PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Change that has never been in play and will never take place.


HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 03:11 PM
Obama's Israel Policy
11:07 AM, MAY 20, 2011 •
BY DANIEL HALPER

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post goes over the history of America's Israel policy and the significance of President Obama's declaration yesterday that “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Historically, Kessler finds, "until Obama on Thursday, U.S. presidents generally have steered clear of saying the negotiations should start on the 1967 lines."


Indeed, Obama's formulation is more radical than all presidents from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush:

“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”

— President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968

“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”

— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”

— Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988

“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.”

— President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001

“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”

— President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002

Even liberal Alan Dershowitz believes the president made a mistake in his Middle East speech yesterday:

President Barack Obama should be commended for his emphasis on Israel’s security and his concern about Hamas joining the Palestinian Authority without renouncing its violent charter. But he made one serious mistake that tilts the balance against Israel in any future negotiations. Without insisting that the Palestinians give up their absurd claim to have millions of supposed refugees “return” to Israel as a matter of right, he insisted that Israel must surrender all of the areas captured in its defensive war of 1967, subject only to land swaps.

This formulation undercuts Security Council Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role in helping to draft). Resolution 242, passed unanimously by the Security Council in the wake of Israel’s 1967 victory, contemplated some territorial adjustments necessary to assure Israel’s security against future attacks. It also contemplated that Israel would hold onto the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the access roads to Hebrew University, without the need for any land swaps. Land swaps would only be required to make up for any areas beyond those contemplated by Resolution 242. The Obama formulation would seem to require land swaps even for the Western Wall.

Peter Berkowitz believes that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu "should reaffirm before Congress on May 24 that further progress toward peace depends above all on Palestinian recognition that the Jewish people, no less than the Palestinian people, have a right to national independence in a state of their own."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-israel-policy_567563.html

orange
05-20-2011, 03:21 PM
"Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." /reading

Alan Dershowitz is the biggest flack for Zionists in America.

I did get far enough to see this: "This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended" - George W. Bush

That sure sounds like using 1967 border as a starting point at least. And when did George Schultz serve as President? Either I or Daniel Halper is a little confused.

vailpass
05-20-2011, 03:39 PM
"Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." /reading

Alan Dershowitz is the biggest flack for Zionists in America.

I did get far enough to see this: "This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended" - George W. Bush

That sure sounds like using 1967 border as a starting point at least. And when did George Schultz serve as President? Either I or Daniel Halper is a little confused.

What exactly is a 'Zionist'?

orange
05-20-2011, 03:42 PM
What exactly is a 'Zionist'?

GOOGLE's your friend. So is Wikipedia.

vailpass
05-20-2011, 03:44 PM
GOOGLE's your friend. So is Wikipedia.

Which would make two more friends than I'm guessing you have.

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 03:50 PM
hcf do you really give a shit about Israel this much?

I don't believe we are ever going to see any kind of truce between the two and honestly it wouldn't bother me if they just went to war right now and all of them died.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 04:00 PM
You support your allies. They support you.

Obama is single handedly undoing the alliances that were forged in WW1 and WW2 and the years after. The strength of the US and the west are in great jeopardy because this man has no respect for and no interest in long term strong cooperative bonds. Its more and more clear that in fact he wants to dismantle and destroy our critical friendships.

I'm beginning to see that liberals do not have any interest in the idea of having allies. Its all about the short term and its all about them. You cannot count on a liberal to have your back when you need it.

orange
05-20-2011, 04:08 PM
You support your allies. They support you.


You mean like supporting France and England in their Libyan adventure?

No, of course not. Not that.

You mean supporting our allies Likud who fought alongside us in, um, which war again?

vailpass
05-20-2011, 04:12 PM
You mean like supporting France and England in their Libyan adventure?

No, of course not. Not that.

You mean supporting our allies Likud who fought alongside us in, um, which war again?

First false allegations of racism and now deliberate obtuseness? Why Orange, has all that obama fail finally got you down?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 04:15 PM
First false allegations of racism and now deliberate obtuseness? Why Orange, has all that obama fail finally got you down?

Its the mantra. They know not what they say.

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 04:15 PM
You support your allies. They support you.

Obama is single handedly undoing the alliances that were forged in WW1 and WW2 and the years after. The strength of the US and the west are in great jeopardy because this man has no respect for and no interest in long term strong cooperative bonds. Its more and more clear that in fact he wants to dismantle and destroy our critical friendships.

I'm beginning to see that liberals do not have any interest in the idea of having allies. Its all about the short term and its all about them. You cannot count on a liberal to have your back when you need it.

We do support them with our tax dollars in the billions and our military. We are the only thing keeping them from being destroyed.

That also doesn't mean we agree with everything they do or want to do just like with any of our other allies.

orange
05-20-2011, 04:16 PM
Are France and England our allies going back to WW1 and WW2 or aren't they? And what alliances from WW1 And WW2 have we abandoned again? Specifically.

"Deliberate obtuseness" is your game. That's not right. "Blatant deceit" is your game.

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 04:21 PM
France and Germany are our "allies" but they didn't support us in Iraq. It didn't seem to hurt our relationship with them.

orange
05-20-2011, 04:33 PM
http://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IsraelAd-3.gif

Israel Ad for Peace
May 18, 2011 at 8:41 am

On the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, more and more prominent Israelis are calling for recognizing a Palestinian state now and for negotiating with that state to achieve peace and security. They are calling it an “existential Israeli interest.”

On May 18th, they ran unprecedented ads in Israeli papers making their case, signed by 18 generals and 27 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize, among others.

We’re running this groundbreaking ad verbatim in The New York Times. Help us raise the funds necessary to amplify these immensely important, pro-peace Israeli voices.

