ladies and gentlemen, your president

[bud]

how far up natanyahoo's hoohoo is the american congress willing to go? is this what million dollars of AIPAC donation gets you? bipartisan support from congress? are the american people as enthusiastic as their reps about natanbooboo? of course not, they're not receiving millions of dollars from AIPAC. here is a list of AIPAC donation recipients. there is a direct correlation between the level of cheer for bibi to how much money the congressman/woman receives from AIPAC.

obama's own party is showing more support for a leader of another state. the american congress is an embarrassment.

natanyahoo says peace must be negotiated, however, HOWEVER, he lays out several things that are not negotiable. double speak much president natanyahoo?

[Guest American Woman]

natanyahoo says peace must be negotiated, however, HOWEVER, he lays out several things that are not negotiable. double speak much president natanyahoo?

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

[Pliny]

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

Israel begone is probably the only thing I can think of that has been laid out by the Palistinians as non-negotiable.

[bud]

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

freezing the settlements has been supported by pretty much all u.s. presidents as it's an obligation according to international law. so it's a no-brainer that it should be frozen.

i also think there cannot be any negotiation between the two as long as hamas does not officially recognize israel and likud does not officially recognize palestinians right to a state.

settlement freeze and recognition is a must if you want to go forward, instead of sideways.

[sharkman]

Bud, don't be too upset about the Dems, plenty of them don't care for Israel or its leader. They just didn't have the gumption to not clap and not give a standing ovation when the Republicans did. So they stood up and clapped when they didn't want to because they didn't care for what the optics would look like. That makes them kind of rats and liars and pretty much in line with what Obama is in regard to Israel.

Edited May 25, 2011 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

freezing the settlements has been supported by pretty much all u.s. presidents as it's an obligation according to international law. so it's a no-brainer that it should be frozen.

i also think there cannot be any negotiation between the two as long as hamas does not officially recognize israel and likud does not officially recognize palestinians right to a state.

settlement freeze and recognition is a must if you want to go forward, instead of sideways.

Nothing to say in response to my actual post? I'll repeat it for you:

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your admission that both sides have areas they consider non-negotiable, so continue with your one-sided bash-fest against Israel.

[bud]

Bud, don't be too upset about the Dems, plenty of them don't care for Israel or its leader. They just didn't have the gumption to not clap and not give a standing ovation when the Republicans did. So they stood up and clapped when they didn't want to because they didn't care for what the optics would look like. That makes them kind of rats and liars and pretty much in line with what Obama is in regard to Israel.

i would have to disagree based on the donations the number of democrats receive from AIPAC. it's not only the republicans who receive money from AIPAC. money speaks.

here is the list of u.s. reps who have received money from AIPAC.

it's kind of silly to try to paint this as dems vs repubs when both are effectively influenced the same way.

[GostHacked]

Nothing to say in response to my actual post? I'll repeat it for you:

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your admission that both sides have areas they consider non-negotiable, so continue with your one-sided bash-fest against Israel.

Both sides have things they won't budge on, this is quite apparent. One side calls for peace or some action, the other says forget it, and vice versa.

What does one do?

[Guest American Woman]

Both sides have things they won't budge on, this is quite apparent. One side calls for peace or some action, the other says forget it, and vice versa.

Of course they do. To start a thread accusing only one side of "double speak" because there are conditions that are considered nonnegotiable is just more biased, one-sided bashing against Israel.

What does one do?

I'm not sure there's an answer to that question outside of those involved.

Edited May 25, 2011 by American Woman

[bud]

Nothing to say in response to my actual post? I'll repeat it for you:

first of all, i did respond, which i will get to below. second, how many times have you failed miserably in responding to my posts? especially the times where i've asked you to show some quotes to back up your defaming posts about me? so either follow your own expectations and rules you set for others or stfu.

