Netanyahu Blasts Obama: Borders 'Indefensible, Challenges Our Existenc

[phkrause]

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/netan...omo_code=C4C4-1

[Restin]

I watched Nentanyahu's entire speech. His jist was that one cannot negotiate with someone who's only interest is to anihilate you off the face of the planet. What's to negotiate, except how to do it?

Netanyahu showed the utmost courtesy and dignity to our president; who invited him over and then punched him in the face, figuratively, at the doorway with the demand to change Israel's borders.

Nentanyahu, instead of retaliating, went on to highlight the support the USA has shown through history. There was a long, standing ovation after the speech.

I love America, my home, but have to admit that Netanyahu is many times more the man, and mature leader, than Obama has displayed.

[lazarus]

Someone has to stand up to Israeli petulance. Their continued intransigence in the face of middle east realities will mean that they never have peace. It seems that Iranian nuclear power will be the only thing that will restore the balance of power in the middle east.

BB is going to be respectful becasue Israels continued existence and and dominance depends on US money and military projection.

[Dr. Shane]

So you think Iranian nuclear power would be a good thing?

[BobRyan]

.

BB is going to be respectful becasue Israels continued existence and and dominance depends on US money and military projection.

I for one am always pleased when people are allowed to "exist".

I am funny that way.

in Christ,

Bob

[lazarus]

So you think Iranian nuclear power would be a good thing?

Not just power but Nuclear weapons. It is perhaps the best hope for peace. It will help Israeli search more urgently for a lasting solution. The status quo suits Israel.

[lazarus]

I for one am always pleased when people are allowed to "exist".

I am funny that way.

in Christ,

Bob

You should therefore be supportive of a contiguous Palestinian State.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Shane

So you think Iranian nuclear power would be a good thing?

Not just power but Nuclear weapons. It is perhaps the best hope for peace. It will help Israeli search more urgently for a lasting solution. The status quo suits Israel.

Why the onus on Israel?

[Dr. Shane]

It is perhaps the best hope for peace.

That is an off-the-scale radical position. Obama doesn't believe that. Clinton doesn't believe that. The UN has not taken that position. At least now we know where you stand and we can take everything you have to say about the middle-east with a grain of salt.

[lazarus]

That is an off-the-scale radical position.

Sure, lol. We do know from Wiki leaks that what politicians say in public is not what they say and believe in private. Israel knows that an Iranian nuke will change the game. Iran nukes will lead to Egypt nukes, Saudi nukes etc. There will be an incredible shift in the balance of power.

Politicians will get us to believe that those mad Iranians will drop the bomb 5 seconds after they finish it. Nonsense. Its all about balance of power

Five seconds after the nuke is finished Israel will want to start talking. That will be a good thing.

[lazarus]

Why the onus on Israel?

They hold all the cards right now. The balance of power is in their favor.

[lazarus]

An Iran with one or two nuclear bombs is a very bad thing, their reasoning goes, but it's not the end of the world. As Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, put it last month: "I don't think that the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, are going to drop it immediately on some neighbor. They fully understand what might follow. They are radicals but not total meshugenehs" (Yiddish for "nut cases"). He went on to say that a nuclear Iran would be "unacceptable" because it would strengthen the Tehran regime as a regional power and increase the danger of nuclear proliferation -- but the Israelis are also thinking about what to do if the "unacceptable" happens.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/21/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus21-2010mar21

[Dr. Shane]

Five seconds after the nuke is finish Israel will want to start talking. That will be a good thing.

A very radical and anti-Semitic statement. At least you don't hide your true colors.

[lazarus]

???

Anti Semitic? Uh.

[lazarus]

I just edited my original comment to say "finished" rather than finish. Perhaps that's the root of anti antisemitism charge.

When Iran declares that they have a bomb Israel will want to start talking. That is a good thing.

[Dr. Shane]

Israel is one tiny piece of land in the middle east. If any of the Arab nations like Lebanon, Egypt, Syria or Jordon would grant citizenship to the Palestinians the conflict would be over. It is that simple. Israel grants citizenship to Jews from all over the world. The conflict exists because the Arab nations want a conflict. Everybody know this. Believing that the Arab nations getting a nuclear bomb is good thing is either being very naive or stupid. Once they kill every last Jew in Israel they will head for Spain.

