Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Obama to Israel -- Time Is Running Out

106 posts in this topic

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House tomorrow, President Barack Obama will tell him that his country could face a bleak future -- one of international isolation and demographic disaster -- if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians. Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy. And the president will make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.

In an hourlong interview Thursday in the Oval Office, Obama, borrowing from the Jewish sage Rabbi Hillel, told me that his message to Netanyahu will be this: “If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” He then took a sharper tone, saying that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach." He added, "It’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Unlike Netanyahu, Obama will not address the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, this week -- the administration is upset with Aipac for, in its view, trying to subvert American-led nuclear negotiations with Iran. In our interview, the president, while broadly supportive of Israel and a close U.S.-Israel relationship, made statements that would be met at an Aipac convention with cold silence.

Read more

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crunch time for Bibi. He either stands up for his country or bends over for the embarrassing waste of carbon that is the US president. If he gives in and allows Obama and his main tool Kerry to do as they wish in the region then war will follow within months, possibly weeks. Israel will have a new PM also. I expect that if the world pushes Israel into a corner and they are attacked Gaza style even after they have given up essentially everything that has been demanded of them, their people are finally going to have enough and simply fight a no holds barred war to establish once and for all their legitimacy. People don't seem to realize that American support for Israel ALSO has been a damper on them from dealing even more harshly with the thugs in the region. If Oby thinks he can run roughshod with impunity he may get schooled soon. It never ceases to amaze me how the world at large seems convinced that a country with such an army and even with nukes for heaven's sake would just meekly agree to suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace with the Palestinians == "Embarrassing waste of carbon."

And I thought Ted Nugent was being derogatory at "sub-human".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bibi could tell Obama to go play with himself and then cozy up to Putin. If that were to happen, there would be peace between Israel and Syria and the Palestinian would be SOL and Russia would control the Gulf oil. The EU and US would be incapable of doing anything but to threaten with nukes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace with the Palestinians == "Embarrassing waste of carbon."

And I thought Ted Nugent was being derogatory at "sub-human".

Bang that tired old drum - maybe someone will listen. But if Bibi does bend over for him and the attacks start again in the aftermath, what then Yammy? What excuse will you make for the noble, peace loving Palestinians then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great another "red line" lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great another "red line" lol

When I was real young, I got into my mom’s cosmetic bag and found her lipstick. I drew a red line on me, the porcelain, the mirror, the door, walls, towels, and floor. That only got me in big trouble.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang that tired old drum - maybe someone will listen. But if Bibi does bend over for him and the attacks start again in the aftermath, what then Yammy? What excuse will you make for the noble, peace loving Palestinians then?

The same excuse I give to defend your rights. You don't have to be perfect or a sinless Jesus Christ to have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same excuse I give to defend your rights. You don't have to be perfect or a sinless Jesus Christ to have them.

So your answer is that the Palestinians still have a right to fight the Israelis even if the Israelis reach an agreement and they both sign? And how is that a just outcome?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a couple of times, the first person who fires the first shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a couple of times, the first person who fires the first shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain.

Perfectly reasonable and just. I cringe to think of the non answer I'll receive from him though...

As it is I see no way this will go forward. Abbas is said to have agreed to extend the talks IF Bibi freezes all settlement activity and releases more prisoners. I think if he tries to accommodate Obama on that then he will lose his government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your answer is that the Palestinians still have a right to fight the Israelis even if the Israelis reach an agreement and they both sign? And how is that a just outcome?

Agreement to do what? Talk? Talk is cheap when they talk out of one side of their mouth and steal land and resources out the other. That is not a just outcome. Talk may precede action but a just outcome like Palestinian statehood is a far cry from what we've ever experienced in this process so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a couple of times, the first person who fires the first shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain.

Which we'll almost certainly have no way of verifying independently and in a timely enough fashion beyond what selective information we're provided with by who knows who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it a couple of times, the first person who fires the first shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain.

