Saying Israel Needs to Occupy Only Israel = Wishing Death Upon Israel (Palestinian, generations)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's official. If you think Israel needs to occupy only Israel, you are anti-Israel. With that said, I think the US should occupy the Canadian province of Ontario. And if you disagree, you're anti American.
I find it funny that an American can't see the irony to this point. The United States territory is all land taken from the native Americans. Perhaps the U.S. should go back to the 1620 borders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
Yes you are correct. Standing by Israel is TRUE conservatism.
I'm very much a liberal and believe Israel has a right to exist with borders after 1967.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Kind of funny really.
People want Israel to go back to the "1967" lines. Some folks are calling this indefensible.
But didn't they defend it in 1967? Isn't that how they occupied what people want to give to Palestine?
Seriously, the "indefensible" argument is kind of silly.
One can look at the corollary of that view. In 1967 Israel was already at the 1967 boarders and the Arab states still attacked. So, why would going back to the 1967 borders now be a magic solution to peace? If the Arabs weren't happy with Israel being at the 1967 borders in 1967, why would they be satisfied today? It's just an interim bargaining position. Once they move back to the 1967 borders, they'll ask for the 1948 borders.
But the whole Obama speech is blown out of proportion and context. Obama is not the first to offer 1967 pre-war borders starting point, with the proviso in the past that land would be given to the Arabs for Israeli cities ie in Jerusalem and surrounding cities/settlements. There would still be negotiations. Why Obama didn't sell it like is confusing. Badly designed to win points with the Arabs, knowing Israel isn't playing pre-1967 border game.
Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Mr. Obama’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Mr. Obama, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John A. Boehner issued the invitation, for late May. So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first. Now THIS helps it make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic
(Nothing New in the Idea That '67 Borders Should Guide Peace Talks (UPDATED) - Jeffrey Goldberg - International - The Atlantic) I'm amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel's 1967 borders should define -- with land-swaps -- the borders of a Palestinian state. I'm feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?
Quote:
Here is what Hillary Clinton said in 2009:
"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
People want Israel to go back to the "1967" lines. Some folks are calling this indefensible.
But didn't they defend it in 1967? Isn't that how they occupied what people want to give to Palestine?
Seriously, the "indefensible" argument is kind of silly.
It is illogical to suggest that Israel go back to the pre-1967 borders for various different reasons. First of all, the missiles/rockets now have a larger range than back then so that would make the borders now less secure than in the past. Also the population of Israel has grown and a significant amount of Israelis now live in areas that were not within the 1967 borders. Also Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors who were bent of it destruction as soon as it declared independence in 1948. So Israel gained control of the land in a war that was forced upon it.
Also why didn't Arab countries establish a Palestinian state between 1948-1967 in the land that they gained control of as a result of the 1948 war with Israel - land that had been designated by the UN to be part of a Palestinian state?
It is illogical to suggest that Israel go back to the pre-1967 borders for various different reasons. First of all, the missiles/rockets now have a larger range than back then so that would make the borders now less secure than in the past. Also the population of Israel has grown and a significant amount of Israelis now live in areas that were not within the 1967 borders. Also Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors who were bent of it destruction as soon as it declared independence in 1948. So Israel gained control of the land in a war that was forced upon it.
Also why didn't Arab countries establish a Palestinian state between 1948-1967 in the land that they gained control of as a result of the 1948 war with Israel - land that had been designated by the UN to be part of a Palestinian state?
Rockets
For one, its been suggested that NATO troops patrol the border regions. Less to bomb. Secondly, after the Palestinians have been given their own country, the government will be less likely to support terrorism like that, and crack down on it.
The population of Israel is still much smaller than other land masses of similar size in the world. Israel has plenty of room to expand in their previous 1967 borders.
Israel shouldn't have allowed their people to live there, and its suggested to have a "land swap" so that Palestine can keep strategic areas that are important to them, and Israel can keep some of the settlements.
Yes, attacked by its neighbors 40 years ago. Israel was taken from the Palestinian people just 20 years before that.
What is 60 years the cut off for that long ago?
Again, Israel defended its 1967 borders, they can again, the United States is still their ally.
Israel isn't going anywhere, the Palestinians who had their land stolen deserve their own country.
And BS, Bush and the Democrats in Congress sent a letter in 2004 or so stating they all believed Israel should NEVER go back to the 1967 borders and stated the United States would stand by that until the man child Obama came along.
Bush made numerous speeches before and after 2004 demanding that Israel end all occupation of all territories and return to pre 1967 borders. You can't escape facts.
Some quotes by Bush
Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.
.
.
A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.
... And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop
.
. The United States and members of the international community stand ready to work with Palestinian leaders to establish finance and monitor a truly independent judiciary
.
.
On borders, Bush said "any agreement will require adjustments" to the lines drawn for Israel in the late 1940s. At the same time, he reiterated that Palestinians deserve better than a "Swiss cheese" state and that a state wouldn't be viable otherwise.
"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear," he said. "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people"
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 05-22-2011 at 09:28 AM..
Israel is the only officialy racist country in the world, meaning that belonging to a certain race grants you the right to be a citzien
No, conversion to Judaism is another way to gain citizenship. Jews of many different races live in Israel. Upon it's founding in 1948 Jews from Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and elsewhere immigrated. And let's not forget about the rapidly growing Arab Muslim minority in Israel.
Also, many countries link citizenship with ethnicity. Off the top of my head I know many European countries will let you apply for citizenship if you can demonstrate at least 1/4 of your grandparents are/were citizens.
Both sides have committed wrongs in this struggle, so there are plenty valid points to be made without fabricating something new. By the way, I believe the neither the US nor any other country, IGO, NGO, whatever has the right to tell Israel to shrink it's size. It's their business and I personally support them. Not even bringing religion into it, Israel is the most successful Middle Eastern country by far. How many more Nobel Prize winners has Israel produced than the entire Arab world? Israel should be a role model to its neighbors, not a pariah. I think Israeli existence and safety should be supported but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to the Palestinians. Judging from the multiple wars launched by the Arabs (some before 1967) and the current terrorism/rocket launches, appeasement is a fool's game. So, other than just ceding land, how can we fix the problem? Massive Israeli and Arab investment into the Gaza strip, elevating their standard of living. But, no business would take this risk currently. Too many bombs!
Bush made numerous speeches before and after 2004 demanding that Israel end all occupation of all territories and return to pre 1967 borders. You can't escape facts.
Using Bush as an example of "good" foreign policy knowledge isn't necessarily a good thing.
However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, President Bush was right about this one.
Using Bush as an example of "good" foreign policy knowledge isn't necessarily a good thing.
However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, President Bush was right about this one.
The point it that it is not Obama policy or Bush policy, it is US policy, and has been for a long time.
However, it will never materialize since it is designed to be rejected. Palestinials already said "NO WAY", and Israel says the same. Every US president in the past 40 years (even Reagan) has stepped in the front of the cameras to talk against the settlements on occupied territories. And behind the closed doors we assure Israel that nothing will change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
