Netanyuhu has postponed departure

[cubeless]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Common Courtesy for that latest link saying Netanyuhu has now left, without an agreement with the Obama administration in hand.

The only point might quibble with, is, "And the US is still not allowing the UN commissions to run roughshod over Israel."

The point being, only a few hours is not enough time for any changing US actions to be implemented, but if the USA, for the first time in basically 43 years, fails to cast that veto in the security council to protect Israel from future UN resolutions, we will all have our answer.

May I remind this forum, its the President and not congress that conducts foreign policy, because that is where our constitution vests that power. I am also fairly sure Obama has the power to suspend all US aid to Israel at the stroke of a pen. And again we will all have our answer.

Netanyuhu has hit the ball to the US side of the net, we can all wait and wonder how the Obama administration will play the ball back to the Israeli side of the net?

pretty hard to be the end all for policy when someone else holds the purse...

 

[EagleKeeper]

The current president is a slave to Congress.

Congress can make/break him.
Congress also controls the purse. The President can not spend what Congress does not authorize.

 

[Lemon law]

May I remind you Common Courtesy, all Obama has to do is nothing, just abstain next time that anti-Israeli resolution comes up.

And no, the legislative and executive are two co-equal branches of US government. One can pressure the other and often do, but in general the odds are stacked in favor of the executive.

But if Israel invokes the power of its lobby in the USA, it could turn into a heck of a dog fight. But Israel would also be making a big gamble, because the Obama bully pulpit could air a heck of a lot of Israeli dirty laundry.

Likewise, Netanyuhu may not last long in Israel if he is the one who is perceived to have killed the golden goose US relationship.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama will blink. He is a politician that responds to pressure.

Congress for years has abdicated to the Executive branch.
After Bush, they have realized that they need to take back what they gave away.
With a weak president, they have the ability to do so.

Israel does not care about their dirty laundry - they care about their survival.

If the US cuts them off at the knees; then they will have to go at it alone - they did that for 20 years against all odds; now the odds are lessened even more.

 

[Narmer]

Obama will blink. He is a politician that responds to pressure.

Congress for years has abdicated to the Executive branch.
After Bush, they have realized that they need to take back what they gave away.
With a weak president, they have the ability to do so.

Israel does not care about their dirty laundry - they care about their survival.

If the US cuts them off at the knees; then they will have to go at it alone - they did that for 20 years against all odds; now the odds are lessened even more.

I'm really starting to believe that you are delusional when it comes to Israel? How did that blinking go when they lost the Mass Senate seat? How did that blinking go when it comes to dealing with China in the past month or two or in dealing with Israel? Also, Israeli apologists complain when Arabs kick out Jews and confiscate their property but you have no problem when Israel does it? I think I'll see your Israel-related posts as entertainment from now on, like IHV.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm really starting to believe that you are delusional when it comes to Israel? How did that blinking go when they lost the Mass Senate seat? How did that blinking go when it comes to dealing with China in the past month or two or in dealing with Israel? Also, Israeli apologists complain when Arabs kick out Jews and confiscate their property but you have no problem when Israel does it? I think I'll see your Israel-related posts as entertainment from now on, like IHV.

Not delusional - real world practical.

One does not back Israel into a corner - the results are not what one expects from "rational" countries.
Jsut like the Western world has problems understanding the Eastern and Arab mindset; the same goes for Israel.

Israel is not going to be a lapdog for the US/UN or anyone else if they perceive it to threaten their national interests/security.

Most of the posters here are sponges of what they have been taught in the schools.

Very few have been to the Middle East.

Even fewer have been in any of the conflicts and actually seen what happens or undertand the mindsets of the participants.

When you have walked a mile in a persons shoes, only then will you understand what they feel.

Theory does not match up with reality.

 

[Narmer]

Not delusional - real world practical.

One does not back Israel into a corner - the results are not what one expects from "rational" countries.
Jsut like the Western world has problems understanding the Eastern and Arab mindset; the same goes for Israel.

Israel is not going to be a lapdog for the US/UN or anyone else if they perceive it to threaten their national interests/security.

Most of the posters here are sponges of what they have been taught in the schools.

Very few have been to the Middle East.

Even fewer have been in any of the conflicts and actually seen what happens or undertand the mindsets of the participants.

When you have walked a mile in a persons shoes, only then will you understand what they feel.