Click here for full ad in English (http://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IsraelAd_Eng.pdf)

Who signed the ad?
•Over two dozen senior security establishment names, including 18 retired generals.
•Approximately 40 distinguished prize winners, including 27 Israel prize laureates.
•Over 5 former ambassadors, consul generals, and directors of the foreign ministry
•Over 5 current or former presidents of universities

http://jstreet.org/campaigns/israelad/

Brock
05-20-2011, 04:37 PM
What do they do for us?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 04:49 PM
We do support them with our tax dollars in the billions and our military. We are the only thing keeping them from being destroyed.

That also doesn't mean we agree with everything they do or want to do just like with any of our other allies.

Seems we are funding their enemies at a rapid clip. Even when those enemies seem to be our enemies. Don't you find this form of ObamaStatesmanship a little odd? Or are you so bought into Obama nothing else matters?

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 05:39 PM
Seems we are funding their enemies at a rapid clip. Even when those enemies seem to be our enemies. Don't you find this form of ObamaStatesmanship a little odd? Or are you so bought into Obama nothing else matters?

Do you have examples? I know we have given Palestine aid money for a long time. Who else?

Ugly Duck
05-20-2011, 05:50 PM
What exactly is a 'Zionist'?

You serious? The Zionists were the guys that advocated that Jews from around the world should move to Palestine & take over to create a Jewish State with Jerusalem as its capital. They were the terrorists that murdered the English by posing as milkmen & planting bombs at the King David Hotel. They are the guys that conceived of & implemented the founding of a Jewish government to rule over Palestinian land. They are the movement that created modern Israel.

vailpass
05-20-2011, 06:11 PM
You serious? The Zionists were the guys that advocated that Jews from around the world should move to Palestine & take over to create a Jewish State with Jerusalem as its capital. They were the terrorists that murdered the English by posing as milkmen & planting bombs at the King David Hotel. They are the guys that conceived of & implemented the founding of a Jewish government to rule over Palestinian land. They are the movement that created modern Israel.

I have heard the term "Zionist" used in different ways. I was just trying to see if orange was blowing one of those super-secret dog whistles he likes to talk about.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 06:18 PM
Do you have examples? I know we have given Palestine aid money for a long time. Who else?

Did you listen to Obama yesterday? Have you been aware of the changes in Egypt just recently? Or are you just playing out of touch?

orange
05-20-2011, 06:33 PM
I have heard the term "Zionist" used in different ways. I was just trying to see if orange was blowing one of those super-secret dog whistles he likes to talk about.

More Thoughts On President Obama's Speech Calling For A Palestinian State On The "1967 Borders"

May 20, 2011

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States, yesterday strongly condemned President Obama’s Mideast speech promoting and supporting the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran terrorist state on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines (often inaccurately described as the 1967 borders). The ZOA believes that President’s Obama’s call for the establishment of such a Palestinian state under existing conditions and particularly in light of the Fatah/Hamas unity government agreement, utterly compromises his stated commitment to Israel’s security and points to either extreme hostility to Israel or naivety about the Palestinians.

http://www.zoa.org/
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 06:36 PM
More Thoughts On President Obama's Speech Calling For A Palestinian State On The "1967 Borders"

May 20, 2011

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States, yesterday strongly condemned President Obama’s Mideast speech promoting and supporting the establishment of a Hamas/Fatah/Iran terrorist state on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines (often inaccurately described as the 1967 borders). The ZOA believes that President’s Obama’s call for the establishment of such a Palestinian state under existing conditions and particularly in light of the Fatah/Hamas unity government agreement, utterly compromises his stated commitment to Israel’s security and points to either extreme hostility to Israel or naivety about the Palestinians.

http://www.zoa.org/
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!

Lieberman said the same thing. I supposed anyone who supports Israel and opposes the position Obama took is now branded a zionist.

orange
05-20-2011, 06:39 PM
Lieberman said the same thing. I supposed anyone who supports Israel and opposes the position Obama took is now branded a zionist.

It's not a question of "branding."

Zionists are Zionists. They choose the word themselves. Like the "Zionist Organization of America," above.

orange
05-20-2011, 06:43 PM
Like the "Zionist Organization of America," above.

... who publish among other things, the College Zionist:


In 1999, Lieberman founded Yisrael Beiteinu. The party was formed to cater to the large population of immigrants from the Soviet Union. Yisrael Beiteinu describes itself as “a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky.” The party encourages socio-economic opportunities for new immigrants. One of the party’s controversial platforms is the creation of a Palestinian state, to be accomplished by transferring areas of land populated by Arabs to the Palestinians; Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria would become part of Israel. Equally controversial is the party’s call for a citizenship law that would require all Israeli citizens to affirm their loyalty to the State and serve in either the army or the National Service, or otherwise lose their eligibility for state benefits.

http://thecollegezionist.com/?p=805

... speaking of Lieberman.

orange
05-20-2011, 06:47 PM
“a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky.”


Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel, and was the chief ideological competitor to the dominant socialist Labor Zionism. Revisionism is represented primarily by the Likud Party.

The ideology was developed originally by Ze'ev Jabotinsky who advocated a "revision" of the "practical Zionism" of David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann, which was focused on independent settlement of Eretz Yisrael. In 1935, after the Zionist Executive rejected his political program and refused to state that “the aim of Zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state,” Jabotinsky resigned from the Zionist Organization. He founded the New Zionist Organization (NZO) to conduct independent political activity for free immigration and the establishment of a Jewish State.[2] Revisionist Zionism was instead centered on a vision of "political Zionism", which Jabotinsky regarded as following the legacy of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

... speaking of Zev (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky.

And there's that nasty word again, ZIONISM.

