevant. Obama is taking this position so therefore it must be bad. Had Bush taken this position, it would have been a sad but necessary move to assert our economic and strategic interests.

No it's not irrelevant...and you made my point for me here.
The guys here defending Israel claim RR was a hawk in this area of the world when he was more like Obama. But it's okay when its RR but not Obama. That's the point of the RR quotes being reposted.Criticism ends where party lines begin.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 07:15 PM
Please never mention President Reagan and obama in the same breath unless it is to show a stark contrast.Sorry but Reagans and Obamas tactics and straegy are almost the same. Hard to swallow i know, but facts are facts.

RNR
03-26-2010, 07:25 PM
Sorry but Reagans and Obamas tactics and straegy are almost the same. Hard to swallow i know, but facts are facts.

LMAO

Chiefspants
03-26-2010, 07:30 PM
I seem to remember Obama being criticized by some of the conservative members of this board for being too weak on Israel.

And now...It seems as if he's being criticized for being too tough on the nation.

So...where's the line conservatives?

memyselfI
03-26-2010, 07:35 PM
LMAO

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 07:45 PM
I seem to remember Obama being criticized by some of the conservative members of this board for being too weak on Israel.

And now...It seems as if he's being criticized for being too tough on the nation.

So...where's the line conservatives?

I think you'd be wrong.

penchief
03-26-2010, 07:53 PM
Please never mention President Reagan and obama in the same breath unless it is to show a stark contrast.

Reagan wasn't anything special. In fact, he started this whole neocon mess. He kicked of the deregulation folly. He believed in deficit spending and corporate welfare. He was an interventionist. Reagan is them most overhyped president of our time.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 08:16 PM
Reagan wasn't anything special. In fact, he started this whole neocon mess. He kicked of the deregulation folly. He believed in deficit spending and corporate welfare. He was an interventionist. Reagan is them most overhyped president of our time.

If you think deficit spending is bad what do you think of the current administration?

RNR
03-26-2010, 08:25 PM
If you think deficit spending is bad what do you think of the current administration?

Not worth the debate as Barry's bunch is delusional. I also think Reagan has been propped up to a unreal standing. That said comparing the embarrassment in the White House to Reagan is laughable~

alnorth
03-26-2010, 08:31 PM
No it's not irrelevant...and you made my point for me here.
The guys here defending Israel claim RR was a hawk in this area of the world when he was more like Obama. But it's okay when its RR but not Obama. That's the point of the RR quotes being reposted.Criticism ends where party lines begin.

Umm...

Re-read my post. Then re-read my other posts. Your sarcasm detector is horrifically flawed. I laid it on so thick, it should have been obvious.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 08:44 PM
How about this for simplicity:

The Palestinians have had numerous oppportunities to agree to a peaceful agreement and have refused each time. I could link up proposal after proposal where the Israelies gave up a shit ton to have the Palestinians say no deal. But, I won't. Do some research and maybe you will see the actual true villians in this waste of time called pursuing peace in the Middle East. You can't have peace when one sides' only stated desire is to destroy the other.

I am well aware of history, the rockets, etc. Maybe you need to do some research on what is currently happening today.

The new leadership of the Palestinian Authority (particularly Prime Minister Fayyad) has been doing just about everything everyone outside of Israel has asked in the effort toward the two-state solution.

Netanyahu has no real interest in a two-state solution (even though thats realistically the only way Israel avoids obliteration in the long-run, either by force or by loss of ethnic identity because of birth rate). Parts of his governing majority are opposed to it. Netanyahu basically tried to bridge the gap by agreeing to a two-state solution on principle, but only under some very retarded conditions that he knows no sane nation would ever adopt. (completely demilitarize, basically have no army)

The Palestinians wont meet face to face until Israel stops building settlements. A meeting until then would just give them photo-ops and the illusion of trying to work to a solution when they aren't really serious.

After negotiations are over and everyone is agreed what the borders will be, the two sides can build all they want, but Israel cant unilaterally annex East Jerusalem when there's still an open question of whether they will in fact own all of it in the two state solution. Maybe they will, but that has to be negotiated.

