Obama's Peace Plan

[Sanket]

You actually believe that dont you? In theology it's called ex nilo... a miracle.

Didn't understand what you said there. But America Supplied most of the technology to China to help them fight against USSR. After Tiananmen Square incident America stopped giving technology and restricted other countries from helping china.

America was very well aware of Pakistani's Nuclear Program which was helped by China but they said Indians reports could not be trusted....

Russia is not as evil as America it only goes after Money. Russia helped both China & India to fight each other.... But when China reversed engineered their engines i think it stopped helping China.

Right, that was over the Phalcon Awacs, where is the missle tech?

China has U.S. anti-missile tech, via transfer from Israel

I think it was Anti-Missile Technology. Seems like i am getting old...

This is just bloaviation. A mole hill made into a mountain. Trust me if we sold them that much tech there would be no US Israel relationship.

This were the news from the past & i think Isreal now is only interested in helping Indian and America is fine with it. But in future once the China problem is solved things will change again. But this time Israel has to make the tough call.

Why are you blanket defending the Russians and the Iranians BTW?

I am defending it because what you guys are saying is that only America has the rights to do all the evil things in the world.

Supplying Pakistan with latest Tech. like fighter jets, helicopters, etc. to fight Taliban in their own country..... Are we that dumb ?

[bararallu]

Didn't understand what you said there. But America Supplied most of the technology to China to help them fight against USSR.

I'm confused you referenced Iran, not China. That was about Russia, NK, China providing tech for them. Now..

China has U.S. anti-missile tech, via transfer from Israel I think it was Anti-Missile Technology. Seems like i am getting old...

That's pure conjecture- in the realm of the conspiracy theory or the usual fall guy. There is no proof and no one tried to prove that was the case. The US could have leaked the exact info if they had it to make sure there was no doubt. Nothing of the sort happened. The Americans are rightly chagrined, but there is espionage by China in the US that dwarfs all espionage efforts put together by all countries in the US. At the highest and the lowest levels. Clinton suffered from serious leaks, as had Bush. Israel denied this, and I for one believe it. It's one thing selling them your own stuff, quite another selling them someone elses. There was a relationship offer the Phalcon, which India also received, but that did not go to market b/c the US complained, and the complaint was respected even though it was fundamentally all Israeli work.

This were the news from the past & i think Isreal [Israel] now is only interested in helping Indian and America is fine with it. But in future once the China problem is solved things will change again. But this time Israel has to make the tough call.

I personally think that that was a right decision even though I in principle would like to have no veto power over Israeli business practices by other sovereign countries. Does the UK consult the US on their sales? Does Germany... nuff said.

I am defending it because what you guys are saying is that only America has the rights to do all the evil things in the world.

Who said that? And selling arms is not fundamentally evil. A weapon is not evil, selling it to questionable or evil regimes (like Pakistan and Iran and SA) is potentially evil or at least questionable. Supporting said regimes in the UN is ditto... something that many in the non aligned block happen to do as a matter of course.

Supplying Pakistan with latest Tech. like fighter jets, helicopters, etc. to fight Taliban in their own country..... Are we that dumb ?

Absolutely not, you should not make that assumption. I personally treat that relationship the same way I treat the US-Egyptian one, or the US-Saudi one. Minimally, if the craven regime falls the more insane people get those weapons. But the regimes are craven and aggressive and allow terrorism to work out of their countries. I don't think, at least on this forum, you will find too many Americans (rather than Israelis), Jews or non Jews, that support sales to those countries- at least in any sort of blanket way.

There is also constructive criticism, and destructive. All allied states in this wide war should give deference and an opportunity for their allies to improve their approach. India has had issues with the US over Pakistan (and China) and I agree with pretty much all of those criticisms. Most Americans on here I would suspect as well. Some have no idea what went on. But there is no reason to exaggerate things or look at conspiracies, there are enough things in the public, published world to understand the issues- hopefully enough good will. That said, I'm not anti-Iranian or anti-Chinese, or anti-Russian. I think their regimes span problematic to insanely evil. NK and Iran are beyond the pale at this point. Both countries can be very friendly if there is a regime overturn. Which we all hope for...