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 07:01 PM
Did you listen to Obama yesterday? Have you been aware of the changes in Egypt just recently? Or are you just playing out of touch?

Correct me if I am wrong but Egypt and Israel have been "allies" since 1979 when they signed the peace accord

vailpass
05-20-2011, 07:03 PM
[INDENT][INDENT]More Thoughts On President Obama's Speech Calling For A Palestinian State On The "1967 Borders"

[FETCH! you uppity bitch!

Orange peeled. LMAO

orange
05-20-2011, 07:09 PM
http://furlongspetsupply.com/ProductImages/booda/Aristo%20Silent%20Dog%20Whistle.jpg

FETCH! you uppity bitch!

Orange peeled. LMAO

Good girl!!! Here:

http://mombian.com/images/dog_biscuit.jpg

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 07:58 PM
It's not a question of "branding."

Zionists are Zionists. They choose the word themselves. Like the "Zionist Organization of America," above.

When did this occur? I was under the impression Zionists were around long ago, supporting the Jewish faith. When did zionists become a subject of liberal scorn? Are liberals generally anti semitic?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:00 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but Egypt and Israel have been "allies" since 1979 when they signed the peace accord

I would hope you know that pretty well fell apart about two or three weeks ago when the new leadership in Egypt pretty well declared the peace accord would no longer be followed.

You may not have seen that from the usual media outlets that inform Obots of only those things you need to know.

orange
05-20-2011, 08:09 PM
When did this occur? I was under the impression Zionists were around long ago, supporting the Jewish faith.

"Today, decades after the actual founding of a Jewish state, Zionism continues to be the guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world who believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel."

- Anti-Semitic Organization (http://www.adl.org/durban/zionism.asp)

orange
05-20-2011, 08:13 PM
Are liberals generally anti semitic?

No, we're not. That's a canard from wingtards. That's why I stopped reading at "Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." Because your writer is a liar.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:16 PM
Now, we're not. That's a canard from wingtards. That's why I stopped reading at "Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." Because your writer is a liar.

Sure get the impression liberals, at least on here, are pretty anti Israel thus anti Semitic. Where did I miss an example of pro-Isreal comments?

In that same light, why does it seem your guy, Obama is so hostile towards Israel?

Dershowitz is a liar in what regard? Seems like he stated his opinion. If you disagree with his opinion, is then branded a liar?

orange
05-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Where did I miss an example of pro-Isreal comments?

In that same light, why does it seem your guy, Obama is so hostile towards Israel?

You must have missed this, back on page 1.

http://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IsraelAd-3.gif

Israel Ad for Peace
May 18, 2011 at 8:41 am

On the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, more and more prominent Israelis are calling for recognizing a Palestinian state now and for negotiating with that state to achieve peace and security. They are calling it an “existential Israeli interest.”

On May 18th, they ran unprecedented ads in Israeli papers making their case, signed by 18 generals and 27 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize, among others.

We’re running this groundbreaking ad verbatim in The New York Times. Help us raise the funds necessary to amplify these immensely important, pro-peace Israeli voices.

Click here for full ad in English (http://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IsraelAd_Eng.pdf)

Who signed the ad?
•Over two dozen senior security establishment names, including 18 retired generals.
•Approximately 40 distinguished prize winners, including 27 Israel prize laureates.
•Over 5 former ambassadors, consul generals, and directors of the foreign ministry
•Over 5 current or former presidents of universities

http://jstreet.org/campaigns/israelad/

These guys are as Pro-Israel as can be. But in their case, Obama's case, and Liberals' case in general, that does not mean going along with the expansionist policies of Likud or Lieberman.

Dershowitz is a liar in what regard? Seems like he stated his opinion. If you disagree with his opinion, is then branded a liar?

And what the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about Dershowitz being a liar... I said YOUR WRITER - i.e. Daniel Halper the author of the OP - is a liar.

Once again, HCF posted an article he never read - or even glanced at, apparently. LMAO :clap: LMAO

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:29 PM
What did the writer say that was a lie?

Can you address anything directly or will we get another cut/paste something or other that avoids the issue? Clearly the government of Israel is quite upset over Obamas comments as well as are many people, jew and non Jew.

You do know the difference between recognition and withdrawing to the old borders. Well perhaps you don't. That may be the problem you have understanding the issue.

orange
05-20-2011, 08:37 PM
What did the writer say that was a lie?

"Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." - the implication being that "liberal" is "anti-Israel," (or even "anti-Zionist" in Dershowitz' case); the selfsame LIE that you repeated, thank you.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:39 PM
Obama is coming across as strongly anti Israel. He has since he took office. In March 2010 the Australian press was pointing out the dangerous way Obamas personal bias was impacting Israel. Nothing has changed for the better and his speech this week has clearly made matters worse.

Mr Orange, as a Obama acolyte and apologist, can you explain why Obama has such antipathy toward Israel?

In this Australian coverage it is called "BARACK Obama's anti-Israel jihad". Those are strong words.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/obamas-anti-israeli-hysteria-dangerous-and-destructive/story-e6frg6zo-1225846153221

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:41 PM
"Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." - the implication being that "liberal" is "anti-Israel," (or even "anti-Zionist" in Dershowitz' case); the selfsame LIE that you repeated, thank you.

So, if someone is refereed to as liberal Congressman X, you feel that is done to imply anti-Israel? I believe even Dershowitz refers to himself as a liberal.

I dont think I have lied?

orange
05-20-2011, 08:44 PM
In this Australian coverage it is called "BARACK Obama's anti-Israel jihad". Those are strong words.

