I don't like Obama's proposal that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders

[OlegL]

I don't like Obama's proposal that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders.I also don't think that Israel should start negotiating with Hamas because it's a terrorist organization. I like Obama, but there are so many Arab countries in the world and only one Jewish country, so I think Palestinians should stop hoping that one day a Palestinian state will come into existence. Palestinians are Arabs, so why can't they just settle in one of the Arab countries that exist? I know that Jerusalem has some places that are holy for Muslims, but no one stops them and no one will ever stop them from visiting those places and praying there. Netanyahu is a right-wing guy, so I am sure he will never accept Obama's proposals. There was never an independent Arab country in that region; however, thousands of years ago, an independent Jewish state existed there. Edit: actually, I might be wrong 'cause I know there was an Islamic empire many centuries ago, but I don't know if Palestine was fully under its control. Sorry, I don't know the history of that region that well. But I know for sure that there are many Arab countries in the world and only one Jewish state.

[devilsadvocate]

I don't like Obama's proposal that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders.I also don't think that Israel should start negotiating with Hamas because it's a terrorist organization. I like Obama, but there are so many Arab countries in the world and only one Jewish country, so I think Palestinians should stop hoping that one day a Palestinian state will come into existence. Palestinians are Arabs, so why can't they just settle in one of the Arab countries that exist? I know that Jerusalem has some places that are holy for Muslims, but no one stops them and no one will ever stop them from visiting those places and praying there. Netanyahu is a right-wing guy, so I am sure he will never accept Obama's proposals. There was never an independent Arab country in that region; however, thousands of years ago, an independent Jewish state existed there. Edit: actually, I might be wrong 'cause I know there was an Islamic empire many centuries ago, but I don't know if Palestine was fully under its control. Sorry, I don't know the history of that region that well. But I know for sure that there are many Arab countries in the world and only one Jewish state.If by your own admission you know little of the area why do you feel able to suggest a solution?

B.T.W.

It's not an original Obama proposal, the 67 border has been a US presidential suggested negotiation starting point since at least the 90's.

I don't know why we are poking our nose into the situation at all.

[999969999]

I don't know why we are poking our nose into the situation at all.


I agree.

It is none of our business.

We shouldn't support Israel or the Palestinians.

We should cut off all foreign aid to BOTH of them.

We should not side with either of them.




Here's what Ron Paul had to say about it...

Congressman Ron Paul issued a blistering critique of President Obama's recent proposal for Israel to surrender its territory to pre-1967 borders and create a Palestinian state.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs," the Texas Republican wrote in a May 20 press statement. "There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington." Representative Paul has announced an electoral challenge to Obama as a Republican, and will face Obama in November 2012 if he can win the GOP nomination.

Obama had proposed May 19 that "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." The proposal rocked the relationship between the United States and Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed Obama in person the next day from an Oval Office press conference, complaining that "while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years."

Obama also promised some $2 billion in additional direct foreign aid to Egypt in the May 19 address. Egypt was until the 1980s an enemy of the Jewish state. Obama pledged an additional $2 billion investment from the U.S. government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to North Africa and the Middle East.

By way of contrast, Rep. Paul has proposed eliminating all foreign aid. “I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies," Paul wrote. "Most Americans know that makes no sense.... We are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot afford any of it."

Representative Paul also noted that U.S. foreign aid has often worked at cross-purposes with freedom in the Islamic world. Paul pointed out that for 30 years U.S. aid propped up the corrupt Mubarak regime in Egypt, a regime overthrown by the peaceful "Jasmine revolution" this spring. “As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes."

Obama's May 19 speech also took special note of the Jasmine revolution sweeping the Islamic world, a revolution that began in December in Tunisia and has since touched just about every Islamic nation. Obama claimed that "the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands." Obama even acknowledged that the United States and its policies had nothing to do with the peaceful demonstrations: "It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome."

But despite traditional U.S. foreign aid support for dictatorships, Obama implicitly threatened further intervention in Islamic nations and devoted particularly harsh criticism to Syria. "Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him." Syria has indeed launched a month-long bloody campaign against peaceful protesters, a campaign that appears to be getting bloodier.

