cowboysfan Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Israel will NEVER agree to this,Hamas doesnt want peace(their arab supporters doesnt want a peaceful solution either).there is no way Palestinians can guarantee Isreal's safety if they withdraw to a 1967 border as we have seen in previous isreali withdrawals(not with terrorists leading them anyway).
Brainfade Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Don't give him more credit than he deserves. Bush said the same thing in 2002 - coming out in the open and stating it in the Rose garden. Funny how short public memory is. Excerpt from Bush's 2002 speech Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders. Complete transcript of Bush's 2002 speech: For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region. For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East. It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself. In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East. In the work ahead, we all have responsibilities. The Palestinian people are gifted and capable, and I am confident they can achieve a new birth for their nation. A Palestinian state will never be created by terror -- it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism. Today, the elected Palestinian legislature has no authority, and power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few. A Palestinian state can only serve its citizens with a new constitution which separates the powers of government. The Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body. Local officials and government ministers need authority of their own and the independence to govern effectively. The United States, along with the European Union and Arab states, will work with Palestinian leaders to create a new constitutional framework, and a working democracy for the Palestinian people. And the United States, along with others in the international community will help the Palestinians organize and monitor fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year, with national elections to follow. Today, the Palestinian people live in economic stagnation, made worse by official corruption. A Palestinian state will require a vibrant economy, where honest enterprise is encouraged by honest government. The United States, the international donor community and the World Bank stand ready to work with Palestinians on a major project of economic reform and development. The United States, the EU, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund are willing to oversee reforms in Palestinian finances, encouraging transparency and independent auditing. And the United States, along with our partners in the developed world, will increase our humanitarian assistance to relieve Palestinian suffering. Today, the Palestinian people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights. A Palestinian state will require a system of reliable justice to punish those who prey on the innocent. The United States and members of the international community stand ready to work with Palestinian leaders to establish finance -- establish finance and monitor a truly independent judiciary. Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. This will require an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability and a unified chain of command. America is pursuing this reform along with key regional states. The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine. With a dedicated effort, this state could rise rapidly, as it comes to terms with Israel, Egypt and Jordan on practical issues, such as security. The final borders, the capital and other aspects of this state's sovereignty will be negotiated between the parties, as part of a final settlement. Arab states have offered their help in this process, and their help is needed. I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel -- including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations. Leaders who want to be included in the peace process must show by their deeds an undivided support for peace. And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalization of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world. Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel's identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state. As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. The Palestinian economy must be allowed to develop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. Palestinian legislators and officials, humanitarian and international workers, must be allowed to go about the business of building a better future. And Israel should release frozen Palestinian revenues into honest, accountable hands. I've asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution-building. Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders. We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror. All who are familiar with the history of the Middle East realize that there may be setbacks in this process. Trained and determined killers, as we have seen, want to stop it. Yet the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties with Israel remind us that with determined and responsible leadership progress can come quickly. As new Palestinian institutions and new leaders emerge, demonstrating real performance on security and reform, I expect Israel to respond and work toward a final status agreement. With intensive effort by all, this agreement could be reached within three years from now. And I and my country will actively lead toward that goal. I can understand the deep anger and anguish of the Israeli people. You've lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms. The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security; and I deeply believe that you need a reformed, responsible Palestinian partner to achieve that security. I can understand the deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people. For decades you've been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. Your interests have been held hostage to a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year. You deserve democracy and the rule of law. You deserve an open society and a thriving economy. You deserve a life of hope for your children. An end to occupation and a peaceful democratic Palestinian state may seem distant, but America and our partners throughout the world stand ready to help, help you make them possible as soon as possible. If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government. I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations. This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple. The Bible says, "I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life." The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace, and hope, and life. Thank you very much. Link for Bush's 2002 speech: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbushtwostatesolution.htm I don't see a lick of difference.