And this ISRAELI opinion is strong about Netanyahu:

This feeling of responsibility has increased in recent years, after it became clear that the Israeli right has no intention of responding to Palestinian demands for freedom and independence. Under the guise of security considerations and the war on terror hides the real, ideological reason: In the right's view, recognizing the equal national rights of the Palestinians means forgoing exclusive Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. From the point of view of members of the Israeli rejectionist front, recognizing the equality of Jewish and Arab rights on both sides of the Green Line is tantamount to betraying Jewish history.

But since the number of people who are still prepared to buy an argument of this kind is diminishing worldwide, Israel is on a collision course with all our allies and supporters. And at the end of this road, it is liable to become a pariah state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923

And let's not pretend that right-wing opinion is confined to the U.S. Murdoch comes from Australia, doesn't he?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:47 PM
Do you think Obama is anti-Israel?

orange
05-20-2011, 08:49 PM
So, if someone is refereed to as liberal Congressman X, you feel that is done to imply anti-Israel? I believe even Dershowitz refers to himself as a liberal.

Quoting Alan Dershowitz as an example of liberal U.S. opinion on Israel is false on it's face. As I said way back, he's the biggest flack for Zionism in America today. If you want a true voice of American liberals on Israel, you don't use him.

orange
05-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Do you think Obama is anti-Israel?

No.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:55 PM
There seems to be far more underlying Obama's position than the administration cares to address. Why are the Obama folks avoiding saying what his goals or objectives are? Spin wont make it go away. Is it that difficult to state the position? Honesty comes hard for these people it seems.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/20/obama-throws-israel-to-the-dogs/

America is on the verge of abandoning its most reliable ally in the Middle East, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama.
He began his betrayal with lip service to Israel’s concerns about defending itself from the relentless jihad that has been waged against it throughout the sixty-three years of its lifetime as a sovereign state: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”
Yet after saying that “Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist,” Obama called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Yet neither Hamas nor Fatah have acknowledged Israel’s right to exist, and Obama did not make that acknowledgment a condition of the establishment of a Palestinian state. He was merely making an observation, akin to something like: “You’ll never get a good job by sleeping in the sun all day” – more on the order of a polite request, a mild nag, rather than a firm condition.
Obama also called for “two states,” explaining that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”


It was widely reported Thursday evening that Obama was calling for a return to the 1967 borders, but this is not the case. He actually called for the creation of a “sovereign and contiguous state” for the Palestinian Arabs, and said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” Thus he wasn’t calling for a return to the 1967 lines, but new borders “based on the 1967 lines.”
There were, however, no 1967 lines in which Palestinian Arab territory was contiguous. For the territory of Palestine to be contiguous, that of Israel will have to be substantially reduced. Israel’s 1967 borders were indefensible, and Obama is calling for Israel to be reduced even further so that a contiguous Palestinian state can be established.
What’s more, Obama specified that the new Palestinian state should have “borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,” while Israel should have “borders with Palestine.” The implication was that Israel, in Obama’s vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt — only on “Palestine.” Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt. Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.
That would leave a truncated, reduced Israeli rump state, reminiscent of the reduced and defenseless Czechoslovakia that remained after Neville Chamberlain fed the Nazi beast at Munich. And if Obama did not mean that the diminished Israel he envisioned would have no territory bordering on Jordan or Egypt, the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state including Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two: Palestine’s contiguous territory would come at the expense of Israel’s.

Whatever Obama meant about Israel’s borders, the establishment of a Palestinian state will come at the expense of Israel’s security. It will not make for peace any more than the withdrawal from Gaza did. In those days the learned analysts were predicting that a withdrawal from Gaza would pacify the Palestinians and normalize their sick society. I said, in contrast, that it would just be another jihad base for more attacks on Israel. That’s what it became. And that’s what a Palestinian state would be also.
The Kuwaiti MP Jama’an Al-Harbash summed it up on Al-Jazeera on March 29, 2010. First he quoted the notorious genocidal hadith in which Muhammad predicts a Muslim genocide of Jews: “Allah willing, a war will be waged between us and them – the war foretold by the Prophet Muhammad: ‘Judgment Day will not come before you fight the Jews – with them on the west bank of the river, and you on the east bank – and the trees and the stones will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ This war is drawing near, Allah willing.”
With eerie prescience, al-Harbash then declared of the now-toppled regimes in the Middle East that “the countries of surrender and appeasement, and those who have forsaken the holy places and the land, in their efforts to cling to their seats and pass them on [to their sons] – they will be trampled underfoot by the mujahideen.”
Finally al-Harbash explained the nature of the conflict: “This is a war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis, or a war between liberators and occupiers. This is an ideological war, an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad.”
Those who believe that will not be pacified by the creation of a Palestinian state. They will not lay down their arms and accept Israel’s existence, even its truncated, bisected existence, because the Palestinians have statehood. Not only will they not be pacified; they will be emboldened – emboldened to fight on against their bloodied and weakened adversary. Emboldened to move in for the kill.


Obama’s Thursday address thus amounted to a betrayal of Israel, and an attempt to sign its death warrant. Binyamin Netanyahu immediately issued a statement saying that he was going to seek “a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress,” including commitments about Israel “not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
Will Obama honor this request? Unlikely. But it is good that it is going to be made. Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will not acquiesce to Obama’s betrayal and go gently into the night.
And so now more than ever, all free people must stand with Israel.

orange
05-20-2011, 08:55 PM
And let's not pretend that right-wing opinion is confined to the U.S. Murdoch comes from Australia, doesn't he?

Later in 1964, Murdoch launched The Australian, Australia's first national daily newspaper


http://growabrain.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c858253ef0133ed98102a970b-800wi

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 08:56 PM
No.