Obama stressed that the United States stood for "universal human rights" and that "Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal." To many observers, "strategic tools" is a code word for U.S. military action.

Representative Paul, by way of contrast, has opposed Obama's Libyan war and strongly condemned the implicit threat to attack Syria. “The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya, authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations, and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that country to step down," Paul wrote. “Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria?...We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts."

[devilsadvocate]

9

I realize the talking wig has let you down after he played with your emotions, I realize you must be in a transition period and are looking for a pity screw. But we are interested in YOUR views, not the views of your backup candidate. It's okay if you share his views, but can we hear you articulate them for yourself?

[999969999]

9

I realize the talking wig has let you down after he played with your emotions, I realize you must be in a transition period and are looking for a pity screw. But we are interested in YOUR views, not the views of your backup candidate. It's okay if you share his views, but can we hear you articulate them for yourself?

Did you read this part?





I don't know why we are poking our nose into the situation at all.


I agree.

It is none of our business.

We shouldn't support Israel or the Palestinians.

We should cut off all foreign aid to BOTH of them.

We should not side with either of them.

[devilsadvocate]

Did you read this part?




I agree.

It is none of our business.

We shouldn't support Israel or the Palestinians.

We should cut off all foreign aid to BOTH of them.

We should not side with either of them.





Yes I did.

And?

[bigboab]

The U.S.A and Great Britain created the situation originally. I know it was the League Of Nations, but with the backing of the U.S.A. Israel did not exist when I was at primary school. The only time the land was actually 'promised' was by T.E, Lawrence to the Arab tribes in return for their assistance in removing the Greek Ottoman empire from the region. When they eventually removed the Turks Great Britain reneged on that promise. When T.E. Lawrence said he was going to bring up the subject in the Houses of Parliament he was mysteriously killed in a motorcycle accident. Does that remind you about a scientist recently who 'comitted suicide' just before he was about to say there was no Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq. I'm sure someone will disagree. That is what this section is for.:lol:

[OlegL]

bigboab, you said the British promised to give the land to the Arabs, but didn't the United Nations also made a promise to the Arabs that some of the land would be theirs? The land was supposed to be divided into two states: a Jewish state and an Arab state, but War of 1948 broke out, and after the war ended, only the Jewish state continued its existence. It kinda feels weird that Obama now wants a Palestinian state because the Palestinian state has always been just a dream.

[bigboab]

bigboab, you said the British promised to give the land to the Arabs, but didn't the United Nations also made a promise to the Arabs that some of the land would be theirs? The land was supposed to be divided into two states: a Jewish state and an Arab state, but War of 1948 broke out, and after the war ended, only the Jewish state continued its existence. It kinda feels weird that Obama now wants a Palestinian state because the Palestinian state has always been just a dream.

It was in the thirties that the UK through T.E. Lawrence(Lawrence of Arabia) promised the land to the arabs. People tend to forget that Israel was formed on the back of terrorism. If you want to get an insight on the area read The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom by T E lawrence. If nothing else it will stop you posting(joking?) in here for about a year. It is a very large tome.:)

[OlegL]

You mean, Lawrence promised the WHOLE land to the Arabs, not just some part of it? And he didn't think about the Jews at all?

[bigboab]

You mean, Lawrence promised the WHOLE land to the Arabs, not just some part of it? And he didn't think about the Jews at all?

The only person who could have honestly answered that, and was going to do just that, was mysteriously killed in a motorcycle accident. You would need to read the history from that point to understand the dealing and double dealing that went on regarding Palestine. Who promised the Israelis that land is up to your imagination. Who gave it to them? The League Of Nations.

My personal opinion is that Israeli should be confined to the land allocated by the League Of Nations. If any other small country had invaded and kept the land they would have been forced to return to the original borders. They should drop the United Nations Veto and see what the majority of countries think. Just a thought.

I think that this subject has been covered in other threads. If you search you will find most of the opinions. I have little enough time left to go back through it all.:rolleyes:

[OlegL]

Okay.

[whatcdfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er1fA7THuYg

Mother don’t cry for me I am heading off to war
God almighty is my armour and sword
Palestine, Forever Palestine

Children being killed for throwing stones in the sky
They say to their parents don’t worry, God is on our side
Palestine, Forever Palestine
Mother don’t worry when they come for us at night
Surely they’ll be sorry when God puts them right
Tell me why they’re doing what was done to them
Don’t they know that God is with the oppressed and needy
Perished were the nations that ruled through tyranny
Palestine, Forever Palestine

Children of Palestine are fighting for their lives
They say to their parents we know that Palestine is our right
They to say to their parents we’ll fight for what is right
They say not to worry God is on our side
They say we’ll die for Palestine
Palestine, Forever Palestine

[megabyteme]

So, what is it you are saying with your uncommented C&P, WFan?

Are you going to war, personally? Or are you simply being dramatic?


Personally, the decision to "give" the Jews such a sacred place was the worst, most backstabbing piece of American history and has caused TREMENDOUS damage to world stability. There is an old clip showing the complete shock and betrayal of the Arabs by America at the League of Nations during that vote. Essentially, America had promised to back the Arabs, and then did a COMPLETE betrayal to them. The video shows just how betrayed, and bewildered those men were.

Regardless of my position on the matter, a C&P of a video and someone's propaganda poem is SPINELESS.

[OlegL]

Personally, the decision to "give" the Jews such a sacred place was the worst, most backstabbing piece of American history and has caused TREMENDOUS damage to world stability. There is an old clip showing the complete shock and betrayal of the Arabs by America at the League of Nations during that vote. Essentially, America had promised to back the Arabs, and then did a COMPLETE betrayal to them. The video shows just how betrayed, and bewildered those men were.


But the State of Israel cannot exist without a land.

[megabyteme]

But the State of Israel cannot exist without a land.

:slap:

[OlegL]

The League of Nations' actions were not able to prevent the Holocaust. It's obvious that throughout the world history, the Jews suffered more than the Arabs and even though the majority of the Palestinians are probably good people, their leaders are often terrorists.

[whatcdfan]

The League of Nations' actions were not able to prevent the Holocaust. It's obvious that throughout the world history, the Jews suffered more than the Arabs and even though the majority of the Palestinians are probably good people, their leaders are often terrorists.

I would have asked the definition of terrorist from your view point but since I have already ascertained your mental ability, that would be highly inappropriate.

Returning to the original post-

Who gives a shit about what obama says, I did not get to participate in the selection of the leadership (being from a different country) then why would I care for what he thinks is right. Also, I remember the people that took the holy land away from the Moslems, did not come and politely asked to move out from their homes and fields.We will strive to get the full political control over the complete holy land (no matter who resides there) then we'll talk about who is right and what is wrong and with nukes and capitalism in equation I am hopeful this time it will be settled forever.

[j2k4]

We will strive to get the full political control over the complete holy land (no matter who resides there) then we'll talk about who is right and what is wrong and with nukes and capitalism in equation I am hopeful this time it will be settled forever.

Precisely the formulation that gives one pause - there is only one way to "settle" anything "forever", you see?

Your next step might be your last.

[megabyteme]

The League of Nations' actions were not able to prevent the Holocaust. It's obvious that throughout the world history, the Jews suffered more than the Arabs and even though the majority of the Palestinians are probably good people, their leaders are often terrorists.

It was the members of the LoN who stopped it, though.

The Palestinians were not active players in the Holocaust, why take their land? Prior to the Settlement, the Palestinians were not terrorists. Granted, wars had been fought hundreds of years prior over that land, but the Jews lost. And lost it way before modern times.



But the State of Israel cannot exist without a land.

No group can exist without "a land". :pinch:

Other than Bible prophecy, was there any reason that the Jewish settlement had to be there? Why not resettle the population of homeless in the areas taken by Hitler? For that matter, why not settle them in New Jersey, or Detroit since these people seem to favor living in the most sad, hostile lands?

Move on. You (the Jews) are camping in someone else's back yard, and you have "outstayed" your welcome.

[whatcdfan]

Your next step might be your last.


Or theirs................

[j2k4]

Your next step might be your last.


Or theirs................

Sorry, I don't see an upside.