Sooda Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 Israel will NEVER agree to this' date='Hamas doesnt want peace(their arab supporters doesnt want a peaceful solution either).there is no way Palestinians can guarantee Isreal's safety if they withdraw to a 1967 border as we have seen in previous isreali withdrawals(not with terrorists leading them anyway).[/quote'] Much is made of Hamas having in their constitution not to recognise Israel etc- rightly so to an extent as it is a ridiculous policy to have..however in practice Hamas have proven themselves willing to maintain a ceasefire at least, they want peace- however a proper two state solution is a different kettle of fish. Sadly both them and most of the Likud lack a brain cell between them and want the whole region for themselves, when in fact this way is best for both parties. The next step is for Palestine to get international recognition by the UN, will help if there are any negotiations.
Sooda Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I don't think Obama is worried about his popularity or next years' elections anymore - it's a forgiven conclusion that he will win the elections next year (I might have a biased view given that I am from NYC, one of the most liberal places in the US). I feel he is reaching a point in his presidency which other presidents reach 2 years before the end of their final term - the point where they want to leave that 'legacy'. With this sort of an unfettered approach he can really make a difference - he has pulled off the miracle of Health Care reforms and if he can resolve the Palestine issue he will be remembered forever. The thing which struck me is that this is the first time in recent history a US president has openly stated a two state solution (which is the only practical solution), and makes me think that the guy is serious about getting things done. He has played it clever by trying 'heading off' whatever attempts the Palestinians are making to get UN recognition (or at least seeming to) hence not risking the wrath of the Jewish lobby totally. Effectively telling the Palestinans that they have to negotiate whilst at the same time making sure he is seen to be the liberal supporter of freedom with this big headline call. If this UN thing works out for Palestine, if he gets re elected he can try taking the lead on negotiations again.
Stuge Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 I really don't see these border disputes getting solved until earth is reborn again
Brainfade Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 Oh ... and as far as showing mettle as someone who can "get things done," this particular "thing" is a non-starter: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/20/netanyahu-rebuffs-obama-middle-east-plan/ Excerpt: In front of the assembled media in the Oval Office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Friday bluntly rejected President Obama’s call a day earlier for Israel to use its pre-1967 borders as the negotiating baseline for a peace deal with the Palestinians. “While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines,” Mr. Netanyahu said, addressing Mr. Obama rather than speaking to the assembled reporters and photographers. “These lines are indefensible. For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities.” Mr. Obama downplayed their dispute, which he had sparked during a major speech Thursday on the Middle East. The president stated publicly that he supports a Palestinian state based on boundaries before the Six-Day War in which Israel took control of east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — with the two sides negotiating “mutually agreed” land swaps to adjust the 1967 lines. “Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language,” Mr. Obama said, without referring directly to the boundary issue. “That’s going to happen between friends.” When all else fails, take refuge in nuance.
yoda Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 ^^So you are declaring this a failure a day after the speech? :giggle: Even then, the worst he could do is match his predecessor in terms of mid-east progress. :winky: The closest the two sides came was during Clinton's time and Arafat lost a golden chance to take it through.
THX_1138 Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 its pretty obvious that the Israelis like the status quo. A belligerent neighbor that they may use as justification for foreign aide and periodic reprisals. In documents made public through Wikileaks, the Palestinians had approached the Israelis with massive consentions, which the Israelis rejected. It unfortunate that such a bunch of well educated, relatively advance people elect such gas bags to office like Netanyahu and Sharon.
Stuge Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 ^^You mean tomorrow ??? :woot: TODAY !!:giggle::cantstop:
Brainfade Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 ^^So you are declaring this a failure a day after the speech? :giggle: . No. I am pointing out the flaw in the logic that this speech showed an ability to get things done. While I did not (and do not agree) with several provisions of the healthcare reform bill, I have acknowledged on this board that he deserves full credit for getting it through. Liberals would do well to acknowledge GWB for essentially making the same points in 2002, and not proclaiming that this is the first time an American president has openly stated this policy. It is disingenuous.
yoda Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 No. I am pointing out the flaw in the logic that this speech showed an ability to get things done. While I did not (and do not agree) with several provisions of the healthcare reform bill' date=' I have acknowledged on this board that he deserves full credit for getting it through. Liberals would do well to acknowledge GWB for essentially making the same points in 2002, and not proclaiming that this is the first time an American president has openly stated this policy. It is disingenuous.[/quote'] Ok your point about "getting things done" is noted. Regarding GWB, he may have given a speech which talks about similar things, but he didn't explicity talk about pre-1967 borders and more importantly didn't even make a remote attempt to get anything done there.