Bottom line, the current government in Israel doesn't give two s***s about a long-term peaceful solution with the Palestinians. At least not enough to even acknowledge a real two-state solution. They still seem to think they can just build a big wall and do anything they damn well please. If they can, good for them, but if their actions are putting our soldiers in more danger, then they should proceed without our cooperation or support.

mlyonsd
03-26-2010, 08:53 PM
Serious question.

Has Palestine officially stated Israel has a right to exist?

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:04 PM
A minor story. We both need each other. It's in our interest to have the Israeli/Palestenian conflict resolved. There are many people in Israel that feel the best way to provided security for Israel is settlements in the West Bank. There is always going to be friction.

It's all well and good to say that, but it's not in our interest to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by destroying Israel. And short of that, it's not about to be resolved. Bill Clinton brokered a deal that had Israel making virtually all of the concessions, had the palestinians getting a state of their own state made up of over 90% of their territorial demands, and the result was an intifada. Wishful thinking isn't enough.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:07 PM
He isolating the Israeli PRIME MINISTER not some two-bit, non-influential nutbag. He is trying to destabilize the PM's gov't thus hoping to change them internally which is what he should be doing in Iran but well...not doing

Obama is more interested in regime change in Israel than in Iran.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:08 PM
I bet if you just use the search here you could get those quotes personally hand type by me from the book. I'll go get it....hold on!

You mean the book you got to respond to a specific allegation that you then ignored because you found out the allegation was correct?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2010, 09:14 PM
Bottom line, the current government in Israel doesn't give two s***s about a long-term peaceful solution with the Palestinians. At least not enough to even acknowledge a real two-state solution.
Yup, even Reagan recognized that crowd over there. His administration would lean hard on them at times.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:18 PM
When your own generals are telling you that Israel's attitude is beginning to put your troops in more danger.

When did this happen? That's not what Petraeus said, if that's what you're thinking about.

Taco John
03-26-2010, 09:20 PM
When did this happen? That's not what Petraeus said, if that's what you're thinking about.


Pray then, what *did* Patreaus say?

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:22 PM
Sorry but Reagans and Obamas tactics and straegy are almost the same. Hard to swallow i know, but facts are facts.

Obama and Reagan faced different situations and dealt with them differently. I don't know what you have in your mind, but I challenge you to be more specific because I think if you are, you're story will fall apart on it's own.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:24 PM
I seem to remember Obama being criticized by some of the conservative members of this board for being too weak on Israel.

And now...It seems as if he's being criticized for being too tough on the nation.

So...where's the line conservatives?

He's been surrounding himself with anti-Israeli advisers since before the election so I don't know when you would have ever heard anyone but the most anti-Israel or anti-semetic people criticizing Obama as being weak on Israel.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 09:24 PM
Yup, even Reagan recognized that crowd over there. His administration would lean hard on them at times.

The thing thats infuriating to me is that during those brief years when Israel really was serious about negotiating an end to it, the PA lost their minds. That of course pissed Israel off and that was the end of that.

Now that the other side miraculously seems to be serious, they have dramatically cracked down on crime and killed a lot of terrorists from within, now that the PA has a Prime minister who got his PHD in Texas and actually worked in the USA for a bit, it is now Israel that has lost their minds.

We just cant seem to be lucky enough for the two sides to be rational simultaneously.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:29 PM
I am well aware of history, the rockets, etc. Maybe you need to do some research on what is currently happening today.

The new leadership of the Palestinian Authority (particularly Prime Minister Fayyad) has been doing just about everything everyone outside of Israel has asked in the effort toward the two-state solution.

Netanyahu has no real interest in a two-state solution (even though thats realistically the only way Israel avoids obliteration in the long-run, either by force or by loss of ethnic identity because of birth rate). Parts of his governing majority are opposed to it. Netanyahu basically tried to bridge the gap by agreeing to a two-state solution on principle, but only under some very retarded conditions that he knows no sane nation would ever adopt. (completely demilitarize, basically have no army)

The Palestinians wont meet face to face until Israel stops building settlements. A meeting until then would just give them photo-ops and the illusion of trying to work to a solution when they aren't really serious.

After negotiations are over and everyone is agreed what the borders will be, the two sides can build all they want, but Israel cant unilaterally annex East Jerusalem when there's still an open question of whether they will in fact own all of it in the two state solution. Maybe they will, but that has to be negotiated.