[lazarus]

Israel is one tiny piece of land in the middle east. If any of the Arab nations like Lebanon, Egypt, Syria or Jordon would grant citizenship to the Palestinians the conflict would be over. It is that simple. Israel grants citizenship to Jews from all over the world. The conflict exists because the Arab nations want a conflict. Everybody know this. Believing that the Arab nations getting a nuclear bomb is good thing is either being very naive or stupid. Once they kill every last Jew in Israel they will head for Spain.

This paragraph tells me that you pretty much don't understand the the true nature of the Arab//Israeli conflict. Seems like you have bought "hook line and sinker" the ultra nationalist line.

It's really not as simple as you suggest. Why should millions of Palestinians just leave the land that they have lived on for centuries?????? It's amusing that you would think its that simple.

I'm surprised Shane. You're usually balanced in your criticism. You suggest I'm being naive or stupid but having read your perspective I'm happy not to even spend much time refuting those charges.

You said, "The conflict exists because the Arab nations want conflict" . Even Clinton, Obama, Bush 1 & 2, Reagan don't/didn't believe that. Even John Bolton, yes John Bolton does not believe that.

Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel by the way.

The Saudi's offered a peace treaty to Israel in 2002. This was the ex mossad chief's response.

“We must adopt the Saudi initiative. We have no other way, and not because [the Palestinians] are my top priority, but because I am concerned about Israel's well being and I want to do what I can to ensure Israel's existence. If we don't make proposals and if we don't take the initiative, we will eventually find ourselves in a corner.”

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161161/ex-mossad-chief-israel-must-adopt-saudi-peace-plan.

Arab peace initiative: http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

BB has led Israel down a blind ally.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/israelis-must-brace-for-dark-times-1.365805

Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and company are selling Israel’s citizens an illusion: they are positioning themselves as Rambo-heroes who will win against the world. They present Bibi’s visit to the U.S. as a great success that beat down Barack Obama and convinced the world that our government is a righteous one. Their ministers are playing long by attending the foundation of new construction in Jerusalem and their MKs are flexing their muscles, too: Danny Dannon calls for the annexation of the West Bank in reaction to the Palestinian bid for recognition. The surge in support for Bibi in the polls after his return from the U.S. shows that many Israelis are buying into the story that Netanyahu is saving Israel.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Never mind the European media, whether British, French or German, even U.S. mainstream commentators tell a very different story than Bibi’s spin doctors. Their analyses all boil down to one point: Netanyahu has made it clear that there is no use in the Palestinians returning to the negotiating table, because there is no one to talk to. And nobody buys Bibi’s line that the Palestinians are to be faulted for the breakdown of negotiations.

Over to you........

[Dr. Shane]

Seems like you have bought "hook line and sinker" the ultra nationalist line.

[lazarus]

Being patronizing doesn't help your arguments to more persuasive or logical.

Quote:

It is called progress.

Wow, really, tell the Palestinian people that the Gaza concentration camp is progress. That's the first time that I heard it called progress.

Quote:

There is no special "Palestinian" race.

What are you talking about? There is no American race either or German race, or British race. ???? Oh well they are just Arabs they can live in Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Yemen. How ignorant of history and culture is that? Palestinians have culture and experience of their own.

So "they are all Hispanic, so send them all to Chile even though they have lived in Guatemala for hundreds of years".

Or "they are Europeans so send the Bosnian Serbs to Scotland"

Ridiculous!

Quote:

It appears you need to read more.

That was your response to my point that Clinton etc. don't believe that? Do you refute that point? Your suggestion that I'm ignorant is a not a refutation its a sidestep.

Quote:

There is a simple solution but everyone agrees it will never work because the Arabs don't want it to.

Your solution is simplistic not simple. Who is the everyone? Give me a few sources. Cite some recent relevant articles or books please. Throwing the word radical around may seem like a good way of dealing my points but you haven't really made any attempt to logically and clearly articulate how Iran having a nuke would not lead Isreal to the negotiating table. Even Ehud Barak says that Iran's intention would not be to use it.

I guess using your reasoning we could solve every problem in the world:

If only Irish republicans would stop wanting the Brtish out then there would be peace.

If only the Kurds would decide that they don't want independence.

If only South African blacks just accepted Apartheid.

If only 18th century Americans had just paid their taxes.

If only the Germans had learned to live the with Versailles treaty.

That's simple I guess but I'd rather call it Simplistic.

