Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[koheesti]

I guess the difference is that I support the USA.

I am not an Israeli, nor a Palestinian. I will support the best solution in the region with regards to the world at large, but I do not blindly follow either of the two factions 100%. No one faction can possibly be 100% in the right, in my opinion.

I support the USA also. No difference there. However, Israel has been willing to make peace since the troubles began and the Palestinian Arabs have not. In my opinion, that makes the Israelis a lot closer to right than the Arabs who started the war in the first place and refuse to compromise to stop it.

I not only support my country, I like to support the underdog as well. In the Middle East, there is no bigger underdog than a few 5-6 million Jews surrounded by 100-200 million Muslims not only wanting to wipe them off the map, but they've actually tried more than once.

[geriatrickid]

Interesting that the issue of sustainability has not been addressed. Just where are all of these arabs supposed to go? Even if Israel was confined to the smallest of parcels people demand, there still would not be enough room for all the arabs. Just what are these arabs supposed to do when they arrive? Where will their jobs come from? Who will feed them? The arab approach to agriculture and the available arable lands just do not allow for the population to feed itself. What many are suggesting is that the arabs be crammed into an overpopulated area, devoid of economic opportunities and of resources. What do they think the end result will be? Overcrowded areas with no jobs and no resources is a breeding ground for violence. People will starve and disease will run rampant. Based upon past treatment of these arabs by fellow arabs, the approach to education, the position of radical Islam and the general economic conditions, all that one will be creating is one gigantic refugee camp where the inhabitants will be oppressed in typical arab fashion. The solutions forced on Israel will create a bigger problem, one that the world will run away from.

[Ulysses G.]

A complete SNAFU that will be blamed on Israel no doubt!

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday he would seek U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood if there was no breakthrough in the peace process by September.

Addressing a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Ramallah, he said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vision for peace — outlined in a speech on Tuesday — contained "nothing we can build on."

However, Abbas praised President Barack Obama's Mideast parameters, saying they laid a positive foundation for negotiations. Obama has said border talks should be based on the pre-1967 lines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43164966/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

For all intents and purposes, this debate is over and all the players (Israel, The US, the Palestinians) know it. Netanyahoo is simply playing up to his base in order to keep his domestic political coalition together.

It's simply a matter of time until there are two states on what will essentially be pre-1967 borders.

Edited May 25, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Morse manure. America has the veto and Obama has already said that he will use it.

Netanyahu has the support of the American people.

His frequent standing ovations from the joint meeting of Congress, a bastion of support for Israel, was a pointed message to Obama that pushing Israel too hard could carry political risks as he seeks re-election in 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXVjd-3Rfgw

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[kuffki]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Wednesday he would seek U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood if there was no breakthrough in the peace process by September.

Addressing a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Ramallah, he said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vision for peace — outlined in a speech on Tuesday — contained "nothing we can build on."

However, Abbas praised President Barack Obama's Mideast parameters, saying they laid a positive foundation for negotiations. Obama has said border talks should be based on the pre-1967 lines.

http://www.msnbc.msn...deast_n_africa/

For all intents and purposes, this debate is over and all the players (Israel, The US, the Palestinians) know it. Netanyahoo is simply playing up to his base in order to keep his domestic political coalition together.

It's simply a matter of time until there are two states on what will essentially be pre-1967 borders.

There is no doubt there will be 2 states eventually, however you need to get the pre-1967 borders out of your head. It simply will not happened under any administration, even if it means another war. Its as simple as that

[up-country_sinclair]

Morse manure. America has the veto and Obama has already said that he will use it.

The U.N. Charter states the admission of new members "will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." The council makes its membership recommendation through a resolution, meaning it must be approved by at least nine of the council's 15 members and not be vetoed by one of the five permanent members, including the U.S.

The General Assembly has never admitted a member without a favorable ruling of the Security Council, said John B. Quigley, an international law professor at Ohio State University.

But, he said, the Palestinians and their supporters could try to rally arguments for the assembly to bypass council approval.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43144106/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/palestinian-un-bid-enters-unknown-territory/

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.\

And there's another option around the veto:

(the) "Uniting for Peace" resolution, first invoked in 1950 to circumvent further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean war, U.N. officials say.

Such a resolution allows the General Assembly to consider collective action if the Security Council, because of a veto, "fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

To date, 10 emergency special sessions have been convened under "Uniting for Peace." The Palestinians and their supporters could seek to hold another one, arguing that not recognizing a Palestinian state constitutes a threat to international peace and security, said U.N. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

To date, 10 emergency special sessions have been convened under "Uniting for Peace."