Bottom line, the current government in Israel doesn't give two s***s about a long-term peaceful solution with the Palestinians. At least not enough to even acknowledge a real two-state solution. They still seem to think they can just build a big wall and do anything they damn well please. If they can, good for them, but if their actions are putting our soldiers in more danger, then they should proceed without our cooperation or support.

The second bolded section stands in stark contradiction to the first one. The palestinians have no high ground to stand on here. Palestinian violence has dropped not because the palestinians decided to give peace a chance but because the Israelis built a wall and aggressively defended themselves. I don't think you have a very balanced view of the situation.

patteeu
03-26-2010, 09:33 PM
Pray then, what *did* Patreaus say?

Of all people to ask this question, it's odd that you did since you're the one who posted it in another thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6614309&postcount=22).

I'll repeat it here for convenience:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/sta...2003-16-10.pdf

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas….”

alnorth
03-26-2010, 09:39 PM
When did this happen? That's not what Petraeus said, if that's what you're thinking about.

He didnt pin the blame on Israel, which would be more appropriate for a politician. He stuck with the simple fact that the ongoing Israel-Arab conflict endangers US soldiers. Some people took that and expanded on it as to what that simple fact means in today's context. Previously, I guess the official position was that the mid-east conflict did not mean anything to the safety of our military.

Since right now it seems clear that it is Israel's current government that is not serious about ending the conflict when the PA now seems ready to deal, then they are currently working against US interests.

If this were 2000, it would be appropriate and very fair to blame the Palestinian side and unconditionally support Israel. But, things change.

alnorth
03-26-2010, 09:47 PM
The second bolded section stands in stark contradiction to the first one. The palestinians have no high ground to stand on here. Palestinian violence has dropped not because the palestinians decided to give peace a chance but because the Israelis built a wall and aggressively defended themselves. I don't think you have a very balanced view of the situation.

You also ignore the fact that the PA has in fact recently cracked down on Palestinian terrorists within their borders, and we are also talking about a very recent new leadership that is in stark contrast to what came before. You seem to think the new leadership should come to the table on their knees with hat in hand.

On the other side of this stupid situation, it is absolutely fair to insist that Israel stop building settlements before they talk, because Israel is trying to stall the clock and build a new reality on the ground. That, combined with Israel's demand that a Palestinian state be demilitarized makes them appear utterly unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and destroys any moral high ground they may have once had.

BigRedChief
03-26-2010, 10:10 PM
Obama and Reagan faced different situations and dealt with them differently. I don't know what you have in your mind, but I challenge you to be more specific because I think if you are, you're story will fall apart on it's own.uhhh I lived in that era. I spent a year and a half in Israel during that time. I lived with Palenstinians and Israelis. I spent many hours debating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I worked alongside the best friend of the Prime ministers martyed brother who died in his arms, a hero in his country. He visited the kibbutz a lot. I've met and talked with the humiliated guy on many occasions. He was a rock star in Israel.

You and your bretheren neo-cons can still try to keep marginalizing my positions and questioning my thoughts. Fine and dandy. I've got a cup on.

But, on this issue during this time frame in history no one on this board is going to have a deeper understanding of the issues during that time. No one will have more first hand knowledge than myself. No one.

patteeu
03-27-2010, 09:36 AM
He didnt pin the blame on Israel, which would be more appropriate for a politician. He stuck with the simple fact that the ongoing Israel-Arab conflict endangers US soldiers. Some people took that and expanded on it as to what that simple fact means in today's context. Previously, I guess the official position was that the mid-east conflict did not mean anything to the safety of our military.

Since right now it seems clear that it is Israel's current government that is not serious about ending the conflict when the PA now seems ready to deal, then they are currently working against US interests.

If this were 2000, it would be appropriate and very fair to blame the Palestinian side and unconditionally support Israel. But, things change.

He didn't pin the blame on Israel, which is what you said he did. You are projecting your own assessment on him and pretending that his statement supports your assessment. It doesn't work that way.

You compound your error by claiming that our previous position was that the mid-east conflict didn't mean anything for the safety of our troops. At least since the beginning of the GWBush administration, and probably a lot longer than that, the Israeli/palestinian conflict has been seen as a major source of the instability, violence and unrest in the entire region.

