Robert Gibbs explains, "Many have called us hypocritical for telling Israel to return land that it won in a war while we are still living on land that we won from Native Americans. We hope that this gesture will demonstrate to Netanyahu that we are serious in believing that this is the best way to resolve this conflict." When asked why the president choose Oklahoma he stated, "It's not like we were using it anyway."
So far there have been many complaints about this plan. Tea Party leader Sarah Palin stated, "How does he expect to do this without the approval of the Oklahoma legislature? We are the United States, not the United Territories." Additionally several theatrical groups have spoken out against the plan saying that it will damage sales of the Richard Rodgers play of the same name.
Even some Native American groups have complained. One such leader stated, "It's like being given a lawn mower while living in an apartment. It is rather valuable, but what are we supposed to do with it?"
According to Gibbs, "We know that there are a lot of nay-sayers on this issue. Some think that it is foolish, and some claim that it is based off of a complete misunderstanding of the Middle East situation. However, we stand resolute. We are doing this for peace; we hope for peace... and sometimes hope is audacious."
RECENT UPDATE...
New sources have apparently confirmed that the presidents original plan was to give back Texas which we won in the Mexican-American war back to Mexico. This plan was evidently defeated when the Presidents military advisors pointed out that we didn't win Texas, but rather it was annexed. To this news, the President merely said, "oh."
6 comments:
This is a key point that is allowed to stay hidden in order to maintain the narrative.
FOT:
Could you expand on your thoughts a bit more?
It's a shame that a politician who I look up to would ignore the obvious human rights violations by Israel. It's really a shame that apartheid still exists in this world and I sincerely hope that U.S. policies to diplomacy in the Middle East developing into something more peaceful.
It is true that Hamas is terrible. But in my mind, Obama needs to bring the situation between these two states into perspective and see the tracks of trot committed.
Human Rights violations by Israel? What about the many many many more Human Rights violations by Palestine? Israel recognized human rights better that the vast majority of the Middle East.
*intiates slow clap* this was hilarious, bravo :-P
To respond to the comments about human rights violations - yes Isreal has committed some. Yes Palenstine has committed some, almost assuredly more (as in many many more, I just lack the sources and the motivation to prove it). Neither is justification for the other, neither is an excuse for the other, and neither should be "let of the hook" for any of their violations. So the whole "well Palenstine did more" and the relatively obvious fact that considering how hard Isreal has had to fight for an obscene amount of time argument, still is not a justification for their violations.
That being said the mere fact that Isreal has committed some should not derail or sidetrack the entire conversation.
I feel often in this debate you have one or the other - either people try and knock Isreal down a peg by comments like "well they do it too" and try to ignore the atrocities that have gone on against them for years OR people seem to pretend Isreal has never done anything wrong ever and to admit that they have is akin to treason.
At the end of the day, the US has pledged itself to Isreal. I personally feel that commitment should not only continue, but should be reinforced. Obama's tactic makes sense in traditional negotiations (like when siblings argue of inheritence, someone offers a "peace offering" to try and get the ball rolling), however in no way, shape, or form is this a traditional negotiation nor should it be approached as one. This is not meant to be a disparaging comment, but this situation (Isreal v. Palenstine) is insane. It is beyond rationality and logic, and is as far for typical as we can probably get. So to approach it as such is just as irrational and illogical, if not straight up delusional. The US, to steal from the Book of Mormon soundtrack, needs to man up and stand by our commitment to Isreal or we need to change our opinion. To say we stand by them and then act in a way that is seemingly to their detriment seems foolhardy at best.
As to the issue at the heart of the matter - the giving back of the land - that is so ridiculous. Isreal won it fair and square. As this hilarious post points out, America took ours in a way that was hardly fair OR square and yet we have no intention of giving it back at all. This is the way the world has ALWAYS worked. Why should Isreal be treated any differently? To ask that they give the land back is to single them out, and for anyone, ESPECIALLY the US, to do that is ridiculous.
I agree that human rights violations are never justifiable, and I have no problem with anyone criticizing Israel for them. What I tend to get annoyed about, and I know you are not doing this, is when people use the human rights violations as an argument (or supposedly like the above an implied argument) for distancing ourselves form Israel as an ally.
I'm pretty sure every nation has violated human rights at some point or another, and anyone who thinks that America is innocent needs to git mo' facts. Israel, unlike its surrounding nations, has far far fewer violations (and unlike some of the surrounding nations, it does recognize human rights), has female leaders, takes in refugees from Palestine, and is a non-aggressor. Most of Israel's actions are defensive. Even the territories that it took in the 40 day war it took because they are more defensible territories.
Post a Comment