Edited May 25, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.

The overwhelming majority of UN member states according to you. :lol:

By a strict reading of U.N rules, an American veto at the Security Council — which appears likely — would seem to derail any attempt to win recognition of Palestine as a U.N. member from the General Assembly

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

however you need to get the pre-1967 borders out of your head. It simply will not happened under any administration, even if it means another war. Its as simple as that

With all due respect, you need to get your head out of the distant past. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations have all included pre-1967 borders in any discussion/negotiations.

The present and future belong to Palestinian statehood on pre-1967 borders. It's not a question of "if", but "when". It's as simple as that.

[up-country_sinclair]

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.

The overwhelming majority of UN member states according to you. :lol:

In an earlier post you claimed to have "studied this issue". I think it's time to hit the books again.

Israeli diplomats have concluded that somewhere between 130 to 140 out of 192 UN member states will support Palestinian membership.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/j-lem-130-un-members-will-support-palestinian-state-1.362002

Is this where I insert three laughing smileys?

Edited May 25, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[kuffki]

however you need to get the pre-1967 borders out of your head. It simply will not happened under any administration, even if it means another war. Its as simple as that

With all due respect, you need to get your head out of the distant past. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations have all included pre-1967 borders in any discussion/negotiations.

The present and future belong to Palestinian statehood on pre-1967 borders. It's not a question of "if", but "when". It's as simple as that.

Now, you just being wishful and rather arrogant about the issue.

1967 borders are not going to happen. Israel already said so. Obama has already "clarified" his position on the matter.

But you are welcome to set your hopes and dreams, just do not be disappointed when it do not come true.

Sometime being realistic rather then optimistic and delusional is most rational way, no matter how disappointing the results might be

[kuffki]

We'll have to see, won't we? The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Palestinian membership.

The overwhelming majority of UN member states according to you. :lol:

In an earlier post you claimed to have "studied this issue". I think it's time to hit the books again.

Israeli diplomats have concluded that somewhere between 130 to 140 out of 192 UN member states will support Palestinian membership.

http://www.haaretz.c...-state-1.362002

Is this where I insert three laughing smileys?

That very same UN, Just gave seat to Congo, after all in Congo they only murdered mere 3 million people, sadly though Syria withdrew its application, because it makes for the best member.

Just because UN will recognize Palestine, it does not translate to pre 1967 border, does it?

Just like UN recognized Israel, yet it did not stop 5 Arab states to attack it and/or not recognize it STILL 60 years later

[Ulysses G.]

In an earlier post you claimed to have "studied this issue".

I have studied the issue enough to know that the countries that might recognize a Palestinians state are not the ones that matter.

Obama: The UN can't give the Palestinians a state

"The United Nations can achieve a lot of important work, what it is not going to be able to do is deliver a Palestinian state," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn...nown-territory/

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[luckizuchinni]

Palestine as a state will happen. It is matter of when, not if. But it is also a matter of in what form.

The Palestinians would have to swear off violence and recognize Israel first, and eventually they will realize that. And then the question of just where the borders will be has to be answered. I have a feeling that they will be somewhere between the current borders and the pre 1967 borders.

[luckizuchinni]

I guess the difference is that I support the USA.

I am not an Israeli, nor a Palestinian. I will support the best solution in the region with regards to the world at large, but I do not blindly follow either of the two factions 100%. No one faction can possibly be 100% in the right, in my opinion.

I support the USA also. No difference there. However, Israel has been willing to make peace since the troubles began and the Palestinian Arabs have not. In my opinion, that makes the Israelis a lot closer to right than the Arabs who started the war in the first place and refuse to compromise to stop it.

Oh, I might personally agree that the Israelis are "closer to right," but in the US' interests, in the interests of the world, of Israel, and of the Palestinians, a solution must be found. And no matter how you look at it, as the more powerful of the factions, it is inherent upon Israel to make the moves--with one caveat. That caveat is the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence. Once they do that, then Israel has to be the prime mover.

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

[David006]

If you guys would care to stop barking for a moment the following is an informative and seemingly unbiased source of information ....

http://www.sixdaywar.org

[samurai]

If you guys would care to stop barking for a moment the following is an informative and seemingly unbiased source of information ....

http://www.sixdaywar.org

seemingly unbiased

[Scott]

One off-topic remark and a reply not related to the thread have been removed from view.

[Ulysses G.]

That caveat is the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence. Once they do that, then Israel has to be the prime mover.