For a long time, there was little indication that Osama bin Laden was particularly concerned with the plight of the palestinians, but there was little doubt that he drew recruits from those who were disaffected in part, at least, because of that conflict. Later, when he needed to rally the jihad against the American response to 9/11, he became more explicit in his appeals based on that conflict.

But the Bush administration was trying to work the issue from the opposite end because they had seen administration after administration try and fail to broker peace between the two parties. They were hoping that regime change in Iraq would at the very least remove one of the instigators and at most might lead to governments in the other local Arab states that would be more willing to address the domestic concerns of their own populations directly instead of following the curren pattern of distracting their populations with anti-Israeli (and anti-Western) propaganda. Obviously, the Bush administration efforts have so far only succeeded in the limited sense that Saddam was removed from the equation.

patteeu
03-27-2010, 09:44 AM
You also ignore the fact that the PA has in fact recently cracked down on Palestinian terrorists within their borders, and we are also talking about a very recent new leadership that is in stark contrast to what came before. You seem to think the new leadership should come to the table on their knees with hat in hand.

No, I don't think that. I think that they should just come to the negotiations and deal in the good faith that their predecessors didn't demonstrate. Period.

On the other side of this stupid situation, it is absolutely fair to insist that Israel stop building settlements before they talk, because Israel is trying to stall the clock and build a new reality on the ground. That, combined with Israel's demand that a Palestinian state be demilitarized makes them appear utterly unwilling to negotiate in good faith, and destroys any moral high ground they may have once had.

Israel has proven time and again that they are acting in good faith. They have nothing more to prove in that regard. What need does a new Palestinian state have for a military if their only enemy is the one that is graciously going to give them their state to begin with in return for nothing but peace?

And I guess the palestinians can stand by while the Israelis build a new reality on the ground if they want to, but that seems like a stupid negotiating tactic to me. If they see the high water mark of the Israeli's good will receding, they've only got themselves to blame.

patteeu
03-27-2010, 09:48 AM
uhhh I lived in that era. I spent a year and a half in Israel during that time. I lived with Palenstinians and Israelis. I spent many hours debating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I worked alongside the best friend of the Prime ministers martyed brother who died in his arms, a hero in his country. He visited the kibbutz a lot. I've met and talked with the humiliated guy on many occasions. He was a rock star in Israel.

You and your bretheren neo-cons can still try to keep marginalizing my positions and questioning my thoughts. Fine and dandy. I've got a cup on.

But, on this issue during this time frame in history no one on this board is going to have a deeper understanding of the issues during that time. No one will have more first hand knowledge than myself. No one.

And yet, you still avoid my challenge. I want to see your point by point analysis of the situation that Reagan faced versus that which Obama faces today and how both Presidents responded with the same tactics and strategy. You won't do it because if you did it would expose how hollow your analogy really is.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2010, 10:18 AM
Kool-Aid drinking Israel-Firster=NeoCons=patteeu

patteeu
03-27-2010, 10:40 AM
Kool-Aid drinking Israel-Firster=NeoCons=patteeu

I almost had a Jewish friend punch me when I told him I thought the creation of Israel was a mistake in retrospect. Of course, I was looking at the situation like I always do, from an American perspective.

Have you gotten to the chapter in Reagan's autobiography where the Ron Paul quote doesn't exist yet?

alnorth
03-27-2010, 03:34 PM
You compound your error by claiming that our previous position was that the mid-east conflict didn't mean anything for the safety of our troops. At least since the beginning of the GWBush administration, and probably a lot longer than that, the Israeli/palestinian conflict has been seen as a major source of the instability, violence and unrest in the entire region.

This paragraph is not correct. Nowhere in that bolded part do we explicitely talk about the US military. Now, we are acknowledging that this situation does present a danger to us.

Since it is now Israel who is the obstacle to peace, then it is absolutely fair to be annoyed with that government now that the PA finally seems to be serious.

alnorth
03-27-2010, 03:40 PM
No, I don't think that. I think that they should just come to the negotiations and deal in the good faith that their predecessors didn't demonstrate. Period.

They are doing that.

Israel is blatantly telegraphing the fact that they no longer give a crap about the two-state solution. It is Israel who has basically told the world they have no intention of negotiating in good faith. Why should the PA give Israel a photo op and the illusion that they are working together? At a minimum Israel needs to signal that they are serious or this is a big fat waste of time.



