What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Israel has committed too many crimes. It’s time to stop supporting them. (1 Viewer)

Christo said:
I'm basing it on reality.
Click to expand...
Reality is Israel offered Palestine a peace agreement and a map showing two states and a permanent agreement on settlements. That happened. If Abbas agreed to Olmert's map in 2008 what would have then happened?

IMO: Two countries with agreed upon borders.

Of course the Arabs could have done this in 1948 and they would have been preparing for a 70th birthday celebration too.

 
timschochet said:
If I were President Trump I would appoint Hillary Clinton as a special emissary to try to finally establish a two state solution. I'm dead serious about this. 
Click to expand...


OLMERT AND ABBAS conveyed the details of what they had achieved to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell, the Middle East envoy. Condoleezza Rice, Olmert said, prepared a confidential memo for the incoming administration. He could not understand why Obama “did not adopt these achievements as policy.” Abbas told me he is still waiting for an American initiative: “America is the broker; we cannot replace it.” Did he want the understandings he reached with Olmert to become the basis of new American-sponsored talks with Netanyahu? “I demanded this,” he said.

Olmert made his offer as a sitting prime minister familiar with the views of the Israeli general staff and military intelligence. Now, with a new regime taking shape in Egypt and serious changes under way in Jordan, Israel will be more dependent on American diplomacy and military support than ever. It is hard to imagine Netanyahu resisting an Obama initiative should the president fully commit to an American package based on these talks and rally the E.U., Russia and the United Nations.
Click to expand...
- 2011.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Reality is Israel offered Palestine a peace agreement and a map showing two states and a permanent agreement on settlements. That happened. If Abbas agreed to Olmert's map in 2008 what would have then happened?

IMO: Two countries with agreed upon borders.

Of course the Arabs could have done this in 1948 and they would have been preparing for a 70th birthday celebration too.
Click to expand...
If the dog hadn't stopped to take a ####, he would have caught the rabbit.

 
Tim, tell us about the 70-country Middle East conference on January 15th.  Israel and the Palestinians won't be there but they will be "briefed" afterwards.  These guys will be better off reaching a deal on their own.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Really? Can you give me an example of another President Elect who's done something similar? 
Click to expand...
Sure - define similar though.  Because all Trump did was send out a Tweet.  The 2016 version of an offhanded comment while walking past a reporter in 1980's vernacular; or writing a personal letter to a friend in 1890's vernacular.

And then after you do that start with Thomas Jefferson. 

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Sure - define similar though.  Because all Trump did was send out a Tweet.  The 2016 version of an offhanded comment while walking past a reporter in 1980's vernacular; or writing a personal letter to a friend in 1890's vernacular.

And then after you do that start with Thomas Jefferson. 
Click to expand...
No, a personal letter is not meant for the masses. I can offer many examples of President-elects who deliberately held their tongues despite being pressed by the media to repudiate their predecessors: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower and JFK are all examples of this- but I can't think of anyone before Trump to do the opposite. 

 
quickhands said:
So if the choice for israel is, according to kerry,  jewish or democratic.  Which should they pick?
Click to expand...
That's a simplification of what he said. He said that if Israel continues without a peaceful settlement they will have to give up on democracy if they wish to retain their entity as a Jewish state- and this is essentially true given demographics alone. 

 
timschochet said:
Really? Can you give me an example of another President Elect who's done something similar? 
Click to expand...
If you know the two sides are ready to deal and needed only a little nudge, would you put pressure by standing with the side who has the upper hand or the side who does not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
That's a simplification of what he said. He said that if Israel continues without a peaceful settlement they will have to give up on democracy if they wish to retain their entity as a Jewish state- and this is essentially true given demographics alone. 
Click to expand...
He basically said, "You are getting ##### slapped.  Do you prefer the left cheek or the right cheek?"

 
timschochet said:
He's violating the spirit of the Constitution. No President-elect has ever taken public issue with his predecessor in this manner. It's unheard of, and outrageous. 
Click to expand...
Obama spoke crap about Bush for a solid 4 years although he did it while President, not President-elect.  Bush had some of it coming.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Sure - define similar though.  Because all Trump did was send out a Tweet.  The 2016 version of an offhanded comment while walking past a reporter in 1980's vernacular; or writing a personal letter to a friend in 1890's vernacular.

And then after you do that start with Thomas Jefferson. 
Click to expand...
Eh, I think I disagree with this.  Tweets are clearly very public.  Especially considering his prior tweeting issues during the election.  As such I think they're far more analogous to a public speech than Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia.  Or, given the public backing of Twitter, possibly more public since more eyes actually see it or hear it. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is how close they were in 2011 - close:

- They were down to specific neighborhoods in Jerusalem and a couple very recalcitrant towns on the WB.