When you have two opposing forces facing each other, firing the first shot is not an indication of villainy. If England and France had fired the first shot during the Phony War, WWII would have never occurred. Israel struck first in ’67 and she was not wiped out. It has gone beyond good vs bad. “Ceasefire” is but an arbitrary temporary stoppage to the shooting. The only thing that matters is who is left standing. There are two ways to accomplish that. One side can leave the battlefield or one side can be decimated. Once engaged, there can only be one of those two outcomes or the standoff continues. But it’s usually best for it to solve itself or you end up making things worse unless you can bring overwhelming force which is usually more violent. And if it’s not more violent then you just make things worse even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which we'll almost certainly have no way of verifying independently and in a timely enough fashion beyond what selective information we're provided with by who knows who.

IOW you will not answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOW you will not answer the question.

Pay better attention to the discussion. He didn't ask a question. He made a comment. I added a comment to it. What question are you talking about? If you want me to answer a question, you have to actually ask one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay better attention to the discussion. He didn't ask a question. He made a comment. I added a comment to it. What question are you talking about? If you want me to answer a question, you have to actually ask one.

Uh...that would be post #9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...that would be post #9.

It was answered in post #12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was answered in post #12.

No, Yam you have to read the entire sentence. I clearly said "and they BOTH sign the agreement" as in, meeting of the minds, contract,etc... what if they continue shooting then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Yam you have to read the entire sentence. I clearly said "and they BOTH sign the agreement" as in, meeting of the minds, contract,etc... what if they continue shooting then?

I answered your question as if they BOTH sign the agreement.

I don't trust the Palestinian authorities or the Israeli authorities to do the right thing for the people on either side of the line if they had their druthers.

What if they started+continue shooting then? Even if hell did freeze over and a compromise actually respected the human rights and civil liberties of BOTH people, some shooting going on afterwards should be expected. It's not even a matter of "if". Some Israeli bureaucrats hair would catch on fire if something like this were to happen. It's the end of the State for some of these Israelis just to have Palestine on the map. There are many voices in Israel who think Palestine can't come soon enough, and it's these Israelis who should see most of the political capital in coming years. Correspondingly, we're too broke to coddle our special interest and fight its wars forever.

All provided Israel doesn't wipe Palestine off the map in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've said it a couple of times, the first person who fires the first shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain.

Let me modify this-

The first person who makes the other party fires shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain

PS: You don't need to fire a shot to make the other fire at you

Edited by jeem
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great another "red line" lol

ROFLMAO!! :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me modify this-

The first person who makes the other party fires shot after the negotiated ceasefire is the villain

PS: You don't need to fire a shot to make the other fire at you

Let me say this about "the first shot"

Palestine was partitioned back in 1946 into Mandated Palestine and a Jewish Homeland

The Jews Signed it (BenGurion) - the Palestinians did not.

The ink wasn't even dry on that document when the "peace loving Jews" went on a rampage against

innocent, defenseless Palestinians in Mandated Palestine that killed many and displace over 600 thousand

people in over 400 villages and towns, out of their homes and off their land.

What happened to the peace loving Jews, as a result...?

The UN ordered the Jews to allow the displaced back into Mandated Palestine but *never* backed that up. (See Right of Return)

Oh, and then the US and other Western nations said, "Good job, Jews. Want some more bombs and money?"

Talk to me about the first shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember '67 pretty well, I was a young teen then,

I can tell you this, the UN was *so* negligent in getting the Israeli's out of Palestinian territory

that - right about now, I don't think any Muslim in the Middle East has any trust for the UN.

So don't expect the Muslims - in the long run, to "obey" UN resolutions. That's how I see it.

They have been waiting for the UN to back up UN resolutions 224 and 338 - telling Israel to get out of

occupied territories of 1967, a long time. almost 50 years.

How long did the US/UN give Iraq to get out of Kuwait...? I bet it was not 50 DAYS, and the people of

the ME are all too aware of the incredible bias by the UN/US.

President Obama, who I am not a fanboy of, is *the* first US sitting president to actually stand up to Israel

since John F. Kennedy. I wish Obama luck, BB is a hard sell, a hard conservative hawk.

My personal feelings is, nothing will work until a coalition of Middle East forces gets Israel

out of occupied Palestine - Hamas, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood. And it won't be pretty.