Really? What would an anti-Israel stand look like contrasted to his actions to date?

mikey23545
05-20-2011, 08:57 PM
"Even liberal Alan Dershowitz..." - the implication being that "liberal" is "anti-Israel," (or even "anti-Zionist" in Dershowitz' case)

This is an axiom.

mikey23545
05-20-2011, 09:01 PM
And this ISRAELI opinion is strong about Netanyahu:

This feeling of responsibility has increased in recent years, after it became clear that the Israeli right has no intention of responding to Palestinian demands for freedom and independence. Under the guise of security considerations and the war on terror hides the real, ideological reason: In the right's view, recognizing the equal national rights of the Palestinians means forgoing exclusive Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. From the point of view of members of the Israeli rejectionist front, recognizing the equality of Jewish and Arab rights on both sides of the Green Line is tantamount to betraying Jewish history.

But since the number of people who are still prepared to buy an argument of this kind is diminishing worldwide, Israel is on a collision course with all our allies and supporters. And at the end of this road, it is liable to become a pariah state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923

And let's not pretend that right-wing opinion is confined to the U.S. Murdoch comes from Australia, doesn't he?

And let's not pretend shit like this is predominant Israeli opinion. There are left wing kooks in every country.

This would be like me quoting you and Ereckshun as mainstream American political philosophers...LMAO

orange
05-20-2011, 09:02 PM
This is an axiom.

Thanks for proving my point.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:02 PM
Quoting Alan Dershowitz as an example of liberal U.S. opinion on Israel is false on it's face. As I said way back, he's the biggest flack for Zionism in America today. If you want a true voice of American liberals on Israel, you don't use him.

Do you have an acceptable pro-Israel flack?

mikey23545
05-20-2011, 09:02 PM
Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for demonstrating the axiom.

orange
05-20-2011, 09:07 PM
Another left-wing nut weighs in:



Anti-Semitic Organization's (http://www.adl.org/) Abraham Foxman: Obama didn’t throw Israel under the bus

By Greg Sargent

I just got off the phone with Abraham Foxman, the Holocaust survivor who heads the Anti-Semitic Organization (http://www.adl.org/). He does not agree with the claim by some Republican 2012 presidential candidates and conservative commentators that Obama threw Israel under the bus in his Arab Spring speech yesterday.

The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.

“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”

Foxman said that the broader characterization of the speech as anti-Israel by some on the right is also off base, citing its insistence on Israel’s right to self-defense, its opposition to the Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and other matters.

“The speech indicated to me that this administration has come a long way in better understanding and appreciating the difficulties facing both parties, but especially Israel in trying to make peace with the Palestinians,” Foxman said.

Foxman did offer a nuance: He said he doesn’t fault Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for raising concerns about Obama’s decision to articulate the 1967 lines as American policy.

“There is a danger that the 1967 marker, which was always there but has never been stated so directly, may become this year’s settlements issue,” Foxman said. By this he means that he worries that making it central to official U.S. policy could turn it into a core make-or-break issue, just as settlements were, which could make peace tougher to attain.

But Foxman clarified that Obama’s remarks about the 1967 lines were not comparable to Obama’s call for a settlement freeze — which also angered the right — in the sense that the 1967 lines don’t represent a firm proposal. “It’s not an edict — it’s not what he did with settlements,” Foxman said.

Foxman added that all the noise over that one sentence could distract from the fact that much of the speech was positive for Israel. “He said a lot of good things,” Foxman said. “All these things were overshadowed by one phrase. And even that, he put in context.”

“I see a lot of positive,” Foxman concluded. “I see changes in American understanding.”


By Greg Sargent | 03:25 PM ET, 05/20/2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/adls-abraham-foxman-obama-didnt-throw-israel-under-the-bus/2011/03/03/AFV3Rv7G_blog.html

orange
05-20-2011, 09:10 PM
Do you have an acceptable pro-Israel flack?

Foxman good enough for you?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:16 PM
Foxman good enough for you?


Clearly you only care to discuss the positions fed to you by your acceptable flacks. The preponderance of opinions from a wide range of sources, even those not owned by australians, or the zionist controlled press as your side so seems to believe, is that Obama has created a colossal fuckup with the help of Hillary and Mitchell.

I cannot help but wonder what honest clear thinking Obama voters feel after this. My bet is that many are seeing enough examples of his inability to formulate a coherent foreign policy that they move even further from him and his departures from value based long term policy.

orange
05-20-2011, 09:22 PM
I cannot help but wonder what honest clear thinking Obama voters feel after this. My bet is that many are seeing enough examples of his inability to formulate a coherent foreign policy that they move even further from him and his departures from value based long term policy.

My bet is that most Americans think along these lines:

I don't believe we are ever going to see any kind of truce between the two and honestly it wouldn't bother me if they just went to war right now and all of them died.

What do they do for us?

Since the Republican Presidential candidates are all taking a strong pro-Likud position, I guess we'll find out. Won't we?

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:26 PM
Your bet is on Obama regardless.

mlyonsd
05-20-2011, 09:30 PM
Who started the 67 war?

I have no problem with Obama throwing in all the cards and making a blanket statment hoping to push things along. But the next step has to come from the Palestinians, especially Hamas. They need to piggy back on to Obama's statement by showing they believe Israel has a right to exist.

If they don't then Obama's only next step is to point the finger at them.

orange
05-20-2011, 09:31 PM
Netanyahu 'Went In Worried, Came Out Encouraged' After White House Meeting, Official Says

First Posted: 05-20-11 05:59 PM | Updated: 05-20-11 06:31 PM

WASHINGTON -- Benjamin Netanyahu went into the White House Friday "worried, but came out encouraged," according to a senior Israeli official briefed on the prime minister's frank meeting with President Barack Obama.

