Letter from Netanyahu to Obama

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    Dear President Obama,

    I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request. First and foremost, I will be asking that you return the United States to its August 20, 1959 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen.

    Sincerely,

    Benjamin Netanyahu

    Prime Minister of Israel

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    Don't be utterly ridiculous. Your command of history is absolutely pathetic if you think there is any parallel at all.

    Obama's statement on Israel is absolutely consistent with EVERY other prior US administration. It is that the 1967 borders should be the starting point for negotiated land swaps. That is what Obama said and exactly what Israel has in the past itself as much as agreed to. In particular Israel's most ardent supporter on here, caesarea4, has stated that this is the compromise that Israel has found acceptable [while the Palestinians have not in public].

    If your point is to say that Netanyahu is an unreasonable man, then we are in agreement.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 24, 2011 10:38 PM GMT
    socalfitness, you're not on the birther thing again, are you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    TigerTim said... Obama's statement on Israel is absolutely consistent with EVERY other prior US administration. ...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341212934894494.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    ...For starters, it would be nice if the president could come clean about whether his line about the 1967 line—"mutually agreed swaps" and all—was pathbreaking and controversial, or no big deal. On Sunday, Mr. Obama congratulated himself for choosing the hard road to Mideast peace as he prepares for re-election, only to offer a few minutes later that "there was nothing particularly original in my proposal."

    Yet assuming Mr. Obama knows what he's talking about, he knows that's untrue: No U.S. president has explicitly endorsed the '67 lines as the basis for negotiating a final border, which is why the University of Michigan's Juan Cole, not exactly a shill for the Israel lobby, called it "a major turning point."

    Mr. Obama would also know that in 2009 Hillary Clinton had described this formula as "the Palestinian goal." Now it's Mr. Obama's goal as well, even as he insists that "no peace can be imposed."
    ...

    Article: An Anti-Israel President - The president's peace proposal is a formula for war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
    Read the Clinton parameters carefully:

    http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    the 1967 borders is a baseline from which all conversations of peace have naturally gone to ever since 1967. What other borders could be used as a baseline for discussion, since the war of 1967 was the beginning of "occupation of Palestinian territory" those "occupied" territorial lines cannot be ignored and have already been discussed as mentioned above during Clintons time and I understand that some talk of land swaps had been in consideration.

    As for all thise newly announced settlements, they will frustrate not help negotiations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2011 4:14 PM GMT
    There he goes again, with an argument that is one-word deep.
    The usual argument by sloganeering and soundbite.

    The FACT of the matter, of which Obama (and his legal advisors) are cognizant, is that the 1949 Armistice Line was LEGALLY recognized - in the Armistice Agreements themselves - as a non-permanent cease-fire line.

    While it is doubtful that stateless territories can be "occupied" (see Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention), what Obama (and his legal advisors) certainly know is that an "occupation" per se is not illegal (in fact, the FGC states how one is LEGALLY conducted).

    Indeed, until borders are negotiated, we can't even know what is "occupied".
    For example, the Jewish quarter of eastern Jerusalem will become part of Israel.
    Does that make it "Israeli occupied... Israel"?!


    I'm sure the Obama administration likewise realizes that an occupation is what comes between war and peace.
    That the Arabs were always quick to war and glacially slow to peace.

    They also know that Israel's administration of the disputed territories is LEGAL.
    As authorized in the legally binding UN Security Council Resolution 242.
    It does not require an immediate, unilateral or even complete Israeli withdrawal.
    It calls for Israel to withdraw to an agreed upon border AFTER a comprehensive peace agreement is negotiated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 3:15 AM GMT
    Funny thing about Occupations, I don't know of any country with the record of decades of Settlement building on Occupied lands such as with this supposedly peace loving democratic state of Israel. Its quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements. Oh what Hypocricy !!

    It appears Israel likes Occupation because they sure like the prospects of gaining territory while the Occupation continues don't they.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 26, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    realifedad said Its quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements. Oh what Hypocricy !!



    You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back bordersicon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 4:33 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said Its quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements. Oh what Hypocricy !!



    You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back bordersicon_rolleyes.gif



    ________________________________________________________

    Your exacty right !! But when we talk about what our country did wrong to the Indian, we aren't labeled as haters of our country because we dare point it out as wrong, are we? There is a difference too, that was the 1800's, this is 2011, and the Settlements still are going on and not representative of good faith efforts toward peace. what we did in the 1800's is in no way an excuse for Israel now is it ?

    Is it that hard for Israel to stop those settlements where they currently stand for the sake of peace rather than add to them ? That is not a rediculous or unfair expectation coming from the Palestinians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said Its quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements. Oh what Hypocricy !!



    You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back bordersicon_rolleyes.gif


    For once we agree on something ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 5:14 AM GMT
    fountains said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad said Its quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements. Oh what Hypocricy !!



    You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back bordersicon_rolleyes.gif


    For once we agree on something ;)


    ________________________________________________________


    I rather doubt too, that when the US made peace offers of land between point A to point B for the Indians, that the US was at the same time, settling that same land with more and more white settlers. If you get my drift.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    realifedad saidIts quite apparently not one of the higher democratic standards to be forcing people off their land, farms and out of their homes for settlements.

    You mean kind of like what we did with the American Indians in the 1800's? Perhaps the Indians should demand we roll back bordersicon_rolleyes.gif

    How curious that RLD has no sympathy for the Jews who were driven off their land.
    For 20 years, after which, 44 years ago, they re-established their homes.
    On land that they had purchased, without forcing anyone off the land.