[Mediocrates]

Obama's plan if there is one sounds like containment. As Bernard Lewis said "Islam has bloody borders" which is a statement of reality more than it is a statement of moral drive. I think that if he, like ALL of his predecessors, can walk away with something like a Palestinian state, at least on paper, then he will be able to proceed without the baggage of....."The biggest problem in the world etc etc etc is the Palestinian conflict, it lies at the root of... etc etc etc"

It should be clear to anyone that the Palestinians are never going to have a state that is MORE functional MORE democratic MORE western-like than ALL of the OTHER Arab states. That's just silly talk. At best it will be a broken thugocracy, ruled by gangs, mullahs, monsters and tyrants. Just like all the others.

And to be honest, no one cares, except that their daily round of mayhem and failure will harm my beloved Jews. Other than that, they, like the Libyans, Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese, Sudanese, Iraqis, Iranians and a host of others will spasm in the muck like dying beasts and I wish them well with all of that.

[Sanket]

I'm confused you referenced Iran, not China. That was about Russia, NK, China providing tech for them. Now..

Again I did not get you point..

And are you saying Iran does not have a right to save herself from Pakistan who is supported By KSA Sunnis ?

And what you are saying is if America provides tech. it is legal but if another country helps its illegal ?

That's pure conjecture- in the realm of the conspiracy theory or the usual fall guy. There is no proof and no one tried to prove that was the case. The US could have leaked the exact info if they had it to make sure there was no doubt. Nothing of the sort happened. The Americans are rightly chagrined, but there is espionage by China in the US that dwarfs all espionage efforts put together by all countries in the US. At the highest and the lowest levels. Clinton suffered from serious leaks, as had Bush. Israel denied this, and I for one believe it. It's one thing selling them yr own stufouf, quite another selling them someone elses. There was a relationship offer the Phalcon, which India also received, but that did not go to market b/c the US complained, and the complaint was respected even though it was fundamentally all Israeli work.

I don't have any problem if you disagree with with that news.

Israel's Unauthorized Arms Transfers
www.foreignpolicy.com

Does the UK consult the US on their sales? Does Germany... nuff said.

Why should they ? If they don't have any america tech. or know-hows in their weapons then why should they ask from America's permission.

Who said that? And selling arms is not fundamentally evil. A weapon is not evil, selling it to questionable or evil regimes (like Pakistan and Iran and SA) is potentially evil or at least questionable. Supporting said regimes in the UN is ditto... something that many in the non aligned block happen to do as a matter of course.

Now check how many evil regimes America supports or has supported....

Absolutely not, you should not make that assumption. I personally treat that relationship the same way I treat the US-Egyptian one, or the US-Saudi one. Minimally, if the craven regime falls the more insane people get those weapons. But the regimes are craven and aggressive and allow terrorism to work out of their countries. I don't think, at least on this forum, you will find too many Americans (rather than Israelis), Jews or non Jews, that support sales to those countries- at least in any sort of blanket way.

America is helping the Pakistani Army with weapons which will be used against India.

Latest Example

Pak gets howitzers from US
Tuesday , Aug 25, 2009 at 1122 hrs

Experts say these M-109 A5 155 mm howitzers give Pakistan a definite conventional edge over the Indian Army that is years away from induction of similar systems. The most modern guns in the Indian Army are the Bofors that were procured in the 1980s.

Provided for fighting Taliban.....
--

[NewsGuy]

Your argument seems to be:

1) Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza
2) Gaza turned into a militarised Iranian base

Therefore: ethnically cleansing Jews results in militarised Iranian bases

That isn't a sound argument. The cause of Gaza's militarisation is not the ethnic cleansing of Jews per se, but as you point out towards the end of your post, the lack of any mechanism to enforce demilitarisation. That, in itself, was a consequence of Sharon's decision to withdraw unilaterally rather than in the framework of some agreement which would have bound the Palestinians to behave in some way.