Of course the Palestinians don't have any terms they'd refuse to negotiate, eh? They're open to anything.

the palestinians, just like pretty much all u.s. presidents believe that the settlements should be frozen. it's understandable that this should not be negotiated just like accepting israel as a state and accepting a future palestinian state.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your admission that both sides have areas they consider non-negotiable, so continue with your one-sided bash-fest against Israel.

how about we do a breakdown of what each side believes is not negotiable and then we can talk about the absurdly of bibi's theatrics and double speak.

palestinians:

- settlement freeze in the occupied territories (a no-brainer and something that the international community and all u.s. presidents have agreed on - even some past israeli pm's have accepted and followed)

natanyahoo:

- no to east jerusalem being the capital of a future palestinian state

- no to freezing settlements in east jerusalem and west bank

- no negotiation with hamas since they do not recognize a palestinian state (understandable in my opinion since they're unwilling to officially recognize israel. but then again, hasn't likud officially sworn to never allow a palestinian state?)

- no to having certain palestinian representatives at the negotiations

- no return of refugees

so you tell me american woman, how is this even comparable?

[bud]

Both sides have things they won't budge on, this is quite apparent. One side calls for peace or some action, the other says forget it, and vice versa.

What does one do?

you're far too generous by applying a 50/50 blame on the groups.

one look at the facts and the history of concessions shows who is okay with the status quo and whose agenda benefits from negotiations not happening. this is a reason why israel has stalled as long as they have.

[Moonlight Graham]

AIPAC and the Israel lobby have elected US officials by the balls. AIPAC is highly organized and can mobilize its members to direct political donations and votes to whichever candidate/party acts on their demands the most. Add to that the fact that many very powerful private US citizens and members of the US government are (or "were") members of AIPAC and/or the Israel lobby.

[GostHacked]

AIPAC and the Israel lobby have elected US officials by the balls. AIPAC is highly organized and can mobilize its members to direct political donations and votes to whichever candidate/party acts on their demands the most. Add to that the fact that many very powerful private US citizens and members of the US government are (or "were") members of AIPAC and/or the Israel lobby.

AIPAC does have a lot of pull/power within the USA. I am glad you brought this up. I just hope you are not called an anti-semite for pointing out some obvious truths.

[Shady]

The blame lies with the Palestinians. Until they actually accept the existence of a Jewish state. There can never be peace.

[GostHacked]

The blame lies with the Palestinians. Until they actually accept the existence of a Jewish state. There can never be peace.

Now that's laughable.

[DogOnPorch]

Now that's laughable.

Why?

[GostHacked]

Why?

Peace relies on both sides to come to an agreement. Which is not going to happen.

[Shady]

Peace relies on both sides to come to an agreement. Which is not going to happen.

Yes, it's tough for it to happen when one side still hasn't recognized the other sides right to exist.

[GostHacked]

Yes, it's tough for it to happen when one side still hasn't recognized the other sides right to exist.

I am sure illegal settlements are a way to recognize the other has a right to exist.

[Shady]

I am sure illegal settlements are a way to recognize the other has a right to exist.

I don't understand what you mean. Israel has recognized the right and need for a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have never done the same regarding Israel. How are negotiations suppose to take place?

[DogOnPorch]

Peace relies on both sides to come to an agreement. Which is not going to happen.

That makes no sense re: Arabs recognizing Israel's existence.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't understand what you mean. Israel has recognized the right and need for a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have never done the same regarding Israel. How are negotiations suppose to take place?

Agreement.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand what you mean. Israel has recognized the right and need for a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have never done the same regarding Israel.

Why do you say that ?

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat

Chairman

The Palestine Liberation Organization

From the Israeli Government Website - MFA.gov

[bloodyminded]

Further, Hamas has deemed its own charter "irrelevant on this matter" (that's a direct quote), and said that they would be willing to recognize Israel if the majority of Palestinians agreed.

....even if Israelis don't come to a similar agreement recognizing Palestine, he added.

That's an olive branch, whatever else one has to say about them.

[Moonlight Graham]

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

Exactly. The PLO did this during the 1993 Oslo Accord negotiations, as you posted.