Israel has proven time and again that they are acting in good faith. They have nothing more to prove in that regard. What need does a new Palestinian state have for a military if their only enemy is the one that is graciously going to give them their state to begin with in return for nothing but peace?

And I guess the palestinians can stand by while the Israelis build a new reality on the ground if they want to, but that seems like a stupid negotiating tactic to me. If they see the high water mark of the Israeli's good will receding, they've only got themselves to blame.

Ancient history. Israel USED to show they were acting in good faith. Now that the other side has turned around and has signalled to everyone they are serious, Israel now, for some idiotic reason, no longer wants to bargain in good faith.

For you to say that a Palastinian state needs no military is nonsensical. Even some of the most dirt-poor nations have a military. The only logical explanation to me for that statement is that you are completely in the tank for Israel no matter the situation, no matter the reality, at all costs. I just dont understand that. What need does Canada have for a military, they border no enemy, right?

For Israel to say that a palastinian state must be demilitarized for them to even consider a two state solution is equivalent to saying "we have no interest in a two-state solution" without flatly saying it.

I had this same attitude in favor of Israel in 2000. It wasn't because my party told me it was the correct opinion to have, it was based on the reality on the ground and our national interest. Both have radically changed, but many are stuck at 10 years ago.

Pioli Zombie
03-27-2010, 05:36 PM
Palin certainly wouldn't have humiliated him. Unless, he, um, requested it. Palin would have gotten on her knees, opened his zipper, taken out his penis, and sucked on it hard. I saw it on "Who's Nailin Paylin?".
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie
03-27-2010, 05:57 PM
I remember Shitsprayer was the Black hater. Who was that classic Jew hater that was on the DC Forum a few months back?
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
03-27-2010, 06:30 PM
This paragraph is not correct. Nowhere in that bolded part do we explicitely talk about the US military. Now, we are acknowledging that this situation does present a danger to us.

Since it is now Israel who is the obstacle to peace, then it is absolutely fair to be annoyed with that government now that the PA finally seems to be serious.

Uh no, it's quite correct and if you need me to spell out the connection between the long term unrest in the region, the anti-Americanism that feeds off of it, and the dangers to our troops in the region due to that anti-Americanism, here you go.

What is incorrect are the ideas that this is new and that Israel is to blame.

patteeu
03-28-2010, 07:01 AM
They are doing that.

No, they aren't. You even said they weren't earlier in the thread, but in case you're changing your story now, here's an NPR story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125048977) that backs up your earlier version of reality:

Israel says it will continue construction work in Jerusalem, but Palestinians say they won't enter into proximity talks without a full settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Palestinians maintain that past talks have only given Israel a cover for settlement expansion.

Israel is blatantly telegraphing the fact that they no longer give a crap about the two-state solution. It is Israel who has basically told the world they have no intention of negotiating in good faith. Why should the PA give Israel a photo op and the illusion that they are working together? At a minimum Israel needs to signal that they are serious or this is a big fat waste of time.

The palestinians have a lot of bad faith to work off. The Israelis have already proven that they're willing to negotiate a two state solution. They even unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, giving the PA the opportunity to demonstrate an ability to govern and live in peace. That was thousands of rockets ago. It's time for the palestinians to make some serious concessions to match those already made by Israel.

Ancient history. Israel USED to show they were acting in good faith. Now that the other side has turned around and has signalled to everyone they are serious, Israel now, for some idiotic reason, no longer wants to bargain in good faith.

For you to say that a Palastinian state needs no military is nonsensical. Even some of the most dirt-poor nations have a military. The only logical explanation to me for that statement is that you are completely in the tank for Israel no matter the situation, no matter the reality, at all costs. I just dont understand that. What need does Canada have for a military, they border no enemy, right?

For Israel to say that a palastinian state must be demilitarized for them to even consider a two state solution is equivalent to saying "we have no interest in a two-state solution" without flatly saying it.

I had this same attitude in favor of Israel in 2000. It wasn't because my party told me it was the correct opinion to have, it was based on the reality on the ground and our national interest. Both have radically changed, but many are stuck at 10 years ago.

