Obama officially throws Israel under the bus

I've got to agree with him. IMO, Israel should not only stop all new settlements, but return to its pre-1967 borders.

I don't think any Country should Boycott another Country when it comes to the United Nations. I think that each nation should have a voice. Times are very scary right now and we all need to get along.

I watched Qaddafi's speech. He had a right to voice his opinion. Whether you or I agree with it or not. Hilary should not have walked out on him before he started his speech, that was very unprofessional in my opinion. Just because you don't agree with a leader from another Country and there's issues, when the world countries are coming together in a UN meeting you better stay there and listen Hillary, or hit the unemployment lines!!!!

That's easy - the occupied territories belong to Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Haven't you heard of UN Security Council Resolution 242?

Let me put it this way: I don't believe there's any chance of peace in the Middle East unless Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. I realize the Israeli government would have to remove the radical settlers by force - something that has been tried in fits and starts - but don't think there's any alternative.

Berlin was divided for decades - why not divide Jerusalem?

What he said on the world stage and what he said to Israeli leaders in private meetings may be (in fact, probably are) very different things. I'm sure he sees this as part of his ongoing world apology tour.

I agree with him about the settlements, by the way. At least, in the majority of cases.

However, if he truly abandons Israel, he is laying the groundwork for his defeat in the next election. The Jewish community has long voted almost entirely Democrat, and losing a bloc like that would threaten a fairly fragile coalition right now.

Can you define "Occupied territories?" Do you realize that the Palestinians regard every inch of Israel as "Occupied territories?"

For that matter, do you know when there was a country called "Palestine?"

If I thought it would work, I would advocate Jerusalem as a stateless city, completely run the UN. But the Palestinians would probably turn it into a smoking ruin.

Wow there seems to be about three coversations going on here.

Obama seems to have the agenda that if you were our ally, at best we'll ignore you and at worst we'll go against your best interests. Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia (or is it Czech Republic now?), have all been thrown under the bus to some extent. Poland and Czech are NOT happy with his decision to abandon the missile defense shield. Well, I guess he's still courting the EU nations. But if you were regarded as an enemy, especially by the most recent former Administration, then he's going to do everything in his power to court you. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I hope somewhere there's an actual strategy and not just who he likes and who he doesn't.

As for Hillary walking out of Khadafi's (or however it's being spelled now) speech, good for her. A bunch of nations are planning to walk out on Ahmadinijad's speech this afternoon/evening because of his stance on the holocaust, and even the German delegates said they would walk out if he starts talking about denying it.

But back to Khadafi, he IS a loon! He kept referring to Obama as "My son" and "Our son". His speech was nearly babbling for the most part - he talked about jet lag, and what time he wakes up in the morning. He said that the UN should be moved so world leaders don't have to spend so much time on their planes. He said that the European nations should pay $6.6 trillion to make up for their colonization of Africa. And of course there was the obligatory railing on the US because we're an evil country, and the UN because it isn't fair and he isn't going to abide by their Resolutions against his country anyway.

So really, why should Hillary sit and listen to a rambling speech about nothing and how evil her country is? It sure wouldn't hurt my feelings if she walked out on Libya, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. They aren't going to offer anything constructive, just plain ol' bashing that really makes no difference.

And there is the hero's welcome for the only man convicted of Flight 103's bombing that killed many of our citizens. I'm sure that had something to do with it as well.

Cindy and Tricia, I'd love to join in the fun but frankly I'm not informed enough on this subject to do so.

Gary, who lived in Israel for about a decade, is under the impression that Obama's referring specifically to settlements in the West Bank. There are apparently several hundred of them - they began settling them in 1967, they tend to be religious (as opposed to Zionist) settlements, supported by the ultra right-wing - and are hotly debated in Israel itself, because of the cost. Many are very small, with less than 30 people - yet require 1000s of troops to defend them. Obama not supporting these settlements is hardly "throwing Israel under the bus."

Mike - you're absolutely right. What was "Palestine" has been redefined so many times under so many different rulers/invaders - and it was never ethnically a people.

It may seem off-topic - but a little history is in order here, given the discussion about what Israel should or shouldn't do re: the borders.

...In fact, the "Palestinians" to whom we refer are hardly a united or even ethnically "coherent" people (complicating the problem), and Gaza has been a political nightmare (like many of the great British legacies ) that even Egypt didn't want.