I think unilateralism is the mistake we should avoid making again, if possible..

This was the argument right after the Gaza expulsion, when the Palestinians burned down the synagogues and turned the Jewish towns into rocket launching bases. At the time it was said that had there been mutual agreement, things would have been different. The idea was that ethnic cleansing of Jews with Palestinian agreement would lead to peace. I personally don't believe that to be true.

Of course, it would be better to enter into an agreement than not. In the case of Gaza, which is the only concrete example of what happens when a large Jewish population is ethnically cleansed, Israel tried very hard to negotiate a deal with the Arabs. Unfortunately, the Arabs refused to even sit down to negotiations. That's why Israel acted unilaterally.

As it was, Israel completely gave the Arabs all the land in dispute unconditionally, believing that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a simple land dispute, and if Israel gave them the land, the dispute would be over. That was obviously not the case.

Instead, the Muslims acted as they always have. They burned down Jewish institutions, never built a civilian infrastructure of their own, and instead used the land to mass-murder as many Jews as possible with rockets being fired into Jewish kindergartens, synagogues and homes. not only was there no peace, but instead, the Palestinians prepared for war, and finally got what they wished for.

Based on what happened in Gaza, I don't believe that the Muslim desire to mass-murder Jews was created by unilateralism. It's something that has been there since the inception of Islam, and no peace framework will change it.

However, I do agree with you that a an agreement of sorts that is backed by overwhelming Israeli force and the expulsion of Arabs from Israel would be the best we can hope for under the circumstances. Hafrada gmura (complete separation) is ultimately the answer.

It's not interesting at all, the legitimacy of those Arab citizens of Israel is not in question. The settlements are constructed upon what has been deemed to be occupied territories, and thus they are widely regarded as illegitimate. There's also the problem of construction on private land...

Actually, the legitimacy of the Arabs who are brutally occupying parts of Israel like Haifa, Yaffo, etc., is very much in doubt. They identify themselves as Palestinians, many are heavily involved in supporting terrorism, and none of them support a Jewish state or the principles of Zionism. They only identify themselves as Israelis when they come to collect their welfare checks and get free education and medical services. That's a problem that needs to be put on the table as soon as there is any discussion of expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria.

The underlying principle of the Lieberman Plan is sound, however much the man himself annoys me.

That's the way it is.

I will also look up your thread about how to reduce the number of Arabs in Israel, which is the key to the success of any peace plan.

[bararallu]

Again I did not get you point.. And are you saying Iran does not have a right to save herself from Pakistan who is supported By KSA Sunnis ? And what you are saying is if America provides tech. it is legal but if another country helps its illegal ?

Well, you stated that Iran created all their technology to which I replied. That was the original point. Then we went on about who gets what and why. Now you are getting onto Iran's rights toward self defense and then self defense against Pakistan et al. In my opinion, no. Rogue states like Pakistan and Iran have no right to self defense. They have it as a fact, but I dont agree about "rights". Sure the Sunnis kill Shia. But the Shia have also killed Sunnis. Clinton stopped a war between the Taliban (basically a proxy of SA and Pakistan) and Iran. I would have not.

Iran is inherently a worse state than even Pakistan... and that's saying something. Since not only does it terrorize its neighbors, and others it has nothing to do with (Israel, US, Lebanon) but it also terrorises it's own people to a degree you do not see in govt controlled Pakistan. You can leave Pakistan, but Iran is a roach motel, once you are there you are done for.

I don't have any problem if you disagree with with that news.

I'm disagreeing with propaganda leveled against Israel, not the news. In this case American admins that have been thoroughly infiltrated by the PRC.

Why should they ? If they don't have any america tech. or know-hows in their weapons then why should they ask from America's permission.

Right. I agree. The only reason they shouldn't is that we together comprise a block of more rational countries that prefer democracy, capitalism, human rights and intellectual commerce between us. Whats bad for the US is probably not so good for Israel and India. And vice versa. There are divergent goals though. In Iraq it is one of those for many modernist states.

