Overheard on CNN.com: Land for peace?
May 20th, 2011
06:18 PM ET

Overheard on CNN.com: Land for peace?

Comments of the Day:

“Obama is merely picking up the same plan that Israeli war hero Rabin championed to his death. I say this respectfully, because it is not an easy path, but the only one that can resolve it. I was in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem three months ago. At least half the Israelis agree with Obama's position.”– futureshock9

“You would think that the current Arab push for freedom would diminish the groups like Hamas who seek violent means to the ends. It should be clear after decades of pointless violence that peace can only be brought about through good-faith negotiation. Unfortunately, the Arabs have reneged and attacked Israel at every opportunity, rather than seeking to build their own nation. If I were a Jew, I would be very wary. The Arabs will have to put a lot on the table.” - celtic61

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders

In his speech to the State Department, President Obama called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, "with mutually agreed swaps," so a secure peace could be established. This story elicited more than 11,000 comments, many of them arguing the history of the Middle East conflict from the Israeli or Palestinian viewpoint. While there were accusations that Obama had "thrown Israel under the bus", many like waggendog, said, "Well yea, Obama is just publicly saying what every president has been privately saying for decades."

“As an American Jew who has worked in Israel and has friends and family there, I believe what Israel is doing is not in their own interest. A friend tells you when you are doing something wrong. Obama is doing the right thing.” - ScottNH

Many CNN.com readers hailed Obama's remarks and called for compromise. kirikintha said, "I think that President Obama has the courage to point out the painful truth : The only way to a lasting peace is to move forward. There are no winners in Middle East peace, only general levels of hell. What do you do when everyone feels disenfranchised? What do you do when both sides are hell-bent on killing each other?”

humtake, who identified as a Republican, said, "I'm not a fan of Obama, but sometimes he does what is right. And in this situation, America needs to see that something has to be done by both sides or nothing is going to change. Allies don't have to always agree. My grandparents have been married for 63 years and don't agree on everything. But both sides need to work on fixing their problems together."

apeinclothes said, "There isn't another option if Israel wants to remain a Jewish-majority state. There are too many Palestinians to keep them in limbo indefinitely; neighboring Arab countries aren't going to absorb them, and the longer this goes on the more demographics favor the Palestinians. Israel either has to give up enough land to allow for a viable Palestinian state or choose between being Jewish-majority or being a democracy."

Is Obama about to break the law?

The deadline for congressional approval of U.S. military intervention in Libya is here. Without approval, the mission must stop within 30 days. But the issue has not been discussed or approved in Congress. Is President Obama "shredding the Constitution," as Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, describes it?

Slapdeezel said, "U.S. law doesn't apply to a NATO-led operation." dec12887 replied, "Cite the law that gives exception to NATO-led operations. There isn't one, so stop lying to yourself." JERBOA said, " It does not matter if it's a NATO operation. If the president sends troops to an armed conflict he needs the consent of Congress."

RyanHicks said, "The 60-day grace period ends today, yes. If Congress does not give approval by close of business today, then the president has 30 days to recall our forces before he has done something illegal. He still is in compliance for another month."

falcon615 said, "I am a liberal Democrat and voted for Obama in the primary. I support most of his policies and believe we are doing the right thing in Libya. Even though our action is intermittent, however, it should still be done legally. Obama should go to Congress, and they should authorize him to continue."

Gupta: Cell phones, brain tumors and a wired earpiece

CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta almost always uses a wired earpiece while talking on the cellphone. Data shows, he writes, that people who used a cell phone 10 years or more doubled the risk of developing a brain tumor. Eileen said, "I am curious. He specifies that he uses a wired earpiece. I wonder if that is significant or just coincidental. I have a Bluetooth wireless earpiece. Is it less safe than a wired one?" crcroce replied, "Bluetooth is the same as having your cell phone up against your head. Either wear a wired set or don't bother. And not all cell phones are created equal. Some have twice as much radiation as others."

But other readers disagreed. David, who said he worked for a major cell phone manufacturer and in the Mobile phone industry for 16 years said, "Please use a Bluetooth headset, not a wired one. Radio Frequency (RF) radiation travels up a wired headset and is like an amplifier! Keep your phone away from your body and use a Bluetooth, which emits very low radiation compared to phone. There is a reason manufacturers hire an army of lawyers to cover their liability. My father was on his crackberry for hours per day and died of a brain tumor located over the ear where he always had his phone. Don't become a statistic."

