New developments on stalled peace talks?

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
After long talks with Clinton, Netanyuhu has agreed to go to his cabinet and again ask for a 90 day freeze on Israeli settlement. In exchange the USA will bribe Israel plus support certain Israeli positions. Including a US guarantee the USA will prevent a Palestinian statehood proclamation in the UN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

IMHO Israel would be foolish to decline, if nothing else it buys Israel another 90 days of time.
Although the hope is that in 90 days all the settlement issues and final borders can be worked out, so future settlement thereafter would not be an issue while other final details are later negotiated.

But if Israel and the Palestinians will not respond to carrots, maybe its time for any nation brokering Israeli Palestinians peace talks to start using sticks. Start with the carrot, if they refuse the carrot, they get a stick, and they also learn, the second carrot they are offered will not be as big as the one they declined before.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,535
4
0
The rest of the world is tired of dealing with this. I don't think you will see the world's armies used to "force" these groups to do anything, as you advocate over and over and over, thread after thread after thread.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There is and never will be a "stick" except in this fantasy world you live in. Start leprechaun threads now and again for variety.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Why do we care so much that some country 6000 miles away wants to take over a piece of land that was forcefully taken from it? What the hell business is it of ours? What has Israel (as a country, not Jewish people as a race) ever given the world except strife?

Let them fight over it. It's not our business. Propping up failed and corrupt foreign governments is one of the biggest problems back home. And, seriously, we can't even keep ourselves afloat...why should we be trying to keep other countries propped up?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Why do we care so much that some country 6000 miles away wants to take over a piece of land that was forcefully taken from it? What the hell business is it of ours? What has Israel (as a country, not Jewish people as a race) ever given the world except strife?

Let them fight over it. It's not our business. Propping up failed and corrupt foreign governments is one of the biggest problems back home. And, seriously, we can't even keep ourselves afloat...why should we be trying to keep other countries propped up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drebo, you should maybe ask those questions about Afghanistan, but when we talk about the mid-east, the why we in the USA and the rest of the world should care about peace and stability there boils down to a three letter word. Namely oil, oil, and oil.

Since the mid 1960's, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, have put our country on a path of unconditional support of Israel. Short term the Drebo solution of simply US hands off in the mid-east might benefit Israel, but longer term would probably doom Israel as the weight of Arab population and Arab money would leave Israel in an untenable position.

But now Obama as the latest US President seeking a just mid-east peace, may be the last US President to ever get a chance to broker mid-east peace. Because if Obama blows it this time, US credibility in the mid-east may shrink to zero and stay mired at zero.

And as a result all Western nations may see the Arabs vend their oil to Chinese and Indian markets.

Nor will the Israeli Arab and Palestinians issues go away, instead they will fester and grow.
And if the USA loses all credibility in the mid-east, other arms merchants will start selling arms to Arab States. And as Arab states grow in military power, Israeli paranoia will increase, especially as Arab oil money arms terrorists. Leading again to other nations interested in mid-east stability to again take up brokering peace talks.

And from the Israeli perspective, given the USA is perhaps the most pro-Israeli country in the world, having some non-USA nation take up those peace talks can't be good for Israel.

On the other hand if Obama can pull a mid-east peace deal out of his hat, its going to be a win win win for everyone long term IMHO.

Obama still has a chance and may have bought more time, but if Obama fails, Obama and the USA will have to choose either to support Israel or the Arabs, because both will no longer be an option. After Obama is no longer president, I do not think any future US president will be able to go back to a time when the USA were trusted by the Arabs and Israel.

And yes, this why I am on this forum, I hope to convince some people I am correct, as for the rest of the doubters, they will probably live to see me proved correct by events.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Drebo, you should maybe ask those questions about Afghanistan, but when we talk about the mid-east, the why we in the USA and the rest of the world should care about peace and stability there boils down to a three letter word. Namely oil, oil, and oil.

Since the mid 1960's, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, have put our country on a path of unconditional support of Israel. Short term the Drebo solution of simply US hands off in the mid-east might benefit Israel, but longer term would probably doom Israel as the weight of Arab population and Arab money would leave Israel in an untenable position.

But now Obama as the latest US President seeking a just mid-east peace, may be the last US President to ever get a chance to broker mid-east peace. Because if Obama blows it this time, US credibility in the mid-east may shrink to zero and stay mired at zero.

And as a result all Western nations may see the Arabs vend their oil to Chinese and Indian markets.