[OlegL]

It was the members of the LoN who stopped it, though.

The Palestinians were not active players in the Holocaust, why take their land? Prior to the Settlement, the Palestinians were not terrorists. Granted, wars had been fought hundreds of years prior over that land, but the Jews lost. And lost it way before modern times.



But the State of Israel cannot exist without a land.

No group can exist without "a land". :pinch:

Other than Bible prophecy, was there any reason that the Jewish settlement had to be there? Why not resettle the population of homeless in the areas taken by Hitler? For that matter, why not settle them in New Jersey, or Detroit since these people seem to favor living in the most sad, hostile lands?

Move on. You (the Jews) are camping in someone else's back yard, and you have "outstayed" your welcome.

You said it yourself that the Jews had lost the war over the land, which means they live there again not just because of some Biblical prophecy, but because they regained the land they had lived on during the ancient times. Also, as I said before, there was never an independent Arab state in Palestine, but there was an independent Jewish state in that area during the ancient times. Also, what do you mean by saying that Palestinians were not terrorists "prior to the settlement"? Are you saying that now they have a moral right to be terrorists? Terrorists kill innocent people, so obviously, no one has a "moral right" to be a terrorist. I am not sure I understood your argument about the homeless, so I can't comment on it...
I am not against the creation of a Palestinian state though.

[999969999]

The League of Nations' actions were not able to prevent the Holocaust. It's obvious that throughout the world history, the Jews suffered more than the Arabs and even though the majority of the Palestinians are probably good people, their leaders are often terrorists.

I have wondered about this.

If you really were concerned about being killed off from another Holocaust, then why in the world would you concentrate most of your population in a little tiny piece of land where your neighbors hate you and want to kill you?

Wouldn't it make more sense to spread your people all over the world, so if some get killed off in one area, there are still others living in other parts of the world, so your genes will survive into the next generation?


The whole "Holocaust" subject is a bit of touchy subject with some of my Austrian relatives.

[bigboab]

I said that I would not comment further on this subject, but you know me.:whistling

Who are/were the Israelites?

Before 1250 B.C. (Before Computers) the Israelites were a nomadic tribe in the area around Jordan.


1250 BC: Israelites began to conquer and settle the land of Canaan on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

We can assume from this that the land originally belonged to the Canaanites (Possibly the modern day Palestinians)and definitely not the Israelites.

[OlegL]

The Canaanites are not the modern day Palestinians. The Canaanites became extinct a long time ago.

[bigboab]

The only thing wrong with my statement was the spelling of definitely. :rolleyes:

[OlegL]

But you can't be right if you think there is a possibility the Canaanites are the modern-day Palestinians.

[j2k4]

The only thing wrong with my statement was the spelling of definitely. :rolleyes:

Nice deflection.

I counted at least three mis-spellings.:)

[bigboab]

Where did they go to? No tribe suddenly becomes extinct without leaving traces. Maybe they are like the Israelites and were dispersed all over the world.

[bigboab]

It was nearly all extracts from a timeline Kev. I cannot be held responsible for internet. If I am wrong I will admit it.:)


Aye and pigs will fly.:lol:

Incidentally, the reason pork was prohibited was because the neighbouring tribe kept pigs and the Israelites wanted to put them out of business.

[mjmacky]

Where did they go to? No tribe suddenly becomes extinct without leaving traces. Maybe they are like the Israelites and were dispersed all over the world.

Or bred in with the Israelites. The only historical reference I know of is the fabrication of what has become our modern day monotheistic system, but I'm totally guessing on all other historical aspects. "Cross" breeding is how almost any defined/specific ethnicity is phased out over time.

[megabyteme]

I said that I would not comment further on this subject, but you know me.:whistling

Who are/were the Israelites?

Before 1250 B.C. (Before Computers) the Israelites were a nomadic tribe in the area around Jordan.


1250 BC: Israelites began to conquer and settle the land of Canaan on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

We can assume from this that the land originally belonged to the Canaanites (Possibly the modern day Palestinians)and definitely not the Israelites.

I'm with boab on this. Remember the 40 years of wandering the desert, oleg? Sounds pretty f-ing nomadic to me...