The "Palestinians" have always been a stateless, citizenshipless people in the Middle East - they are a collection of migrant workers and come from Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

Let's face it - the local Arab peoples were occupied for centuries by the Turks and had no national movement until the arrival of the British. "Palestine" may have a place on the history maps - but "Palestinians" were people who worked in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Arafat was born in Egypt.

So Gaza as it exists today, as has already been pointed out, is a product of the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Egypt and Israel. (Egypt occupied the Strip from 1949, except for four months of Israeli occupation during the 1956 Suez Crisis, until 1967).

In 1948, the "All-Palestine Government" was proclaimed in Gaza City by the Arab League. The government was only recognized by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - and not by Jordan or other countries, let alone any non-Arab country. It was basically under Egyptian control, had no influence or funding, and was subsequently moved to Cairo. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip or Egypt were issued "All-Palestine" passports until 1959, when Nasser annulled the All-Palestine government by decree. Notably, Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip, but instead treated it as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor. The refugees were never offered Egyptian citizenship. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...Strip-by-Egypt

Non of the Arab countries wanted the "Palestinians." !!

So the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt from 1948–67, and then by Israel following the 1967 war. In the 1967 war, Israel assumed control of Gaza - though they never wanted or intended to be there long term.

Pursuant to the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim administrative body to govern populated Palestinian centers - with Israel maintaining military control of the Gaza Strip's airspace, some of its land borders and its territorial waters - until a final agreement could be reached. It never was - but Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, claiming it was no longer the "Occupying Power" there. In the meantime, all the settlements had been closed.

...so just who ARE the "Palestinian" refugees?

Under UNRWA's (United Nation's Relief And Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) operational definition, Palestine refugees are "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." UNRWA's definition "also covers the descendants through the male line of persons who became refugees in 1948." http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

However, the UN traditional definition of a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

The UN definition of Palestinian Refugees has allowed the population to balloon - according to Al Jazeera the population of the "Gaza Region" was 60,000 - 80,000 in 1948. Of course the war caused an influx - again, according to Al Jazeera - of approx 200,000 to the Gaza strip. According to the CIA Factbook, the current population of the strip is now 1.5 million.

As far as I'm concerned, the UN is partially responsible for exacerbating - or at least perpetuating - tensions in the Middle East. Why are numerous towns and cities throughout the Middle East still called "refugee camps?" OK - conditions in many are horrible and it is a serious shame. But they are towns and cities - not camps in any traditional sense of the word. IMO it's because it's to the political advantage of the Palestinian leadership - whoever that's been.

...And by allowing terrorists to turn "refugee camps" into the center of the Palestinian war machine, the international community has assisted in building the terrorists' system of control! And instead of working to relieve the refugees' misery, the UN has dedicated an ENTIRE agency - UNRWA - to perpetuating it.

For the rest of the world, the UN works tirelessly to improve their conditions - to relocate them, to help them rebuild their lives. With Palestinians, the U.N. does exactly the opposite, granting refugee status to the great-grandchildren of people displaced in 1948, doing nothing to dismantle the "camps" - because the Palestinian Authority doesn't want them to.

Israel has refused to be victimized. The Palestinians have chosen to be victims - and it has NEVER worked for them. And their people suffer because of it, and the Palestinians then terrorize Israel because of it.

Sadly, since its victory in the Palestinian Parliament, Hamas has failed to unify around a coherent program. This has led to partisan tensions within the Palestinian Authority that verge on civil war. And Palestinian civilians continue to suffer. As do Israelis.

Oh - almost forgot - in 1970, the "Palestinians" in Jordan (primarily picking oranges and working on the railroads at the tiem) attempted a coup (against the government under King Hussein) in what became known as "Black September." They were beaten and kicked out of the country. They fled out of Jordan into Lebanon - where six years later they started a civil war in an attempt to take over parts of Lebanon.

So where do they belong?

Gary says what really scares Israelis is not only that they want to kill the Jews - but that they kill each other with equal impunity, and that Hamas not only doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist but believes the Jewish people should be annhilated.

....but back to the original point - Obama throwing Israel under the bus? Israel would be happy to give up most of the West Bank if a legitimate, non-terrorist government could actually be established and enforce the rule of law - a law that doesn't consider the extermination of the Jews as a legitimate act of Parliament.

