Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2009, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,136,888 times
Reputation: 7373

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Again, as I was asking in the OP, will Obama bow to pressure from various lobbyist in the US and pressure from Netanyahu over the Iranian issue or will Netanyahu prevail in convincing the US to back a military strike on Iran. Will Netanyahu's long held position on a two state solution be affront to the Obama administrations desire for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

I guess I'm merely being redundant here as I'm stating my OP again, only using sources like the Jerusalem Post and NY Times, that may or may not qualify as acceptable.
That is a far different framing of the issue than the original "snub" comment. It appears that the meeting between the parties today might have had some progress, however much of it was private so we just won't know until the subsequent actions play out. Perhaps much of the pressure assumed in your posting isn't real, maybe they aren't in such disagreement. Negotiations frequently happen outside of external pressures, and the outcomes aren't externally orchestrated.

Meanwhile, the major parties have broad agreement that Palestinians will be independent, and that Iran shouldn't proceed with their nuclear program. What is to be resolved is what actions constitute acceptable actions by Iran, by the US and by Israel, and the steps needed for Palestinian self governance. As usual, the devil is in the details. We'll see how much agreement or disagreement the parties actually have as the process plays out:

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu yesterday outlined the shared goals of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and of achieving a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But within those broad areas of agreement were significant differences in tone and terminology that exposed their divergent approaches toward achieving peace in the Middle East.

washingtonpost.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2009, 11:09 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,155,637 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
That is a far different framing of the issue than the original "snub" comment. It appears that the meeting between the parties today might have had some progress, however much of it was private so we just won't know until the subsequent actions play out. Perhaps much of the pressure assumed in your posting isn't real, maybe they aren't in such disagreement. Negotiations frequently happen outside of external pressures, and the outcomes aren't externally orchestrated.

Meanwhile, the major parties have broad agreement that Palestinians will be independent, and that Iran shouldn't proceed with their nuclear program. What is to be resolved is what actions constitute acceptable actions by Iran, by the US and by Israel, and the steps needed for Palestinian self governance. As usual, the devil is in the details. We'll see how much agreement or disagreement the parties actually have as the process plays out:

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu yesterday outlined the shared goals of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and of achieving a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But within those broad areas of agreement were significant differences in tone and terminology that exposed their divergent approaches toward achieving peace in the Middle East.

washingtonpost.com
Considering the progress made in the past 30 years towards a solution, I can't say I'm going to hold my breath over the term 'broad agreement' as it has been oft repeated. However there is one thing which is clear, the Obama administration is taking a departure from previous positions on this issue.

Currently the already complex problem between Israel and the Palestinians is compounded by Israel's concerns over Iran. While a concern of ours, it is obviously weighs more on the Israeli's.

The mention of having Israel sign the NPT I suspect is part of a means to get Iran to come into the international fold by means other than military intervention. A good faith gesture if you will. Additionally, by stating that Israel should sign this, it is an admission that they need to sign it because they have a nuclear arsenal. (the words worst kept secret) The problem with Israel having and publicly admitting this is two fold, one being the issue of US foreign aid and the Symington Amendment which prevent them from recieving it without signing the NPT and secondly the Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons.

Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons - Haaretz - Israel News
Quote:
As soon as Israel announces it has nuclear weapons, the Arabs will announce their withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty, the statement said. Israel is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons, though it maintains a policy of ambiguity, insisting it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, without confirming or denying their existence
Add in the issue of East Jerusalem and calls for an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

So while Obama may desire Iran to drop its nuclear programs, even peaceable ones, I will bet dollars for donuts that as things stand now, they never will. Iran will look towards nuclear nations like North Korea that is kept safe from invasion and military strikes because it does have nuclear weapons. In order for the Obama administration to get Iran to the table and have them willingly drop this program, some form of tiding will be required as Iran has invested billions in their nuclear energy program thus far and are in debt to the Russians by a substantial amount.

As it stands, Israel is a nuclear threat to Iran in Iran's eyes and it is understandable why they don't wish to give them up. Yet if Israel admits to it, then the other Arab nations have threatened to drop the NPT.

Add in the issue of East Jerusalem and calls for an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the fallout over the invasion of Gaza last year...

All of these factors lead to serious and weighty matters and I suspect a great deal of friction as I indicated in a prior post as to Obama's appointments. With the election of the most right wing militant advocate in the Knesset in a good many years, I for one will be very surprised to see any meaningful agreements between these two main parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2009, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,136,888 times
Reputation: 7373
A major unknown at this time is that Obama has great confidence in his persuasion skills. He seems pretty convinced that given some time he can influence most anyone's opinion and/or perspective.

It will be interesting to see how he interacts with Iran, especially given the complexity of their political structure. In many ways, the single most influential individual Obama would need to "get to" is Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council. The interaction between Obama and both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad should be interesting, and I'm curious to see how Obama responds if his overtures are rebuffed by these two leaders.

In many ways the outcomes of these discussions, and the decisions concerning subsequent actions (if needed) will probably shape how the world perceives Obama's leadership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2009, 09:28 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,155,637 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
A major unknown at this time is that Obama has great confidence in his persuasion skills. He seems pretty convinced that given some time he can influence most anyone's opinion and/or perspective.

It will be interesting to see how he interacts with Iran, especially given the complexity of their political structure. In many ways, the single most influential individual Obama would need to "get to" is Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council. The interaction between Obama and both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad should be interesting, and I'm curious to see how Obama responds if his overtures are rebuffed by these two leaders.

In many ways the outcomes of these discussions, and the decisions concerning subsequent actions (if needed) will probably shape how the world perceives Obama's leadership.
These are two other reasons why I see even greater difficulty with this evolving situation. Obama's self confidence and ego and the ego's of Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu.

The Iran angle in this trilogy of personalities seems pretty clear, Ahmadinejad has to go if Iran wishes to move forward. If Obama's more moderate approach and tone towards Iran is being done to deflate Ahmadinejad popularity and hopefully get someone more reasonable, then I am all for it. I believe this consistent talk by Israel and the US about 'taking out Iran's nuclear power plant and capabilities' is in large part why Ahmadinejad remains in power. He is the only one able to tell his people, "The Americans and Israeli's want to attack us, vote for me and I'll continue to shove a stick in their eye". It is one of those chicken and egg situations at this point.

Personally, I think in the end, Obama will cave to pressure from Netanyahu despite his confidence in his ability to moderate and charm a situation. Obama has already backed down and bowed to pressure from lobbyist over several appointments and personal contacts as well as going so far as to increase foreign aid payments in a time when our own economy is in the tank. I just don't think Obama has the stones to play on this field but maybe he will prove me wrong and do what no other President has done since Eisenhower.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2009, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
3,403 posts, read 4,442,557 times
Reputation: 3271
Quote:
Originally Posted by stac2007 View Post
obama being a muslim himself did not think twice about bowing down to this earthly king, who with out our oil money is just another nobody. Obama is a transparent sellout.
obama not a muslim you ignorant putz!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top