Now check how many evil regimes America supports or has supported....

Oh I know. This is also a factor of being a superpower and counteracting a global offensive waged by the USSR. Supporting banana republic cronies was a necessary evil IMO.

America is helping the Pakistani Army with weapons which will be used against India.

I know. They [US] just don't know how badly it will bite them in the but. From their perspective they are buying off a lesser evil. Same with Egypt and the Sauds.

[curlyg]

Obama's plan if there is one sounds like containment. As Bernard Lewis said "Islam has bloody borders" which is a statement of reality more than it is a statement of moral drive. I think that if he, like ALL of his predecessors, can walk away with something like a Palestinian state, at least on paper, then he will be able to proceed without the baggage of....."The biggest problem in the world etc etc etc is the Palestinian conflict, it lies at the root of... etc etc etc"

I think that's exactly it and we stand to benefit from that more than we stand to lose. It is ridiculous to think of the Arabs, as some people here do, as our eternal enemies despite the fact that every single major threat to our state is today not funded not by Arabs, but by Iran. This situation is unprecedented in the history of the State of Israel - neither the Arab states nor the Palestinians are the real problem. It's time to adjust accordingly, and a Palestinian state is, at least theoretically, one way to do that.

It should be clear to anyone that the Palestinians are never going to have a state that is MORE functional MORE democratic MORE western-like than ALL of the OTHER Arab states. That's just silly talk. At best it will be a broken thugocracy, ruled by gangs, mullahs, monsters and tyrants. Just like all the others.

I dont think we should care. I've no doubt that once they're sovereign and free there will be a period of romantic growth and national development, followed by severe disillusionment, and then they'll get straight back to fighting themselves. Anyway, so long as they stay on their side of the border I couldn't care less.

And to be honest, no one cares, except that their daily round of mayhem and failure will harm my beloved Jews. Other than that, they, like the Libyans, Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Saudis, Syrians, Lebanese, Sudanese, Iraqis, Iranians and a host of others will spasm in the muck like dying beasts and I wish them well with all of that.

And that is why not a single Jew should be left in a future Palestinian state. Call me a racist, but I've no desire to see Jews killed because of the internal fighting which will inevitably occur in that state.

[Sanket]

Well, you stated that Iran created all their technology to which I replied.

I think, i told that for North Korea. India also helped in Iran... Needed to break China String of Pearl Strategy.

That was the original point. Then we went on about who gets what and why. Now you are getting onto Iran's rights toward self defense and then self defense against Pakistan et al. In my opinion, no. Rogue states like Pakistan and Iran have no right to self defense.

That's what i don't understand of America. It alright from countries like America & Russia to have 11000 warhead. But if North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India has a couple hundred of them then America has a problem.

They have it as a fact, but I dont agree about "rights".

And why exactly Israel needs a Nuclear Bomb ? Its

Sure the Sunnis kill Shia. But the Shia have also killed Sunnis. Clinton stopped a war between the Taliban (basically a proxy of SA and Pakistan) and Iran. I would have not.

Maybe Clinton knew about 9/11... Anyways Iran has increased it boundaries.

Iran is inherently a worse state than even Pakistan... and that's saying something. Since not only does it terrorize its neighbors, and others it has nothing to do with (Israel, US, Lebanon) but it also terrorises it's own people to a degree you do not see in govt controlled Pakistan. You can leave Pakistan, but Iran is a roach motel, once you are there you are done for.

Why is Iran worst ?
Pakistan killed more than a Million of it own citizen. I don't think Iran has that kind of a record.

I'm disagreeing with propaganda leveled against Israel, not the news. In this case American admins that have been thoroughly infiltrated by the PRC.

That's what i like about Jews & Israel. You will make the author/writer look like a liar, a pariah, an anti semite. Then you will just destroy that persons reputation and integrity to the level that hardly any have the courage to speak against Israel/Jews. You will tear up that persons analysis piece by a piece right in front of him and make him swallow his lies in front of the world. They would make such an example out of that individual, that others dare not lie against their cause.

