Bachmann Responds to Obama's New Israel Policy

Page 1 of 4 [ 64 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 May 2011, 10:33 am

Quote:

Washington, May 19 - Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) released the following response after President Obama’s speech today on his Middle East policy, which included a dramatic shift away from support of Israel:

“Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first. In a shocking display of betrayal towards our ally, President Obama is now calling on Israel to give up yet more land and return to its 1967 borders. If there is anything that has been proven, the policy of land-for-peace has meant that Israel has continually had to give away increasing amounts of its land and decrease its size. In exchange, it still has not known security. President Obama wants to further this policy by putting Israel in a very vulnerable position with borders that would be extremely difficult to defend.

“I am calling on President Obama to reverse course and clearly renounce the position which he spelled out today. This is an insult to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the day before the Prime Minister is scheduled to come to the United States. President Obama’s remarks are clearly in opposition to the position that Israel has taken in regards to its own borders. These remarks do not reflect the will of the constituents in my district, nor do I believe that they represent the will of the majority of the American people.

“America has stood with Israel since President Harry Truman recognized Israel a mere 11 minutes after Israel became a state in 1948. But during his tenure as President of the United States, President Obama has initiated a policy which shows contempt for Israel’s concern and safety. In an era dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’ we have seen increased volatility in the Middle East region, and President Obama has only added to the heightened hostility by calling on Israel to return to the 1967 borders. I disagree with President Obama and I stand with our friend Israel 100 percent. I am saddened and disappointed deeply by President Obama’s statement.”

Link: http://bachmann.house.gov/News/Document ... tID=242205

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

20 May 2011, 10:45 am

Is Israel entitled to a continuous expansion of its territory?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 May 2011, 10:56 am

dionysian wrote:

Is Israel entitled to a continuous expansion of its territory?

How often has Israel expanded? When Israel makes concessions, the PLO or Hamas uses that land to park missiles on to fire into Israel, requiring them to retake so as to repel attacks. Israel is not expanding continuously, and only when necessary. Given how often Israel is attacked, they've expanded quite minimally compared to what they are capable of and not very often either.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 May 2011, 11:28 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0[/youtube]

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 May 2011, 12:12 pm

Tthe Obama move (despite what that idiot, Bachmann, is crying about) is remarkably modest and rather centrist by international Western countries. The USA is quite behind the times.

And I'd really like it if the Israel lobby quit the whole "poor, innocent Israel has to isolate Palestinians from food, knock down their homes, and drive them from their agricultural land to be safe" crap. If any foreign country's conventional army (as opposed to lunatic insurgents in a foreign country) decided to attack Israel, they know the US would crush them. The "existential threat" is overhyped and the threat from Palestinians would be mitigated if Israel stopped shooting at their civillians, isolating them through military check points, destroying their homes, and denying them civic and citizenship rights. If you want to imagine what living like a Palestinian is like, imagine being fired from Walmart without just cause times a trillion and that's how bad it is.

As for the actual move, it's stupid (even with the "land swaps" incorporated in it), a bi-national one-state solution makes a lot more sense given the logic of the situation on the ground.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 May 2011, 12:15 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

Is stupid. It would leave Israel defenseless against her enemies on all fronts. It would be worse than the situation in the 1960's even since the US government is no longer acting as an ally and the nations around Israel are being taken over by maniacs who specifically want to destroy Israel.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 May 2011, 1:31 pm

dionysian wrote:

Is Israel entitled to a continuous expansion of its territory?

No. But taking the land of those who attacked Israel is a perfectly standard way of treating those who lose wars.

ruveyn

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

20 May 2011, 1:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:

dionysian wrote:

Is Israel entitled to a continuous expansion of its territory?

No. But taking the land of those who attacked Israel is a perfectly standard way of treating those who lose wars.

ruveyn

That seems to be how it works. Can't argue with that... But, it's a twisted sense of justice, if you ask me.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 May 2011, 1:46 pm

dionysian wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

dionysian wrote:

Is Israel entitled to a continuous expansion of its territory?

No. But taking the land of those who attacked Israel is a perfectly standard way of treating those who lose wars.

ruveyn

That seems to be how it works. Can't argue with that... But, it's a twisted sense of justice, if you ask me.