Quote:

There is plenty of space in the several Arab countries that exist for the Arabs finding themselves labeled Palestinians to live but none of those Arab nations is willing to offer them citizenship.

Oh well, there's plenty of space, just give them 100, 000 acres in Libya and it will be ok. I see, they are just Arabs with a cute nickname.

What was the name of your professor?

[Dr. Shane]

So "they are all Hispanic, so send them all to Chile even though they have lived in Guatemala for hundreds of years".

[doug yowell]

Wow, really, tell the Palestinian people that the Gaza concentration camp is progress. That's the first time that I heard it called progress.

There's a concentration camp in Gaza? Does it have a bunch of ovens too?

[doug yowell]

Someone has to stand up to Israeli petulance. Their continued intransigence in the face of middle east realities will mean that they never have peace. .

Middle east realities that include the rejection by almost every Arab/Muslim state of Israel's right to exist in the Middle East and their stated goal of obliterating Israel and all Jews? What's wrong with Hamas using the Egyptian/Jordanian model in order to obtain their goals? Is self preservation now defined as petulance?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

Why the onus on Israel?

They hold all the cards right now. The balance of power is in their favor.

That didn't answer the question. Why aren't the rest of the Muslim nations that keep calling for Israel's extermination required to quit the posturing. What has Israel done with their balance of power except attempt to keep their attackers at bay? What would happen if the balance shifted,1967,1954,1973,1948,1992...?? Why does the one with the cards have to be the one to give up all?

[lazarus]

It isn't "my" solution. It is the obvious solution which was addressed in my Africa/Middle-East class and we hear mentioned once in a while in discussions on TV and radio.

I'm pretty sure that your professor didn't say that the conflict exist only becasue the Arabs want it to. Any conflict exists because one or both parties want it to exist. The deeper challenge is to address the deeper issues that lead to the conflict.

Quote:

My solution would be to deal with them much like the US has dealt with Native Americans.

Not great. A think a British MP suggested that in the Nineteenth century. There was a much much better chance of it working back then.

The way the US dealth with Native Americans is a really really bad solution.

Didn't you guys apologies for that? The Trail of Tears, the Long Walk, the Sand Creek Massacre, and Wounded Knee, the theft of tribal lands and resources, the breaking of treaties, and the removal of Indian children to boarding schools.

Quote:

Only an extremist radical would think giving nuclear weapons to the Arab nations is a good way to deal with the present situation.

I guess the best way of not addressing a position is to misrepresent it. Who said anything about giving nuclear weapons to Arab nations?

[lazarus]

Doug, my point is this.....

I think Israel needs to take a fresh look at it future. BB's approach is attractive to many but is it realistic? There are other who put it better than I:

Israel cannot solve the Iranian problem by force. Period. Dagan’s remarks show that Israel’s whole conception of foreign policy and its management of security risks must undergo a radical change. The mantra that Israel can and should rely only on its own devices for defense has become useless. Nothing less than a paradigm change is in order.

Israel’s only viable strategy on Iran is to join the worldwide attempts to weaken that regime. U.S. President Barack Obama, who Netanyahu depicts mostly as too soft on Iran and too weak in his Middle East policy, has put together the most crippling set of sanctions to date, ones which are having a devastating effect on the Iranian economy.

In due course, this raises the possibility that the Iranian regime can indeed change. Most experts on Iran agree that a very different state could emerge in place of the current regime, potentially even to become a functioning democracy.

Forging a peace agreement with Syria would also help weaken Iran, as it could substantially destabilize Hezbollah and force Hamas to change its policies, thus depriving the Islamic republic of its proxies to attack Israel. Weakening Iran also requires a restoration of Israel’s relations with Turkey, a country which must be pulled from out of Iran’s orbit. That is an option, however, that cannot be realized as long as our foreign minister and his deputy do their all to aggravate Turkey at every conceivable opportunity.

This paradigm change, of establishing win-win interactions with Israel's neighbors, means our decision makers must totally change their mentality. Such a change in mentality cannot happen easily, because Israel's political left has in the past misrepresented peace as a as a messianic promise in which sheep and wolves would dwell together for eternity. The resulting disappointments have made Israel’s electorate weary of giving peace another chance.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-th...o-iran-1.361290

An Iranian nuke will probably force Israel to re-think it's foreign policy. It would be better to do that now. Rather than being the end of the world that its been made out to be it may be result in a greater chance for peace.