President Obama sent a chill through Israel yesterday when he called for a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem. He called for a return to the pre-1967 borders by which Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights on the border with Syria and the West Bank which borders on Jordan. They've already handed the Gaza Strip over to the miserable Palestinians who promptly converted it from a thriving, productive region into a desert ghetto and launching pad for violence against Israeli civilians.
The details are disputed, but in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack on Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, capturing the territories above as well as the Sinai Peninsula. This effectively displaced 300,000 Palestinians and that, not to mention the very existence of Israel itself, is the source of the hostilities today. Arab countries in the middle east, the UN, and liberals in America have no love for the Palestinians, but they are a handy club with which to pummel the "Zionist state".
The silly land-for-peace agreements have never solved anything, and they never will. The Palestinians and other middle east countries will never be happy with the existence of Israel, so no amount of land concessions by Israel will result in peace....period.
Obama knows this but as a liberal and Muslim sympathizer, he reflexively sides with Palestinians against Israel, mostly because Israel is supported by the US. Obama was raised to detest what he views as the US's colonial influence around the world. I think this explains his demand that Israel cede all that land to the Palestinians. He wants badly to diminish America's influence around the world because he sees the US as bad.
Netanyahu should just sit tight and procrastinate until Obama is out of office, hopefully in two years. Giving up all that land won't solve anything. It'll just encourage the Palestinians to demand still more.
22 comments:
The 1967 borders have no real meaning, but of course the Arabs could have refrained from attacking Israel in 1967 and wouldn't have gotten their asses kicked.
Reflexive "anti-colonialism."
Bill, how true is the rumor that the USSR lied to Syria that the Israelis were amassing on it's common border? This prompted a mutual defense agreement between Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, followed by the Jordanians threatening to close the Straights of Tiran, which Israel said it would view as an act of war. The whole 1967 escalation was begun by that bad intel from Russia.
That's a good question. The Soviets were certainly feeling their oats in the 60's. LBJ was near the end of his wits over Viet Nam - it gets tiresome micro-managing a war.
The Israelis should be made to retreat to the pre-1947 borders, thus creating a moral, just and honorable one-state solution. Palestine.
Just to humor you Glen, where would you have the Jews go? Back to the various countries in which they lived after the diaspora...as Helen Thomas suggested?
I don't care where the (so-called) Israelis go. They can move in with you, for all I care. My only concern is that the Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to THEIR homes, farms and lands, to return to where THEY lived, prior to the nakba.
Ed, I just watched a clip of a Hamas leader (MP and cleric) say the the Zionists have come to Palestine so that the great massacre can occur and they can be eliminated. That is what Israel deals with every day, month, and year.
"...and they can be eliminated."
From his mouth to God's ears.
Glen, wow! How does this land belong to the Palestinians any more than it does to the Israelis? The Jews and Philistines were fighting during biblical times, I mean if you believe that the Bible is at least historically accurate in terms of populations and geography, though there must be other historical sources that support this.
You see it Ed. Open advocacy of Hamas accomplishing the genocide Hitler failed to do - and you continue to debate this guy as if he were reasonable.
Well, Glen's a long-time reader and once in a while we agree on things, never on Israel though. So I'll give him a little latitude to make his points. I like to imagine changing his mind just a little.
"You see it Ed. Open advocacy of Hamas accomplishing the genocide Hitler failed to do - and you continue to debate this guy as if he were reasonable."
You see it Ed. The reading comprehension skills of a two-year old. And you continue to let this guy post as though he has some sense.
I assume, Ed, that YOU recognize that I have never said a word against Jews (and I never will.) I have said (and will continue to say) plenty against a small subset of Jews, the cruel, barbaric, thermonuclear-armed invading murders, torturers and imprisoners of the indigenous Semites of the Holy Land.
There you have it - a point of departure. Both Hamas and Glen advocate the killing of all the Jews in "Palestine" while Glen would not join Hamas in hunting down and killing all the worldwide Jews.
The genocidal Israeli's, on the other hand, merely want to annihilate all Christians and Muslims and to enslave the remaining Goyim as their personal woodcutters and water bearers (according to the Talmud, anyway). Makes you wonder why Bill champions them so vocally. Does he expect to be the annihilator or the annihilated, the servant or the served?
Glen, you didn't address Israel's right to the land on which the modern state now sits, including parts of Jordan and Lebanon. They were forcibly expelled as far back as 800C-600C BC and several times since by the Romans and others. Why don't they have the same rights to that land?
I will answer you, Ed. Give me time to formulate a thoughtful and literate reply.
"Why don't they have the same rights to that land?"
Your larger question is flawed on at least two points, Ed. They are common mistakes that have been carefully planted and faithfully watered so I don't fault you for holding them.
The first says that people have a right to kill, maim, torture and torment present land owners because unknown people, possibly of the attackers' race, religion or nationality, may have grazed sheep on that land 2000 years ago.
I don't think you really believe that. I doubt that you would stand idly on the sidelines if Native Americans were to drive white men from their ancestral hunting grounds in the manner of the modern Israelis.
Nor would you clap and cheer if Mexicans did to California, New Mexico and Texas what genocidal "Israel" has done to the Middle East.
The second mistake is more subtle. Some grant title to the Holy Land to Jews simply because they are Jews.
First, there were no Jews in Old Testament times. The term "Jew" was not invented until about 1000 A.C.E.
Further, according to the Jewish Almanac (1980), "… it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.' The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all…."
More importantly, 92 percent of Jews today (the Ashkenazim) are not descended from Abraham. None of their ancestors ever lived in the Holy Land.
It is silly, is it not, to pretend ancestral title to land on which your ancestors never lived?
Because I am now persona non grata at therightrant, this will be my last post.
If a gang of Israelis made an armed invasion of Bill's home, he would be within his rights to repel that invasion with lethal force. Doing so would not make him an anti-Semite. It would make him an anti-SIN-ite
"Israel" is a marauding horde in the manner of their ancestors, the Mongols. Perhaps they can't help it; perhaps it is in their genes. Nevertheless, the victims of their marauding are entitled to repel the invasion of their homeland with lethal force just as Bill is entitled to do so in his home.
God is not so blasé toward the sins of "Israel" as some are. The Bible makes it clear that God will get a belly full of her sins one day and fire will rain down on her from heaven.
Whether that is supernatural fire or earthly missiles I don't know. I only know that "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
BTW, Bill, your use of the Holocaust card was wasted on me. I happen to know that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and do not deserve to be punished for it, regardless of what you think.
Glen, the fact that I debate you honestly week in and week out, without personal insults or hyperbole, is proof that you are not "personna non grata" at TRR. Frankly, I'm insulted and disappointed by your claim.
If I am mistaken in that regard, Ed, I sincerely apologize to you. My comments are being refused via the "Google Account" radio button and I can only post using the "Name/URL" button. I concluded from that (erroneously, it seems) that you had blocked me from posting. Mea culpa. My bad.
Just for the record, I have never nor will I ever block or otherwise censor anybody from TRR, unless they're trolls, phishers, or purposelessly profane.
It must be a problem with Google then.
Post a Comment