Oh I know. This is also a factor of being a superpower and counteracting a global offensive waged by the USSR. Supporting banana republic cronies was a necessary evil IMO.

America still supports.

[bararallu]

I think, i told that for North Korea. India also helped in Iran... Needed to break China String of Pearl Strategy.

Yeah, I see now where the confusion was. Re-read posts 23-25 and you will see too. We weren't carefully debating so that is what happens. sloppiness invites errors, we need to go back to school you and I.

That's what i don't understand of America. It alright from countries like America & Russia to have 11000 warhead. But if North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India has a couple hundred of them then America has a problem.

First of all, there is a difference between India and the rest of that list. A huge, vast, difference. You dont want to be counted in that group. Ever.

What the Americans (And it's not just the Americans, but all the rest of the existing Nuke powers- UK, France, Russia, China...) are at least on paper against proliferation. Some more than others. Its the old club, and they dont want the tech to get out of hand.

Now their rational is that some states are unstable and should not put the rest of the world in mortal danger by creating tech that would fall in to the hands of what the polisci people would call 'irrational actors'. That is the stated and unstated logic of the US and other nuke states condemning proliferation. If Japan were to pop one open, I dont think you will here anything in the UN except from China of course.

And why exactly Israel needs a Nuclear Bomb ? Its

To make the middle east a glass parking lot, of course. We like glass, we hate sand.

Maybe Clinton knew about 9/11... Anyways Iran has increased it boundaries.

Thanks to Carter.

Why is Iran worst ?
Pakistan killed more than a Million of it own citizen. I don't think Iran has that kind of a record.

Pakistan is in a civil war and so is Iran. I'll give you that. But If I'm a Pakistani, I can leave the country. In Iran... I have quite a few friends (Jews) that have made the trek. I wouldn't wish that on most of our enemies. Most fled BTW via Pakistan (Bulochi smugglers on either side).

That's what i like about Jews & Israel. You will make the author/writer look like a liar, a pariah, an anti semite. Then you will just destroy that persons reputation and integrity to the level that hardly any have the courage to speak against Israel/Jews. You will tear up that persons analysis piece by a piece right in front of him and make him swallow his lies in front of the world. They would make such an example out of that individual, that others dare not lie against their cause.

What can I say, we are a determined people . It's good to keep a sense of humor or at least good taste about these things though. It's one thing to attack the message, it's a special occasion to attack the messenger. Mohamed came to us... and we send him home with a shit cake back in the day. Ditto the Pope.

[dayag]

These are Carter's buddies that he wants included in the peace talks:

From the Jerusalem Post:

...Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Wednesday rejected the political platform of PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.

The platform, which was published on Tuesday, pledges that the Fayad government would work toward establishing a de facto Palestinian state within two years even if no agreement was reached with Israel. The platform talks about peaceful resistance against Israeli "occupation." The two Islamic groups said in response that the only way to establish a state was through "armed struggle." They said that Fayad's plan was unrealistic and unclear, adding that it would be impossible to establish a state "under occupation."

source: source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[dayag]

Arafat sank Clinton's peace efforts, and Abbas seems set to do the same favor for Obama.

Less than two weeks before the UN General Assembly is to meet, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas remains adamant in his refusal to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, potentially jeopardizing the Obama administration's plans to hold a tripartite meeting in New York on September 23 or 24.

Abbas insists there will be no meeting with Netanyahu, nor a resumption of negotiations, unless Israel completely freezes settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem...

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113833.html

[NewsGuy]

I would imagine that this will not get in the way of the various Leftists and other anti-Semites who insist that it is Israel's fault.

Since Abbas won't agree to even meet with Israel to discuss peace, it must mean that even more of the Jewish homeland must be handed over to the Muslims, no?

FWIW, Abbas is probably just posturing and will ultimately agree to a meaningless handshake at the UN. Otherwise, Obama will look even worse than he does already, and I don't think that Abbas wants to be seen as humiliating Obama. But who knows... Maybe it's time to just set aside the whole process, boost Israeli settlements, and maintain the status quo.

