President Obama's Middle East Speech

[Michael_ Gee]

Again, Boom, you are right. But it doesn't matter. This is an issue, like all issues in all politics everywhere, where the minority that cares a WHOLE LOT about what happens will always triumph over a majority that either doesn't care or feels the opposite way but not very strongly.
It's not even the best example. Most Americans have a vague sense of supporting Israel. Nobody but an increasingly small percentage of older Cuban Americans gives a rat's ass about Cuba or the embargo, and some powerful interests, like farmers, support ending the embargo, but the passionate minority gets its way.

 

[Bamadog]

There is no precedence for a Palestinian state in the modern sense because the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region for nearly 500 years, didn't divide their peoples on nationality, they did so based on religion. Its undeniable and irrefutable that modern Palestinians are simply the Muslim ancestors of those who have lived in that region for eons.

The modern notion of nationalism didn't even exist in that part of the world until World War I. The awakening of Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Arabs, etc., are all WWI or post-WWI occurrences.

Besides, it's a fools' game to try and retroactively apply notions of nationalism, especially when the fait accompli has occurred, and those people who allegedly have no historical unity as a people have a very strong sense of nationalism right now.

Just so. I'll also note that bamadog's argument was the one used to oppress the Irish for roughly 800 years. It's a tautology. They've never had a country! Well, neither did Iraqis before the British bolted. Doesn't mean they won't fight their oppressors -- and as pro-Israel as I am, they're oppressing the Palestinians with the occupation. That can't be argued. It's doing awful things. To the Palestinians. To the Israelis.

And, as to the last part, what makes Obama think he can do any better? The fact that eventually someone must.

But what are the Israelis to do? Accept the right of return and watch their country turned into another Arab state with a Jewish minority? I don't think the Jews want to go back to dhimmitude. We all know how that one turns out.

Why can't the Arab states accept their brethern, these so-called refugees, many of whom left their lands voluntarily because the Arab states said they'd drive Israel's patchwork army into the sea? Because they're pawns to be used against Israel. Sad, yes.

As for the Irish, they had a language, a culture, an ethnicity and a sense of a nationhood, something that the "Palestinians" did not have and still don't. They are no different from their fellow Arabs. Language? Check. Religion? Check. Ethnicity? Check. If it walks and quakes like a duck, it's probably a duck

 

[CarltonBanks]

I support Obama 100 percent on what he said.

Knock me down with a feather.

What about a world leader that comes to our country and blasts the United States in a speech to Congress? Did that offend you? Something tells me you weren't all that upset with Calderon ripping the US on the floor of the US Congress because, well, you agree with him. That, my friend, is hypocritical.

 

[TrooperBari]

Off to derail another thread, are we?

 

[Mark McGwire]

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, bamadog. There is going to be a Palestinian state. The Israeli people know this. The basic framework for a deal is a known quantity. The Israelis are going to have to give up some land. The Palestinians are going to have to give up some land. They're going to have to agree on a workable border. And in the endgame, you'll deal with right of return -- which is never going to happen -- and Jerusalem.

Why didn't the Arab states take better care of the refugees in 1967? Because they were run by despots who wanted to use them as political pawns. Absolutely. But that was 45 years ago, man. These people are still living in camps. Whole generations. And since then, the Israelis have occupied lots of territory that was never theirs according to the 49 charter, never supposed to be theirs, was not taken in the 67 war and is not theirs to take. And they've occupied even more. I mean, be real. Your viewpoint might have hunted in 1972, but not today, at least not outside of Likudnik propoganda. I mean, really? "So-called refugees"? Again, I'm as pro-Israel as you will find a person, but that's ahistorical and insulting. These people exist. They have a grievance. There will be two states on that land, and soon.

You contradict yourself with your rebuttal to the Irish comparison. So I won't bother. The comparison is apt. Not identical. But apt. You can't occupy a piece of land for 50 years and STILL be arguing, "Hey, they don't have a government."

If Netanyahu was smart, he'd agree with everything Obama said yesterday publically and then sit down at the bargaining table and wait for Hamas to self-destruct. As it is, he's losing perception battle, and it's one he could easily win. The world sees Hamas clearly. But they're the elected government of the Palestinian people, and he can't just continue to refuse to change the status quo. He'll lose the perception battle, and he'll lose in the UN unless we bail his ass out, again.

 

[CarltonBanks]

"Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality," an unsmiling Netanyahu told Obama in the Oval Office.

So much for that, Mark.

 

[Mark McGwire]

Yes. Netanyahu being a douche means everyone else in the world has to give up.

He's making a choice, here. The framework Obama outlined is the same one American presidents have been outlining for nearly 30 years. It's the same one Israeli PMs have been outlining for the last 20.

He wants to go full-retard here, he can. But if the United Nations decides to recognize a free and independent Palestine in September, and we don't veto, he'll have effectively pissed away all of Israel's moral authority in the matter.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

At what point can a president just tell him to go fork himself then?

 

[Boom_70]

At what point can a president just tell him to go fork himself then?

In a matter of speaking, I think he already did - yesterday.

 

[Mark McGwire]

At what point can a president just tell him to go fork himself then?

Soon?

Netanyahu's party finished something like second out of 12 to win seats in the last Knesset elections. Israel always has a coalition government. How this thing breaks with the public in Israel is the key. They distrust Obama, but it isn't like Netanyahu's got a stranglehold. Something like 20,000 changed votes and he's out on his ass.

 

[sportsguydave]

At what point can a president just tell him to go fork himself then?

In a matter of speaking, I think he already did - yesterday.

Yep. And it was about damn time.

 

[Mark McGwire]

I hate to be the contrarian, I truly do...

But Obama didn't say anything yesterday that hasn't been said before.

This is Netanyahu being a deck about it -- and large swaths of the US media going along for the ride.

With regards to parameters of the negotiations -- Ehud Olmert has given the same speech, Hillary Clinton has given the same speech, Yitzhak Rabin gave the same speech. George W. Bush gave the same speech, Bill Clinton gave the same speech. I could continue.