The chaos that has been a steady staple in the Middle East since '67 is all as a result in the UN

not enforcing its own Laws. Now, it is way too late. Israel actually thinks they own the occupied lands.

I don't think I'll see it in my time, but most of you will. Israel will be blotted out some day. Just my opinion

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there Earl', and thanks for your thoughts.

I don't think I'd entirely agree with your timeline, or interpretation of some of the events. For example...

Let me say this about "the first shot"

Palestine was partitioned back in 1946 into Mandated Palestine and a Jewish Homeland

The Jews Signed it (BenGurion) - the Palestinians did not.

As a minor quibble, Palestine was never partitioned. The Arabs League (not the "palestinians") rejected the UN proposal, and that was the end of it. The jews subsequently - and unilaterally - declared the existence of Israel along the UN proposed lines, but this was NOT an action sanctioned by the UN.

The ink wasn't even dry on that document when the "peace loving Jews" went on a rampage against

innocent, defenseless Palestinians in Mandated Palestine that killed many and displace over 600 thousand

people in over 400 villages and towns, out of their homes and off their land.

Weeeell.... not really. The Arab League immidiately declared war on the newly-created Israel, and mobilised to attack. Israel responded by moving its troops into the "Jewish" parts of the original UN plan in order to take over the governmental buildings being evacuated by the British. (especially police stations, military barracks, forts, arms caches etc). Violence only occured when Arab villages attempted to block this (they where trying to grab these buildings themselves). For the most part - and in the early days - the only "Arab" villages that where occupied where those holding strategic positions in relation to the oncoming war. (in particular villages that where used by "Palestinians" to block relief convoys heading to Jerusalem (which was under attack from Syria and Jordan). Initially - and prior to the arrival of the main Arab armies - this was a relatively peaceful and organised affair. It was only later that it got ugly.

.....The UN ordered the Jews to allow the displaced back into Mandated Palestine but *never* backed that up. (See Right of Return)

OK... you've jumped to after the conclusion of the war. At this point, Jordan had illegally occupied the West Bank, Egypt had illegally occupied the Sinai and Gaza Strip, and Syria had illegally occupied West Jerusalem, including the Dome of the Rock. These where all "Palestinian" territories.

Now, be aware, there was never, nor has there ever been in history, a "right of return".

Oh, and then the US and other Western nations said, "Good job, Jews. Want some more bombs and money?"

No, not really. I mean.. Israel got SOME international aid for development - AND defence - but only a comparative trickle. The big money didn't arrive untill MUCH later... around the 1970's - when the USSR started arming Egypt and Syria as a means of expanding its influence in the region. The USA was never that interested in Israel per se... but it WAS interested in blocking USSR expansion, and THAT is why it started pumping billions into Israel. Just take a look at the aid timeline, and you'll see what I mean.

I remember '67 pretty well, I was a young teen then,

I can tell you this, the UN was *so* negligent in getting the Israeli's out of Palestinian territory

that - right about now, I don't think any Muslim in the Middle East has any trust for the UN.

But you're not upset about the failure of the UN to get Jordan, Syria and Egypt out of Palestinian territory ?

So don't expect the Muslims - in the long run, to "obey" UN resolutions. That's how I see it.

They have been waiting for the UN to back up UN resolutions 224 and 338 - telling Israel to get out of

occupied territories of 1967, a long time. almost 50 years.

Resolution 224 relates to admitting Botswana as a UN member. I assume you meant Resolution 242 ?

Resolution 338 was for a cease-fire arising from the Egyptian/Syrian attack of Yom Kippur. Israel immediately agreed to that resolution, and was/is in compliance with it. Syria and Jordan (and the PLO) rejected the resolution, but the cease-fire is now a defacto piece of history, so all sides can be said to be in compliance.

Resolution 242 related to the 1967 war. Israel immediately accepted it, as did Egypt. On the other hand Syria, Jordan and the PLO rejected it. That resolution only required Israeli withdrawal once peace had been secured, with recognition of Israeli sovereignty being a part of the peace process. The PLO (now the Palestinian National Authority) still doesn't recognise Israel fully, so it is in breach of the resolution, and Israel is NOT obliged to withdraw.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.