Theory does not match up with reality.

So you claim that the only way Israel can survive is if she continues building on land everyone but her sees as illegal? In your opinion, Israel should never give an inch? I have to ask, have you been to the Middle East or understand their mindset? Your point sounds exactly like those Jews who have never been there.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So you claim that the only way Israel can survive is if she continues building on land everyone but her sees as illegal? In your opinion, Israel should never give an inch? I have to ask, have you been to the Middle East or understand their mindset? Your point sounds exactly like those Jews who have never been there.

I have been in Israel twice.

During the Yom Kippur war and in '81 as an result of Osirak.
I have 10+ years interacting with the IAF.

People want to consider the land that Israel is building on as belonging to the Palestinians.
My POV is that the Palestinians chose to side with the attacks on Israel when they were offered the possibilities of their own state.
Then the Palestinians have continued to attack Israel for the past 50+ years either directly and/or selecting leadership that encourages attacks and/or supporting those internally that continue the attacks.
They are like little children who refuse to accept the consequences of their actions. The world knew that they were not ready for statehood back in '48 and they have continually demostrated such since them.

Now not all Palestinians are flawed; just like not all Muslims are flawed. Enough of them tolerate the problems that Israel is unable to trust them.

However, the Palestinians made their bed and have been given multiple chances to change the sheets and choose not to.

They want it all and therefore are getting nothing.
When they stop biting the hand that feeds them (especially w/ respect to Gaza), then they will have a chance to move forward.

They and their Arab brethren put them in this situation - yet the Arab brethren have not expressed and remorse or willingness to help them out of such.

 

[Zebo]

Has nothing to do with accepting consequences. This is just the little Jihad. They absolutely can not abide a Jewish state smack dab in the middle of what was Dar Islam. They will not stop no matter what Israel gives them as long as there is Israel.

 

[Narmer]

I have been in Israel twice.

During the Yom Kippur war and in '81 as an result of Osirak.
I have 10+ years interacting with the IAF.

People want to consider the land that Israel is building on as belonging to the Palestinians.
My POV is that the Palestinians chose to side with the attacks on Israel when they were offered the possibilities of their own state.
Then the Palestinians have continued to attack Israel for the past 50+ years either directly and/or selecting leadership that encourages attacks and/or supporting those internally that continue the attacks.
They are like little children who refuse to accept the consequences of their actions. The world knew that they were not ready for statehood back in '48 and they have continually demostrated such since them.

Now not all Palestinians are flawed; just like not all Muslims are flawed. Enough of them tolerate the problems that Israel is unable to trust them.

However, the Palestinians made their bed and have been given multiple chances to change the sheets and choose not to.

They want it all and therefore are getting nothing.
When they stop biting the hand that feeds them (especially w/ respect to Gaza), then they will have a chance to move forward.

They and their Arab brethren put them in this situation - yet the Arab brethren have not expressed and remorse or willingness to help them out of such.

They chose to side with their Arab brothers when Israel was formed? You mark that against them? Really? And you blame them for continuing to attack Israel when they themselves had no homeland and were fighting for one? You then claim that the world knew they weren't ready for statehood but the arab neighbors, who also continue to attack Israel to this very day, were ready then?

It's obvious that you're bias. Your bias statement here against the Palestinians absolves the other actors in the history of the region because they are not of any concern to this settlement issue.

But it's entertaining watching you paint this Issue in Blue and White. As you said earlier, no matter what we do, Israel will find a way to defend herself. But with an attitude like yours, perpetually seeing youself as the victim while doing what others did to your people, your blinders make it difficult to understand why others are so hostile. I take it that when Iran finally gets a nuke and points it towards Israel, your paranoia will go into overdrive, right? Seeing that Islam is the closest thing the world has to a military religion, I can definitely see those crazy muslims pulling the trigger. The sad thing is you're giving them all the reasons in the world because you refuse to see things any other way.

 

[woolfe9999]

Speaking as a pro-Israel Zionist who has been to Israel twice, has been to the West Bank and Gaza, and other parts of the middle east, the continued expansion of settlements is clearly not in Israel's security interests. Israel does not expand settlements to protect itself; it expands settlements because the "pro-settlement" bloc is a powerful special interest group (or set of groups) in Israel, much like we have powerful lobbies in our own system which exercise undue influence over elected officials.