Your regression is noted. I don't doubt your sincerity, I just doubt your wisdom and your analysis of the situation. My position isn't based on party either. Nor is it based on what the mainstream media or European public opinion tells me.

patteeu
03-30-2010, 04:33 PM
Why is it that most of the bipartisanship in Washington seems to be opposed to Obama rather than in agreement with him?

327 House members tell Obama to make U-turn on US-Israeli relations (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/28/327-house-members-tell-obama-to-make-u-turn-on-us-israeli-relations/)

Barack Obama talks a lot about the “spirit of bipartisanship.” Now he’s had a chance to see it for himself, thanks to a series of diplomatic fumbles between the White House and Israel, usually one of America’s closest allies. More than three-quarters of the US House of Representatives signed a letter expressing dismay (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171945) over the direction of the alliance, warning that the “highly publicized tensions” aren’t helping America’s interests:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will continue discussions with his senior ministers in the coming days, looking for a way out of the crisis with the US. He received some badly needed support on Friday from 327 congressmen, who signed a letter expressing concern that “the highly publicized tensions” in US-Israeli ties will “not advance the interests” of either state. …

Meanwhile, in Washington, [327] congressmen – three-quarters of the House of Representatives – signed a bipartisan letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension,” the letter read. “A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.

“We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the US and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.”

The letter stated that the US’s unswerving commitment to Israel’s security has been essential in forging previous Israeli-Arab peace agreements, “both because it convinced those who sought Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.”

The letter’s lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The letter had only circulated for three days last week before garnering 327 signatures, probably the most bipartisan effort seen on Capitol Hill in this session of Congress. It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.

Moreover, they’re entirely correct. Thanks to what amounts to a reversal of 20 years of American policy on settlements in Jerusalem, Obama has given the Palestinians a reason to refuse to come to the table that Israel simply can’t address. Obama has made peace a lot less likely than it was fifteen months ago by throwing his tantrum in such a public manner. Weakening Israel won’t bring peace — it will bring more attacks on Israel as Palestinians begin to believe that the US won’t back its ally any longer.

Jennifer Rubin believes Obama’s fumble was by design, or at least by instinctual hostility towards Israel. With advisers like Samantha Power at the White House, that hostility was known long before Obama got elected. Accidental, latent, or overt, Obama’s hostility towards a key democracy in the most strategic part of the world has raised eyebrows of both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — perhaps belatedly, but not too late to put some serious pressure for this administration to grow the hell up.

Bill Parcells
03-30-2010, 06:45 PM
This is my problem.. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is governing the Palestinians..since when did the United states Kow tow to Terrorists?

mlyonsd
03-31-2010, 07:48 AM
Why is it that most of the bipartisanship in Washington seems to be opposed to Obama rather than in agreement with him?
327 House members tell Obama to make U-turn on US-Israeli relations (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/28/327-house-members-tell-obama-to-make-u-turn-on-us-israeli-relations/)

Barack Obama talks a lot about the “spirit of bipartisanship.” Now he’s had a chance to see it for himself, thanks to a series of diplomatic fumbles between the White House and Israel, usually one of America’s closest allies. More than three-quarters of the US House of Representatives signed a letter expressing dismay (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171945) over the direction of the alliance, warning that the “highly publicized tensions” aren’t helping America’s interests:



The letter’s lead signatories were Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD). The letter had only circulated for three days last week before garnering 327 signatures, probably the most bipartisan effort seen on Capitol Hill in this session of Congress. It provides a measure of just how far out of the mainstream the Obama administration has gotten on relations with Israel.

Moreover, they’re entirely correct. Thanks to what amounts to a reversal of 20 years of American policy on settlements in Jerusalem, Obama has given the Palestinians a reason to refuse to come to the table that Israel simply can’t address. Obama has made peace a lot less likely than it was fifteen months ago by throwing his tantrum in such a public manner. Weakening Israel won’t bring peace — it will bring more attacks on Israel as Palestinians begin to believe that the US won’t back its ally any longer.

Jennifer Rubin believes Obama’s fumble was by design, or at least by instinctual hostility towards Israel. With advisers like Samantha Power at the White House, that hostility was known long before Obama got elected. Accidental, latent, or overt, Obama’s hostility towards a key democracy in the most strategic part of the world has raised eyebrows of both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill — perhaps belatedly, but not too late to put some serious pressure for this administration to grow the hell up.


