Obama Planning Drastic Shake-Up in Policy Toward Israel

[okie52]

Obama Planning Drastic Shake-Up in Policy Toward Israel
Thursday, 19 Mar 2015 08:24 AM
By Melanie Batley

The historic victory for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week in a campaign defined by hard-line policies is prompting the Obama administration to consider a major shift in its strategy toward Israel.

The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times.

"We're currently evaluating our approach," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, according to the Journal. "We're not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/isr...#ixzz3UqgIC3lM

.

[SoonerProphet]

With continued West Bank expansion and Bibi's recalcitrance on Palestinian statehood it is way past time to change our approach.

[SoonerProphet]

Looks like he backing away from his rejection of the two state solution though.

[okie52]

I haven't really disagreed with the idea of making Israel give up the lands it took in 67 although you could certainly say there was provocation for Israel to attack in 67. But the captured lands have been an out for many Arab countries to justify their hostilities towards Israel for the last 50 years. If Israel returns the lands on the condition that any attacks that originate from those lands would be justification for Israel to defend itself by reinvading/reclaiming the offending territory then I think it puts the onus on the Palestinians, et al, to secure the area(s). Whether or not that is politically and/or military feasible I don't know. It wouldn't take much range for an isolated mortar or rocket attack to set things off.

[Serenity Now]

I don't get the blind support of Israel. They are an ally that we give BILLIONS to annually. I read that, counting interest, we've given them more than $120 Billion over time. I'm told by a friend who's a Christian missionary in Israel that the country is not a great place for Christians to live. They are treated by the state on the same level as arabs. We really have an apartheid scenario playing out over there.

Iran has the mullah's running things. It's that way due to the blowback from British colonialism and the US propping up favorable rulers. But, the populace is pretty modern and that country could flip to a modern country in the near future as long as they have progressive leadership, like the guy leading the nuclear negotiations. The hard liners in the US and Israel are only feeding the fire of the hard liners in Iran and giving them more power internally. F'n Gohmer talking about bombing Iran in the press is a great example. Even if we're going to do it don't talk in the press about it, idiot! The next ayatollah is a key. My hunch is that our PR to Bibi played the key role there. He said the same thing this March that he said in 1997. Can he not see that maybe his words of dire predictions in relation to Iran should be taken a little less accurately? I predicted that Clint Black would be much bigger than Garth. I thought that Brandon Daniels was going to be the next Jamelle. I'd expect that when I now try to predict how far Luke Bryan's star is going to shine or anything about Trevor Knight's Heisman hopes, that my friends would discount said predictions based upon my poor predictions from the 1990's.

I get a kick out of how it's now terrible [read like Charles Barkley would say it] to try to cooperate with Iran. Reagan did it to hold off the hostage release until after the election. His people did it a few years later to arm them.

[FaninAma]

Obama doesn't have the guts to back a 2 state resolution in the UN. I do think it is funny how the liberal Jews in thiscountry backed this jackass. Without a strong and secure Israel they have no place to use as a safe haven as the rest of the Democrat/liberal coalition continues to turn on them.

[Serenity Now]

But why do the conservatives back Israel? Seriously. $132 Billion. They're our largest recipient of aid that's not a country that we have "taken under our wing" (Afghanistan).

[Sooner8th]

But why do the conservatives back Israel? Seriously. $132 Billion. They're our largest recipient of aid that's not a country that we have "taken under our wing" (Afghanistan).

Because jews give money to democrats and pubs want to get the money away from dems.

[yermom]

i don't get Israel

it's a democracy, you know, as long as you are a Jew

[olevetonahill]

But why do the conservatives back Israel? Seriously. $132 Billion. They're our largest recipient of aid that's not a country that we have "taken under our wing" (Afghanistan).

so in 67 years or so We have given the Greedy Jews 132 Billion? Is that what yer saying? Why thats just wasteful and should be Stopped! Stopped I say, Right after we QUIT wasting the TRILLION dollars a year on over lapping welfare crap here at Home!

The Senate Budget Committee is out with a new report today that shows there are 83 overlapping government welfare programs that together represent $1.03 trillion in fiscal 2011 spending by federal and state governments, based on data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The report says “total means-tested welfare spending is currently the single-largest category of spending in the federal budget.”

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So he's an anti-Semite, so what? Who didn't know that before now?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i don't get Israel

it's a democracy, you know, as long as you are a Jew

Really? So what, Non-Jew votes don't count?

[olevetonahill]

i don't get Israel

it's a democracy, you know, as long as you are a Jew

You're smarter than that Dave, Israel was set up as a Homeland for the JEWs in 1948 to give them a Safe Home away from the Persecutions they had suffered over the centuries So of course they are Mostly Jewish.

[yermom]

couldn't they have chosen some place a bit less contentious? like Canada or something?

[Serenity Now]

My point is that they are a solid sovereign nation. Why do we give them money? I just don't get the blind support. They treat Christians poorly. My mother in law is baptist, thinks Catholicism is a quasi cult but defers to the chosen people.

Just curious.

Good thing Bibi was wrong in 1997 when he said they'd have nuclear weapons in less than a year.

[Serenity Now]

couldn't they have chosen some place a bit less contentious? like Canada or something?

or a place that had oil.

[olevetonahill]

couldn't they have chosen some place a bit less contentious? like Canada or something?

or a place that had oil.

IN 1948 that whole place was worthless!Not even the ARABs wanted it!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

IN 1948 that whole place was worthless!Not even the ARABs wanted it!

Those no-talent Jews! What good are they?!!!

[olevetonahill]

couldn't they have chosen some place a bit less contentious? like Canada or something?

Those no-talent Jews! What good are they?!!!

They take our Money and control our Politics " Oh wait"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They take our Money and control our Politics " Oh wait"

Beary and the IRS are Jews?