The Goat Pen

I didn't realize Red Bord was so....Op Ed.

And putting up settlements 50 miles on the other side of Jeruselum is going to stop a nuclear attack?? NONSENSE.

And you suppose weakening Israel is the way to insure these attacks will not occur? Israel will only survive if the Jews demonstrate an incredible strength of will. They must match Arab obstinance with resolve; they must contest every act of violence; they must confront every enemy, both Arab and American; they must never allow the debate to be framed by implacable enemy's or duplicitous "friends".

What bullshit. What treachery?? It's already been pointed out to you that he didn't say anything different than the policy of this country for the past 30 plus years. You tried to say it was different but the evidence was given to you. So where's the treachery? It was good rant on your part. Just not based upon any facts.

Johnson: "Return to the 1967 boundaries is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."

Ford: ". . .any peace agreement with Syria must be based on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights."

Reagan opposed any plan that required Israel to return to 1967 boundaries. Clinton spoke of "territorial Swaps" but never mentioned the 1967 boundaries in this context. And we've already read George W. Bush's statement that "realities on the ground prevent a return to the 1967 boundaries."

Obama has adopted the position of the Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria, placing him firmly in the Arab camp. Obama is the only US president, except Carter, to insist that the future borders of Israel must be based on the pre-1967 armistice demarcation.

Just admit that you didn't like Obama when he was elected, and you are using this to attack him now. If you can't be honest with everyone here, be honest with yourself.

What utter nonsense. I not only voted for Obama, I worked for his campaign as an unpaid volunteer, distributing flyers etc. I thought I was working for change, and what I got was a conservacrat whose policies are virtually identical to Bush's, except the man hates Jew bastards and enjoys rap music.

Some here might imagine that I love Jews, but this is as false as Spacer's assumption that I hate Obama. I don't call them "Jew Bastards" out of love or some sort of sarcasm. I grew up, mostly, in a Jewish home surrounded by Jews, their goofy and barbaric traditions, as well as their doctrinaire racism and philosophical elitism.

No, I have no love for the Jews. However, I propose that they do have a right to live as well as a right to self govern and defend themselves as they see fit. I hold the same view of other racist, elitist peoples such as the Japanese, Ethiopians etc. etc.. I will remind readers again that while there are 22 Arab nations, with about 300 million resident Arabs, there is only one Jewish nation inhabited by a few million foolish Jews as well as millions of Arab squatters. Israel is already a tiny, pitiable piece of earth, hardly worth all this trouble, but it's all the Jews have so I guess they hope to keep it.

Keep in mind that most of the 22 Arab nations and the majority of their citizens are viscerally opposed to the existence of Israel; many of these people are committed to the destruction of Israel as part of their own racist and religious notions.

I don't think Israel will survive in the long haul. Despite their racism and deep rooted traditions, they are weak. They haven't the stomach for prolonged violent conflict, they lack the brutal will to commit the kind of genocide our own noble ancestors displayed while wiping this continent clean of Native Americans.

Never-the-less, the Jews have a fundamental human right to fight for their existence, even if President Obama has decided they are an inconvenience, even if they no longer serve the American President's goals.

Red, you are just wrong on this. You have gone off half-cocked when there has been no change in U.S. policy. You were wrong about the letter that Bush sent, you're wrong about the defense of Israel and you're wrong about the intent. The fact is, this has been long-standing policy of the United States, the United Nations and Europe. While it may be a surprise to you, it isn't to those who have actually looked at the facts.

Your response to this has been totally irrational and not based on the facts. If want to be mad at Obama, be mad because he hasn't changed U.S. policy, not because he kept it the same. The fact you can't acknowledge that point speaks volumes about you.

I didn't realize Red Bord was so....Op Ed.

No one's forcing you to read it.

What's really sad is that you keep repeating the same accusation even after you've been informed by the facts that this is not a change in U.S. policy. Your comments seem to make this personal to the President even though again, there has been no change. Hillary Clinton used the exact same language in November 2009.

Seriously; what's your problem?

Owlman wrote:

Seriously; what's your problem?

Do you have 12 hours?

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Which part of this are you having trouble understanding?

Perhaps you just don't read double speak, dipol-talk?

There is an enormous difference between "The borders of Israel must be based on the pre-1967 boundaries" and "it is unrealistic to expect a return to the armistice lines'" In fact, in diplo-talk, those two statements are 180 degrees apart.

Let me translate it to English for you. Obama's statement essentially says: The border between Israel and the Arabs living in Palestine must be the 1947 boundary with minor exchanges but only as agreed to by the Arabs.

The second, Bush, statement says: The boundaries of Israel can not be based on the 1947 armistice lines, and the territorial exchanges must preserve the current Israeli position of the settlements.