Don't worry. Obama knows what he's doing*.

* (See Iran, North Korea)

ChiTown
03-31-2010, 07:51 AM
This is my problem.. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is governing the Palestinians..since when did the United states Kow tow to Terrorists?

Since Jan 2009.........

The Mad Crapper
03-31-2010, 08:32 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

Christ.

Way to go Obama. One **** up after another!

B.O. is a man child.

go bowe
03-31-2010, 01:19 PM
Well, there you go, who do you believe, BRC or Obama?

I wonder how intelligent Obama would think BRC is? :Poke:well, that's easy...

i don't believe either one of those pinko commie lunatics...

where's gee dubbya when ya need him?

BigRedChief
04-01-2010, 07:14 AM
well, that's easy...

i don't believe either one of those pinko commie lunatics...

where's gee dubbya when ya need him?
:facepalm:

More marginalizing.... You are so superficial. If someone doesn't fit neatly into your predetermined boxes then they are communist lunatics.

BigRedChief
04-04-2010, 08:23 AM
Heard from a friend in Israel this weekend. He told me that most Israeli's are just not interested in a 2 state solution. They are happy with the status quo and a 2 state solution is viewed as "less safe" and would provide less security than the status quo. Just one Israeli's views but I thought was interesting.

patteeu
04-04-2010, 09:04 AM
Heard from a friend in Israel this weekend. He told me that most Israeli's are just not interested in a 2 state solution. They are happy with the status quo and a 2 state solution is viewed as "less safe" and would provide less security than the status quo. Just one Israeli's views but I thought was interesting.

If you let a new Palestinian state raise an army that they don't need for anything but war with Israel and if you can't trust them to abandon violence and respect Israel's right to exist, it's probably true that it would be less safe.

BigRedChief
04-04-2010, 09:12 AM
If you let a new Palestinian state raise an army that they don't need for anything but war with Israel and if you can't trust them to abandon violence and respect Israel's right to exist, it's probably true that it would be less safe.BTW, he himself is in favor of a 2 state solution. But, he feels he's in the minority and that the public's opinion has changed within the last year or two.

If this information is true then the PM is just doing what the Israeli public wants to happen but can't come out and say, screw the 2 state solution.

BigRedChief
04-04-2010, 09:22 AM
If you let a new Palestinian state raise an army that they don't need for anything but war with Israel .
Not a chance in hell of a Palenstinian army of any size or scale that would threaten Israeli. Nada chance. No one could really think thats gonna happen.

patteeu
04-04-2010, 09:24 AM
BTW, he himself is in favor of a 2 state solution. But, he feels he's in the minority and that the public's opinion has changed within the last year or two.

If this information is true then the PM is just doing what the Israeli public wants to happen but can't come out and say, screw the 2 state solution.

I don't think it's necessarily a permanent attitude. I think it's a reflection of the bad faith with which they've been confronted on the part of their palestinian negotiating partners. Israelis know that they've bent over backward trying to make peace and that they've offered more than fair terms, but all they've received in return are rockets, terrorist bombing attacks, kidnappings and other violence. How can they trust the palestinians to live up to their end of the bargain in a land for peace agreement?

BigRedChief
04-04-2010, 09:35 AM
How can they trust the palestinians to live up to their end of the bargain in a land for peace agreement?They can't and won't under the exsisting political, military and physical conditions.

mlyonsd
04-04-2010, 10:03 AM
I don't think it's necessarily a permanent attitude. I think it's a reflection of the bad faith with which they've been confronted on the part of their palestinian negotiating partners. Israelis know that they've bent over backward trying to make peace and that they've offered more than fair terms, but all they've received in return are rockets, terrorist bombing attacks, kidnappings and other violence. How can they trust the palestinians to live up to their end of the bargain in a land for peace agreement?

Spot on. It's easy for us to sit over here and scold Israel because we're tired of the whole ME conflict. We just want it over.

We would have a completely different attitude if we were the ones that had thousands of missiles launched at our innocent population.

The Mad Crapper
04-27-2010, 08:53 AM
I'm looking forward to seeing his and the media's response when Achmooood Abbas comes to visit the WH.