Shelly Kalnitsky said both options were bad. "I am the editor of the cell phone radiation news bureau. I receive reports of brain tumors every month from cell and cordless phones. Wired headsets conduct up to three times more radiation into your ear than just placing the phone there. Bluetooth is equally as bad as the signal from the phone carries radiation directly into your ear."

Vadi said, "I work for a cell phone company and had to use a cell phone daily for a continuous period of time. I was diagnosed with Accoustic Neuroma and underwent a surgery. I believe that tumor was caused by the cell phone. Mark said, "As somebody who had a brain tumor removed, I always use a wired headpiece when using my cell phone now."

Diane Raymond said, "My husband is a long term survivor of a glioblastoma multiforme IV brain tumor. He used the Motorola "brick" cell phone 18 years ago for a lot for business calls and regular use. I know others who have lost loved ones to this type of cancer and used the "brick.” I believe that there is a correlation."

Ann asked, "What about the cordless phones many of us use in our homes? Do they have the same effect on our brains?” dan asked, "What about the oxygen machine for sleep apnea? It has a modem and has to be near your head every night."

Do your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below, or sound off on video.

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

soundoff (206 Responses)
  1. franco prizzi

    USA President's solution is a first step. After that Israele will be weaker and alone in that area; Arabs will take advantage about that. Violence and terrorism are just political tools and they won't magically disappear. Lands that will be left by Israel shoud be under ONU government, no Palestinian nor Israelian. If the stay in touch again, newer occasion of fight will be used for internal politics by both countries, and many others in our "beloved" Europe. without war this kind of politicians would loose their "job". I don't belive anymore in peace within this century : every country just want to fight for himself, and ipocrisys about common programs is nowadays a metter of fact.

    May 21, 2011 at 5:23 am | Report abuse |
  2. Ren

    anyone who thinks thats all that will take for palestinians and muslims to stop picking on israel is dellusional Obama included.
    even if the israelis were all moved away from israel in one day and left everything, they still would hate them and teach their kids to hate them through cartoons.
    So giving them land would just lead to "ok now we want the rest and the jews to die".

    Specially when palestinian leader praises osama bin laden.

    Israel should be allowed to just take over more since their country seems to be doing better and is more civilized than anyone elses in that region, why then give in to the backwards religious looneys ? only because they are backed up by other religious looneys with oil ?
    Stop being hippocrites, go with whats best for all, if children werent raised to hate israel then they would prefer living as an israeli citizen then fighting and starving as a palestinian.

    its all pure hippocrisy and ignorance on both sides

    May 21, 2011 at 5:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Jon

      And if you weren't raised to hate Arabs and Muslims....

      May 21, 2011 at 7:00 am | Report abuse |
    • mitchell

      Your right, when the military ripped the Jews out of the strip and turned it back over, Hamas moved in and started launching rockets from there. But you will never read any comment on this board and find a concession that the Arabs should make other than stop killing the innocent. There is no peace with those that want to wipe you from the map, this is just doing it in small steps like a liberal. Everyone has to know that as soon as you give it back they will want more, so you might as well draw the line somewhere, and they found a good place to do it.
      Obama was thinking about re-election, he figured that he would make a speech and that Israel not make the concesssion and the Arabs would ignore the comments. I don't think he though it would blow up like this. Either way I am not going to tout Iran's position just to minimize his mistake. Just shut up and wait for the next news cycle.

      May 21, 2011 at 7:22 am | Report abuse |
    • U.R. An Idiot Jon

      It's not a matter of being "raised" to hate Arabs and Muslims. It IS a matter of observing the gruesome facts of their day-to-day activities and atrocities, to wit: Today's headline: Taliban Claim Deadly Suicide Bombing at Kabul Hospital. Hold fast. Give them an inch and they'll take 2 miles. I rest my case. You have none so don't bother.

      May 21, 2011 at 8:18 am | Report abuse |
  3. Fleeing

    By the numbers, the US provides Israel with more aid than what it provides the entire Arab states combined. There was a reason for that during the cold war, now, especially after the what is being called "Arab spring" with dictators being removed from power, the us can no longer sustains status quo while maintaing it's relevancy in that strategic part of the world, the us must smartly and wisely start breaking the news to the Israeli government that after all, we are after our national interests. In order to prevent others, Russia, china, turkey, Iran, from moving in, the us must be able to comfort and assure the Arabs that the UN resolutions will be applied fairly across the world. It is impossible to set the outcome of the negotiations prior to start the negotiation and still call yourself " I am committed to peace". Killing is killing no matter where it occurs, rights for the southern sudanese, taiwaneese, and many others that the entire western countries called and continues to call for self determination is amicable, however why stop short from effectively and publicly support similar rights to the Palestinians, maybe Arabs have not formed a strong lobby that directs us foreign policy similar to other lobbies that currently enjoy passing and enforcing their agendas.

