It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Placing Mideast Hopes on Containing Settlements

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Obama Placing Mideast Hopes on Containing Settlements


www.nytimes.com

JERUSALEM — Iran seems to be hurtling toward nuclear weapons capacity, Hezbollah could win Sunday’s election in Lebanon and Hamas is smuggling long-range rockets into Gaza again. So why is President Obama focusing such attention on the building of homes by Israeli Jews in the West Bank?

That, in essence, is the question being angrily posed by the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and underscores one of the biggest shifts in American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in three decades. While every administration has objected to Israeli settlement buildin
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Israel papers: new era in US ties




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
OK Here we go. If peace is tied to this then I think it's completely sunk. Not that I think the settlements should stay. But I think that's putting the cart in front of the horse.

Good luck with this one.


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
OK Here we go. If peace is tied to this then I think it's completely sunk. Not that I think the settlements should stay. But I think that's putting the cart in front of the horse.

Good luck with this one.


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]


I agree, Obama is going about this all in the wrong manner. He is desperately trying to appease the Muslim world so much in fact that it could be taken that countries that were once our allies are no longer our allies. Not saying that is the case, but it wouldn't be that much of a leap to come to that conclusion.

His inexperience is shinning through on this. It is almost like he expects everybody to bow down to him to make him look good. I don't see this playing out very well, for anybody.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Well i thought he was off to a pretty good start with his speech in Cairo.
Now it seems he is trying to be too many things to too many people.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That is what it looks like to me. He is going to end falling flat on his face. The other problem he is going to run into is he is abandoning his Jewish base by trying to force Israels hand.

I don't see this playing out to well. I read an article earlier on today about how he is trying to mix realism with idealism. Then it looks like things are heating up with Iran and Syria.

Syria is playing with nuclear material again Iran put a bunch of centrifuges online today. Those two things are sure not to make Israel happy.

I'll revert back to the ancient Chinese proverb of, " May you live in interesting times." And the times are definitely getting interesting.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Here is something I posted in another thread earlier today. I think it applies

I hear you but at some point in time the shouting has to stop and the talking has to take place. The US and Israels bond are too tight to be broken but Tel Aviv needs to understand who's the big dog. IMO Israel has been the tail that has waged the dog for too long. Iran will have to be dealt with sooner or later, I say sooner. We'll try dialogue if that doesn't work we still carry a big stick. After dialogue begins and if it fails with Iran then nobody can say we didn't try.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I understand where you are coming from, but Iran doesn't want to talk, Obama has already offered to talk to Iran without pre-conditions and now Iran wants pre-conditions before they will talk to us.

True, Israel has to much influence over American politics, but when you take the politics out of it Israel has a bunch of US supporters that sit in both camps. Countries like Iran don't want to talk, they are just buying time.

It is all a political game to them. Iran wants the bomb and they will do whatever they have to do to stall and buy them time to get the bomb. That is the thing with these Muslim's countries is that its all political posturing they don't actually want peace.

As far as Iran, we really can't afford another war and Obama isn't going to back Israel up if they do decide to go in. The thing about this whole deal is that we have to put our foot down with Israel, but not so much so to jeopardize our relationship with them.

Obama just doesn't have the experience to pull it off.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
President George Herbert Walker Bush, Sr. gave the Israeli’s and their powerful congressional lobbyists a run for their money when he vetoed Loan Guarantees passed by Congress for the Israelis to build 10 billion dollars worth of West Bank and Gaza settlements.

It’s hard to say whether it was him taking them on, Ross Perot, or his own alleged and reputed desire to step down as President to pursue other fun New World Order affairs that cost him the election.

On paper it looks like he won the battle but lost the war. The Israeli lobby vowed to put so much pressure on Congress that they would attain enough votes to override the Presidential veto.

It got so ugly that the Israeli government made a public appeal to American Jews and the lobby to stand down and let that one go.

The Israeli’s don’t want peace, they make too much money in foreign aide, donations from Jews in Diaspora and can make oil futures basically skyrocket or level off anytime they want just by banging a few war drums.

Eventually they want to eliminate any vestiges of Palestine and Palestinians as their Zionist manifesto clearly has stated that since day one, and they have clearly always been working to that end.

They manage it like a business though, the business of death and suffering made profitable by a whole lot of propaganda and weak minded adherents and short sighted proponents.

We really should be backing Hamas. Removing Israel is what is going to restore U.S. prestige and stability to the region.

Alright Johnny Blaze where ever you are…that’s your call…flame on!



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
no offense but you guys might be, in this thread at least, containing your thoughts within the confines of the thread title belonging to an israeli newspaper.

I'm no Obama fan that's for sure, but he's taking the correct route here.
You guys just want America to stay under Israel's thumb and allow America to continue sending them your tax dollars.

It's like a bird in a cage, one day you give it freedom but it's so used to the cage that it doesn't want freedom anymore.

Yes I did just say that!



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

Obama just doesn't have the experience to pull it off.


Not trying to offend anybody.
But who exactly has that experience?

I mean they would be a very rich fellow if they had the answer to world peace.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I don't think you quiet get it. The Arab countries are not our friends. We cannot just switch sides like that. The US can't just be friends with the Muslim world. It's would be like ditching your best friend to go hang out with your enemy.

In order to ditch ties with Israel we have to become a neutral country and ditch ties with everyone. We just can't become buddies with the Muslim world. It's a process.

My suggestion would be to start severing ties with all countries and make a slow exit and become neutral. It is too late for that though, after all wars have been started for less.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Somebody with a prolific track record, has good instincts, and a record of success when faced with tough decisions.

Unfortunately, in the current state that American politics are in nobody like that will get elected to office because chances are they won't be marketable.

That is what our president has come down too, if they are able to be marketed, or come from a politically connected family.

The correct thing to do would be to become a neutral country. But that would me an end to the Empire and no "viable" candidate will ever do that, we will all be living in mud huts and in the street before anybody be willing to do it.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join