Israel may technically be able to "go it alone" without the U.S., but it would very much damage Israel's security interests to alienate the U.S. Every smart Israeli knows this, including Netanyahu. Accordingly, the question is not IF Israel will capitulate given enough U.S. pressure, because it would. The question, rather, is how much pressure this administration will actually apply. Obama is not someone who will "chicken out" because of Netanyahu. His larger concern is likely a political one - how it does play out for him politically if he gets *too* tough on Israel. On balance, I think we will end up with some concessions from Israel, but in the shortrun, I doubt it will be quite enough. For example, we may see the Jerusalem building project called off, while at the same time building continues under the radar in the West Bank.

Ultimately, the Israelis are going to have to elect a government that is willing to buck their own special interests and pursue a settlement freeze which is clearly in the best interests of Israelis. "Pressure" from the U.S. will never be enough. Obama is probably about as good as it gets, and there is a political limit to how far he will go.

- wolf

 

[paperfist]

Obama tried to sell Israel out to the Arabs in hopes of scoring diplomatic points, and he largely succeeded.

But Netanyahu, even if he wanted to, simply can't stop construction in Jerusalem. Israeli population supports it by a wide-margin and the coalition government won't tolerate any more one-sided Obama demands.

Right now Israel is too busy dealing with a potential 3rd intifada and thousands of Palestinian teenagers assaulting border police and PA security forces to worry about hurting Obama's feelings.

2 more years and he's fuckin outta here. Deport him to Saudi Arabia where he belongs.

Sorry I can't resist, what's Obama's middle name again?

 

[Zebo]

Speaking as a pro-Israel Zionist who has been to Israel twice, has been to the West Bank and Gaza, and other parts of the middle east, the continued expansion of settlements is clearly not in Israel's security interests. Israel does not expand settlements to protect itself; it expands settlements because the "pro-settlement" bloc is a powerful special interest group (or set of groups) in Israel, much like we have powerful lobbies in our own system which exercise undue influence over elected officials.

Israel may technically be able to "go it alone" without the U.S., but it would very much damage Israel's security interests to alienate the U.S. Every smart Israeli knows this, including Netanyahu. Accordingly, the question is not IF Israel will capitulate given enough U.S. pressure, because it would. The question, rather, is how much pressure this administration will actually apply. Obama is not someone who will "chicken out" because of Netanyahu. His larger concern is likely a political one - how it does play out for him politically if he gets *too* tough on Israel. On balance, I think we will end up with some concessions from Israel, but in the shortrun, I doubt it will be quite enough. For example, we may see the Jerusalem building project called off, while at the same time building continues under the radar in the West Bank.

Ultimately, the Israelis are going to have to elect a government that is willing to buck their own special interests and pursue a settlement freeze which is clearly in the best interests of Israelis. "Pressure" from the U.S. will never be enough. Obama is probably about as good as it gets, and there is a political limit to how far he will go.

- wolf

The important thing in 242 is that Israel is required to withdraw to "secure and defensible borders."

It is up to Israel to calculate precisely what those "secure and defensible borders" are.

And I would not worry about Israel "going it alone" for long as soon as people in the West realize what Islam is all about e.g. Muslims in their midst can not integrate their barbarity into the West, and have right and duty to remove all obstacles to it's spread pursued by all means to include terrorism campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest are realizing day by day.

 

[kylebisme]

They chose to side with their Arab brothers when Israel was formed?

No, as I've explained to CC before:

...Palestinians were never given the chance to choose a side, as they were not wanted by the Zionists who insisted on A Jewish Majority By All Means. A few notable quotes from David Ben-Gurion to exmeplefy this fact:

1937- "We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a means, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement."

1938- "I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim."

1947 -"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%."

Note that the last quote was at the very end of 1947, over a month after Ben-Gurion's militia and the terrorist groups he allied with started ethnically cleansing the region, to alter those demographics which he was unwilling to accept, and unwilling to give Palestinians any choice in the matter.