I agree with you, but the problem is that the caveat has seemed far out of reach since forever. I would have thought that the Palestinian Arabs would have figured this out in the 60s, but here it is 44 years later.

[koheesti]

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

If the blacks in America had resorted to the murderous bombing and rocketing tactics of the Palestinian organizations how do you think the white President and white Congress would have reacted?

[luckizuchinni]

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

If the blacks in America had resorted to the murderous bombing and rocketing tactics of the Palestinian organizations how do you think the white President and white Congress would have reacted?

Did you somehow miss my comment that my analogy was not perfect? And have you missed my posts that any peace process is predicated on the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence?

If you want to take issue with my posts, fine, but please be a little more cognizant of what my post actually is instead of just looking for a reason to go on the offensive.

[geriatrickid]

I guess the difference is that I support the USA.

I am not an Israeli, nor a Palestinian. I will support the best solution in the region with regards to the world at large, but I do not blindly follow either of the two factions 100%. No one faction can possibly be 100% in the right, in my opinion.

I support the USA also. No difference there. However, Israel has been willing to make peace since the troubles began and the Palestinian Arabs have not. In my opinion, that makes the Israelis a lot closer to right than the Arabs who started the war in the first place and refuse to compromise to stop it.

Oh, I might personally agree that the Israelis are "closer to right," but in the US' interests, in the interests of the world, of Israel, and of the Palestinians, a solution must be found. And no matter how you look at it, as the more powerful of the factions, it is inherent upon Israel to make the moves--with one caveat. That caveat is the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence. Once they do that, then Israel has to be the prime mover.

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

The attempt to use the struggle of afro americans in some states for their civil rights is not appropriate. An important part of the journey to rights came in WWII. People who had never encountered an afro american, or an asian american for that matter, finally met them. The people that would go on to leadership positions in industry and government knew of minority groups that served in the US and Commonwealth forces. It was Eisenhower that had afro American soldiers integrate with previously exclusive white units during the Battle of the Bulge. When the Americans entered the concentration camps it left an indelible imprint upon the troops and on the command officers. Read the statements of the American generals. It was a defining moment that hammered home of what the war was about: It was good versus evil, and this changed alot of people that harboured prejudice. Ever wonder why most WWII veterans that saw action might be conservative on the outside but had some very progressive views? All of the US's social advancements in the 1950's and 1960's came courtesy of that generation. President Truman's order to integrate the military in 1948 was the turning point for civil rights as it finally recognized afro americans and provided opportunities to these people, albeit at a slow pace. Military service was a powerful tool for integration and therein lies the reason while your analogy fails. The arabs of the area called Palestine do not have a history or a legacy of public service or collectivism. There has never been a defining event to shift arab views of "self" to that of "community". Israel might be called right wing by some but it is a socially democratic state with a legacy that stems from worker co-operatives and a tradition of public service. The notion of sacrifice created modern Israel. The Palestinian arabs do not have a history of taking care of themselves, its always been the UN or some western benefactor that puts up the money. The Israelis relied on themselves when they built modern Israel. Most of the social service organizations that Israel has today come from groups that were around hundreds of years ago. The Italian, German and Irish immigrants to the USA all had similar social service groups. The Palestinians have foreign make a job for themselves NGOs.

Why do you expect Israel to do for the arabs what the arabs must do for themselves? One can offer all the welfare and all the good will one wants, but it is wasted unless the desire for change is real and comes from the heart. How can the arabs change when three successive generations have been taught to hate? The Irish immigrants to the USA suffered prejudice and discrimination. Yet, they did not write schoolbooks that taught kids to count by killing protestants. Arab schoolbooks in Gaza are filled with hatred. When afro americans suffered discrimination and lynchings, they did not put on shows celebrating and encouraging the death of whites. Arab TV in the Palestinian territories is filled with propaganda promoting hate and violence. The arabs must embrace the concepts that advance a society and that means helping others. Arab culture in the Palestinian territories is individualistic based. The Bedouins have the concept of sharing as a cornerstone of their lives.. The Israelis understand the concept of sharing for the betterment of society. The non indigeneous arabs do not. It takes time to develop. It took a century for England to develop a proper approach to social service. And yet you think that Palestinian society will magically acquire these attributes once there is a Palestinian state. Creating borders will condemn the arabs to another generation of anger, because the borders and the state will not give them the social structures they need to create a civil society. It will instead create another Haiti, a nation dependent upon foreign aid.

Edited May 26, 2011 by geriatrickid

[Scott]

Thank you for a very informative post, Gk.

