Obama: Pullback to 1967 Borders

[dre]

And we have a dunce of the night winner right here!!

Thats your title... 365 days per year.

Both of those things are objectively true. Israel IS plundering the occupied territories and it can and does kill people there free of consequences.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And it aint me doing the begging... I could work anywhere I want, and make your days wages by lunch time.

I seriously doubt that....you work where you can, and that includes the US of A.

[Moonlight Graham]

Both of those things are objectively true. Israel IS plundering the occupied territories and it can and does kill people there free of consequences.

Military bombardment of of Gaza 08/09, it gets a Goldstone Report and a slap on the wrist. Attacks on Lebanon (pick one!), meh who cares.

If the more radical Palestinians like Hamas etc. would stop blowing Israelis up like idiots trying to compete with the IDF, and the Pals used non-violent resistance they would have so much more success in the occupation. Israel would have no moral high ground, like the British in India, and western governments likely couldn't sustain the support any longer due to popular outrage.

[dre]

I seriously doubt that....you work where you can, and that includes the US of A.

You obviously have to post that you "seriously doubt that", but we both know you dont.

And youve mentioned that a few times now, why?

[Moonlight Graham]

You obviously have to post that you "seriously doubt that", but we both know you dont.

And youve mentioned that a few times now, why?

Take your own advice. Go to bed, watch TV, do something more productive with your time than feeding the troll.

[bush_cheney2004]

You obviously have to post that you "seriously doubt that", but we both know you dont.

And youve mentioned that a few times now, why?

Because I can trade barbs too....it's important to you so I am happy to oblige. I don't need to work in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Take your own advice. Go to bed, watch TV, do something more productive with your time than feeding the troll.

Good advice....I have a very good memory and know how to "play dirty" when so engaged.

[dre]

Military bombardment of of Gaza 08/09, it gets a Goldstone Report and a slap on the wrist. Attacks on Lebanon (pick one!), meh who cares.

If the more radical Palestinians like Hamas etc. would stop blowing Israelis up like idiots trying to compete with the IDF, and the Pals used non-violent resistance they would have so much more success in the occupation. Israel would have no moral high ground, like the British in India, and western governments likely couldn't sustain the support any longer due to popular outrage.

If the more radical Palestinians like Hamas etc. would stop blowing Israelis up like idiots trying to compete with the IDF, and the Pals used non-violent resistance they would have so much more success in the occupation. Israel would have no moral high ground, like the British in India, and western governments likely couldn't sustain the support any longer due to popular outrage.

Not sure I agree. I think that if Palestinians didnt resist the occupation, the territories would have been annexed a long long time ago. I dont see very many attacks on Israel coming out of the Golan Heights... but Israel hasnt given up that land either. The only reason the world even pays attention is because theres violence and bloodshed. There would be no popular outrage at all if palestinians stopped resisting the occupation, because there would be nothing in the news cycle.

If you ask me the international community ITSELF is more to blame for this thing than either the Israelis or the Palestinians. They are just doing what pretty much anyone would expect them to do.

[dre]

Take your own advice. Go to bed, watch TV, do something more productive with your time than feeding the troll.

Youre absolutely right. Its easy to get caught up in this conversation, but Im really not allocating my time wisely here, and I'm supposed to play in a golf tourney tomorrow at 8am.

Thanx and goodnight. You too BC... Have a good weekend guys.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanx and goodnight. You too BC... Have a good weekend guys.

OK...Y'all come back now....Ya'hear?

[Moonlight Graham]

Not sure I agree. I think that if Palestinians didnt resist the occupation, the territories would have been annexed a long long time ago. I dont see very many attacks on Israel coming out of the Golan Heights... but Israel hasnt given up that land either. The only reason the world even pays attention is because theres violence and bloodshed. There would be no popular outrage at all if palestinians stopped resisting the occupation, because there would be nothing in the news cycle.

If you ask me the international community ITSELF is more to blame for this thing than either the Israelis or the Palestinians. They are just doing what pretty much anyone would expect them to do.

I just argued the Palestinians SHOULD resist, only with non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, Gandhi-style. Gandhi was not a pacifist. What would the international reaction be right now if the Israelis mowed down a nation of peacefully protesting Palestinians, none of whom used terror tactics? Would be interesting to see that one play out. Jews, fleeing Nazi-fied Europe, now committing ethnic mass slaughter?

At least would be better than what the Pals have been doing for the last 100 years, which has barely left them with jack all.

[bush_cheney2004]

...At least would be better than what the Pals have been doing for the last 100 years, which has barely left them with jack all.

Interesting that you did not refer to such Palestinian actions against Israelis as "ethnic slaughter".

[DogOnPorch]

As soon as we build a time machine and create the international laws and norms of the UN that didn't exist at the end of WWII.

How convenient for the Arabs that their wars of aggression now get rewarded. I imagine Israel looks at South Viet-Nam (or the lack there-of) and reminds itself that those so-called "rules" of modern warfare were made-up to apply only to them.

[Bonam]

This doesn't fly. What Israel did in 1967 broke international law. If you are attacked in a war, you have the right to defend yourself of course, but if you win you can't just annex parts of the countries/territories that attacked you. That's what Israel did, and UNSC Resolution 242 from 1967 binds Israel to give back the acquired land.