They were close.

It is Obama's policy to disengage the US from the mideast which is telling here. This is a total break in US policy in that this has been done completely unilaterally apart from the Israelis.
Click to expand...
Today is not like when Arafat was in power.  How do we make sure ISIS and their buddies don't take over the 2nd state in the two state solution?

 
Rohn Jambo said:
Today is not like when Arafat was in power.  How do we make sure ISIS and their buddies don't take over the 2nd state in the two state solution?
Click to expand...
That was Abbas, not Arafat.

On the Isis question, that's one reason process is so important. By sending out a signal that the UN now recognizes Israel as basically an international criminal that just gives wind to the sails of the jihadist groups. IMO the answer to your question is to stick within the Oslo Accords and the Annapolis framework, however we may have blown up 25 years of work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No, a personal letter is not meant for the masses. I can offer many examples of President-elects who deliberately held their tongues despite being pressed by the media to repudiate their predecessors: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower and JFK are all examples of this- but I can't think of anyone before Trump to do the opposite. 
Click to expand...
Seriously. Stop. You are flat out wrong. And the fact that you are this mad about a tweet but not really concerned about an actual vote in the UN is really odd.

 
Nice foreign policy you got there, Barack. 

So you just piss on one of your allies on your way out of office and for what? What's the point?

 
timschochet said:
He's violating the spirit of the Constitution. No President-elect has ever taken public issue with his predecessor in this manner. It's unheard of, and outrageous. 
Click to expand...
I agree with Yankee here, just because the guy knows his Constitution and history.

However the progression is worth noting:

  • For the first time in memory Israel/Palestine wasn't really brought up in debates or policy questions during the campaign. Trump might have said something about moving the embassy, I can't recall, but ordinarily that would have been a big deal in a campaign, this year it wasn't even noticed.
  • Out of the blue more recently Trump seems to indicate that he is willing to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Which is a BFD and totally out of left field but while I disagree with it let's face it he won and he has a right to say what his intention is and it's one of the few things where he has spoken on a policy as policy.
  • Obama probably thinks (maybe rightly) this is match on gasoline statement or position, so he gets together with the Palestinians to drive a side bargain where the US moves to acknowledge Israel as illegal occupiers, basically driving back the Oslo Accords in the process. But what this does is it blocks Trump from moving the embassy into territory that the UN and the US tacitly view as illegal. That IMO is kind of pointless because the US already has outstanding policy against this, it's just a vast and dangerous overreaction.
This is baby/bathwater stuff (as stated) but it's problematic for Obama to tie the next president's hands. All Trump did was enunciate what his policy would be as president, there's technically everything right about that (and we can really say that rarely about Trump).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well times have changed. Obama will be staying in Washington and I expect him to be a vocal critic and publicly active against Trump's policies.

 
jamny said:
Well times have changed. Obama will be staying in Washington and I expect him to be a vocal critic and publicly active against Trump's policies.
Click to expand...
Doubt it, all indications are he is looking at both Bushes in terms of a model for how he behaves once out of office.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Doubt it, all indications are he is looking at both Bushes in terms of a model for how he behaves once out of office.
Click to expand...
seriously don't get this.  Are you implying Bush was a vocal critic of Obama after he left office?

Regardless I expect Obama to mercilessly criticize his successor daily, to preserve HIS legacy and all.

 
irishidiot said:
seriously don't get this.  Are you implying Bush was a vocal critic of Obama after he left office?

Regardless I expect Obama to mercilessly criticize his successor daily, to preserve HIS legacy and all.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that I believe Obama will follow their path of by and large staying out of political arena.

 
timschochet said:
9 Presidents since 1967 have attempted to solve the Israel-Palestine dilemma. Nobody's done it. Clinton came the closest, but the Palestinians backed out. Before proposing my solution, let me summarize the problems:

Israel

1. Israel will refuse any solution that she believes will endanger her security or increase the chance of terrorist attacks.

2. Israel regards Jerusalem as the capital and a Jewish holy city and will refuse to give it up.

3. Israel will not agree to any Right of Return for Palestinians which would allow them to enter Israel and swamp the Jewish population.

4. Israel has settlers who continue to move into sections of the Occupied territories. Much like Ulster Protestants and Afrikaners, these settlers comprise the hard core of Israeli resistance to any agreement with the Palestinians. They believe they are God's chosen to occupy these lands. They and their supporters represent a minority among the Israeli population, but it is a powerful minority and they may fight rather than be forcibly relocated to support any peace plan.

Palestine

1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.

2. Palestinians regard Jerusalem as a Muslim holy city and refuse to give it up. They demand it as the capital of any state of Palestine.