But of course he just feigned an argument to defend his delusions and ducked out of the discussion there, like he is bound to do again here.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They chose to side with their Arab brothers when Israel was formed? You mark that against them? Really? And you blame them for continuing to attack Israel when they themselves had no homeland and were fighting for one? You then claim that the world knew they weren't ready for statehood but the arab neighbors, who also continue to attack Israel to this very day, were ready then?

a) They were offered a potential of a homeland by the UN. Instead they worked with the Arabs to try to take it all and destroy Israel.

b) Apparently the UN knew what they were doing - Israel did not trying to attack and conquer Palestine, it was the other way around.

c) Then they complain about the fact that Israel has been unfair. The Palestinians never tried to give Israel a chance. Nor did their Arab brethren.
Nor did the Arabs really try to help the Palestinians.

Israel has helped them more than any other country.

d) The Arab countries that attacked Israel were considered countries by the world. The Palestinians were not considered by the Arabs or the UN to be ready for statehood. Whether the other Arab countries should have been created is something that the world decided back then. Given the facts; the decision was made and backed by the Arabs that Palestine was to be broken into two areas - one for a Jewish state, the other to be overseen by the Arab nations until it was determined that that area should become a state.

The Arab countries were carved out of territory previously controlled by losers in wars


It's obvious that you're bias. Your bias statement here against the Palestinians absolves the other actors in the history of the region because they are not of any concern to this settlement issue.

I will not deny bias - the Palestinians have not shown up to this point that they are willing to be a state that can live side by side with its neighbors. They have been kicked out of multiple Arab countries for creating trouble within/for their host. Until they show that they can live side by side, they should not be accorded the benefits and privileges of a state. They are just an administered territory.

North Korea is a country that was carved up by the UN. They have shown over the past 50 years that they are able to live/coexist with their neighbors.


But it's entertaining watching you paint this Issue in Blue and White. As you said earlier, no matter what we do, Israel will find a way to defend herself. But with an attitude like yours, perpetually seeing yourself as the victim while doing what others did to your people, your blinders make it difficult to understand why others are so hostile. I take it that when Iran finally gets a nuke and points it towards Israel, your paranoia will go into overdrive, right? Seeing that Islam is the closest thing the world has to a military religion, I can definitely see those crazy muslims pulling the trigger. The sad thing is you're giving them all the reasons in the world because you refuse to see things any other way.

When Iran gets a nuke and continues to act belligerent toward Israel, I would expect that Israel will take the Iranian leadership words to heart.
History is starting to repeat itself

Iraq was supportive of terrorism against Israel; they prepared a nuke reactor and had stated that they would be happy to use nukes on Israel.

Israel believed them and stopped them.

In the Gulf War 1; Israel received Chemical weapon attacks from Iraq. Why; because they were Israel - they were not involved with the conflict. But Iraq targeted them anyhow.

Now you have the same happening with Iran.
a) Supportive of terrorism against Israel;
b) Preparing an reactor that can enrich uranium
c) Leadership openly issuing threats against Israel to remove it from the face of the earth.

Syria is the same
a) Supportive of terrorism against Israel;
b) Was trying to build a non research reactor that can enrich uranium
c) Leadership openly issuing threats
d) Refused to make peace with Israel after '73

Given what is aligned against Israel and the lack of support and/or naivety of the world body for her; she can not afford to take chances with anyone that threatens her existence.

 

[Zebo]

No, as I've explained to CC before:


But of course he just feigned an argument to defend his delusions and ducked out of the discussion there, like he is bound to do again here.

You might want to read your own link. Ethnic cleansing or getting out of the way for Jewish annihilation?


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

Historians have argued over the causes of the Palestinian exodus. In early decades following the exodus, two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. The "Israeli Government claimed that the Palestinian Arabs left because they were ordered to and were deliberately incited into panic by their own leaders, who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war", while "The Palestinian Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists"

 

[Lemon law]

As for me, I am trying to analyze this much like I would a chess game, because its unknown now, we can't per say reject the Common Courtesy contention that Obama will wimp out, or make other predictions.

But that is the other thing about chess that is comparable to real life, once, somewhere in the middle of the game, the decision is made to castle on the queen's side or King's side to choose just one example, and once that decision is made, certain doors and options open up and become new unknowns in terms of the new options, and at the same time, many doors and options become no longer tenable. And gasp, once the die is cast, none of us can go back.

And now its somewhat hurry up and wait for the Obama response.

 

[lupi]

You want peace, here ya go; isreal gives up gaza as a palestine state and all other "disputed territories" are maintained as part of isreal proper. Isreal has given up more territory for peace but of course this would never work as it leaves the other side where they don't want to end up, with a solvent state of israel.