Nor will the Israeli Arab and Palestinians issues go away, instead they will fester and grow.
And if the USA loses all credibility in the mid-east, other arms merchants will start selling arms to Arab States. And as Arab states grow in military power, Israeli paranoia will increase, especially as Arab oil money arms terrorists. Leading again to other nations interested in mid-east stability to again take up brokering peace talks.

And from the Israeli perspective, given the USA is perhaps the most pro-Israeli country in the world, having some non-USA nation take up those peace talks can't be good for Israel.

On the other hand if Obama can pull a mid-east peace deal out of his hat, its going to be a win win win for everyone long term IMHO.

Obama still has a chance and may have bought more time, but if Obama fails, Obama and the USA will have to choose either to support Israel or the Arabs, because both will no longer be an option. After Obama is no longer president, I do not think any future US president will be able to go back to a time when the USA were trusted by the Arabs and Israel.

And yes, this why I am on this forum, I hope to convince some people I am correct, as for the rest of the doubters, they will probably live to see me proved correct by events.

Strong in this one, the mushrooms are.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drebo, you should maybe ask those questions about Afghanistan, but when we talk about the mid-east, the why we in the USA and the rest of the world should care about peace and stability there boils down to a three letter word. Namely oil, oil, and oil.

Since the mid 1960's, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, have put our country on a path of unconditional support of Israel. Short term the Drebo solution of simply US hands off in the mid-east might benefit Israel, but longer term would probably doom Israel as the weight of Arab population and Arab money would leave Israel in an untenable position.

But now Obama as the latest US President seeking a just mid-east peace, may be the last US President to ever get a chance to broker mid-east peace. Because if Obama blows it this time, US credibility in the mid-east may shrink to zero and stay mired at zero.

And as a result all Western nations may see the Arabs vend their oil to Chinese and Indian markets.

Nor will the Israeli Arab and Palestinians issues go away, instead they will fester and grow.
And if the USA loses all credibility in the mid-east, other arms merchants will start selling arms to Arab States. And as Arab states grow in military power, Israeli paranoia will increase, especially as Arab oil money arms terrorists. Leading again to other nations interested in mid-east stability to again take up brokering peace talks.

And from the Israeli perspective, given the USA is perhaps the most pro-Israeli country in the world, having some non-USA nation take up those peace talks can't be good for Israel.

On the other hand if Obama can pull a mid-east peace deal out of his hat, its going to be a win win win for everyone long term IMHO.

Obama still has a chance and may have bought more time, but if Obama fails, Obama and the USA will have to choose either to support Israel or the Arabs, because both will no longer be an option. After Obama is no longer president, I do not think any future US president will be able to go back to a time when the USA were trusted by the Arabs and Israel.

And yes, this why I am on this forum, I hope to convince some people I am correct, as for the rest of the doubters, they will probably live to see me proved correct by events.

I have never approved of the US nation building. We fucked up in Bosnia, we fucked up in Africa, we've fucked up in Israel, we've fucked up in Afganistan, and we're still fucking up in Iraq. I imagine that we'll soon start fucking up in Iran.

We have plenty of oil in the US, and we actually import most of our oil from Canada. We don't actually need the Middle East oil fields.

Oh, and the US HAS no credibility in the Middle East or Africa or any other hot zone. We're a piggy bank to them. They whine to us and we give them money. It's no different than a bratty little girl nagging her father for money. They bitch and say "we can't stop the fighting unless you give us money". They don't actually want to stop the fighting, otherwise they'd have stopped it hundreds of years ago.

There are two possible solutions: we kill them ourselves, or we let them kill themselves. My personal opinion is that the US should not be involving inself in the internal affairs of other nations. If Israel cannot defend itself and cannot sustain its economy without US aid (and it can't), then it probably should be ceding some of the land back to Palistine. It's not our business. Israel doesn't have anything to give us for our aid, in terms of money or natural resources. There is no reason for the United States to be involved.

Non-interventionist policies are the correct solution to all of our foreign troubles.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drebo, you should maybe ask those questions about Afghanistan, but when we talk about the mid-east, the why we in the USA and the rest of the world should care about peace and stability there boils down to a three letter word. Namely oil, oil, and oil.

Since the mid 1960's, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, have put our country on a path of unconditional support of Israel. Short term the Drebo solution of simply US hands off in the mid-east might benefit Israel, but longer term would probably doom Israel as the weight of Arab population and Arab money would leave Israel in an untenable position.

