Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by quantum_wave, May 20, 2011.

?

Did he or didn't he?

  1. No

    75.0%
  2. Yes

    25.0%
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    Which was used fairly effectively in the past. But in today's political climate in Israel, the right would be screaming 'anti-semitism' and carry on about how the current President hates Israel (insert a few comments about his being a Muslim here from the right in the US), and that would be that. Plus Congress would never approve of such a move now, as they did in the past.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,413
    If the US slashes its funding and Europe proceeds with trade sanctions, do you think Singapore is going to fill the void? Do you honestly think China and Russia give a flying f*ck about Israel's long-term viability? Israel would be forced to cut at least $3 billion from its annual budget, and between settlements, welfare, the army and fanatic Yeshivas, I can't see any easy options that wouldn't rupture Israeli society at the core.

    In any case, Americans need to take a long hard look at the situation and ask themselves what they're getting in return for their investment. It looks to me like they get little more in return other than Israeli expectations for more money still, and increasing levels of international scorn with every settlement that's built and every Palestinian who gets uprooted. Maybe these kinds of returns aren't worth whatever benefits might come from having some vague, symbolic and impracticable influence over Israeli politics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quigly ......................... ..... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    901
    It was 100,000 of their 160,000 men and 7 divisions.
    Syria had 75,000 massed on their border and Jordan had 55,000 massed.
    Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact after Egyption agression in the Straits of Tiran.

    I can see why they wanted to strike first.... (sun tzu)- "by inflicting damage, he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Right, that's what we want, an Israel that is desperate and fearful of it's security.
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,413
    Obviously that's not a desirable outcome for you and I, but I don't see how it benefits us to keep the Muslim world in such a state, either. Besides, why bother pretending it's even about security, anyhow? If Netanyahu were to have his way and Israeli troops remained in control of Palestine's borders while the Palestinians were demilitarized, what security purpose is left for the settlements to serve? And why for every claim I read about security needs, do I read multiple claims about how the West Bank belongs to Israel because Invisible Skymaster said so?
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Does Mubarak's regime deserve security? Did Saddam's? Even if Tahrir Square in Palestine is not broadcast on CNN, its still available to those who want to know it

    Death of Palestinian Raises Tensions During anti-Israel Protests

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And the reverbrations reach far and wide:
     
  10. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    So Rabin ws lying then General Quigly????

    You are a brave man to dispute what General rabin was quoted as saying.
     
  11. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    It has 100- 200 or more nukes on top of all the other advance weapons it has from the US so I am not sure how on earth that will happen spidey.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Nukes are useless against their immediate neighbors. An isolated Israel would not be more conducive to negotiation, it would be less.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Israel has developed a lot of its own weapons, you do know that right?

    Python-5 for example.

    But I doubt that Obama "threw" Israel under the bus, more like that he told them that if they want to be friends then they will need to be a little less violent.

    But to say that the Israelis are being violent just because they feel like it is blind and idiotic.

    You tend to get a little trigger happy when you know that at any time you might be standing or sitting on top of a bomb. Or that a rocket could blow you up at any second.
     
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Yes and yes.
     
  15. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    I know.............. they dont like negotiating at the best of times
     
  16. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    yes true fed, they ahev buiilt someof their own weapons which should keep them nice and secure...

    Anyway I was just explaining to Lucy that in fact the territories taken from the 1967 war was from an attacking carried out by israel according to General Rabin
     
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,413
    What negotiations? Negotiations usually involve offers from both sides, so what has Israel offered? What concrete, binding concessions has the US actually received from them that would make it worthwhile to keep trying?
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    And what does that mean towards the overrall situation?

    Look, we know that the Palestinians would not stop fighting if the borders were returned.

    And even if they wouldn't, the Israelis think they would. And so long as they think that then the borders will never be changed.
     
  19. Quigly ......................... ..... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    901
    In the different resources i've read over the years, it nowhere indicated General Rabin saying it wasn't a significant amount of troops and his actions in prep for preempt strike and ultimately war lead you to believe that someone believed it was significant.

    By the way, if i were to tell you i was a general would you believe me? Now if i were out in front of a brigade of soldiers and everyone was adhering my commands and i told you that i wasn't a general, would you believe me?

    Actions speak louder then words, but again, i haven't seen a reference where he actually said that 100k troops didn't amount to much. And even if he spoke it in flighting, i still think based on what did happened, that somebody (he or someone/group above him) believed 100k troops was significant...enough to prep for preempt strike.
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    They have not evicted all Palestinians and taken all the land they wish.
     
  21. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,413
    I have seen provably fake quotes attributed to Israeli leaders in the past, so I tried to look through Le Monde's online archives, but they only go back to 1987. I'd personally be satisfied just seeing the quote referenced by another reputable Western publication, and if Le Monde was the original source, then the original quote ought to be in French, and I'd like to see that too. I'm willing to try looking it up on microfilm, but if I were to go to that trouble for you, and I didn't find the relevant quote, then I'd expect a concession from you in turn. What say you?

    In any case, without proper context, that quote can be interpreted in many different ways. If those words came from Rabin, was he talking about Nasser's perceived intentions the day before the war started? Two weeks? Was he trying to explain why Israel didn't act sooner, almost like the way they were caught napping in 1973? Yes, all the more reason for us to review the actual source for your quote before jumping to conclusions.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2011
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Its mostly irrelevant in any case. Its like arguing the rights of Indians because the British, the Dutch, the French and the Portuguese were fighting each other to occupy various parts of India. Or arguing the rights of native Americans because the British, Mexicans, French were fighting each other. No matter which megalomaniac is the coloniser, it does not change the right of the native to live on his land. At least, as far as the Geneva conventions go.
     
  23. Zakariya04 and it was Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,045
    ok how about this

    "The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

    thats froma chomsky book
     

Share This Page