In a closed-door meeting and working lunch the Israeli leader "wanted to go on record in the presence of the president," said the official, who is not authorized to speak publicly. During the talks, which went over-schedule and lasted more than two hours, Netanyahu told Obama "what are Israel's red lines: No on refugees, no on negotiations with Hamas, and we cannot withdraw to '67 line, per se," the official added.

Netanyahu, who has now held seven meetings with Obama -- at least one of them far chillier than Friday's talks. The pair later repeated the points they'd discussed in private to reporters.

"The Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel," Netanyhu said in a press conference after the meeting.

He said Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas. Here Netanyahu echoed Obama, who a few minutes earlier said the Palestinian group in control of Gaza Strip "is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process."

Netanyahu also said going back to 1967 borders, when Israel at its narrowest was nine miles wide, would be "indefensible."

The Israeli official said Netanyahu privately pressed the president for "details and explanations and clarification" on his Thursday speech, which laid out a U.S. vision for the Middle East that included finding a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. "We heard clearer language" at the White House, the official said, than Obama used at the State Department the day before.

The official spoke soon after White House spokesman Jay Carney tried to put a positive spin on the meeting.

Netanyahu is scheduled to speak to AIPAC, the American pro-Israel lobby, on Monday. He will then address Congress on Tuesday. The Israeli official said the prime minister plans to "readjust" his remarks after the White House session but said he did not know what Netanyahu might say.

The Israeli leader is widely expected to avoid making bold overtures in light of a Hamas-Fatah unity government deal, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' plan to go to the United Nations General Assembly in September to seek unilateral recognition for a state of Palestine.

"The relationship has not changed," the official said when asked to describe the tenor of the White House talks. "The meeting was cordial. Good and cordial." He added that while the two leaders "agreed to disagree on certain things," the exchange was, as Obama also put it, "constructive."

"There are different views on issues, difference on policy," the official said, "but none of it was personal."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/netanyahu-went-in-worried_n_864967.html



"senior Israeli official" - obviously another left-wing nut. LMAO Quick, HCF, tell me what David Horowitz' middle-of-the-road take is on this.

orange
05-20-2011, 09:35 PM
Who started the 67 war?


Israel. They pre-empted the Arabs with a stunning surprise attack. You didn't know that? Or maybe you did - that's the problem with rhetorical questions.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:43 PM
Israel. They pre-empted the Arabs with a stunning surprise attack. You didn't know that? Or maybe you did - that's the problem with rhetorical questions.

why did they do that? was there some motivation to do so? why did they feel threatened?

orange
05-20-2011, 09:45 PM
why did they do that? was there some motivation to do so? why did they feel threatened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:48 PM
Ahh the old wiki gambit. Tell me, does it say Israel "started the 6 day war" or that they mounted a preemptive attack? No need here for spin, just deal in the facts and maybe find a reliable source for your answer since you clearly are in a scramble to back up your earlier answer.

orange
05-20-2011, 09:50 PM
I know the answer (more or less), you don't. You get to read it (it's long and complicated, and I bet it's not what you think). I'm not the least bit interested in whether you ever know. It was your question, and I'm not going to write out a thesis for you.

HonestChieffan
05-20-2011, 09:58 PM
I know the answer (more or less), you don't. You get to read it (it's long and complicated, and I bet it's not what you think). I'm not the least bit interested in whether you ever know. It was your question, and I'm not going to write out a thesis for you.

Awesome. I have no doubt you have an answer and no doubt you dont know the facts.

orange
05-20-2011, 10:02 PM
and no doubt you dont know the facts.

And yet, YOU'RE the one who asked. LMAO

p.s. Are you ever going to reply to the Foxman statement? Or the one from the "senior Israeli official?" I'm anxious to find out what Horowitz or Geller think.

Direckshun
05-20-2011, 10:22 PM
There is nothing Fox News and Drudge can't fire up their base over.

Bewbies
05-20-2011, 10:50 PM
How does anyone using the term 'Zionist' think they're going to be taken seriously?

Direckshun
05-20-2011, 10:52 PM
How does anyone using the term 'Zionist' think they're going to be taken seriously?

CAN YOU SEEEEEEE

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9bJer_8PwVM/TP3SDHN3pfI/AAAAAAAAA68/I_6iVfh0vpQ/s1600/zion01.jpg

CAN YOU SEEEEEEEEEEE

Bewbies
05-20-2011, 10:53 PM
CAN YOU SEEEEEEE

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9bJer_8PwVM/TP3SDHN3pfI/AAAAAAAAA68/I_6iVfh0vpQ/s1600/zion01.jpg

CAN YOU SEEEEEEEEEEE

Just like the suicide bomber, clearly your ass has just traveled through your brain. LMAO

Direckshun
05-20-2011, 10:55 PM
Just like the suicide bomber, clearly your ass has just traveled through your brain. LMAO

You had me at suicide bomber.

Bewbies
05-20-2011, 11:00 PM
You had me at suicide bomber.

You love Obama too much to do that.

Direckshun
05-20-2011, 11:04 PM
You love Obama too much to do that.

I figure we're all dead anyway.

dirk digler
05-20-2011, 11:08 PM
I cannot help but wonder what honest clear thinking Obama voters feel after this. My bet is that many are seeing enough examples of his inability to formulate a coherent foreign policy that they move even further from him and his departures from value based long term policy.

Most people don't give a shit. I know I don't.

What I do give a shit about though is him making a gutsy decision and killing the the #1 terrorist in the world. That is way more important than these 2 countries fighting each other for decades.

Bewbies
05-21-2011, 07:07 AM
Most people don't give a shit. I know I don't.

What I do give a shit about though is him making a gutsy decision and killing the the #1 terrorist in the world. That is way more important than these 2 countries fighting each other for decades.

LMAO gutsy.