3. Palestinians demand as part of any peace agreement the Right of Return, which allows any Palestinian who fled or was forced out after 1948, or their descendants, to return to the state of Israel.

4. Palestinian extremists do not recognize the state of Israel and seek it's destruction. These extremists may or may not represent a majority of the entire Palestinian population. They certainly represent a majority of those who live in Gaza (ruled by Hamas) and those Palestinians who continue to live in Lebanon (dominated by Hezbollah.)
Click to expand...
I think this remains a fairly accurate summary of the differences between the two sides. 

 
timschochet said:
I think this remains a fairly accurate summary of the differences between the two sides. 
Click to expand...
yes it does.   Regarding the Palestine points:   2.3.& 4 are a given, thus no peace.  I can't see this changing.

Very thoughtful & historical based post regardless.  kudos.

 
timschochet said:
He's violating the spirit of the Constitution. No President-elect has ever taken public issue with his predecessor in this manner. It's unheard of, and outrageous. 
Click to expand...
Trump is a clown but BHO has made himself fair game.

 
timschochet said:
I think this remains a fairly accurate summary of the differences between the two sides. 
Click to expand...
I agree, although Israel has said they'd be fine with just East Jerusalem.

Another point, and maybe it matters for peace and maybe not, but Hamas has said that no Jews would be allowed to live in a Palestinian state.

I know that there are plenty of things to criticize Israel for, but I do have a tough time swallowing Kerry's assertion that we allowed the UN Resolution because Israel was acting against US values when the Palestinians are far far worse violators of US values across the board. How they treat women, how they treat homosexuals, how they hate Jews (Muslims hold office in Israel) etc.

 
timschochet said:
That's a simplification of what he said. He said that if Israel continues without a peaceful settlement they will have to give up on democracy if they wish to retain their entity as a Jewish state- and this is essentially true given demographics alone. 
Click to expand...
Ok, now that you have given a nuanced version of the exact same thing.   Which would you choose tim?

 
timschochet said:
It's a great idea but whenever it's been proposed thus far the Palestinians have rejected it- they want the right of return for all Palestinians, which would effectively destroy the state of Israel. 

As to your last question, it's not an issue of do we have the responsibility to pay (we don't) but whether it's in our best interest to do so. If the Palestinians were ever willing to accept this deal it would be pennies on the dollar for us to pay for it, and a great investment for our national security, probably better than a hundred new submarines. But first, the Palestinians would have to agree and mean it. 
Click to expand...
Why is it in our interest to pay it?  And no, I'd rather have a hundred new submarines.

 
It would be cool if someone could briefly explain why Israel is described as occupiers by Arabs.   When Israel was granted this land after WWll, what, did we just kick people out?

Could google I guess but some informed people on this thread.

 
irishidiot said:
It would be cool if someone could briefly explain why Israel is described as occupiers by Arabs.   When Israel was granted this land after WWll, what, did we just kick people out?

Could google I guess but some informed people on this thread.
Click to expand...
Israel's land has been mandated as a single nation several times:

- Treaty of Sevres.

- San Remo Conference

- 1947 independence.

- There is also Sykes Picot, which was informal, but then that same agreement gave rise to Lebanon, Iraq & Syria.

The Palestinians were offered a second state in 1948, to live side by side with the Israelis. They not only rejected that but their Arab allies invaded Israel.

The basis for Palestine's claim is that after that war, and for the roughly 3 decades before that, Arabs fled or sold their land to Israelis, or the Israelis simply moved in and used formerly unused land. Basically Palestinian militants refuse to recognize international agreements or the course of events that led to the Israelis being where they are.

Having said that the Israelis are definitely occupiers of the West Bank, which they took as part of the 1967 War, they have no rights to that land.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irishidiot said:
It would be cool if someone could briefly explain why Israel is described as occupiers by Arabs.   When Israel was granted this land after WWll, what, did we just kick people out?

Could google I guess but some informed people on this thread.
Click to expand...
The British owned a whole neighborhood. They sold the worst part of the neighborhood to the jews and wanted to sell the rest, including the really really nice parts to other people. The other people said no, they want the slums too because 1500 years ago we had family that lived in one of the shacks that is still standing. And so they waited until the jews moved into their shacks and started throwing hams over the fence.Then the mayor of the neighboring town, let's call him the King of Jordan, killed a few million of his own people and kicked out their remaining living families and supporters and forced them into this neighborhood. He then told them that the reason it all happened was because of the people that live in the shacks.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
The British owned a whole neighborhood. They sold the worst part of the neighborhood to the jews and wanted to sell the rest, including the really really nice parts to other people. The other people said no, they want the slums too because 1500 years ago we had family that lived in one of the shacks that is still standing. And so they waited until the jews moved into their shacks and started throwing hams over the fence.Then the mayor of the neighboring town, let's call him the King of Jordan, killed a few million of his own people and kicked out their remaining living families and supporters and forced them into this neighborhood. He then told them that the reason it all happened was because of the people that live in the shacks.
Click to expand...
Wow. This is really wrong. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Israel's land has been mandated as a single nation several times:

- Treaty of Sevres.