There is no sovereign entity that existed at the time of the war that still lays claim to the West Bank or Gaza. A point that is often forgotten by people who repeat the above over and over.

[Guest American Woman]

There is no sovereign entity that existed at the time of the war that still lays claim to the West Bank or Gaza. A point that is often forgotten by people who repeat the above over and over.

This is true. Israel did not break international law at the time.* Furthermore, I would like to know what would have happened if Israel had lost. Would the UN have rushed into action to pass a Resolution 242? I suppose South Vietnam, or the lack thereof as DoP pointed out, gives us room for speculation.

Edited to add: *I suppose the Fourth Geneva Convention would have prevented Israel from taking land.

Edited May 22, 2011 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting that you did not refer to such Palestinian actions against Israelis as "ethnic slaughter".

You didn't even read my post properly. I was speaking future hypothetical.

Both sides have committed much ethnic killing, obviously. Keep trolling for those contradictions.

[Shady]

Me and my "buddies"? ROFLMAO. Half my family is Israeli, and the other half is South African.

I guess the vast network of Israeli Pipelines and wells that supply half of Israels drinking water are "defensive" right? And the settlers must be "defensive" too.

And I supposed the majority of Israelis who believe the occupied territories dont belong to Israel and should be given back are fools too.

And I supposed that putting the IDF in charge of water resources immediately before they invaded the west bank was defensive too huh?

You dont even have the first clue what youre talking about.

Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge the strategic importance of such lands as the Golan Heights? And why do you refuse to acknowledge that starting and losing wars with country has consequences, and one of those is the possibility of losing some land in the process? And why do you refuse to acknowledge that if the entire Arab Middle East didn't constantly attempt to attack and invade Israel over the past several decades, they'd have lost no land at all?

I'm not sure that you have a clue.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's called politics....America will continue to send billions to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Palestine. Like former US presidents, Mr. Obama has paid lip service to the issue that will never go away.

Obama's stance on this reflects the US position on Israel as it's been for several decades. At least, it appears to. As written in the quote above, we often cannot take what politicians say at face value. And Obama is truly a man of many faces. His speech was highly Shakespearean in nature... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

You didn't even read my post properly. I was speaking future hypothetical.

No hypotheticals required....past, present, or future.

Both sides have committed much ethnic killing, obviously. Keep trolling for those contradictions.

I knew I could get it out of you eventually.

Edited May 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

This is true. Israel did not break international law at the time.* Furthermore, I would like to know what would have happened if Israel had lost. Would the UN have rushed into action to pass a Resolution 242? I suppose South Vietnam, or the lack thereof as DoP pointed out, gives us room for speculation.

Edited to add: *I suppose the Fourth Geneva Convention would have prevented Israel from taking land.

Exactly...somehow me thinks this is merely a one-way street for Israelis only. In no other conflict, EVER, has the attacker/loser been allowed a do-over.

Edited May 22, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Moonlight Graham]

No hypotheticals required....past, present, or future.

I knew I could get it out of you eventually.

You're a troll. A grumpy old man, unhappy in his life, who constantly trolls these forums doing his best to be ass to anyone in order to feel better of himself. Amoral self-interest maybe you'd call it?

Too bad, you're an intelligent and informed guy, who without the spike rammed up his ass I would very much enjoy debating with. When you're done being an SOB hit me up and i'll be glad to debate with you. Until then, i'm done.

I truly wish you the happiness you're looking for, good luck.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're a troll. A grumpy old man, unhappy in his life, who constantly trolls these forums doing his best to be ass to anyone in order to feel better of himself. Amoral self-interest maybe you'd call it?

And you are the Good Witch Glinda?

Too bad, you're an intelligent and informed guy, who without the spike rammed up his ass I would very much enjoy debating with. When you're done being an SOB hit me up and i'll be glad to debate with you. Until then, i'm done.

Good, because you rarely offer anything of substance anyway. You lack the experience of "old trolls". Buh-bye.

[Moonlight Graham]

There is no sovereign entity that existed at the time of the war that still lays claim to the West Bank or Gaza. A point that is often forgotten by people who repeat the above over and over.

This is true now. But after the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank (Jordan ruled), Gaza (Egypt ruled), Sinai peninsula (Egypt), and the Golan Heights (Syria).

UNSC Resolution 242 states the "the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

and demands:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Of course, many different agreements between the different states + the Palestinians have been enacted since then, possibly making some of 242 moot, but others use it as precedent.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly...somehow me thinks this is merely a one-way street for Israelis only. In no other conflict, EVER, has the attacker/loser been allowed a do-over.

I guess it was a win-win situation for the Arabs. I honestly don't understand why the 'laws' are so rigidly applied in one instance and completely ignored in others.

I used to be a big supporter of the UN regarding international law. Now I see it's rather useless in that regard. What good is an organization that doesn't/can't enforce its own laws? Or try to enforce them equally? I think it could still serve a good purpose, just not in that area.

[BC_chick]

How convenient for the Arabs that their wars of aggression now get rewarded. I imagine Israel looks at South Viet-Nam (or the lack there-of) and reminds itself that those so-called "rules" of modern warfare were made-up to apply only to them.

Um, North Vietnam was not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions until 1970. Israel signed in 1951.

ETA:

Another thing North Vietnam did not do:

an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

Edited May 23, 2011 by BC_chick