Can I take that as an acknowledgment?
B…but there was fighting beforehand, therefore they weren’t invasions!!
I’m not using “invasion” as a pejorative. But yeah I am upset with Jordan too!
Apparently the invasion of the Body-Snatchers has already taken place.
An acknowledgement that your argument had no bearing on the actual argument? Sure. It was worthless and pointless commentary and I should not have bothered.
Are you serious or are you trying to do the ‘neener neener, I gotcha riled up over the stoopids!’ game?
There is a difference between an act of aggression (i.e., Jordan in 1948 and 67) and response to military aggression (i.e., Israel and Jordan in 67, Israel and Lebanon).
Whatever. You want to continue to argue that Israel “invaded” “Palestine” in 1948 (or 67), you do that. I’m sure you’ll conveniently forget that Jordan had Jerusalem under siege with 100,000 Jews hostage before Israel officially declared Independence. Some would-be signers unfortunately couldn’t make it.
It was an invasion, it wasn’t an invasion. Who cares? I thought we were talking about how it is now. I hate it when Israel threads get derailed by this kind of petty quibbling. Fighting about what happened in 1948 or 1967 or 1973 isn’t going to solve the problems on the ground today. Come on people… have you ever known of any conflict anywhere that was solved because of semantics?
So is it just me or did Netanyahu take half of what Obama said and run with it? Obama says “We start with the 1967 borders” and Netanyahu says “No, that’s unacceptable. We cannot end with the 1967 borders!” Obama then says “Let me finish, assh- er, friend.” And Netanyahu says “Get out of my business, assh- er, friend!”
I am half wondering if Obama is just doing this so the news networks will have something to focus on other than the impending collision with the debt ceiling. He’s riding high after bumping Osama off and any progress at all in this conflict would make him look like a saint. Is that why he feels the need to get into the middle of this right now, when it’s clear neither side is interested in negotiating anything?
No.
He took a stab at the US backed Israeli massacre of Palestinians, and he deserves kudos for it.
Bravo to Obama for calling it how it is!
Could be he actually, you know, wants to help make peace.
Things like that have been known to happen once in a while.
And another useless thread…
RABBLE :mad: RABBLE :mad: RABBLE
Also… should the native americans get all the land they had back?? if the “world court” of U.N. forces there to be a split state… then native americans have a legitimate claim dont they? Most would not agree but, in this day and age anything can happen.
Hamas has said they will agree to a temporary Palestine in exchange for peace. :dubious:
So let me get this straight: Let’s have peace for now while I get some cash and my ducks in order and then we’ll go to war later.
And you think Netanyahu is a pain in the ass.*
Why can’t Gaza and the West Bank be independent of each other? 
Before anyone goes there, Netanyahu did engage in a 10 month settlement freeze in exchange for peace talks, but nothing came of it.
The Indians can have Texas. All of it. But they have to agree to keep the natives on reservations and never let them out.
I don’t know why anyone with a serious point to make in these types of debates drags this little nugget out of the closet everytime. I suppose it’s easier than making an actual coherant argument on the status of Israel/Palestine.
For the record then, the US did tremendously horrible things to the Native Americans. Just brutal. But I’m not aware of any serious movement by them to reclaim their land, other than probably a small minority (a similar minority wants parts of American ceded back to Mexico). However, yes, they deserve this land. If the UN or some other body were to force the issue, I’m sure I and many other Americans would fight against it, but deep down, I would know that we’d be in the wrong.
Time may not heal all wounds, but it does mitigate their effects. There is no timeframe of which we can all agree that a group loses their right to a land, but like Loki’s Wager, we don’t have to make that determination in order to say that yes, right now, it is clear that the Palestinians still have a legitimate claim to some of the land they were living in prior to 1948. Hell, some of those people are STILL ALIVE, which makes a pretty big difference. Maybe Israel is trying to wait them out, after all the longer it has been since 1948, the less people will care. Perhaps that is their endgame
I am certainly NO fan of Obama, but the thought strikes me, that he has, in fact, set the stage for a final settlement.
By calling out the Israelis, he will force them into a decision on the borders-then he can go to the palestinians-and they cannot (logically) refuse.