[Madeline]

Overall I am observing that, for a guy who promised to stay out of other Nation's affairs, he seems to have a hankering for meddling in Israel's affairs.
Seems to me that he is a bit "biased"? Or shall I call hi a hypocrite outright?

[MGB8]

It seems reasonably likely that we are moving headlong into a a "post-Pax-Americana" world, where the United States will be reduced to lesser power, a la the United Kingdom. This is being assisted by foolish, fantasy based politics in the United States.

No new super power appears to be looming. Europe is not a cohesive whole, has no real desire to be, has limited military capability and much of the same bureaucratic nightmares that are bringing down the United States.

Russia, while returning to a quasi-fascist regime, is closer to a pre-WWI Ottoman empire than a rising power. However, it has placed itself close to an anti-American axis of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran.

China, while rising and with more political will to become a military rival to the United States, has large structural problems in population demographics and in governance. India has lesser structural issues, but India also has a far less developed military and industrial base as compared to China.

Japan, like China, has demographic and structural issues to address.

No one dominant power presents itself. That said, it appears that there will be quite a bit of ruthless pursuit of self interest, as nations trample their own people or those of other nations that contain natural resources to preserve and promote national prosperity and security: to a degree unseen for decades - a sort-of return to cold war or more accurately pre-WWII realpolitik.

So, what does Israel have to do to navigate and survive in this coming mutli-polar world, where only the strong or resourced survive and the alliance with the United States both is less reliable and less meaningful.

(That said, in a more hostile world, I tend to think that the alliance with the United States could well become both more reliable and more meaningful: a world more hostile to US interests could well, after a period of attempted accommodation/appeasement, drive the United States strongly into its natural allies' arms).

The only major suggestion that I can come up with is that Israel must clearly align itself with Christian interests. It appears more and more likely that the so called "clash of civilizations" will manifest itself more and more in the coming decades - with a temporary rise in power of Islamic nations, pushing anti-Christian agendas as well as the Islamization of Europe, as oil becomes more scarce. This will be followed by a rapid decline as oil is largely replaced, and other commodities become more valuable.

That said, in this multi-polar world, nuclear weapons will be ploriferate and terrorism more, rather than less, common.

And in this world, Israel must determine what it is to do with the West Bank. On the one hand, the WB (and to some extent Jerusalem) causes Israel endless grief politically, and this will be even more true in the coming two decade or so appex of Islamic power.

On the other hand, control of the WB prevents it from being a staging ground for Gaza/Lebanon style attacks on the heart of Israel.

Given that a third (and maybe a fourth) Gaza/Lebanon war appears inevitable, with rising casualties and risks resulting from each subsequent battle, this issue may in some ways resolve itself: with war staged from the WB resulting in a depopulation of the area - and more future conflict and tragedies. The additional question is: can the people of this forum posit ways to avoid what appears to be the most likely scenario for the future?

[Mediocrates]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

From news article:

At the outset, the statement discarded the principle of reciprocity, which not only is closely associated with the diplomatic principles advocated by Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but is also a fundamental axiom of international law. Astoundingly, the Quartet called on both parties to "act on their previous agreements and obligations - in particular adherence to the road map, irrespective of reciprocity (emphasis added)..."

ISRAELI DIPLOMACY is heading for unchartered waters, having to balance between negotiations with the Palestinians and the possibility of a new muscular multilateralism at the UN, led by the Quartet. What is clear is that if the Palestinians understand that they will receive a Palestinian state on a silver platter in two years time - that will additionally be based on the 1967 lines - then why should Mahmoud Abbas bother to negotiate or make a single concession?

Finally, Israel should be insisting on protecting its rights that have been recognized in the past in UN Security Council Resolution 242 and in the bipartisan-backed Bush letter, rather than just letting these past guarantees slide away amidst the current rhetoric about ending "the occupation that began in 1967." Otherwise, Israel will be forced to accept a process whose terms of reference only protect the interests of the Palestinians and leave the State of Israel increasingly exposed.