|
Post by zarog on May 22, 2011 17:58:58 GMT -5
President Barack Obama called for Israelis and Palestinians to seek a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. To quote him: "Negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. And permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." These three links explain the evolution of Israel's borders since 1947. poliblogger.com/images/1947.gifwww.moonhowlings.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/borders.gifimages.nationmaster.com/images/motw/middle_east_and_asia/israel_nbr90.jpgWhat does everyone think about the policy? Should the U.S. permanently adopt this stance? Are we not supporting Israel enough? Are we supporting them too much?
|
|
|
Post by Brave One on May 27, 2011 3:02:12 GMT -5
Our long-lasting commitment to the state of Israel seems to have been undermined by this one comment. It is very strange that he made a statement like this, considering that they have always been a political ally. It doesn't seem like a good decision to me to alienate the only true democracy in the Middle-East, even though they have undoubtedly committed several obtrusive war crimes. While this needs to be recognized by the United States and the rest of the international community, and while reform is needed in the Middle-East, it should not be made to weaken the state of Israel. Nor do I think that kind of reform will appease the Palestinians. Hammas seems bent on the destruction of the state of Israel. We'd be fools to pretend that this wouldn't be a direct threat to the sovereignty of Israel. President Obama needs to retract his comments, or at least drop them. It was a poor political move for him.
|
|
|
Post by zarog on May 27, 2011 9:51:58 GMT -5
Sadly, this will not be dropped. I think we are stuck with these comments. In Netanyahu's meeting with Obama, he explained that the borders Obama advocated for were "indefensible." However, he agreed to a possible land-for-peace agreement. I am personally opposed to the land-for-peace because it has yet to work in any situation. The aggressor is appeased for a brief period of time and then they threaten war again if they do not get more concessions. Land-for-peace has been attempted multiple times through the decades with Israel and it hasn't worked. It didn't work with Hitler. It didn't work with the Native Americans (settlers kept pushing them further West after agreeing not to go beyond certain points). Nothing gives me hope that it could work now. The next problem is this war is not a war over land. It's really about religion. The Jews and the Muslims both believe Jerusalem to hold one of each religion's 3 holiest sites. Reasoning with a religious war is impossible. When people are willing to die for whatever God they worship, there is no sane answer to fixing the problem. If the other countries surrounding Israel (for those that don't know, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon) would have absorbed the Muslim population when Israel was created there would still be problems, they just wouldn't be the same. As Netanyahu has said, Israel took all of the Jewish people and refugees during the '40s after Israel was created, but the surrounding countries refused to allow refugees into their countries; thus forcing them to stay in Israel to create the division we see in the people now.
|
|