WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-endorses-palestinian-border-demands/
Jeez, would you look at all the morons in the comments section.
“Glenn told us this would happen!”
“Obama bin Laden is the anti-Christ!”
“He hates a whole race. The Jews!”
“Next he’s going to give America to the Arabs, too, I’ll bet.”
“If the Arabs didn’t want their land taken away, they shouldn’t have tried to fight against Israel!”
“Barry and Jimmy hate the Jews. How come they hate Jesus, who was a Jew?”
What logic. What intelligence.
I guess that is what you get from a site that also has a link to an article “Is heaven for real? A little boy vs. Stephen Hawking.”
How is Israel’s anger, or more accurately the people who make up the government of Israel being angry my problem? I have no quarrel with those people nor have I aggressed against them in any way where I would have to pay restitution. I have no idea why the government of the USA feels so beholden to the government of this little country. And the people there are just a bunch of welfare recipients because they take money in aid from USA. If they were anything else they would pay the US tax payers all the money ever given by the USA Government plus interest.
Now how the folks in Israel treat their neighbors in the area once called Palestine is of interest to me as it is the flash point for conflict and it was one of the 5 issues that Osama Bin Laden had with the USA on why he orchestrated the attacks on 09/11/2001.
This is foolish. Giving borders to countries with no people is a recipe for war, if Versailles taught us anything. The whole Israeli-Palestinian issue (1948 I mean) is truly tragic but whatever happened back than does not change the fact that Palestinians no longer live in the territories they seek, and the only ‘redress’ they cousl seek (and their leader know this well) is ethnic cleansing of those land form Israelis.
Setting borders by local referendum is the only just, practical and (to a degree) peaceful way of setting borders. This is being said from a guy whose people lost huge tracts of lands to their neighbors.
I don’t think even borders established through “referendum” can create peace. The problem isn’t just with Israel, but with Hamas and governments who legitimize their policies by directing frustration against Israel. Peace can only be provided through the market. What steps can make the emergence of a market easier, I don’t know.
My take is not thrusting under the same rule people that hate each other. It absolutely blocks logical though. Again, I speak from what I saw with my own fellows back when they were living under a state they didn’t like, and form the experience of those who still do. I suspect that borders-by-referendum would do much to speed up the evolution of spontaneous orders. That it is not the cure for all ills, this should not be surprising.
You don’t know, or you don’t want to know? There is a difference.
The first step towards a market are property rights. That is easy enough to figure out.
Of course ‘the 1967 borders’ solution is very silly in that these borders were not between Israel and Palestine but between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt. The Palestinians’ were screwed long before 1967 with their land being partitioned between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Even so however the vast mayority of them would settle for just the parts of Palestine that were given to Jordan and Egypt. That is good for peace, but not so hot for justice and property.
Abolish both governments and there will be no border problems. Just saying.
Marko,
I don’t mean what steps in the broadest possible sense. I mean, steps that can be realistically (and practically) implimented as a solution.
There is nothing “broad” about giving people back their property. It is only practically unrealistic in Palestine because of people who are dragging their feet and do not want to make it possible.
And actually it is you who is into needless broadness. Your claim that peace can only be accomplished through the market is silly. There were no markets in Soviet Union or in China, but they managed to live in peace. There are hundreds of states that manage to do so.
You place impossible and needless, superflous conditions to the solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suspect your concern for peace in Palestine is disingenious and that you have other priorities.
If anybody is being disingenuous here, it is you bringing up this bullshit statist argument about Palestinians getting their property back. Anyone who had been forcefully driven off his private property deserves to claim it back. But the vast majority of land was not settled by anybody. Palestinians don’t have any automatic right to some land within some arbitrarily defined boarders no more then the Israelis do.
No one has a right to a State. The solution is not for another State to form. We don’t need to form new States. We need to abolish the old ones.
What is the seemingly progressive fascination with Palestine? What is the conservative fascination with Israel? Why should we even care about those countries? I just don’t understand their mindset. Well, that is to say I understand the Republican mindset, but I don’t understand the Democratic position. The Republican view is stupid, but why do Democrats defend Palestine?
The right of return is one of the stumbling blocks to the conclusion of the Israeli-Palestianian conflict.
Of course you are too much of a sectarian to know that, or anything else about it, so you do not actually have anything to contribue here.
The right of return? Palestinians for the most part have shown that they will not be satisfied until Isaraelis are wiped completely away from the area. There’s not much peace in the Palestinian position, either.
Since you have already made up your mind what is the point of asking questions?
Since you choose to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, why should I bother responding to you?
Because that’s how any political system works. You draw a line in the sand so that you can only stand on either side. The line will always be at approximately the median point and policy will always tend to emerge from close proximity to the line.
A great, tidy general answer. Perfectly sectarian. Unfortunately also totally useless. Actually both Republicans and Democrats back Israel heavily.