If they accept, they get a sovereign country-complete with foreign aid from the USA, the EU, Japan, and even China.
Palestine 9or whatever they choose to call it) and Israel sign a peace treaty, exchange ambassadors, and that is it.
So, maybe it is a clever piece of work.
The Native Americans did try. We fought a few wars over it. And they still fight today in regards to certain areas and water rights. But they’re not asking to uproot Washington D.C., or Miami, Florida.
As far as people who are still alive and remembering life inside the green line, there are a couple of problems with logistics. One: we don’t have a specific list of who that is. Demographic lists vary between 200,000 refugees and 700,000 refugees. And you can’t logically expect to take every person and their grandchild back to Israel and live…where? Israel isn’t going to build those homes for them. They’d be refugees again.
There are refugees that were in Arab-controlled (and not just Arab countries) parts of Palestine, too - they were Jews who fled elsewhere. Some of them reclaimed their ‘land’ - either in Jerusalem after 67 or in the West Bank. The number isn’t huge, but no one expects the PLO to take care of them.
The Palestinians of the West Bank are in the worst position because they are without certain legal protections and status. The best they had was from 48-67 when they were Jordanians. Jordan shares the fault of their fate, but now it’s up to Israel to rectify that?
No. The PLO is their leadership. If they want statehood, they should be able to reasonably build infrastructure.
Finally, how in the hell does Israel take in, oh, let’s just put out a number: 100,000 refugees from a place that has advocated for their destruction? That’s not only against their law, but potentially dangerous (and economically stupid and a whole lot of other things). We don’t house Al-Queda here.
Not to say that every Palestinian is a terrorist - hell no - but it’s not like the government could tell the difference.
One thing I’ve noticed is that everytime I hear a story about a Palestinian, they all claim to have been from within the Green Line. How is that even possible? It isn’t. There were Arab towns in the WB and Gaza in '48 – that’s why the maps looks so odd - it was originally drawn up around population centers.
Obama didn’t mention Jerusalem or refugees. So he kind of only said, “Get to work!” and provided the end-game scenario. Israel isn’t budging from anything further than ‘67 with mutually agreed land swaps’ on the land issue. Even Rabin wasn’t going to give up security in the Jordan.
The Oslo accords were basically an interim agreement to work out an agreement within the next five years. It never dealt with specifics, either. The peace never happened. Violence against Israel actually rose and many Palestinians were angry over the attempt at ‘peace’.
*I’m not sure this agreement will happen…sigh Abbas doesn’t have the support of his people. His police force can’t always keep things under control. So we trained 3,000 of his men over the last couple of years, but what happens if they aren’t in agreement? It’s not like in Israel where if an IDF soldier goes against instructions he faces similar fate that a U.S. one does when court martialed.
Netanyahu has the support of part of the government, I think, but he is in a very bad position to be pleading right now. He already looks weak. They both do.
I really hope this doesn’t turn into a war. Any violent acts by Palestinians is going to be seen as, “See. Can’t talk with people who are trying to kill you.” And since Abbas doesn’t crack down on his own terrorists like he should (either by lack of power or lack of want) Obama’s speech seems to be more political posturing and less action.
Why didn’t he just make this speech last year during the 10 month settlement freeze? 
It’s too bad for Israel then that Obama is against the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon land swaps.
Maybe if they talked to him they’d get him to change his mind.
That may be true but unless you are willing to shove it down their throat, they aren’t going to do it. And noon is going to shove it down their throats. AIPAC is very active and they are important swing voters (and campaign contributors) for both parties. Noone takes them for granted, thats why an AIPAC meeting get Obama, Reid, Boehner and half a dozen other politicians from both sides of the aisle, while the NAACP gets Jesse Jackson Jr. in a good year.
That’s not a very good analogy at all, first because you are also conflating race and religion and secondly because the black people in this case intentionally built their nation where it is. They got to pick their neighbors and this is who they picked.
Yes. WWII. Remember what happened with the treaty of versailles? The only peace that Isreal seems to be willing to accept is one that the Palestinians will only tolerate until they can carve a more acceptable peace for themselves and the Israelis seem to understand this and so they propose a peace plan that they know will not lead to long term peace because they cannot make the compromises that can lead to long term peace..