But now Obama as the latest US President seeking a just mid-east peace, may be the last US President to ever get a chance to broker mid-east peace. Because if Obama blows it this time, US credibility in the mid-east may shrink to zero and stay mired at zero.

And as a result all Western nations may see the Arabs vend their oil to Chinese and Indian markets.

Nor will the Israeli Arab and Palestinians issues go away, instead they will fester and grow.
And if the USA loses all credibility in the mid-east, other arms merchants will start selling arms to Arab States. And as Arab states grow in military power, Israeli paranoia will increase, especially as Arab oil money arms terrorists. Leading again to other nations interested in mid-east stability to again take up brokering peace talks.

And from the Israeli perspective, given the USA is perhaps the most pro-Israeli country in the world, having some non-USA nation take up those peace talks can't be good for Israel.

On the other hand if Obama can pull a mid-east peace deal out of his hat, its going to be a win win win for everyone long term IMHO.

Obama still has a chance and may have bought more time, but if Obama fails, Obama and the USA will have to choose either to support Israel or the Arabs, because both will no longer be an option. After Obama is no longer president, I do not think any future US president will be able to go back to a time when the USA were trusted by the Arabs and Israel.

And yes, this why I am on this forum, I hope to convince some people I am correct, as for the rest of the doubters, they will probably live to see me proved correct by events.

The height of Middle Eastern power was in the 60s and 70s. They blew their load by embargoing their biggest consumer. The result were other nations building oil exports and minimizing OPECs power.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The height of Middle Eastern power was in the 60s and 70s. They blew their load by embargoing their biggest consumer. The result were other nations building oil exports and minimizing OPECs power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Genx87, all I can do is quote that old song, the world keep on a changing for the better or the worse, from the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse.

The current world is a vastly different than the world that existed in 1970, ideas never die, US influence in world affairs drops in direct proportion to our own stupidity, so I keep asking why the USA fails to adopt a smarter foreign policy?

In 1970 OPEC tried to play its aces and failed, but you are assuming that OPEC is not in a far stronger position now. And worse yet, you ignore the fact that the USA is in a far weaker position now.

Please Genx87 grow a brain, start thinking about what you as an American can do to put the USA in a better position in future?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Israel will feeze construction except in Jeruselm for 90 days. The Pals will never accept such.
If no borders are agreed on, the US will give up. Israel gets nothing except UN protection for those 90 days.
Equipment only if the Pals play nice. The Pals are not going to try within those 90 days. They will feel that they can delay and get more extensions. See, they are already getting another.:hmm;
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Meh. Netanyahu is the one stalling for time, which is the standard Israeli ploy to keep on doing what they've been doing all along. He'll play the shell game, the shifting responsibility game, claim that his cabinet won't go for it, in all likelihood. He'll pray for some act of violence on the part of the Pals as an excuse to break off talks. He'll negotiate nothing at all, in hopes of getting the Pals to walk out so he can blame them for lack of progress. He'll squirm, and dodge, and make as many vague assurances as possible w/o changing anything at all.

Meanwhile, construction will continue in the Jerusalem suburbs, and the Israeli stranglehold on the Pals will continue.

Israel has no intention of making peace, given that war serves their purposes a lot better. And it'll stay that way unless the US gets fed up with it, which seems unlikely.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Israel has no intention of making peace, given that war serves their purposes a lot better. And it'll stay that way unless the US gets fed up with it, which seems unlikely.

Wrong!! Don`t blame this on Israel!
there have been several attempts at peace and everytime the palestinians or a group of extremists shoot the whole peace process to hell.

The palestinains are their own worse enemy!
Supposedly they elected Hamas to run their government!
That`s all well and good, but hamas wants no part of Peace!!
Even in the hamas Charter it states and I quote from - http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Hamas Principles
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

nuff said!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Why do we care so much that some country 6000 miles away wants to take over a piece of land that was forcefully taken from it? What the hell business is it of ours? What has Israel (as a country, not Jewish people as a race) ever given the world except strife?

Let them fight over it. It's not our business. Propping up failed and corrupt foreign governments is one of the biggest problems back home. And, seriously, we can't even keep ourselves afloat...why should we be trying to keep other countries propped up?

The Jews did not start WW2 idiot. So what you are saying is that the world should have let the jews be exterminated and this world would be a better place??