Chiefshrink
05-21-2011, 07:25 AM
hcf do you really give a shit about Israel this much?

I don't believe we are ever going to see any kind of truce between the two and honestly it wouldn't bother me if they just went to war right now and all of them died.

Your naivete' continues to amaze me. :rolleyes:

How much of our intelligence do you think comes from Israel (our only ally in the Mideast) in reference to terrorism apart from Guantanamo?

Obama exposing not only his incompetent idealogue ways but his true colors of allegiance to the Muslim world as time goes on. Actions speak louder than words my friend:thumb:

Chiefshrink
05-21-2011, 07:37 AM
Most people don't give a shit. I know I don't.

What I do give a shit about though is him making a gutsy decision and killing the the #1 terrorist in the world. That is way more important than these 2 countries fighting each other for decades.

Yes soooooooooooooooo gutsy that Panetta finally had to drag him off the golf course to tell him what they had finally done after months of sitting on our hands while asking Obama "can we kill him now"? We could have done this months ago!!! But Obama kept putting it off 'until' the right political time.

And my guess is that Obama never really wanted to do this anyhow since his allegiance to the Muslim world is sooooooooooooooooo important to him and he did not want to be "branded" by the Muslim world as the person who killed their "hero". Valerie Jarret kept Panetta and Clinton at bay for months until finally Panetta said "F it" we are going in.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 08:33 AM
Weekend editorials beginning to sum up this fiasco the POS has opened up. The fringe Obots cannot make this sort of amateur hour move go away.


EDITORIAL: Obama’s faithless pledges to Israel
The White House has thrown the Jewish state under the bus

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Friday, May 20, 2011


The White House was caught by surprise by the furor over President Obama’s statements on Israel in his major foreign-policy speech on Thursday. Mr. Obama’s defenders pointed out his position is consistent with long-standing administration policy, which explains why the peace process has been a raging failure.

At one point, there was promise of hope and change. On June 4, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) carefully calculated to appeal to Jewish voters concerned about his views towards Israel. “Let me be clear,” Mr. Obama said. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. … [A]ny agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders.” In 2009, however, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton established the 1967 lines “with agreed swaps” as one of the starting points for negotiations.

Israel’s longtime ambassador to the United States, Abba Eban, called this line the “Auschwitz border,” the front lines where the Arab armies were stopped while attempting to destroy Israel in 1948-49. The violent patrimony of this border and its grim implications should give Mr. Obama pause before further setting it in stone.

Mr. Obama also pledged in 2008 that it would be his policy that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” This pledge was broken almost immediately upon taking office. White House demands in 2009 that Israel freeze new construction - which the administration referred to as “settlements” - in eastern sections of Jerusalem effectively affirmed Palestinian claims on the city, which they envision as their own capital.

There’s reason to believe Mr. Obama doesn’t recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In June 2009, Mr. Obama issued Presidential Determination 2009-19, “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act,” a legally required waiver to continue to delay the May 31, 1999, deadline for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Presidents have issued this determination twice a year ever since, but Mr. Obama deleted a passage that appeared in previous declarations stating the United States “remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.” It would be a mark of good faith for Congress to close the loopholes in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 to test whether Mr. Obama really believes what he pledged three years ago.

In 2008, Mr. Obama also told AIPAC, “We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.” In his speech Thursday, Mr. Obama simply reframed this deadly issue as a rhetorical question: “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” For its part, Hamas called Thursday’s speech “a complete failure,” which lends some clarity to Mr. Obama’s philosophical musing.

On Israel, the president needs to explain what happened to the candidate who promised so much but has delivered so little.

Der Flöprer
05-21-2011, 02:18 PM
LMAO

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 07:09 PM
Maybe Mr Orange will bash the WSJ for not being as lefty as he likes but regardless, the Obot's defending his dumassness in chief is reprehensible.

WSJ today

By DORE GOLD

It's no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel's boundaries before the Six Day War.

Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel's future borders with a Palestinian state "should be based on the 1967 lines," a position he tried to offset by offering "mutually agreed land swaps." Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule.

Remember that before the Six Day War, those lines in the West Bank only demarcated where five Arab armies were halted in their invasion of the nascent state of Israel 19 years earlier. Legally, they formed only an armistice line, not a recognized international border. No Palestinian state ever existed that could have claimed these prewar lines. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the Arab invasion, but its claim to sovereignty was not recognized by any U.N. members except Pakistan and the U.K. As Jordan's U.N. ambassador said before the war, the old armistice lines "did not fix boundaries." Thus the central thrust of Arab-Israeli diplomacy for more than 40 years was that Israel must negotiate an agreed border with its Arab neighbors.

The cornerstone of all postwar diplomacy was U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967. It did not demand that Israel pull back completely to the pre-1967 lines. Its withdrawal clause only called on Israel to withdraw "from territories," not from all territories. Britain's foreign secretary at the time, George Brown, later underlined the distinction: "The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,' and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Prior to the Six Day War, Jerusalem had been sliced in two, and the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites. Jerusalem's Christian population also faced limitations. As America's ambassador to the U.N., Arthur Goldberg, would explain, Resolution 242 did not preclude Israel's reunification of Jerusalem. In fact, Resolution 242 became the only agreed basis of all Arab-Israeli peace agreements, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

How were Israel's legal rights to new boundaries justified? A good explanation came from Judge Stephen Schwebel, who would later be an adviser to the State Department and then president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Writing in the American Journal of International Law in 1970, he noted that Israel's title to West Bank territory—in the event that it sought alterations in the pre-Six Day War lines—emanated from the fact that it had acted in lawful exercise of its right to self-defense. It was not the aggressor.


