1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Obama's Middle East Speech

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, May 19, 2011.

  1. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    He claimed that a "state" has the right to defend its borders. Arizonians aren't buying it.

    He wants Israel to go back to the '67 borders and get nothing in return. This is not negotiating, it is choosing sides. And Obama chose his side last night, much to the chagrin of many of his Jewish constituents.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Do you really think this is the same?

    REALLY?
     
  3. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    I will say, with Bibi coming today and him giving this speech yesterday, Obama showed me he has some balls. Even though I think he is out of his mind with this proposal, he has to face the person most outraged by it today. I can respect that.
     
  4. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    PS: Obama did NOT say Israel should go back to its 1967 borders, only that those borders should be the starting point for negotiations on the territories of Israel and the eventual Palestine. This has been official U.S. policy for two decades and four Presidents. He was just the first President to state the policy in public rather than having lesser officials do so.
    IMO, it is useless for any President to deal with this issue. Both sides are itching to get to their own personal Raptures. Let 'em do it on their own.
     
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member


    It's a bold gambit when finesse has shown not to work for the past 30 years.

    I believe it was done to change the narrative from "same old same old".

    It was also done to send a message to the muslim population of the Middle East that he was not completely in the pocket of Israel.

    It does not mean he will follow through. He said he was going to close Gitmo and that worked to get elected.
     
  6. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    You're absolutely correct on the former, Michael, and the AP and NYTimes, among others, really looked awful this morning.

    As to the latter... I understand the sentiment, but it's not practical. For better or worse, and it's been almost all worse, we're in it.
    When Israel does things, the world assumes we're a part of it. When the Palestinians try to declare a state at the UN in September, Israel assumes we're going to block it for them. We're just... Involved.
     
  7. Bamadog

    Bamadog Well-Known Member

    In conventional war, yes. Asymmetrical warfare? Not so much. The Intifada. The Lebanon War of 2006. The rocket attacks by peace-loving "Palestinians." The border invasion of a few days ago are all examples of asymmetrical warfare. F-15 fighter jets and Merkava tanks are useless against $20 unguided rockets made out of pipe and filled with debris designed to kill civilians. A bigger land area gives the Israelis some breathing room to not expose most of their major cities to these cowardly attacks.

    As for conventional war possibilities, Egypt's military is on par with the Israelis now. They operate first-class, American-designed weaponry and they outnumber the Israeli military. They could get definitely beat the Israelis in a war. I hate to say it, but the Muslim Brotherhood is stupid enough to pick that fight which will leave both nations horrifically wounded.

    We shouldn't even bother trying to achieve the mirage of "Middle East peace." It can't be done. It won't be done until the Israelis are allowed to take the gloves off and achieve a lasting military victory over the "Palestinians," ejecting them from Gaza and the West Bank and sending them to Jordan, Syria and other locales. Until that time, the conflict will continue. The Arabs have never accepted a Jewish state and all of these negotiations are nothing more than a ploy to drive the Jews into the sea.

    There is no historical precedence for a "Palestinian" state. There is no "Palestinian" culture, language or ethnicity. You can't say that for the Jews and Israel. The "Palestinians" are no different from any of the other residents of the Arab states that surround them. The desire for a so-called "Palestinian" state is a thin Chimera to disguise their desire to drive the Jews into the sea, nothing more. Just watch some "Palestinian" TV. Whereas ours is consumed with sex and emasculation, theirs is all about martyrdom and Protocols of Zion, which is required reading in "Palestinian" schools.

    This is tilting at windmills. Just let it go. What makes Obama think he can do any better?
     
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The Lebanon War of 2006 was initiated BY ISRAEL. In response to provocation, yes, but provocations they had withstood before.
    The likelihood of Egypt starting a war with Israel is nil, or whatever's less than nil. Its generals know they'd get clobbered in short order. If Israel WASN'T militarily dominant, it couldn't possibly get away with its current policies vis a vis the Palestinians, because they'd need outside help and the concessions needed to get that help.
     
  9. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I've got a big problem with Netanyahu coming to America to bark at our country's leadership on what our policy should be on Israel.

    If any other world leader came to D.C. with the intent to bitch out our president we'd be up in arms.

    I hate to play this card, but without massive American support through the years, the whole dynamic in Israel would be a lot different. I support Israel, but I'm tired of our country being their unquestioned bulwork, while they use it as cover to push their own brand of nationalism.

    I support Obama 100 percent on what he said.
     
  10. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    There is no precedence for a Palestinian state in the modern sense because the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region for nearly 500 years, didn't divide their peoples on nationality, they did so based on religion. Its undeniable and irrefutable that modern Palestinians are simply the Muslim ancestors of those who have lived in that region for eons.

    The modern notion of nationalism didn't even exist in that part of the world until World War I. The awakening of Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Arabs, etc., are all WWI or post-WWI occurrences.

    Besides, it's a fools' game to try and retroactively apply notions of nationalism, especially when the fait accompli has occurred, and those people who allegedly have no historical unity as a people have a very strong sense of nationalism right now.
     
  11. Mark McGwire

    Mark McGwire Member

    Just so. I'll also note that bamadog's argument was the one used to oppress the Irish for roughly 800 years. It's a tautology. They've never had a country! Well, neither did Iraqis before the British bolted. Doesn't mean they won't fight their oppressors -- and as pro-Israel as I am, they're oppressing the Palestinians with the occupation. That can't be argued. It's doing awful things. To the Palestinians. To the Israelis.

    And, as to the last part, what makes Obama think he can do any better? The fact that eventually someone must.
     
  12. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    This speech does not happen without Bin Laden assassination. It has given Obama the political capitol to caste away the shackles of the Israeli lobby in Washington.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page