Sounds like that is what you are saying....
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
If Israel cannot defend itself and cannot sustain its economy without US aid (and it can't),

The Jews did just fine before we stuck our noses in the mess that was the middle east.....

israel did not ask us to support them with money or military goods purchased with that money. It was a choice the US made....

if you know anything about History then you know Israel asked the world for economic aid in order to absorb the massive amount of immigrants that were moving to Israel....

More fact you probably did not know..

After Israel's victory in its War of Independence, the U.S. responded to an appeal for economic aid to help absorb immigrants by approving a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities. In those early years of Israel's statehood (also today), U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace.

In 1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries. Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them, though they had no interest in or use for American aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues to the present.

Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73) . Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community.

Israel did not begin to receive large amounts of assistance until 1974, following the 1973 war, and the sums increased dramatically after the Camp David agreements. Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $90 billion in assistance. Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation.

Arab states that have signed agreements with Israel have also been rewarded. Since signing the peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has been the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid ($2 billion in 2002, Israel received $2.8 billion). Jordan has also been the beneficiary of higher levels of aid since it signed a treaty with Israel (increasing from less than $40 million to more than $225 million). The multibillion dollar debts to the U.S. of both Arab nations were also forgiven.

After the Oslo agreements, the United States also began providing funding to the Palestinians. It now provides $80 million in humanitarian assistance via the U.S. Agency for International Development. It provides no direct aid to the Palestinian Authority because it is viewed as corrupt. President Bush specifically warned the Palestinians that they must change their leadership and embrace reform to obtain future assistance. "I can assure you," Bush said, "we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and [is] corrupt."9a

MYTH

&#8220;The U.S. has always given Israel billions of dollars without expecting repayment.&#8221;

FACT

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality.

For several years, most of Israel's economic aid went to pay off old debts. In 1984, foreign aid legislation included the Cranston Amendment (named after its Senate sponsor), which said the U.S. would provide Israel with economic assistance "not less than" the amount Israel owes the United States in annual debt service payments.

MYTH

&#8220;Israel continues to demand large amounts of economic aid even though it is now a rich country that no longer needs help.&#8221;

FACT

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel annually received $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out over 10 years.

Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2001, Israel received $840 million in economic aid and $1.98 billion in military aid. In 2002, economic aid was reduced to $720 million and military aid to Israel was budgeted at $2.04 billion.

Israel made the offer because it does not have the same need for assistance it once did. The foundation of Israel's economy today is strong; still, Israel remains saddled with past debts to the U.S., which, unlike those of Jordan and Egypt, were not forgiven. In addition, Israel still can use American help. The country still has the tremendous financial burden of absorbing tens of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, a very high rate of unemployment and an alarmingly high number of people who fall below the poverty line. The situation was further exacerbated by the violence of the last two years, which has devastated the tourist industry and all related service sectors of the economy. Furthermore, concessions made in peace negotiations have required the dismantling of military bases and the loss of valuable resources that must be replaced.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf21.html#j
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
Why do we care so much that some country 6000 miles away wants to take over a piece of land that was forcefully taken from it? What the hell business is it of ours? What has Israel (as a country, not Jewish people as a race) ever given the world except strife?

Let them fight over it. It's not our business. Propping up failed and corrupt foreign governments is one of the biggest problems back home. And, seriously, we can't even keep ourselves afloat...why should we be trying to keep other countries propped up?


here's why we should care:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...-in-return-for-new-settlement-freeze-1.324496

U.S. offers Israel warplanes in return for new settlement freeze

Netanyahu presents security cabinet with Clinton's incentive of 20 F-35 fighter planes and security guarantees in exchange for 90-day West Bank building moratorium.

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


US taxpayers paying for 20 F-35 warplanes to the tune of $3 billion to bribe them to stop illegal settlement buildings for 90 days!??? what will they want next? let them fight you say? rocks vs f-35s. sounds fair.
 
Last edited:

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
They were going to get something all along. The fact that its 20 F-35s is just to whet their appetite since they will probably buy many more in the next twenty years since their fleet of f16s are aging...

The breathing room will give Hillary and the diplomacy some time to work. If they could find a mutually financialially beneficial resolution with a two state front they may work it out..

Do I think its going to happen? nope

Imagine if the agreement removed hamas from the equation?

nope...
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
The Jews did not start WW2 idiot. So what you are saying is that the world should have let the jews be exterminated and this world would be a better place??

