Was it just a month ago that Obama was

[deziloooooo]

pillared by so many..his supposedly twisting Natanjahu arms forcing him to sit down and start negotiating with the Palestinians and the 1967 borders, with some modifications, give backs were to be the starting line for these talks..basically supposedly selling out the state and yadda, yadda..

so on the way to the forum the other day I see this in the morning paper..
------------------------------
Prime Minister, Natanjahu, would accept pre-’67 lines as baseline for talks
------------------------------
www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=232185
----------------------------
[Click on link to read article]
--------------------------
Prime Minister, Natanjahu, would accept pre-’67 lines as baseline for talks


By HERB KEINON, HILARY LEILA KRIEGER IN WASHINGTON
08/03/2011 06:32


"Israel to negotiate using 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, if Palestinians accept two states, one Palestinian and one Jewish.
Talkbacks (162)
With the Palestinians set to seek recognition of statehood at the UN in just a number of weeks, Israel said Tuesday it would be willing to accept the 1967 lines as a framework for talks as part of a package in which the Palestinians would recognize Jewish state.

Israeli officials said this framework would be a package deal whereby Israel would agree to entering negotiations using the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon swaps, as the baseline of talks; and the Palestinians would agree that the final goal of negotiations would be two states, a Palestinian one and Jewish one."
===========================

Any one able to explain to me why one suggestion was bad..the same idea by another ..good??

[Deleted]

I for one don't think that it was President Obama's place to suggest that in the PRESS. My WAS (wild ass guess) is that Israel is now worried because it's biggest supporter has stabbed it in the back & I doubt that the trust level between our 2 countries has been lower in the last 20 years. Israel just might feel that they are being forced to negotiate.

Also if that land has a tactical advantage for Palestinian (& any countries army they let go through it) President Obama could have cost a lot of lives. It was still a stupid move on his part.

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2011 23:40:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

...stabbed it in the back & I doubt that the trust level between our 2 countries has been lower in the last 20 years. ...

Pollard was closer to 24 years ago.

[ameiko]

Aug 5, 2011 23:40:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I for one don't think that it was President Obama's place to suggest that in the PRESS. My WAS (wild ass guess) is that Israel is now worried because it's biggest supporter has stabbed it in the back & I doubt that the trust level between our 2 countries has been lower in the last 20 years. Israel just might feel that they are being forced to negotiate.

Also if that land has a tactical advantage for Palestinian (& any countries army they let go through it) President Obama could have cost a lot of lives. It was still a stupid move on his part.

Also, +1 when I can exalt again.

[deziloooooo]

Understand your concerns and opinions of, though I don't agree with them, that is ok with you all isn't it.

Actually there is a article in al Jazeera..very slanted , biased against the PM offer, and from my view point point indicate that the Palestinians are very worried about such a offer,

[ I believe al jazeera does mimic Arab and Palastinian feelings on many topics ]

though you would think they would welcome the new unitive from the PM from their past rhetoric on where to restart negotiations from, a base line.

Al Jazeera'as articles are important to consider at times. I didn't say always agree with think pieces, but to consider what they are saying, suggesting.

They do speak from the side of the Arab community and in this particular case, Palestinians point of view on many issues, though they are also quick to criticize them too, not always just a ra ra media source for them.

There is many articles critical of the Palestinians, the two parties of the Palestinians, too.

If I am reading it properly , the particular article, it shows that the Palestinians, Arabs really do not want a two State solution, IMHO in reading between the lines of it, the article, their goals are still dedicated to a one State solution and Israel not to be a Home for Jews, a Jewish State, and if Natanjahu is serious in his proposal of restarting talks again with the borders of "67" as a starting point, this hurts their real goals ..it has them scared and worried, not happy campers actually.

A peace with Israel, a actual Palestinian State on the West Bank, eventually including Gaza, Ia NOT what their aim is.

I will get the article and post it, let me know if you think I am reading it correctly, their complaint..

What it is suggesting, the article, it is suggesting Israel as a Jewish State is doing away with what they , Israel and their supporters, claim has been their, Israeli's claim for years.
That Israel it is a Democracy, the same as the USA..no difference.

I say that is not so, the two are similar but not the same, the two country's, and while Israel is a Democracy, possible out of necessity of survival as a Jewish State, not as Democratic as the USA .

This is because of why the State was founded in 1948, as a home for Jews, a Jewish Home Land. Because of the past history, 2000 years of it , of treatment of their people, Jews, in other lands, by it seems all governments at some time while these people , Jews , lived under the control and rule of others, this nation of a Home Land for th Jews came about, had to be , if these people , Jews , were to survive as a unique people.

The realization that history has shown, a long history, culminating in what we know happened in the late 30's and 40's..that the only way to protect these people is to have their own state, dedicated to a State for Jews, a Jewish State, and if some democratic principals have to be sacrificed for that to happen and the State to survive, then so be it, some principals will be sacrificed, and for those who complain about that happening, I borrow from another,

"So be it, deal with it.."

[deziloooooo]

This is that link to the article of al jazeera I mentioned above. To me very biased and admittingly slanted from the Palastinian and Arab view, a criticism of the the States claim as a Democratic state, which I discussed above, but to me, more importantly, it suggests , IMHO, that this offer of Natanjahu"s , negotiate and start with the "67 " borders as a starting point , is bothersome to them, the Arabs, possible putting them in a situation of confusion and not knowing how to react and I am suggesting that it is because it is possible those who are the leaders of these people, Palastinians, Arabs , really don't want to consider a two State solution.

Thus are ridicuing the PM's offer and seeking o to discredit what they have been asking for for so long, but now if given to them, they are getting what they really don't want.

Because of that problem, they have to try a poo poo the idea.

IMHO, , as I read this article, it seems they are scared of a possible success, a real peace, a real formatioon of Palastinian State, not what they want, what they want is a one State solution..which means Israel would NOT be a Jewish State.

Anyone else who might read the article feel I may have a point on these ideas of mine?
======================
english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201186154813477831.html
--------------------------
[Click on link to read the article]
--------------------------

"Netanyahu's 'concessions' are merely a return to the base of negotiations, established for some 44 years [GALLO/GETTY]

It is hard to believe that anyone would give credence to reports of the supposed moderating of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's terms for negotiating an agreement with the Palestinians. But, incredibly, some people actually take him seriously. Quite rightly, however, the Palestinians don't.

Here is the Jerusalem Post's description of the new Netanyahu "framework":

Israeli officials said this framework would be a package deal whereby Israel would agree to entering negotiations using the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon swaps, as the baseline of talks; and the Palestinians would agree that the final goal of negotiations would be two states, a Palestinian one and Jewish one.


The Post views this framework as a concession because the Palestinians would get "something they have long sought": They "would get the 1967 lines as the baseline" for negotiations."