I admit that the language of diplomacy is painfully subtle often elusive to the point of obscuring any meaning. But the reaction to Obama's statement by both Arabs and Israelis proves my point. Arabs see Obama's statement as a concession although they claim is doesn't go far enough, and the Israelis clearly see Obama's statement as a challenge and a move toward the Arabs. The only group denying that this is a major change in US policy are left wing Arab apologists, who have supported the notion of pre-1967 boundaries all along. These people also support the absurd notion of a "Right to Return," an idea that would in itself, if ever implemented, be the end of Israel.

’In his remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president, while offering praise for the relationship with Israel, did not walk back from his speech on Thursday, which had infuriated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Rather, the president took indirect aim at Mr. Netanyahu, first by repeating what the Israeli prime minister so objected to — the phrase pre-1967 borders — and then by challenging those whom he said had “misrepresented” his position.

“Let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday,” Mr. Obama said in firm tones at one point, “not what I was reported to have said.”

“I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

The president emphasized the “mutually agreed swaps,” then went into an elaboration of what he believes that means. Mr. Netanyahu, in his critique of Mr. Obama’s remarks, had ignored the “mutually agreed swaps” part of the president’s proposal.

“Since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means,” Mr. Obama said. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”

“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal,” he said. “This basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.”

Hi redbird!

Sounds to me like Kara grew up a Jew but was shunned by the rich jewelers son.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242

Use your brain. Take the time to look up Resolution 242 (this was pointed out to you before, but you either didn't take the time to read it or just ignored it). Read Dora's post. I never thought you to be stupid person Red Bird. On this, you are plainly in error. The U.N. resolution specifically talks about the 1967 borders.

If you don't like what Obama said, then admit you are against 44 years of U.S. policy because what the President said didn't change that policy.

two original states going back to AD 73?

I have no problem with Israel telling us to fuck off. I do have a problem with Israel expecting us to back their play however when they are attacked.

I knew Obama would fuck with Israel, I only wished he had done it more. Israel is a nuclear power, they did a land grab in the six day war - they don't need our help to defend themselves.

The U.S. should not spend another dime or resource on Israel outside of promoting commerce, and if they attack or are attacked we should just shrug our shoulders and tell the parties involved - hey..shit happens.

Don't forget about the money

part of the justification for making Israel a state included that Jerusalem, a religious city of significance to Jews, Christians and Muslims was to be designated as an "international" city meaning that it would be an open city for everyone.

Israel ended that notion in short order.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

This quote is incomplete. Obama also said that the new Palestinian state must be continuous. He cleverly left that part out here. Meeting all of Obama's conditions would only be possible if the agreement bisected Israel or if the Arabs agreed to swap the entirety of Samaria and Judea for that part of Israel that Borders Egypt from Gaza to the Red Sea, or if Israel agreed to surrender all of Israel south of Shemesh to the Arabs.

The main problem with Obama's statement is that it doesn't mention the settlements as Bush's letter did. It suggests that these settlements are now negotiable where Bush's statement clearly stated they are not. Essentially, Bush's letter states that the borders must reflect the conditions that exist on the ground today and Obama is suggesting that this isn't necessarily so.

Never-the-less, the Jews have a fundamental human right to fight for their existence, even if President Obama has decided they are an inconvenience, even if they no longer serve the American President's goals.

time to break out the eCat oft repeated rant on Israel......

if someone could tell me one significant example of how an alliance with Israel serves Americas goals I'd love to hear it.

Everyone tells me we must support the only democracy in the middle east. Yet there is no reciprocity in the agreement.

The basic question is - whats in it for me? Me as in the average American. We are in two wars because we're fighting with zionist haters, attempting to choose sides in middle east uprisings based not on what we believe is best for a people but what is best for long term stability of Israel and oil prices - and its all stems from our "unconditional support" of Israel.

This country runs on oil, and regardless of whether they are barbarians, religious zealots or goat herders, they are a collection of nations that requires us to have a strong trading and business relationship - yet we continually poke the bear with a stick instead of trying to establish better commerce.

I'm convinced they don't hate America for our freedoms, our way of life or anything other attribute other - what they hate is that every bomb, every bullet, every piece of technology used against them from a country the size of New Jersey is stamped with a "bought and paid for by the USA" sticker.

A goat herder managing his pile of rocks in some shithole desert region isn't born to hate Americans, and left alone from American policies via proxy of Israel would never hate America, much less be able to pick it out on a map.

Spacer,

I am opposed to the policy that Obama supports and you cite as the position of the US government. Our dispute is over when this policy became the policy of the US government. I contend that Bush's position was drastically different as he pointedly insisted that the future border had to reflect the facts on the ground meaning the Jewish settlements.

I take none of this personally and I respect you as always.

Hi Dora!

Welcome to the debate.