Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 May '11 14:22
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

    As pro-Israel as I am, I find it baffling that there's so much hand wringing every time an American politician suggests the necessity for a viable Palestinian state based loosely on the '67 borders. It's almost a tic among Israel supporters that no one should say anything about a Palestinian state.

    Just yesterday, I had discussions with three people who criticized Obama's statement. In all three cases I said "Okay, you tell me. What's the long term alternative to a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza? You can't annex them because then Israel would be 50% Arab and soon would be just another Muslim state. You can't keep the status quo forever because then you're in a perpetual state of war and have to maintain control over a large body of natural enemies who have nothing to lose."

    In no case did I get anything resembling a coherent answer. Essentially, I got three grudging concessions from people who generally don't bother to think beyond the soundbite.

    Honestly, I wish more American politicians had the guts to talk frankly to the Israeli politicians. I also think that the vast majority of Israeli Jews would support that, although there would be some initial hand wringing, of course.
  2. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    22 May '11 16:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

    As pro-Israel as I am, I find it baffling that there's so much hand wringing every time an American politician suggests the necessity for a viable Palestinian state based loosely on the '67 borders. It's almost a tic among Israel supporters that no one should say anything about a Palestinian state.

    ...[text shortened]... ws would support that, although there would be some initial hand wringing, of course.
    This is the effect of decades of propaganda in the US media. I have friends and relatives who don't get it either. Once an emotional position is built up, rational arguments don't have much impact.

    I don't know why Obama said what he did. There has never been any margin for an American politician to oppose Israel on anything -- even when that is the only way to correct injustices and bring peace to the area. It's totally amazing to see.

    That said, his timing is clever. AIPAC cannot ditch him because as the incumbent Democrat, they cannot switch horses in mid-stream. And they would go into anaphylactic shock supporting a Republican. At worst they sit on the sidelines. Does Obama think he can get re-elected without them? Or is he thinking that one good term is better than 2 mediocre ones?

    Very interesting.
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    22 May '11 23:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

    As pro-Israel as I am, I find it baffling that there's so much hand wringing every time an American politician suggests the necessity for a viable Palestinian state based loosely on the '67 borders. It's almost a tic among Israel supporters that no one should say anything about a Palestinian state.

    ...[text shortened]... ws would support that, although there would be some initial hand wringing, of course.
    I agree with your views on this. It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule in America that your not supposed to speak about the possibility of a Palistinian state.
  4. 22 May '11 23:31 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    You can't keep the status quo forever because then you're in a perpetual state of war and have to maintain control over a large body of natural enemies who have nothing to lose."
    That is debatable. As for myself, I see them in a perpetual state of war no matter what the outcome at the peace talks. The only question then becomes, how do the Israelis best position themselves for the continued war for the longest period of time possible? Personally, I envision a UN-like force to come in and do to Israel what was done to Iraq. After all, the world will continue to nitpick Israel so long as there is not "peace". Then I suppose we will see if all that prophesy stuff is cracked up to be what it says to be.

    Simply put, I think it niave to think that returning to the 1967 border will bring peace. After all, it didn't the last time they tried it.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 May '11 23:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    That is debatable. As for myself, I see them in a perpetual state of war no matter what the outcome at the peace talks. The only question then becomes, how do the Israelis best position themselves for the continued war for the longest period of time possible? Personally, I envision a UN-like force to come in and do to Israel what was done to Iraq. After a ...[text shortened]... rning to the 1967 border will bring peace. After all, it didn't the last time they tried it.
    The Palestinians didn't have a State.

    The other Arab countries didn't agree to a peace treaty with Israel.

    Both are part of Obama's vision.

    Israel's position can only get worse without peace internally and externally.
  6. 23 May '11 00:16
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Palestinians didn't have a State.

    The other Arab countries didn't agree to a peace treaty with Israel.

    Both are part of Obama's vision.

    Israel's position can only get worse without peace internally and externally.
    Israel was attacked as soon as they were given a nation and have been at war since 1948.

    So you think that if the Palestinians were given their own country the war in the region would just go bye bye?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 May '11 00:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Israel was attacked as soon as they were given a nation and have been at war since 1948.

    So you think that if the Palestinians were given their own country the war in the region would just go bye bye?
    You're as ignorant of history as you are of everything else.
  8. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    23 May '11 13:14
    ...one comment made by a 'man in the street' that made a lot of sense was that while both sides get drawn to the negotiating table with the prospect of favorable outcomes, it is not mutual benefit that drives these 'conversations'. It is rather the perceived unfavorable conditions attached to any proposal that either side focuses on as being unacceptable that in the end causes both to reject the peace process regardless of how well they may have individually benefited by it.