- San Remo Conference

- 1947 independence.

- There is also Sykes Picot, which was informal, but then that same agreement gave rise to Lebanon, Iraq & Syria.

The Palestinians were offered a second state in 1948, to live side by side with the Israelis. They not only rejected that but their Arab allies invaded Israel.

The basis for Palestine's claim is that after that war, and for the roughly 3 decades before that, Arabs fled or sold their land to Israelis, or the Israelis simply moved in and used formerly unused land. Basically Palestinian militants refuse to recognize international agreements or the course of events that led to the Israelis being where they are.

Having said that the Israelis are definitely occupiers of the West Bank, which they took as part of the 1967 War, they have no rights to that land.
Click to expand...
You start a war and you get your ### kicked you lose land.   Them is the rules.

 
It really just seems like Obama is flailing about hoping some kind of policy legacy will stick through Trump's administration.

 
irishidiot said:
It would be cool if someone could briefly explain why Israel is described as occupiers by Arabs.   When Israel was granted this land after WWll, what, did we just kick people out?

Could google I guess but some informed people on this thread.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is no way to briefly explain it. But Since Yankee just wrote something that is wholly inaccurate I will try as best I can: 

After Biblical times the Jews were kicked out and wandered the world (this is known as the Diaspora.) Palestine was occupied by Muslims, trashed during the Crusades, trashed further by the Mongols, and became a backwater worthless province under the Ottomans (Turks). Around 1890 Jews in Europe get sick of anti-Semitism and begin a back to Israel movement (Zionism). A few hundred thousand settle in Palestine, purchasing worthless swamp land legally from Effendis (rich Palestinians who own all the land under Turkish rule.) Jews drain the swamp, create new land, new economy, create Tel Aviv, rebuild modern Jerusalem. Palestinian Arab population rapidly increases with new Jewish economy. 

Britain goes to war with Turkey in World War I. Britain agrees to Palestine becoming a Jewish nation if international Jews will help Britain against Turkey. British occupy Palestine, pledges to League of Nations that the occupation is only temporary until they can create two new states, one for Jews one for Palestinians. But the British have no intention of giving Palestine up; they want it to help protect the Suez Canal and oil supply. Palestinians riot and kill Jews. Jews form terrorist groups and kill British. Nazis rise to power and Jews desperately try to escape to Palestine, but British block it off. Hitler murders 6 million Jews and there are a million survivors in eastern Europe after World War II and they all want to go to Palestine. Muslim world freaks out: let them go somewhere else. Palestinians riot some more. Jewish terrorists kill more British. Britain is exhausted from World War II and turns whole thing over to United Nations. 

UN offers partition plan: large area goes to Palestinians, smaller area to Jews. Exhausted, the Jews accept the plan. Arabs vow death to all Jews, will never accept. UN approves plan, and fighting begins. British pull out. Arab nations encourage Paleatinian population to flee so that they don't get in the way of Arab armies. Some flee some don't. Then Jewish terrorist group enters Arab village and slaughters everyone there: men, women and children. In panic most Palestinians flee. They flee mostly to two areas: the West Bank next to Jerusalem, owned by Jordan, and Gaza owned by Egypt. Jews win war and state of Israel is created. 

For the next 20 years West Bank and Gaza are Paleatinian refugee areas, seedbeds of hatred against Israel and terrorism, used for terrorist raids against Israel. Finally in 1967 Israel conquers these areas and takes them over- this is what is known as the Occupation though extremist believe that ALL of Israel is occupied. 

Religious Jews who believe that the West Bank and Gaza are part of what God meant as Greater Israel begin pushing for settling those areas and driving the Palestinians out. This in turn inflames the Palestinians further, which creates more terrorism, which hardens the Israeli population into supporting the settlements. 

Theres a lot more but this is the best I can do. 

 
jonessed said:
It really just seems like Obama is flailing about hoping some kind of policy legacy will stick through Trump's administration.
Click to expand...
"OK, cabinet members, it's the 12th hour...what can we do to get me up the ladder rung on timschochet's next Presidential rankings?"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
575
(HULK)
(HULK)
rockaction
Two Lawyers And Some Molotov Cocktails - The Universities Still Burn From Within
Replies
10
Views
344
rockaction
rockaction
GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top