Here's the "further back" history - as long as border issues are being discussed...

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

The archeological record indicates that the Jewish people evolved out of native Cana'anite peoples and invading tribes. Some time between about 1800 and 1500 B.C., it is thought that a Semitic people called Hebrews (hapiru) left Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan. Canaan was settled by different tribes including Semitic peoples, Hittites, and later Philistines, peoples of the sea who are thought to have arrived from Mycenae, or to be part of the ancient Greek peoples that also settled Mycenae.

According to the Bible, Moses led the Israelites, or a portion of them, out of Egypt. Under Joshua, they conquered the tribes and city states of Canaan. Based on biblical traditions, it is estimated that king David conquered Jerusalem about 1000 B.C. and established an Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. The kingdom was divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north following the death of David's son, Solomon. Jerusalem remained the center of Jewish sovereignty and of Jewish worship whenever the Jews exercised sovereignty over the country in the subsequent period, up to the Jewish revolt in 133 AD.

The Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 or 721 B.C. The Babylonians conquered Judah around 586 B.C. They destroyed Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, and exiled a large number of Jews. About 50 years later, the Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylonia. Cyrus allowed a group of Jews from Babylonia to rebuild Jerusalem and settle in it. However, a large number of Jews remained in Babylonia, forming the first Jewish Diaspora. After the reestablishment of a Jewish state or protectorate, the Babylonian exiles maintained contact with authorities there. The Persians ruled the land from about 530 to 331 B.C. Alexander the Great then conquered the Persian Empire. After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his generals divided the empire. One of these generals, Seleucus, founded a dynasty that gained control of much of Palestine about 200 B.C. At first, the new rulers, called Seleucids, allowed the practice of Judaism. But later, one of the kings, Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. In 167 B.C., the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabeans and either drove the Seleucids out of Palestine or at least established a large degree of autonomy, forming a kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem. The kingdom received Roman "protection" when Judah Maccabee was made a "friend of the Roman senate and people" in 164 B.C. according to the records of Roman historians.

About 61 B.C., Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judea and sacked Jerusalem in support of King Herod. Judea had become a client state of Rome
The Romans called the large central area of the land, which included Jerusalem, Judea. According to Christian belief, Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, Judea, in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put down Jewish revolts in about A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. In A.D. 135, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, following the failed Bar Kochba revolt. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time. The name Palaestina, which became Palestine in English.

Jewish communities continued to exist, primarily in the Galilee, the northernmost part of Palestine. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the fourth century A.D. (300's) and then by the Byzantine Empire. In time, Christianity spread to most of Palestine. The population consisted of Jewish converts to Christianity and paganism, peoples imported by the Romans, and others who had probably inhabited Palestine continuously.


During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim Arab armies moved north from Arabia to conquer most of the Middle East, including Palestine. Jerusalem was conquered about 638 by the Caliph Umar (Omar) who gave his protection to its inhabitants. Muslim powers controlled the region until the early 1900's. The rulers allowed Christians and Jews to keep their religions. However, most of the local population gradually accepted Islam and the Arab-Islamic culture of their rulers. Jerusalem (Al-Quds) became holy to Muslims as the site where, according to tradition, Muhammad ascended to heaven after a miraculous overnight ride from Mecca on his horse Al-Buraq. The al-Aqsa mosque was built on the site generally regarded as the area of the Jewish temples.

The Seljuk Turks conquered Jerusalem in 1071, but their rule in Palestine lasted less than 30 years. Initially they were replaced by the Fatimid rulers of Egypt. The Fatimids took advantage of the Seljuk struggles with the Christian crusaders. They made an alliance with the crusaders in 1098 and captured Jerusalem, Jaffa and other parts of Palestine.

The Crusaders, however, broke the alliance and invaded Palestine about a year later. They captured Jaffa and Jerusalem in 1099, slaughtered many Jewish and Muslim defenders and forbade Jews to live in Jerusalem. They held the city until 1187.

In the mid-1200's, Mamelukes, originally soldier-slaves of the Arabs based in Egypt, established an empire that in time included the area of Palestine. Arab-speaking Muslims made up most of the population of the area once called Palestine. Beginning in the late 1300's, Jews from Spain and other Mediterranean lands settled in Jerusalem and other parts of the land. The Ottoman Empire defeated the Mamelukes in 1517, and Palestine became part of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Sultan invited Jews fleeing the Spanish Catholic inquisition to settle in the Turkish empire, including several cities in Palestine.

