Beginning of the End for Israel??? (Congress, Obama, government, states)

[maja]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

Maybe Israel needs to figure out how to co-exist with its neighbors in a world where US support is not guaranteed.

Yes. If only the rest of the ME would do the same.

[MiamiRob]

don't the Jews have several hundred "nukes"? The end of Israel is a joke!

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka

Seconded.

Respect your neighbours and give them back the stolen land and property.

Stolen land? How did they get that land? Do you even know?

[maja]

Originally Posted by MiamiRob

don't the Jews have several hundred "nukes"? The end of Israel is a joke!

Well, lets hope it doesn't come to that either!

[djacques]

Originally Posted by maja

Yes. If only the rest of the ME would do the same.

The rest of the ME doesn't get billions a year in U.S. aid.

Aside from Israel it's mainly Egypt, whose government was just overthrown, and Pakistan (do I really need to explain that one?)

[Jaggy001]

Point is, you always negotiate from strength and, right now, Israel is in a position of strength compared to her neighbors. But history has shown us that positions of strength do not last for ever so she needs to make the most of what she has to get a settlement now that works in everyone's favor.

[burdell]

We're often told the Jews are God's chosen people, let God sort it out.

[tpk-nyc]

The full quote from the speech is:

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.

It's inaccurate and unfair to leave out the second part of the sentence. This has been the stated policy of the government for at least 12 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by tpk-nyc

The full quote from the speech is:

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.

It's inaccurate and unfair to leave out the second part of the sentence. This has been the stated policy of the government for at least 12 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Shouldn't the fact that policy has accomplished little in 12 years be telling us something?

[djacques]

Originally Posted by burdell

Shouldn't the fact that policy has accomplished little in 12 years be telling us something?

Did our policy in the 50 preceding years accomplish a lot?