    May 21, 2011 at 6:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Thinker23

      Fleeing: By the numbers, the US provides Israel with more aid than what it provides the entire Arab states combined.

      This is a lie. Just ONE Arab country, Iraq, receives THREE TIMES more aid than Israel. All Arab states combined receive FIVE TIMES more.

      May 21, 2011 at 6:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Sagebrush Shorty

      You should really do your homework on the subject of aid before running of at the mouth with incorrect numbers.

      May 21, 2011 at 8:04 am | Report abuse |
  4. Thinker23

    PeaceOnly18: Peace can not be achieved through occupation.

    This is correct. Peace can only be achieved through PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. If and when the Palestinians will produce leadership ABLE AND WILLING to stop violence, recognize Israel and NEGOTIATE a mutually acceptable peace agreement Israel will gladly agree. ONLY THEN will peace become possible.

    May 21, 2011 at 6:33 am | Report abuse |
    • RUBIN

      And if you weren't raised to hate Arabs and Muslims....

      May 21, 2011 at 7:52 am | Report abuse |
    • U.R. An Idiot Rubin

      It's not a matter of being "raised" to hate Arabs and Muslims. It IS a matter of observing the gruesome facts of their day-to-day activities and atrocities, to wit: Today's headline: Taliban Claim Deadly Suicide Bombing at Kabul Hospital. Hold fast. Give them an inch and they'll take 2 miles. I rest my case. You have none so don't bother.

      May 21, 2011 at 8:19 am | Report abuse |
  5. Anwar

    For sure it will work…. But for sure it will not happen …. Because antichrist and his team has job to do, therefore Zionist will never let it happen. AND we all are going to suffer. Poor us.

    May 21, 2011 at 6:55 am | Report abuse |
    • SilverHair

      Hitler didn't live long enough.

      May 21, 2011 at 9:42 am | Report abuse |
  6. Cop

    This isn't about the land. The Palestinians don't want the Jews there at all...period. Previous attempts to trade land for peace haven't worked. Why would this? The governments surrounding Israel aren't strong enought to control the terrorist elements that will attack Israel no matter what. Unfortunately, the original "mistake" was recognizing Israel in the 40's and displacing the Palestinians in the first place. Now we have to live with the consequences.

    May 21, 2011 at 7:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Anwar

      Do you want someone to forcefully take major part of your home??

      May 21, 2011 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
  7. gung ho

    Thats because they are more diserving not like the presidents muslim buddys the jews are the chosen people that can blow their neighbors off the map anytime they want to hahahaha

    May 21, 2011 at 7:06 am | Report abuse |
  8. gung ho

    We all know who the antichrist is some of you fools voted him in to the presidency obama and we didnt organize the jews cop

    May 21, 2011 at 7:13 am | Report abuse |
  9. Thoma

    Bottom line; Israel disobeyed God and did not wipe the heathen off the land. Israel a LONG TIME AGO, worshiped idols.
    So it is today, anyone rejecting God the Almighty and Holy, will be rejected by God the Lord. However; The Book says the day is coming when God will return to Israel, and He will. SOON. Disobedience and rebellion against our maker brings misery. Obedience brings blessing. Get the Old and New Testements out and brush off the dust and read them, there is Grace, mercy and forgiveness....

    May 21, 2011 at 7:22 am | Report abuse |
  10. GotaClue

    Yeah, I remember when Israel unilaterally moved out of Gaza and left the settlements with world-class greenhouses, infastructure, water treatments plants, livable houses and all still intact. The Palestinians rushed in and tore everything apart and wrecked every building they could find. They don't want a state, they just want Israel gone. And about those 7,000 or so rockets they've thrown over the fence to Israeli citizens, why can't Hamas spend that money on caring for its own people? The Palestinian actions speak volumes about themselves.