Sounds like that is what you are saying....

I'm actually pretty sure that's exactly NOT what I said.

My comments are not about Jewish people as a race. Genocide is never acceptable.

However, to take a man's home is not to take the man's culture. If Israel can't hold itself together, we aren't doing them any favors by doing it for them. The land was originally Palestine. It was forcably taken, and they want it back. It's on Israel and Israel's allies to protect the land if they want to keep it. Israel offers nothing of value to the United States, and thus there is no reason for us to spend billions of dollars every year fighting their battles.

Now, if they were truely a friendly, peaceful nation inside the Middle Eastern hotzone that we could use as a buffer of sorts, then it might make sense. However, they are not peaceful, and they aren't friendly. And they're not even in a moderately strategic location. There is no reason for us to waste our tax money trying to help them when our own country needs all the help it can get.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
here's why we should care:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...-in-return-for-new-settlement-freeze-1.324496

U.S. offers Israel warplanes in return for new settlement freeze

Netanyahu presents security cabinet with Clinton's incentive of 20 F-35 fighter planes and security guarantees in exchange for 90-day West Bank building moratorium.

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


US taxpayers paying for 20 F-35 warplanes to the tune of $3 billion to bribe them to stop illegal settlement buildings for 90 days!??? what will they want next? let them fight you say? rocks vs f-35s. sounds fair.

Thanks for proving my point. We care $3 billion enough to send military aid for a 90 ceasefire in a region that is neither peaceful, friendly, nor of strategic importance. That's too much caring on our part.

We need to care enough to let our own tax payers keep $3 billion more of their own money instead of sending it off to some place that's just going to waste it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
here's why we should care:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...-in-return-for-new-settlement-freeze-1.324496

U.S. offers Israel warplanes in return for new settlement freeze

Netanyahu presents security cabinet with Clinton's incentive of 20 F-35 fighter planes and security guarantees in exchange for 90-day West Bank building moratorium.

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


US taxpayers paying for 20 F-35 warplanes to the tune of $3 billion to bribe them to stop illegal settlement buildings for 90 days!??? what will they want next? let them fight you say? rocks vs f-35s. sounds fair.

I say we offer the Israelis that we'll keep selling them spare parts for their airforce and covering their butts in the UN in exchange for them actually making peace, but that's just me.

3 wall o' text raving propaganda cut and pastes from JediYoda in a row... Is that a record? Does anybody know?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
We have plenty of oil in the US, and we actually import most of our oil from Canada. We don't actually need the Middle East oil fields.

Oil is a commodity traded on world market - I don't care if we get zero from ME cut it out of world market and price skyrockets. There are ancillary deals we have as well to recycle petro dollars that make Americans rich. Almost all oil work in SA in by USA firms, plenty of other work too. We sell weapons to them. etc etc. It's quite funny to hear about Israeli lobby when Saudi lobby dwarfs it, money talks. Anyway - point is, a lot of how we live, and more importantly how rich Americans live, is by control of and maintaining peace in ME.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
There is conflicting information on what is being offered.
Other articles state that the F35 and other military assistance will be submitted to Congress IF there is an agreement.

Not for Israel to go to the table.

But the formal proposal still has not been ironed out.
So we do not know what carrots are being offered to the Israelis to talk to the Pals and what the talks will be about.

But Obama seems to be getting scared for his legacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Fuck F35s Just give Israel the deep penetrators. They'll solve our problem with WMDs, again since we have no nuts.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Common Courtesy is correct that all the US bribes do not go to Israel just for a mere 90 day settlement freeze, the bribes pay only if the final deal is inked.

But I wonder why no one is looking at the new Elephant in the room? And a growing one at that. Because other than the new factor, the new new new Obama deal is no different from the deal offered last August.

But before you give up wondering what the new Elephant is, ITS THE CONCEPT THAT THE UN MAY UNILATERALLY DECLARE A PALESTINIAN STATE, in much the same manner the UN did with Israel in 1948. A concept that has been growing in world popularity lately as perhaps the best way forward to cut through bullshit.

For those who read the link, the deal agreed to by Clinton and Netanyuhu guaranteed the USA would veto any UN Palestinian State Resolution, but that guarantee is contingent on Israel accepting a 90 day settlement freeze and completing peace talks to an ink a deal stage.

What was not said was what the US would do to veto such a Palestinian State resolution in the UN if Israel does not extend the settlement freeze.