Barack Obama hints at tougher line on Israel

#1
The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

Don't shag any interns Mr. Obama...
 
#2
It's about time we had a US President who is prepared to stand up to Israel, and hold them to account for all their crimes.

The illegal settlements, inhabited by extremist Jews who are as loony as bin Laden and his cronies are, infest the landscape of Palestine like a rash.

Roads for Jews only and the demolition of Palestinian houses to make way for them.
People held for years without trial
The assassination of 'Suspects' with no attempt made to capture them and put them on trial.
The illegal occupation of land
The illegal barrier

The Zionists in Israel are very much guilty of behaving like their former tormentors.

Black Buck One - Out
 
#3
PartTimePongo said:
The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

Don't shag any interns Mr. Obama...
Hope you're not heading off the deep end...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread135710/pg1
 
#4
parapauk said:
PartTimePongo said:
The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

Don't shag any interns Mr. Obama...
Hope you're not heading off the deep end...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread135710/pg1
How bizarre!

Is that the best argument you can offer parapauk? Makes a change from your usual doom and gloom stories.
 
#5
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
PartTimePongo said:
The Obama Administration has signalled a tougher approach towards Israel ahead of fresh talks on the Middle East peace process by insisting it must endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

“Israel has to work toward a two-state solution,” declared Vice-President Joe Biden today in a speech to the annual conference of a powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington.

“You’re not going to like my saying this,” he warned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) before adding that the Jewish state should not build any more settlements on Palestinian territory, and should “dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

Don't shag any interns Mr. Obama...
Hope you're not heading off the deep end...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread135710/pg1
How bizarre!

Is that the best argument you can offer parapauk? Makes a change from your usual doom and gloom stories.
What argument was I making? Is this another one that only exist in your head, like my 'argument in favour' of bombing Iran?
 
#6
parapauk said:
What argument was I making? Is this another one that only exist in your head, like my 'argument in favour' of bombing Iran?
Frankly, I have no idea what was going on in your furtive mind that caused you to link to a conspiracy website.

Clinton's daliance with Ms Lewinsky left him very vulnerable in terms of domestic politics. He was 'forced' into policy that would never have occured had he not been in such a awkward/weak personal position. Competing power bases on the Hill were able to manipulate that to their benefit.

I suspect that was what PartTimePongo was refering to. I may be wrong. But I'm not the least bit surprised your felt compelled to assume something more sinister.

And finally, in connection with your mention of Iran, I read that Joe Biden also used the same old phrase used by the Bush Administration that “nothing is off the table”. Seemingly confirming the point I made in the previous thread that US policy towards Iran - particularly in regards military action - has not changed. Moreover, the reports are suggesting that this "tougher" approach with regards to Israel is in order to gain support for tougher international measures against Iran - which contradicts entirely your previous analysis of the situation. Thank you for bringing that up. :)
 
#7
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
What argument was I making? Is this another one that only exist in your head, like my 'argument in favour' of bombing Iran?
Frankly, I have no idea what was going on in your furtive mind that caused you to link to a conspiracy website.

Clinton's daliance with Ms Lewinsky left him very vulnerable in terms of domestic politics. He was 'forced' into policy that would never have occured had he not been in such a awkward/weak personal position. Competing power bases on the Hill were able to manipulate that to their benefit.

I suspect that was what PartTimePongo was refering to. I may be wrong. But I'm not the least bit surprised your felt compelled to assume something more sinister.

And finally, in connection with your mention of Iran, I read that Joe Biden also used the same old phrase used by the Bush Administration that “nothing is off the table”. Seemingly confirming the point I made in the previous thread that US policy towards Iran - particularly in regards military action - has not changed. Moreover, the reports are suggesting that this "tougher" approach with regards to Israel is in order to gain support for tougher international measures against Iran - which contradicts entirely your previous analysis of the situation. Thank you for bringing that up. :)
Not a chance. Would these reports once again be from 'senior administration officials' that speak to you? :roll: Try harder.

Biden says the first thing that slips into his mind - ten days ago he was advising against American citizens being in enclosed spaces like the subways and airliners in order to avoid getting swine flu. The move in policy towards Israel has nothing to do with Iran in the sense of stopping its nuclear program, it's only meaningful from their POV in terms of reducing Iranian legitimacy. And if you think that will have any impact on Iran's nuclear program whatever its form, I have a bridge to sell you. Iran's capability, whatever you believe it is, will not be influenced by a few Jews packing their bags.
 
#8
parapauk said:
Not a chance. Would these reports once again be from 'senior administration officials' that speak to you? :roll: Try harder.
For starters, it was mentionned in The Times article whose link starts this thread.

But you already knew that because you are an astute and conscientious ARRSE poster who read the article before indulging in posting your response, didn't you? On the otherhand, I may have assumed wrong and will have to reconsider putting you into the Sven-category of 'ARRSE scribblers with an agenda'.
 
#9
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
Not a chance. Would these reports once again be from 'senior administration officials' that speak to you? :roll: Try harder.
For starters, it was mentionned in The Times article whose link starts this thread.

But you already knew that because you are an astute and conscientious ARRSE poster who read the article before indulging in posting your response, didn't you? On the otherhand, I may have assumed wrong and will have to reconsider putting you into the Sven-category of 'ARRSE scribblers with an agenda'.
No, I assumed a well-connected person such as yourself would have been phoned by the state department personally and given a detailed explanation as to how this 'international coalition against Tehran' will be able to do anything productive as the only players who matter really don't give a stuff about the what Israel does to the Palestinians. Because if you haven't I can only assume you've taken the line given by a WH aid to a pressure group they need to keep onside until 2012 as fact, no matter how little there is to back it up. But you wouldn't do that, would you?
 
#10
If president Obama thinks he can dictate to Isreal about how they should draw the lines where the state of Isreal ends and the muslim killer organisations under the palestine flag starts then he will be signing his own death warrant.
When it comes to killing for a cause the jews make the muslim suicide bombers look like cyclops thinking he will win the next general election in the UK.

Oh and some arrsers having a "personall pishing" contest on any number of "subjects". Your juvinile "banter" slowly erodes any hope of this website being percieved as "adult conversations producing a workable solution" for some people who have fingers on "The real buttons".
 
#11
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
Not a chance. Would these reports once again be from 'senior administration officials' that speak to you? :roll: Try harder.
For starters, it was mentionned in The Times article whose link starts this thread.
No, I assumed a well-connected person such as yourself would have been phoned by the state department personally and given a detailed explanation as to how this 'international coalition against Tehran' will be able to do anything productive as the only players who matter really don't give a stuff about the what Israel does to the Palestinians. Because if you haven't I can only assume you've taken the line given by a WH aid to a pressure group they need to keep onside until 2012 as fact, no matter how little there is to back it up. But you wouldn't do that, would you?
Have you forgotten to take your medication?

Are you trying to respond to the contents of The Times article or just rumbling incoherently?

I have no idea whether The Times (and other) reports have any mileage. Nor do I make any comment on whether, if true, this policy will achieve any greater 'success' in its aims.
 

Latest Threads