    This is the age old lie, pretending that population (or farms) are a zero sum game and thus each Jew had to displace an Arab after "stealing" his land.

    The fact of the matter, as was documented by British committees of inquiry decades ago, is that Jews PURCHASED lands (usually those considered uncultivatable) and developed them.

    The fact of the matter is that the Arab population GREW the most precisely in those areas of Jewish development.

    From the 1937 British Peel Commission Report:
    The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the SALE of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    The shortage of land is due less to PURCHASE by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was BOUGHT.

    So NO. Not at all like Europeans did to the Native Americans.
    Not to mention that it was foreign Arab empires that had invaded, occupied and colonized the Jewish homeland.
    A better analogy might be the Native Americans buying back land from Europeans (prior to the establishment of the USA).


    As far as the prospect of peace is concerned, the "settlements" (i.e. Jewish villages) and "construction" are a red herring and a pretense to avoid making peace. Consider these points:

    1. Any construction in areas that will be included in "land swaps" is moot.
    (Under the Clinton compromise parameters, 80% of Jews would remain where they live.)

    2. Any construction in areas that Israel will cede to a nascent Palestinian Arab state is to their benefit.
    (Or, like the famed greenhouses of Gaza, the Palestinian Arabs can throw a party and destroy these.)

    3. If there truly is peace, why shouldn't Jews continue to live in their homes - just as there are Arabs and Arab villages inside Israel?

    The reality is that if the Arabs made peace, the "settlements" and "construction" (non-) issues would take care of themselves. The best way to address this is at the negotiating table. Yet they use it as an excuse to not negotiate, choosing instead to perpetuate the conflict and violence.. only to then cry us a river that they are the "victims" of a conflict they started but won't end?

    Consider further that when Netanyahu imposed a unilateral 10-month moratorium on new construction, the Arabs parties still balked, finding new pretenses to avoid negotiations, compromise and peace.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 26, 2011 2:33 PM GMT
    Bottomline: If the Palestinian President made a public speech, much like Netanyahu did to congress this week, and recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and equally extended the olive branch to come to the table in the interest of peace for the region, then I would believe that the Palestinians genuinely want to make the compromises necessary to find a road to peace. Let's see if that ever happens. The world is waiting. The Palestinians have everything to gain in The Bigger Picture by doing this, and yet that proverbial chip on their shoulder keeps it from happening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidBottomline: If the Palestinian President made a public speech, much like Netanyahu did to congress this week, and recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and equally extended the olive branch to come to the table in the interest of peace for the region, then I would believe that the Palestinians genuinely want to make the compromises necessary to find a road to peace. Let's see if that ever happens. The world is waiting. The Palestinians have everything to gain in The Bigger Picture by doing this, and yet that proverbial chip on their shoulder keeps it from happening.


    Bottom line...

    There is no need a speech for the congress, most of them are bunch of idiots and backwards. Most of them do not support the gay rights.

    You should hear Arafat's old speech and Israel ignores it. You should hear Abbas speech and Israel ignores it. But only thing that got you attention is Netanyahu. How come our media doesn't shows Abbas' speech, but Netanyahu? Don't let the media fool you man. If you are so one-sided or narrow-minded, then you will never understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Palestinians already give Israel compromise and peace. It is Israel that doesn't want to compromise with the Palestinians and Israel broke hundred the international laws. Millions of Palestinians on other hand are living under oppressive Israeli illegal occupation. What part of illegal don't you understand?

    You do know what is the international law right? I don't have to explain that to you. I am a Jew lawyer and I will say this over and over that Israel's actions against the Palestinians is wrong...


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 10:49 PM GMT
    invisiblemann said
    CuriousJockAZ saidBottomline: If the Palestinian President made a public speech, much like Netanyahu did to congress this week, and recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and equally extended the olive branch to come to the table in the interest of peace for the region, then I would believe that the Palestinians genuinely want to make the compromises necessary to find a road to peace. Let's see if that ever happens. The world is waiting. The Palestinians have everything to gain in The Bigger Picture by doing this, and yet that proverbial chip on their shoulder keeps it from happening.

    There is no need a speech for the congress, most of them are bunch of idiots and backwards. Most of them do not support the gay rights.

    ...Israel broke hundred the international laws.

    ...I am a Jew lawyer....

    ROTFL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 12, 2011 4:00 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidBottomline: If the Palestinian President made a public speech, much like Netanyahu did to congress this week, and recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and equally extended the olive branch to come to the table in the interest of peace for the region, then I would believe that the Palestinians genuinely want to make the compromises necessary to find a road to peace. Let's see if that ever happens. The world is waiting. The Palestinians have everything to gain in The Bigger Picture by doing this, and yet that proverbial chip on their shoulder keeps it from happening.



    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bottom line is that the new Palestinian coalition has said it will recognize Israel, which is more than we can say for Israels recognizing Palestine and its rights to not be encroached upon by ZIONIST SETTLEMENTS.

    The Hamas side of the equation has also come out saying that it will end violent hostilities.

    THE ELOQUENT LIAR FOR THE ZIONIST CAUSE NETANYAHU did not say one word in his smooth speaches about approving an additional 2000 + units of ZIONIST SETTLEMENT UNITS during the first half of this year.

    WHEN WILL NETANYAHU END THE SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE?

    Unless you have a double dose of "CHUTZPAH" no government leader would stand before congress claiming they want peace with a country they continue even while he speaks in stealing their land !!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR SOME OF YOU TO UNDERSTAND ?? I guess that ZIONIST FANATICS think they are entitled or they wouldn't use such "CHUTZPAH".