[slapout]

Any post/opinion is only informative if those who read it learn something. I have to agree with the post by the 'kid' in most of his comments. I might point out the acceptance of blacks/afro american by any significant part of the American public seemed to follow the end of the Civil war/War between the States. I only point this out, to emphasis the real time frame for the "slow pace" which was referenced.

[koheesti]

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

If the blacks in America had resorted to the murderous bombing and rocketing tactics of the Palestinian organizations how do you think the white President and white Congress would have reacted?

Did you somehow miss my comment that my analogy was not perfect? And have you missed my posts that any peace process is predicated on the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence?

If you want to take issue with my posts, fine, but please be a little more cognizant of what my post actually is instead of just looking for a reason to go on the offensive.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was "going on the offensive". Yes, you did say it wasn't an accurate analogy but you never said how it wasn't accurate. And if you are expecting me or any other reader to read the sum of all your past posts before replying to anything you write, you have got a long, long wait ahead of you.

Anyway, I don't have anything against your posts so maybe you should take your own advice and quit reading things into replies that aren't there.

Edited May 26, 2011 by koheesti

[Steely Dan]

Ditto.

Actually can there be spring in the dessert? Leaving aside the issue of Palestine, their ethnic brethren in Egypt severely oppress their Coptic minority and if you look at other yardsticks for measuring universal human rights I read (2006 figs) that Egypt was only second to Somalia for the incidence of female circumcision with a rate of 95%!. I need not put links to mass Hamas weddings of men to girls, but facts have to be faced, namely Hamas are dyed in the wool Islamists like the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood they came from. It is delusional to think you can just announce an independant Palestinian state and expect it to 'function' in a way far different from a theocratic feudal system. Fatah, they say, are secular and here was the hope for progress for the Palestinians, but I suspect the wikileaks revelations that they were prepared to compromise on the so called right of return put the Fatah leaders lives in jeopardy hence they are cozying up to Hamas out of self-preservation by returning to a more hostile stance. The other aspect aside from the total lack of a social cooperation ethos is the indoctrination to hate which starts at an early age and is reinforced by the literal interpretation of the Quran, which is both antisemitic and basically a field manual for supremacists. To suddenly announce in effect that all the hate propaganda is to be forgotten and peace with the 'apes and pigs' should be embraced would lead to a lynching. The damage to the Palestinian psyche from hate indoctrination may take generations to undo and that's if they start now.

[luckizuchinni]

I guess the difference is that I support the USA.

I am not an Israeli, nor a Palestinian. I will support the best solution in the region with regards to the world at large, but I do not blindly follow either of the two factions 100%. No one faction can possibly be 100% in the right, in my opinion.

I support the USA also. No difference there. However, Israel has been willing to make peace since the troubles began and the Palestinian Arabs have not. In my opinion, that makes the Israelis a lot closer to right than the Arabs who started the war in the first place and refuse to compromise to stop it.

Oh, I might personally agree that the Israelis are "closer to right," but in the US' interests, in the interests of the world, of Israel, and of the Palestinians, a solution must be found. And no matter how you look at it, as the more powerful of the factions, it is inherent upon Israel to make the moves--with one caveat. That caveat is the Palestinians recognizing Israel and disavowing violence. Once they do that, then Israel has to be the prime mover.

While not a totally accurate analogy, but when blacks in the US started demonstrating for civil rights, they didn't have the power to actually change things. It took a white Congress and a white president to see the light and legislate laws to protect civil rights. They had the power, not the black citizens, and thankfully they finally acted on it, erasing a shameful legacy in our history. In the same way, Palestinians can protest all they want, but unless the power broker Israel does something about it, there will be no solution.

The attempt to use the struggle of afro americans in some states for their civil rights is not appropriate. An important part of the journey to rights came in WWII. People who had never encountered an afro american, or an asian american for that matter, finally met them. The people that would go on to leadership positions in industry and government knew of minority groups that served in the US and Commonwealth forces. It was Eisenhower that had afro American soldiers integrate with previously exclusive white units during the Battle of the Bulge. When the Americans entered the concentration camps it left an indelible imprint upon the troops and on the command officers. Read the statements of the American generals. It was a defining moment that hammered home of what the war was about: It was good versus evil, and this changed alot of people that harboured prejudice. Ever wonder why most WWII veterans that saw action might be conservative on the outside but had some very progressive views? All of the US's social advancements in the 1950's and 1960's came courtesy of that generation. President Truman's order to integrate the military in 1948 was the turning point for civil rights as it finally recognized afro americans and provided opportunities to these people, albeit at a slow pace. Military service was a powerful tool for integration and therein lies the reason while your analogy fails. The arabs of the area called Palestine do not have a history or a legacy of public service or collectivism. There has never been a defining event to shift arab views of "self" to that of "community". Israel might be called right wing by some but it is a socially democratic state with a legacy that stems from worker co-operatives and a tradition of public service. The notion of sacrifice created modern Israel. The Palestinian arabs do not have a history of taking care of themselves, its always been the UN or some western benefactor that puts up the money. The Israelis relied on themselves when they built modern Israel. Most of the social service organizations that Israel has today come from groups that were around hundreds of years ago. The Italian, German and Irish immigrants to the USA all had similar social service groups. The Palestinians have foreign make a job for themselves NGOs.