 

[Narmer]

No, as I've explained to CC before:


But of course he just feigned an argument to defend his delusions and ducked out of the discussion there, like he is bound to do again here.

He's an old soldier (emphasis on "old"). Worse, he doesn't live where he fought. Therefore, his opinion and past is rose-tainted. Unlike people like Sharon, who changed in their old age, people like CC will be as stubborn as ever. All you can do is smile and wipe the drool from his mouth.

 

[kylebisme]

They were offered a potential of a homeland by the UN.

In fact, the UN offered Palestinians a bit less than half of what what the League of Nations had recognized as their homeland decades before, as illustrated in this map.

Instead they worked with the Arabs to try to take it all and destroy Israel.

That is only how it went down in your imagination, but if you check the historical record you will find you are wrong. Granted, you have no interest in relinquishing your delusions to historical facts, do you?

 

[brencat]

People want to consider the land that Israel is building on as belonging to the Palestinians.
My POV is that the Palestinians chose to side with the attacks on Israel when they were offered the possibilities of their own state.
Then the Palestinians have continued to attack Israel for the past 50+ years either directly and/or selecting leadership that encourages attacks and/or supporting those internally that continue the attacks.

...the Palestinians made their bed and have been given multiple chances to change the sheets and choose not to.

They want it all and therefore are getting nothing.
When they stop biting the hand that feeds them (especially w/ respect to Gaza), then they will have a chance to move forward.

They and their Arab brethren put them in this situation - yet the Arab brethren have not expressed and remorse or willingness to help them out of such.

CC is 100% correct. It is Israeli land -- always has been. Neither side wants to give an inch but it is disgusting the sympathy most of the world shows for the Palestinians at the expense of Israel. Israel doesn't put up with crap, as well they shouldn't. Because in that part of the world, weakness means extermination. Wake up people! Israel is not the villain.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They were offered a potential of a homeland by the UN.

In fact, the UN offered Palestinians a bit less than half of what what the League of Nations had recognized as their homeland decades before, as illustrated in this map.QUOTE]
From your link in a previous thread; the League intended Palestine for the Jews with the provision that the Jews would be responsible for the Palestinians. And it was a link that was appreciated:thumbsup:

Then the UN comes along to split that up in '47-48

Then the Arabs decide that there should be no Jewish State in Palestine. Did the Palestinians side with the Jews or Arabs?

As for duckig out - there comes a point where you regurgitate one continual line and cherry pick incidents as policy.

When that happens, it becomes a waste of electrons.

 

[Zebo]

What's funny is the people who think Israel needs USA or anyone else anymore than Egypt needs the 4 billion a year they get from USA. It's all simply bribery money so they don't annihilate one another. You may get your wishes of USA cutting Israel, but it won't pretty, once our leverage is gone. I'd be much more concerned with Israel rapidly losing patience with the world than the other way around.

 

[kylebisme]

You want peace, here ya go; isreal gives up gaza as a palestine state and all other "disputed territories" are maintained as part of isreal proper.

What do you suggest be done in regard to the millions of Palestinians who live in the territory which you want to make part of Israel?

Isreal has given up more territory for peace but of course this would never work as it leaves the other side where they don't want to end up, with a solvent state of israel.

Rather, while Israel has withdrawn from a lot of the territory it had occupied over the years, it never gave up any territory that was legally theirs to keep and has continually prevented what they don't want, an independent state of Palestine.

 

[Lemon law]

The other way to look at it, is to ask has there ever been a small nation on a military footing on earth that has survived long? And at 5 million Jews and not growing, Israel qualifies as almost microscopic.

Or we can invoke a Nascar legend like Dale Earnhart if I have the spelling right, who survived crash after crash, and came back to win race after race. Such a strategy worked well until the final rather minor crash killed him.

Or should we invoke the longer history of the Jewish people, they did fine when they were picking on the weak, and in some cases did quite well for hundreds of years, but when they met the real deal military powers of yesteryear, we have the Babylonian captivity, Egyptian slavery, and after Massada in 200AD, the Roman empire sent them all away as ungovernable.

Is 62 years now long enough to establish an Israeli myth of invincibility?

And because I do not want a blood bath on either side, I certainly hope that is never put to the test, and rather hope that cooler heads can prevail with a just peace for all.