Brainfade Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Ok your point about "getting things done" is noted. Regarding GWB, he may have given a speech which talks about similar things, but he didn't explicity talk about pre-1967 borders and more importantly didn't even make a remote attempt to get anything done there. He did. Read one of the boldfaced parts of the transcript above. He said "based on UN Resolution 242 and ..." Here are parts of UN Resolution 242, which was adopted in 1967 after the war The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration. The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security." Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (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." [3] Resolution 242 is one of the most commonly referred UN resolutions to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the basis of later negotiations between the parties.
Sachin=GOD Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 Egypt permanently opens Gaza border crossing After four years, Egypt has permanently opened the Gaza Strip’s main gateway to the outside world. The move to lift most travel restrictions on Gaza residents brings long-awaited relief to the territory’s Palestinian population and a significant achievement for its Hamas rulers. But it raises Israeli fears it will be easier for militants to go in and out of Gaza. The first busload of passengers crossed into Egypt on Saturday morning at the Rafah terminal, where about 400 Gazans awaited. Egypt and Israel have maintained a blockade over Gaza since 2007 to weaken Hamas following its violent seizure of the area. But after the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February, Egypt’s new military rulers decided to ease the blockade. http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2056958.ece?homepage=true
achilles Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 Obama can hopefully hold on to his opinion for a longer length of time this time, I hope.
jonas10 Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 Im a huge fan of Israel and love how they punished aggressors that invaded their land. India needs to take a similar stance when there is a Kargil 1965 1971. Show them the reprecussions next time you do it we take Lahore as punishment not just push you back to your border.
achilles Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 ^ We do not have the military force to sustain ourselves against them. And Pakistan is no Palestine.
jonas10 Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 ^ We do not have the military force to sustain ourselves against them. And Pakistan is no Palestine. We dont need to do that and India has already had these opportunities. In the first Kashmir war India could have pushed them right out of Azad Kashmir - problem was Nehru was obsessed with being viewed as a "stateman" sleeping with Goris etc so when Field Marshal Cariappa asked for only 48 more hours to push them back this was refused. Similarily in 1965 the lack of a proper intellegence agency did not allow india to know how depleted the Pak military's army was at the "death overs". India if they didnt push them out so quick could have pushed them even further. 1971 we all know what happened - best thing would have probably to been to annex Bangladesh as province #28. In 1999 the Indian army was vastly superior to the Pak one and should have siezed some of their land - to remind them this is what we will do next time you ever even think of Kargil - holy INDIAN soil.
jonas10 Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 ^ We do not have the military force to sustain ourselves against them. And Pakistan is no Palestine. We dont need to do that and India has already had these opportunities. In the first Kashmir war India could have pushed them right out of Azad Kashmir - problem was Nehru was obsessed with being viewed as a "stateman" sleeping with Goris etc so when Field Marshal Cariappa asked for only 48 more hours to push them back this was refused. Similarly in 1965 the lack of a proper intelligence agency did not allow India to know how depleted the Pak military's army was at the "death overs". India if they didn't push them out so quick could have pushed them even further. 1971 we all know what happened - best thing would have probably to been to annex Bangladesh as province #28. In 1999 the Indian army was vastly superior to the Pak one and should have seized some of their land - to remind them this is what we will do next time you ever even think of Kargil - holy INDIAN soil.
achilles Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 Ya. Past is past though. And we can't afford a war. No one can, except maybe China. Black ops are the way forward.
Recommended Posts