Mid East policy speech

[whell]

I won't pretend to understand all of the nuances to the on-going hostilities in the Middle East. It's against that backdrop that I'll say that Obama's speech on Thursday leaves me a bit mystified. Why would Isreal agree to the stating point for negotiations with it's neighbors must be a reshaping of it's current borders when that's not what the hostilities are really about? Why should Isreal concede anything until the central issue - a recognition of Isreal's right to exist- is addressed?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I won't pretend to understand all of the nuances to the on-going hostilities in the Middle East. It's against that backdrop that I'll say that Obama's speech on Thursday leaves me a bit mystified. Why would Isreal agree to the stating point for negotiations with it's neighbors must be a reshaping of it's current borders when that's not what the hostilities are really about? Why should Isreal concede anything until the central issue - a recognition of Isreal's right to exist- is addressed?

Not that I'm particularly sympathetic with either party, but the Palestinian's not recognizing Israel's right to exist is also their going-in position. They don't want to concede on this any more than the Israelis want to concede on anything else prior to negotiations. Either side demanding preconditions is not a good thing.

FWIW, 1967 borders (with land swaps) has been our position for decades and was the basis for the agreement under Clinton that almost got done.

This dust-up yesterday was less than meets the eye. It was about Netanyahu standing tall for his Likkud base constituency and Obama trying to throw a bone to Abbas in an effort to undermine the upcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood in September.

[whell]

But doesn't the "dust up" also serve to demonstrate that an agreement on territory would at at best be a political trophy and not lead to a "lasting peace", which is the stated objective of the "peace process"?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

But doesn't the "dust up" also serve to demonstrate that an agreement on territory would at at best be a political trophy and not lead to a "lasting peace", which is the stated objective of the "peace process"?

An agreement will, by its very nature, have to address territorial issues. However, we sometimes seem to believe that there is some sort of magical, yet elusive, territorial line that'll make everyone happy. There isn't.

If I claimed to have the right answer to this intractable mess, I would be the only person on Earth who did. Plopping an Eastern European nation smack dab in the heart of the Mideast created the problem. What will solve it is beyond me.

[BlueStreak]

I wouldn't care if the borders were redrawn to 1947.

Dave

[merrylander]

The arabs had good offers made twice and both times they said no.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The arabs had good offers made twice and both times they said no.

good by who's standards?

the only standards that matter are Israel's and the Palestinian's

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I wouldn't care if the borders were redrawn to 1947.

Dave

Better yet, 1946.

[merrylander]

Let me put it this way, muslims have acosted and harassed my wife on four occasions, no one Jewish ever has, so if they all disappeared tomorrow I would not lose any sleep.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Let me put it this way, muslims have acosted and harassed my wife on four occasions, no one Jewish ever has, so if they all disappeared tomorrow I would not lose any sleep.

accosted your wife?

how so?

Muslims?

Could you please explain I am at a loss to understand what this means or how this makes you say so if they all disappeared tomorrow I would not lose any sleep??