Why do you expect Israel to do for the arabs what the arabs must do for themselves? One can offer all the welfare and all the good will one wants, but it is wasted unless the desire for change is real and comes from the heart. How can the arabs change when three successive generations have been taught to hate? The Irish immigrants to the USA suffered prejudice and discrimination. Yet, they did not write schoolbooks that taught kids to count by killing protestants. Arab schoolbooks in Gaza are filled with hatred. When afro americans suffered discrimination and lynchings, they did not put on shows celebrating and encouraging the death of whites. Arab TV in the Palestinian territories is filled with propaganda promoting hate and violence. The arabs must embrace the concepts that advance a society and that means helping others. Arab culture in the Palestinian territories is individualistic based. The Bedouins have the concept of sharing as a cornerstone of their lives.. The Israelis understand the concept of sharing for the betterment of society. The non indigeneous arabs do not. It takes time to develop. It took a century for England to develop a proper approach to social service. And yet you think that Palestinian society will magically acquire these attributes once there is a Palestinian state. Creating borders will condemn the arabs to another generation of anger, because the borders and the state will not give them the social structures they need to create a civil society. It will instead create another Haiti, a nation dependent upon foreign aid.

You think that is is inappropriate to draw any sort of parallel between the African-American experience in the US and the Palestinians. That is your opinion. However, within the narrow confines of my post, I think it is appropriate. The point was that is takes the more powerful faction to agree to change to make the change happen. The less powerful faction can holler and plead, but without the more powerful faction's actions, then nothing will happen.

Your views are very clear on the subject. That is your right. But do you really think everything is so black and white? Are all Arabs as shiftless and worthless as you describe? Let me ask you, and I ask not knowing the answer, how much time have you spent in Israel, in Jordan, in Egypt? How many Palestinians do you actually know? How many Arabs as a whole, for that matter? How many Israelis?

I would suggest that you can't paint all Arabs, all Palestinians, all Muslims, all Israelis, all Jews with the same brush. I certainly have found individuals of all stripes in each of the demographics, for good or bad.

[Steely Dan]

And what do you know, hot off the press here's more about the Arab spring , Egypt and the Rafah crossing into gaza.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/26/egypt-comes-out-for-hamas/

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said in an interview on Iran’s Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran’s Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal. Al-Ashaal explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: “Currently the Egyptians demand a new rule for the country, a new government, a new leader.

And yet still Obama's advisor commented that the Muslim brotherhood were mostly secular.

I'd use the roll on the floor laughing emoticon if this were not so serious.

[koheesti]

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said in an interview on Iran's Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran's Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal. Al-Ashaal explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: "Currently the Egyptians demand a new rule for the country, a new government, a new leader.

That Egyptian discontent probably had less to do with Israel and more to do with the sorry economic situation in the country and corrupt gov't officials.

[midas]

And what do you know, hot off the press here's more about the Arab spring , Egypt and the Rafah crossing into gaza.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/26/egypt-comes-out-for-hamas/

In January, Mohamed Ghanem, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said in an interview on Iran’s Al-Alam television station that Egypt should prepare to go to war with Israel. That same month, Iran’s Press TV interviewed an Egyptian international lawyer Marwan al-Ashaal. Al-Ashaal explained the popular discontent with Mubarak as a direct consequence of his keeping the peace with Israel: “Currently the Egyptians demand a new rule for the country, a new government, a new leader.

And yet still Obama's advisor commented that the Muslim brotherhood were mostly secular.

I'd use the roll on the floor laughing emoticon if this were not so serious.

with everything that has happened by now you would have to be pretty slow

not to realise Obama is actively complicit in setting Israel up for something

I never expected this kind of behaviour from USA

That's why I just cannot fathom the likes of Jingthing being so hopelessly devoted to

Obama when you see what he is allowing to happen to Israel?

Edited May 26, 2011 by midas