In short you expect Israel to act differently than every other nation state on Earth. Why?

ruveyn

NewShinyCD
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Oct 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 78
Location: North Georgia

20 May 2011, 1:49 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself. America has its own issues and should not be Israel's big brother right now. There is plenty of evidents that Israel is just a bully and has killed tons of Palestinians because some random idiot shot a bottle rocket into Israel. I show no sympathy towards Israel.
It's my understanding that both sides want to kill each other because of the stupid ideology that is religion.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 May 2011, 1:51 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

You really are a unreflective hyper-partisan - had you done any homework, you'd realize that (in addition to most of the world) various past US Presidents of both party stripes have supported a return to the 1967 borders. I'll just ignore your whining about the maniacs (the same rhetoric that's being used against Hamas was used by Israel against Fatah - yet Israel's actually started funded Fatah in the modern era) as you lack the ability to see the political root of violence, probably caused by your inability to accurately interpret the news. If you had anything comparable to a critical faculity when it came to politics, you'd see that the seemingly mindless violent mania could be quelled in quite a few people quite easily by accepting the displaced Palestinians into Israel and declaring a bi-national state and ending the blockade.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPiExAXNpQ8[/youtube]

I competely disagree about how unviable a one-state solution with ethnic mixing is. Ethnic nationalism isn't sustainable in the region and a one-state solution is impossible with all the Israeli settlements, thus every occupied Palestinian should be given citizenship rights.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 20 May 2011, 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 May 2011, 1:51 pm

NewShinyCD wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

Not a random idiot. The Hamas rocketeers are the people who run Gaza. It is -policy- to attack and eventually destroy Israel.

ruveyn

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

20 May 2011, 1:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

Odd - the Israelis seemed perfectly capable of defending themselves in '67, when the US was too busy in southeast Asia to lend them a hand. Are you suggesting that the Israeli military has become less competent, less well-equipped, after decades of US military support? Or, conversely, that those nations surrounding them have somehow miraculously concealed a modern military machine since the collapse of the Soviet Union (whose backing was the only reason the '67 war lasted as long as it did)?

And FYI, parakeet, the nations surrounding Israel were run by "maniacs who specifically want to destroy Israel" in '67, as well. Many of them were the same leaders who were looking forward to Britain withdrawing from the area in the Forties so they could go "take back" the land they claimed had been "taken" from them during colonial occupation. (The historical claims made by many were, shall we say, somewhat questionable - nobody's really had clear title to that part of the world since the Romans, except for that portion that was held by the Ottomans.) Somehow, Israel failed to be eliminated within its original borders, even though they had no treaties at the time promising support from anyone else; they stood again during the Six-Day War, despite Soviet intel being fed to Syria, and the existence of an Iraqi army (permitted to travel through Jordan, although the Jordanian government provided no materiel support), and despite the fact that Israel fought alone. Why would they be subdued today by forces with no backing, with no useful armies, and (in the cases of Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, at least) with no true central government? It would be like worrying about a military takeover of the United States by Mexico!

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 May 2011, 1:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:

NewShinyCD wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Tthe Obama move ...

Not a random idiot. The Hamas rocketeers are the people who run Gaza. It is -policy- to attack and eventually destroy Israel.

ruveyn

And the people who set up military checkpoints, divide Palestinian families, illegally demolish Palestinian homes, get trigger happy (and have even killed Palestinian looking journalists), and blockade the Gaza strip are part of the bureaucracy that runs Israel. And if anyone's an idiot, it's you - a wilful one, but still an idiot in your ignorance of the attrocities committed by the IDF that are the real threat to Israeli security. Just stop, ruveyn, ethno-nationalist cheerleading is so antiquated.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 May 2011, 2:06 pm

Oh, and this title is grossly, disgustingly inaccurate. The only thing "new" about Obama's recent announcements are that he's ended his calls for an Israeli settlement freeze and is willing to allow "land swaps" so that the new borders don't neccessarily have to be the exact 1967 borders.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 May 2011, 2:11 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

...attrocities committed by the IDF...

Often a case of intentional slander:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJF2jhWSiE[/youtube]

Page 1 of 4 [ 64 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Bachmann Responds to Obama's New Israel Policy Post Reply New Topic

Bachmann Responds to Obama's New Israel Policy