Obama's Position on Israel

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The Anti Defamation League weighs in:
ADL’s Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus


I just got off the phone with Abraham Foxman, the Holocaust survivor who heads the Anti-Defamation League. He does not agree with the claim by some Republican 2012 presidential candidates and conservative commentators that Obama threw Israel under the bus in his Arab Spring speech yesterday.
The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.
“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”
Foxman said that the broader characterization of the speech as anti-Israel by some on the right is also off base, citing its insistence on Israel’s right to self-defense, its opposition to the Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and other matters.


ADL’s Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Anti Defamation League weighs in:
ADL’s Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus


I just got off the phone with Abraham Foxman, the Holocaust survivor who heads the Anti-Defamation League. He does not agree with the claim by some Republican 2012 presidential candidates and conservative commentators that Obama threw Israel under the bus in his Arab Spring speech yesterday.
The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.
“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”
Foxman said that the broader characterization of the speech as anti-Israel by some on the right is also off base, citing its insistence on Israel’s right to self-defense, its opposition to the Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and other matters.


ADL’s Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

I can't admit to being entirely knowledgable on the situation (with final exams and all), but does it serving as a recommendation mean that the starting negotiation should begin with the 1967 borders as the start point? Once again, this is a question, and I don't know, but hearing from some of my Israeli friends and their families, they are none too high on the concept of ceding such a big amount of land.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
I don't think people realize that if he supports an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders like the rest of the world (except for the US & United Kingdom) does, all other Middle East nations will be lining up to be our allies.

I would not go that far. Their own religious views consider us to be infidels. You can go fight a war in Iraq to protect the Saudi oil fields, and terminal but you can't be buried on their land because you'll defile it. Give me a break.
 

bareboysd

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Posts
28
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
36
Location
La Jolla
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Kudos to Obama for finally standing up and promoting the interests of the world and not the interests of AIPAC (look it up).
 

SlamminSammy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
1,823
Media
28
Likes
1,784
Points
368
Location
Charlotte (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I would not go that far. Their own religious views consider us to be infidels. You can go fight a war in Iraq to protect the Saudi oil fields, and terminal but you can't be buried on their land because you'll defile it. Give me a break.
Actually, their religious views & their opinion of us are common misconceptions falsely portrayed by the media to make them appear like religious extremists & villains. The Koran has more similar philosophies to the Bible than probably any other religion. They don't hate our religious views or our way of life; they hate us for supporting Israel's oppression of their people. To them, the US is the big brother of the neighborhood bully.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Care to predict the next image in the sequence?

No. Only a daft ass would. It's a time of chance. Of potential change. Certain folks would challenge Obama for suggesting such.

What kind of person would suggest that Obama's rather bold step is somehow a step backward?
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Obama is a poker player. Supposedly a good one. This speech seems deliberately timed to rattle Netanyahu, and is a not too subtle reminder of the way Biden and the USA government were dramatically snubbed by the Israelis a year ago in March, 2010, when they abruptly announced plans to construct 1,600 new settlement homes in the disputed territory, blindsiding Biden on a state visit.

In your face? Yeah. Calculated? He has to shift the balance of Middle Eastern opinion that the USA is blindly going to ally itself with Israel on every issue here, and at the same time keep Israel's, and the USA's interests in tandem.

Ditto'd.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
We've heard all this rhetoric before - here's a biting analysis.

Robert Fisk: Lots of rhetoric – but very little help - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

A state for the Palestinians - but no weapons to defend themselves? Weren't reservations in the 19th Century?

Oddly enough, Iran has been proposing the 1967 border schtick for years too - unknown to most Americans - but still all you hear in the media is "the wiping off the map comment".
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel

As for the comment that the UK as well as the US weren't keen on a return to 1967 borders, where did that come from? The UK never thought the Jews & Palestinans would get on well!

That said, the last government & the present one, have some unseemly links to prominent Israeli financiers, & the numbers of MPs registered as "Friends of Israel" seems to be comparable now to those in Congress & the Senate.

Israel's post 1967 occupation is in direct contravention of several UN resolutions. No action has ever taken place to readdress it (unlike against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). I doubt Obama will either - you just can't trust politicians.

Edit: Terrorists in Government: Ben Gurion, Sharon, Mandela, Collins, DeValera, Adams, Lenin, Washington(!)etc.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
No. Only a daft ass would. It's a time of chance. Of potential change. Certain folks would challenge Obama for suggesting such.

What kind of person would suggest that Obama's rather bold step is somehow a step backward?

Maybe someone who failed to realise the option of winding it back to image three.

The other point is of course Israel's often quoted and actioned policy of wanting it all white outside the Gaza hell hole.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no Palestine -- get over it

As far as the 1967 borders -- they would still be there were it not for Arab military adventurism.

The Arabs initiated the conflict, they lost -- THEY LOST!

There is absolutely no compelling reason to pander to their grievances.

Carry on, I say!
 

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Not going to happen Israel and the jewish community have a strong hand in the media and can manipulate things their own way. Ask your senators have they had a holiday to Israel lately. Its common here in the uk it's a well to help relations i think its called.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
THEY LOST!

For centuries the world has had the concept of "to the victor the spoils". For example in England Henry VII asserted his claim to the English crown using the concept "right of conquest". Yet today we sometimes try to apply some concept of rightness. This leads to endless discussions of past rights and wrongs and can lead to a failure to make a decision, or an effort towards an impossible outcome.

