It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nonetheless, Obama knows very well who made him fail. Netanyahu repeatedly defied Obama: In Congress, he refused to engage in serious negotiations that could have led to an agreement, and he publicly lobbied against Obama’s election for a second term. Obama should not expect Netanyahu to change his position and cooperate on any renewed efforts that could save Obama’s failed legacy in the Middle East. This is the same Netanyahu whom Obama increasingly grew frustrated with throughout his presidency. With the remaining few months in office, the time has come for Obama to shape his legacy in the Middle East the way he wants it, not the way that Netanyahu has lobbied to characterize it. Obama has an opportunity to take his place in history as the first American president to officially recognize an independent Palestinian state.
originally posted by: ketsuko
No. He's more likely to complete the pivot toward Shi'a Islam as the dominating force in the ME by releasing the docs that show 9/11 complicity on the part of the Saudis and let them crash the markets and bring down economic ruin.
Now, I don't agree with not doing something with the Saudis, but if you are serious about it, you better the heck be energy independent, and he's done everything to stifle that.
We also need to ask ourselves if it was better to maintain the balance of power with a stable ME or let the Shi'as and Iran take full control which is what it seems his pivot is enabling to have happen. Will a renewed Persian Empire be better for the world, and if the ensuing chaos going to be worth it in the long run?
Reasons for settlements Jews who had been living in the West Bank before they were expelled in 1948 wanted to return home. After the Six-Day War, some Israelis believed that war might break out again. They built settlements on hilltops to act as observation posts for an early warning system. Israelis were afraid that if strategically important lands were returned, Israelis would be in danger. For years, Syria had been firing from the Golan Heights into the kibbutzim of the valley. If Syria got back the Golan Heights, they would resume firing on the Israelis below. Israelis remembered that after conquering the Sinai, Israel withdrew from the Sinai. If Israel constructed a military base, the soldiers could be ordered to leave, but if they created a "settlement on the Syrian heights – a civilian presence, then no one could just order a withdrawal. There'd have to be a debate in the Knesset." There were Israelis who remembered that Israel had conquered the Sinai in 1956, but gave it back. "…the promises made by Eisenhower had proved hollow at the first test and had failed to prevent war…" They were willing to return land, but only if Israel got a peace treaty in return. They were hoping that building settlements would make it more difficult for Israel to withdraw from land without getting a peace treaty in return. There were "Religious radicals, convinced that they were fulfilling God's plan for history…" For Avraham Kook, "the Jews' role was to be the vessel that brings the "divine idea" into the world. The world's redemption depended on the Jews living in the Land of Israel" Rabbi Tzvi Kook said…It's "the Lord's land. Is it in our hands to give up even a millimeter?" The State of Israel represented the "beginning of redemption" and was "the state that the prophets foresaw" when they spoke of the End of Days. "…the Bible was the Jewish deed to the Land of Israel…" "…the conquest as introducing the end of days, when 'nation shall not lift up sword against nation.'" There were secular Israelis who saw "the West Bank as the historic patrimony of the Jewish people and control of this region as a matter of momentous historic importance." Settlement building as punishment. "According to reports on Israel Radio, the development is a response to the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers." Settlements as bargaining chips for negotiations.
originally posted by: JimNasium
Mr. Obama to "save face" could get back the close to $20B USD that Uncle Suga has sent to it's 51st State during His terms. That would be a good start...
Evidently the US taxpayer spends more on Israeli defense than that of Israel's citizens. Heck, there are more Jewish folks living in New York City than in Israel, how about We (taxpayer) just send the $$$ to NYC? It would save on postage.
Then there is Ms. Clinton who is bed w/the Saud Roi who ALWAYS like to stir the pot...
Maybe Mr. Obama can date Caitlyn Jenner and at least We could get a chuckle as the hilarity ensues, what are We getting now? 'Snip' and shoved in it.
Those Zionist™ should at least be friendly as they spend our $$$
originally posted by: ciscoagent
There is already a Palestinian state. It is called Jordan. Arabs living on the area between the pre-1967 cease fire line and the river Jordan occupy a part of the territory allocated for the Jewish homeland. Far from creating another Arab country called Palestine, that territory ought to be annexed by Israel and the population offered full citizenship.
originally posted by: lostbook
To save his Middle East legacy, Obama must recognise a Palestinian state now
originally posted by: flatbush71
Having personally been a part of one of the many failed processes ( Oslo Sept. 93 ) I can tell you know there is really not much point to any of it.
Even with Arafat and most of his cronies already gone, there is still no hope.
I think, a camel through the eye of a needle is the correct comparison.