The flexibility for creating new borders was preserved for decades. Indeed, the 1993 Oslo Agreements, signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, did not stipulate that the final borders between Israel and the Palestinians would be the 1967 lines. Borders were to be a subject for future negotiations. An April 2004 U.S. letter to Israel, backed by a bipartisan consensus in both houses of Congress, stipulated that Israel was not expected to fully withdraw, but rather was entitled to "defensible borders." U.S. secretaries of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher reiterated the same point in past letters of assurance.

If the borders between Israel and the Palestinians need to be negotiated, then what are the implications of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that states up front that those borders must be the 1967 lines? Some commentators assert that all Mr. Abbas wants to do is strengthen his hand in future negotiations with Israel, and that this does not contradict a negotiated peace. But is that really true? Why should Mr. Abbas ever negotiate with Israel if he can rely on the automatic majority of Third World countries at the U.N. General Assembly to back his positions on other points that are in dispute, like the future of Jerusalem, the refugee question, and security?

Mr. Abbas's unilateral move at the U.N. represents a massive violation of a core commitment in the Oslo Agreements in which both Israelis and Palestinians undertook that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of Permanent Status negotiations." Palestinian spokesmen counter that Israeli settlements violated this clause. Yet former Prime Minister Rabin was very specific while negotiating Oslo in preserving the rights of Israeli citizens to build their homes in these disputed areas, by insisting that the settlements would be one of the subjects of final status negotiations between the parties.

By turning to the U.N., Mr. Abbas wants to use the international community to change the legal status of the territories. Why should Israel rely on Mr. Abbas in the future after what is plainly a material breach of this core obligation?

The truth is that Mr. Abbas has chosen a unilateralist course instead of negotiations. For that reason he has no problem tying his fate to Hamas, the radical organization that is the antithesis of peace. Its infamous 1988 Charter calls for Israel's complete destruction and sees Islam in an historic battle with the Jewish people. In 2006, Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas leader who attended the recent Cairo reconciliation ceremony with Mr. Abbas's Fatah movement, stated openly that Hamas was still committed to its 1988 Charter, noting, "the movement [would] not change a single word." Hamas's jihadist orientation was reconfirmed when Ismail Haniyeh, its prime minister in Gaza, condemned the U.S. for eliminating Osama bin Laden.

All Israeli prime ministers have spoken about negotiations as a vehicle for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. There would be an end of claims. However, Mr. Abbas has now revealed his intention of using the U.N. for perpetuating the conflict. As he wrote this week: "Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one."

Mr. Abbas clearly is not prepared to make a historic compromise. By running to the U.N. and to Hamas, he is evading the hard choices he has to make, and he is leaving any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict far more difficult for future generations.

Mr. Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329373006279638.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

dirk digler
05-21-2011, 07:36 PM
hey hcf do you know how many of our major allies are supporting this proposal?

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 10:10 PM
we have major allies? That seems less and less believable as Obama continues to submarine one after another.

Are they allies of Israel? If they are not or are not seen as such, then its just another spew.

Most critical, did Israel ask for these other opinions on where their borders should be?

Would the US enjoy France or Greece issuing opinion and direction on how we should manage the border with Mexico?

orange
05-21-2011, 10:20 PM
Most critical, did Israel ask for these other opinions on where their borders should be?


No, THIS is what they ask us for: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

TOTAL: $106,164.7 Million (that's $106 BILLION through 2009, unless my eyes are fooling me again)

http://www.barewalls.com/i/c/508775_He-who-pays-the-Piper-calls-the-tune.jpg

dirk digler
05-21-2011, 10:32 PM
we have major allies? That seems less and less believable as Obama continues to submarine one after another.

Are they allies of Israel? If they are not or are not seen as such, then its just another spew.

Most critical, did Israel ask for these other opinions on where their borders should be?

Would the US enjoy France or Greece issuing opinion and direction on how we should manage the border with Mexico?

Oh I thought you said our allies matter and now you say they don't. You need to make up your mind. And since you didn't answer the question, 2 of Israel's strongest allies England and Germany support this position along with France, Jordan, and Italy. They probably don't matter though.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 10:44 PM
Of course they matter. Allies dont give the right to each other to dictate how they operate their country do they? Canada is an ally. Should we demand they all handguns? Should they demand we outlaw handguns?

Just because these allies support, according to you, the Obama proposal does not make it any more right that they or Obama tell them where they should establish their border.

Jordan...you really listed freaking Jordan? Jordan has threatened to do away with the agreement in place and the anti Israel protests in Jordan have only been in the news for about two years since the hammas/PLO rift and escalation of violence against Israel from Gaza.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2011, 10:54 PM
Canada's position...Dirk, can we see the positions of the countries you listed supporting the Obama proposal?

(Globe and Mail) – The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.

At a briefing ahead of the upcoming G8 summit in France, federal officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon.

Israel quickly rejected U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposal for the talks to be guided by the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps.

“What the government of Canada supports is basically a two-state solution that is negotiated,” a senior federal official said. “If it’s border, if it’s others issues, it has to be negotiated, it cannot be unilateral action.”

Pressed by reporters, federal officials said both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to decide on their bottom lines, which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.

“If the two parties are of the view that this is a starting point, that is fine for them,” said the federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Prime Minister’s director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, added that Canada’s position continues to be the search for a two-state solution.

“No solution, ultimately, is possible without both parties sitting down, negotiating and agreeing on what that final outcome will look like,” he said.

Mr. Obama boosted Palestinian hopes for an independent state during a speech by pointedly calling on Israel to regard its 1967 borders as the basis for a neighbouring Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.

Mr. Kotter
05-22-2011, 01:03 AM
Dang it, it's May 22nd, the doom-sayers were "off".....just sayin'...heh. LMAO