The reality is that the state of Israel has come into existence and defended itself against many attacks. Defensible borders are key to the mind-set of Israel. There is no possibility of Israel accepting the 1967 borders because the reality is that the Jordan is a natural border; issues around the Gaza border are more problematic but arguably a natural border for Israel includes the territory of Gaza.

If we are to get peace in the Middle East IMO we have to accept that the reality is as it is, however unpleasant that might be. All the time we strive for a two-state solution (that will not happen) we fail to reach a solution.

On a day when there has been a bomb in London/Derry in Northern Ireland I feel I have to be cautious about saying there is a solution to the Troubles in Ireland - but there has been enormous progress, more than in any other comparable dispute. The key is that there has been acceptance that Sinn Fein, a party which has supported IRA terrorism and is believed to contain former IRA terrorists within its ranks, must be in government in Northern Ireland. The UK has been unable to defeat the IRA and in that respect they have won. We now have a situation of (mostly) peace and a real sense of progress.

We need a comparable recognition that, just as we don't like former IRA terrorists in government but must have them, we don't like an Israeli "victory" but we have to accept it.
 

englad

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Posts
2,881
Media
28
Likes
7,905
Points
468
Location
Germany
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
but the IRA didn't really win and neither did the loyalist paramilitaries. You can argue that both won and both lost. There is currently no united island (could be interpreted as a unionist victory), there are however many all ireland bodies/iniatives and the dublin government has a greater role in the running of northern ireland than it had before (could be interpreted as a nationalist victory). But apart from anything else the two situations are very different, the fight in northern ireland started out of discrimination against nationalists after decades of unionist domination, that turned into tit for tat sectarian violence. Whereas the Israeli occupation of palestine arose from the 1967 war, and is the longest military occupation in modern times. I do not see why we should accept that victory, it is brutal, the palestinians have almost no control over their lives, restricted freedom of travel, expression. There have been tens of thousands of home demolitions, four million palestinians are in refugee camps and every single time (even under obama) the US has vetoed any resolution declaring it to be an illegal occupation. Israel should not believe it has impugnity to abuse human rights, as no government does. Two state solution and an end to the occupation of the west bank is the only solution that could lead to peace.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The Arabs initiated the conflict

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity, including a mine attack that left three dead the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts". In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war. Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War. - Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So really... who started the war? Seems to me that Israel fired first.
 
Last edited:

parr

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
433
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Age
71
Location
Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements. In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity, including a mine attack that left three dead the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts". In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war. Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War. - Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So really... who started the war? Seems to me that Israel fired first.

Maybe Israel over reacted over the closure of the Straits and felt
threated by this, is this possible.
 

SlamminSammy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
1,823
Media
28
Likes
1,784
Points
368
Location
Charlotte (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Riiiight! :rolleyes:

C'mon! This is a 100% guaranteed anonymous forum. Don't be shy and share your genuine agenda with us.
I don't have an "agenda" to share. I didn't start this thread, but I happen to have an informed opinion on the topic, that's all.
 

joshua_ste

1st Like
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
72
Media
5
Likes
1
Points
43
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
Andrew Sullivan wrote something that's worth sharing. He makes a point: Netanyahu and Israel do seem to be only concerned with Israel's interests. Our "negotiations", for them, are mostly a one-way street. They seem not to care at all about the United States "wider foreign policy and security needs". Here's his comments:

--------------------


It appears that the maximum Netanyahu would allow in any two state solution are some kind of autonomous bantustans in the West Bank, surrounded by Israeli military and security forces and buffered at the Jordan border with IDF troops. Forget about Jerusalem and the right of return. If this is Israel's bottom line, there will be no peace, and there should be no peace, because of the rank injustice of this non-solution. More to the point, Netanyahu is no longer on the Israeli fringe. As we've tried to document in our series of posts "An Epidemic Of Not Watching", there is very solid and wide support in Israel for such a maximalist position, and in America, this is what most of the American Jewish Establishment has fatefully backed.

What strikes me is the visceral and emotional power behind the AIPAC line, displayed in Netanyahu's contemptuous, disgraceful, desperate public dressing down of the American president in the White House. Just observe the tone of Netanyahu's voice, and the Cheney-like determination to impose his will on the world, regardless of anyone else, and certainly without the slightest concern for his ally's wider foreign policy and security needs. It seems clear to me that he believes that an American president, backed by the Quartet, must simply bow toward Israel's own needs, as he perceives them, rather than the other way round. Has Netanyahu ever asked, one wonders, what he could actually do to help Obama, president of Israel's oldest, and strongest ally in an era of enormous social and political change? That, it seems, is not how this alliance works. Moroever, an alliance in which one party is acting in direct conflict with the needs and goals of the other is an unstable one. Yes, there are unshakeable, powerful bonds between the two countries, and rightly so. But emotional bonds are not enough if, in the end, core national interests collide - and no compromise is possible.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
There is no Palestine -- get over it

There is no Israel. Sargon II destroyed Israel over 2600 years ago. There was a Judah for some time after and they spun pretty good PR, but the Romans destroyed that 2000 years ago.

Israel, Shangri La, plenty of new Jerusalems.

As I have been told by many deeply religious Zionists, only God can recreate Israel. The British and the UN are not, despite what they may think, God.