In 1798, Napoleon entered the land. The war with Napoleon and subsequent misadministration by Egyptian and Ottoman rulers, reduced the population of Palestine. Arabs and Jews fled to safer and more prosperous lands. Revolts by Palestinian Arabs against Egyptian and Ottoman rule at this time may have helped to catalyze Palestinian national feeling. Subsequent reorganization and opening of the Turkish Empire to foreigners restored some order. They also allowed the beginnings of Jewish settlement under various Zionist and proto-Zionist movements. Both Arab and Jewish population increased. By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000. At about that time, the Ottoman government imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase, and also began actively soliciting inviting Muslims from other parts of the Ottoman empire to settle in Palestine, including Circassians and Bosnians.

Cindy, I hate to think this way, but I really do believe it's possible. The whole "Palestinian" situation is so sad - but they're too busy trying to kill Jews to run a country.

That should have been quite obvious from my post, since I clearly stated "pre-1967 borders", and therefore the "occupied territories" are the land seized by Israel in the Six-Day War, i.e., the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt in 1982, so no longer counts. Resolution 242, which I also mentioned, was passed in 1967, and refers to "territories occupied in the recent conflict".

By the same token, couldn't one argue that the accusation of being anti-Arab or anti-Muslim could be made of those who claim that radical settlers have a "God-given right" to a "Greater Israel", or those who choose to tar all Palestinians with the "Hamas brush"?

Aren't you arguing that Israel has an ancient claim to the "Promised Land" that negates any more recent claim to even part of it? If so, Texas is a poor analogy, because Mexico has an older claim to the territory than the U.S. does, and the indigenous population's claim predates Mexico's. It seems you want it both ways.

OK, just to play devil's advocate here, suppose that Israel had lost the 1967 war and ended up being nearly driven into the sea (which was the goal of the Arab countries), but somehow managed to hold on to a sliver of land. Would we today be advocating the return of the Arabs to their pre-1967 boundaries? I suspect not.

Or, to put it into a more familiar context, which border should the United States have to return to? The 1776 borders? The 1812 borders? The 1860 borders? The 1898 borders? The 1912 borders? The 1956 borders?

This ongoing struggle between Israel and the countries surrounding it is largely about religion, not borders. As Yassir Arafat said (but not in Arabic, and not within earshot of any Palestinians), a religious war is like two children fighting over who has the best imaginary friend, and there is no way to settle such a fight.

Who is "we"? The UN Security Council, in its entirety or just the permanent members? The U.S.? Israel's allies? Would the U.S./other Western nations maintain a security guarantee?

I think one shouldn't view the struggle as just a religious one, as that is assuming that all Arabs (or all Israelis, for that matter) are of one religion and have a common goal. That's far too simplistic. Borders do play a role, as do power and money. Witness the strife between Hamas and Fatah.

How? The statement you made reduces the border problem to one that is far too simplistic, IMO. How to implement the Resolution was the problem at the time! Talks were held on and off - until Syria and Egypt attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur war (for those who don't know, that was in 1973 when Egypt and Syria launched a joint surprise attack against Israel via the Sinai (to which the Gaza Strip is attached in Southern Israel) and the Golan Heights (Northern Israel: a small area of land that stands between the borders of Israel and Syria)). It wasn't until after the Yom Kippur war that Egypt even recognized Israel as a country - and it was the first Arab nation to do it.

If you go by the Bible as the truth, then Jeruselum belongs to the Jews/Israel. And its also in the Bible that those that protect God's chosen people (the Jews) will be protected. Those that go against them will fall and feel the wrath of God.

If the USA doesn't protect Israel we will be destroyed!

So it's a stance taken out of fear then?

What about separation of Church and State?

Separation of church/state has nothing to do with it. The Bible (OT) is history! Its pretty clear.

Actually, not one of the divine elements of the old testament have been proven to be history.

The OT IS the history of many things and just about ALL of it has been proven. I have no idea where you got the idea that none of the OT has been proven! All the places mentioned existed and that has been proven over and over.

In your opinion... In my opinion it's a fictional story.