    May 21, 2011 at 7:33 am | Report abuse |
  11. RealityBetraysUsAll

    If Obama wanted to be historically accurate and fair to the nation of Israel he would demand that all the surrounding Arab nations return land back to Israel that was part their nations' borders during the time of King David and Solomon. This would include Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. They are occupying Israel's land which God gave to them in the bible. Asking them(Israel) to return to 1967 borders is just as absurd as asking America to give back land to the native American indians and return to the original 13 colonies. NOT going to happen. Those that say Israel was not a state in King Davids time I would argue that neither were any other empires of that time and neither are the palastinians a legitimate "state" during modern times. Why is it that of the some 20 Arab states around Israel capable of offering land and a place for the so called Palistinians to move to and settle permanently, have not done so? Because they do want a permanent solution, but only want to use the "middle east problem" as a way to get back at Israel. I bet that if Obama made an offer to settle the Palestinians in anyone of our states in a sovereign state similar to what we have done with native American Indians (government land under sovereign control of indian tribes not states), they would probably turn down the United States Offer to help them solve the problem with a permanent solution. There comes a point at which you have to say if you do not want to find a workable solution, we can not help. But they surprisingly jump at the offer to keep taking our aid in the form of money and financial support. It is time we cut the financial aid to unwilling , and uncooperative Arab groups. Why does Israel keep giving up land and get nothing in return? Why does the United States keep giving millions in aid and get no real progress for peace? Hello? In the middle east, the lights are on but nobody is home except when it comes to taking our money.

    May 21, 2011 at 7:47 am | Report abuse |
    • RUBIN

      what land.....

      May 21, 2011 at 7:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Fleeing

      Using your argument, I guess we Americans have to give America back to it's natives and get out....we must realize, that both people deserve a state of their own, two state solutions is the solution, but both state must have the capabilities to survive and nourish, you can not have a state with no air, land, or sea, rights, forget about military, it is always exec use after another, during Arafat time, Arafat was not peace partner, Abbas was not strong enough, Hamas is a terrorist organization, etc... just let the Israelis choose which Palestinian figure or organization they are willing to really make a peace agreement with.

      May 21, 2011 at 8:02 am | Report abuse |
  12. Fleeing

    Thinker, I would not call building Iraq after a false preemptive occupation aids, rather a strategy to win minds and hearts of the occupied people, besides, if we get out of there, trust me Iran would build it perhaps, just we will end up loosing. It ia loose loose situation. One last thing, don't forget to consider unlimited military support we have provided Israel free of charge, for more than 40 years, including the six day war, and what did we get in return? Ooh yea, spies, and forgot about the liberty incident during 1967 war...go back and study history just make sure was written by an independent source, by the numbers, how is it possible that population percentage can rise up from 17 percent in 1915' to more than 50 percent by 1947' I think we can blame yet another occupier, the British during their mandate, also, the fact Europe did not want a Jewish state I their back yard, forced the issue after what hitler had done, to find another place that no one in europe and America had any reservation towards, and by default, Palestine was chosen, as a result of the before ... You can never be able to resolve issues, If the situation was not looked at from various historical paradigms and perspectives....eastern Europe before and shortly after ww 2 had the majority of Jews around the globe in particular Poland, why was not there state established there, this way no one would have had to immigrate from both sides, Jews to Palestine and Palestinians out of palestine, but this is just too naive thinking, a nd contradicts the end of days fulfillment argument that drives the angelicans to support the state of Israel,

    May 21, 2011 at 7:53 am | Report abuse |
  13. Polysciguy

    Land for peace historically never worked. Negotiating for peace with a group who's sole mission in life is the fanatical annihilation of your existence never worked. Until people (such as the US President) actually studies history, this discussion of Israel will be a total waste of time due to obvious historical and political illiteracy of the people involved.

    'Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.'

    – Santayana

    May 21, 2011 at 8:33 am | Report abuse |
  14. Polysciguy

    Land for peace historically never worked. Negotiating for peace with a group who's sole mission in life is the fanatical annihilation of your existence never worked. Until people (such as the US President) actually studies history, this discussion of Israel will be a total waste of time due to obvious historical and political illiteracy of the people involved.

    May 21, 2011 at 8:34 am | Report abuse |
  15. concerned

    We've already tried land for peace... it's called the Gaza strip! Did giving Gaza to the Palestinians produce any measure of peace? No! They elected a terrorist government and are now firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas on a regular basis. Land for peace doesn't work with an enemy committed to your destruction. It only gives them a better launching pad for their next attack!

    May 21, 2011 at 8:41 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8