Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[kuffki]

Beautiful, Simple and eloquent. But the truth is, people who are bigots thinking that they are the chosen race and that God set aside land just for them, or that sympathise with this mentality, will always find a way to distort the facts.

Though with time even the most tangled and convoluted webs must fall apart, and apartheid must end!

More power to President Obama for taking steps in that direction (even if they are tiny little baby ones...ya gotta start somewhere)

Well, i hate to retype again and again, but could you please provide some evidence that Palestine was ever a country and the land did belong to them.

Can you also explain, why Palestinians living in on Syrian border are still refugees and why are they still living in the camps? why have they not been assimilated into society

Also please explain why Jordan slaughtered thousands of them and threw them out?

Why Egypt rips them off on every purchase?

Why Iran ONLY send aid to arm Hamas and not to help the people?

When you will explain that, only then you have the right to post about apartheid.

Edited May 20, 2011 by kuffki

[samurai]

I heard several discusions on CNN today refering to an "agreement"in 2004 and this is the first thing that came up when I Googled - which seems to refer to it.

Will do more research when I have a little time later in the evening.

I think it is the letter that made it into the news and stay there for two reasons.

a) Netanyahu came up with that letter

and b ) the presidential election in 2012. So lets paint Obama as traitor.

He (Netanyahu) said he would ask Obama for a "reaffirmation" of commitments made by President George Bush in a 2004 letter to Israeli premier Ariel Sharon that "relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible."

Referring to Israel's settlements, Bush wrote: "In light of new realities on the ground ... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" — a term synonymous with the pre-1967 borders. The Obama Administration has said it did not consider that letter binding.

The question has been around ever since Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, east Jerusalem and other territories in the 1967 Middle East war. A few months later Security Council Resolution 242 called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," avoiding use of "the territories" and leaving the sides to debate whether this meant Israel could keep some areas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_an/ml_mideast_peace_analysis

Actually Obama said something that isn't that different from the Bush letter.

Bush: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. "

Obama: "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. "

Obama is as realistic as it is Bush. Obamas 'border concept' includes swaps! Ergo it isn't "a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949"

What might these swaps include? The "new realities on the ground" Bush spoke of?

I am sure in a letter to the Israeli Prime Minister Obama would have worded his idea little bit different. That guy is a fox, (like most other politicians who gained power)

[kuffki]

I heard several discusions on CNN today refering to an "agreement"in 2004 and this is the first thing that came up when I Googled - which seems to refer to it.

Will do more research when I have a little time later in the evening.

I think it is the letter that made it into the news and stay there for two reasons.

a) Netanyahu came up with that letter

and b ) the presidential election in 2012. So lets paint Obama as traitor.

He (Netanyahu) said he would ask Obama for a "reaffirmation" of commitments made by President George Bush in a 2004 letter to Israeli premier Ariel Sharon that "relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible."

Referring to Israel's settlements, Bush wrote: "In light of new realities on the ground ... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" — a term synonymous with the pre-1967 borders. The Obama Administration has said it did not consider that letter binding.

The question has been around ever since Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, east Jerusalem and other territories in the 1967 Middle East war. A few months later Security Council Resolution 242 called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," avoiding use of "the territories" and leaving the sides to debate whether this meant Israel could keep some areas.

http://news.yahoo.co..._peace_analysis

Actually Obama said something that isn't that different from the Bush letter.

Bush: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. "

Obama: "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. "

Obama is as realistic as it is Bush. Obamas 'border concept' includes swaps! Ergo it isn't "a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949"

What might these swaps include? The "new realities on the ground" Bush spoke of?

I am sure in a letter to the Israeli Prime Minister Obama would have worded his idea little bit different. That guy is a fox, (like most other politicians who gained power)

There is only 1 problem, well a few but the main one is

-Palestinians are not willing to swap or really give into anything.

To understand the problem, one needs to look into the roots of the conflict

The world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.

For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.

Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33645

[kuffki]

The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle East

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli "settlements." In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians -- like recognizing Israel's right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called "moderate" Palestinians reject any such idea.

http://archive.front...spx?ARTID=35869

Edited May 20, 2011 by kuffki

[up-country_sinclair]

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

[Jingthing]

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

The one and only Jewish/Zionist state of Israel has as much right to self determination to continue to be a Jewish majority state as do the over FIFTY Islamic states in the world, correct? The Palestinians continue to demand the "right of return" even after they get their state, and they WILL get their state, and they SHOULD get their state. However, when they demand unconditional Palestinian right of return, there is no doubt they are demanding the end of the Jewish state of Israel as a majority Arabic Israel is no longer the Jewish state of Israel, that's obvious. That won't happen without war, and I tend to agree with the Washington Post, the Palestinian leaders WANT war.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Jingthing

[Huey]

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

Actually it's more like $8 Billion, not to mention bailing out El Al a couple years back, but hey who's counting?

[kuffki]

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

The “Two States for Two Peoples” idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after “Two States for Two Peoples” would be implemented, the new “Palestinian state” would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the “moderates” within the PLO insist that any “Israel” left standing within “Two States for Two Peoples” must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any “two-state solution” on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24^th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from “Palestine” and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.

That such a “two-state solution” will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a “plan of stages,” after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The “two-state solution” is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called “one-state solution,” favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.

As for US cheques,you can always run for the office and make whatever changes you see fit.

PS. I hope you do realize that at least half of US military equipment was developed by Israel and given for "FREE" so this cheque that US gives is not only support but also a payment for new technology.

[kuffki]

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

Actually it's more like $8 Billion, not to mention bailing out El Al a couple years back, but hey who's counting?

Seems you are

You did forget the $6 billion for Egypt and whats the amount for Palestine? Let me help you out, its over $3.5 billion

Edited May 20, 2011 by kuffki

[powderpuff]

So jing I guess you'll agree Obama is the enemy of Israel? Bibi should just turn around & go back home.

Remember the White House visit when the dear leader after a meeting adjourned to his private quarters for a meal. Statesman? More like used car salesman. Barack the Deceiver.

[pkspeaker]

It doesn't matter how many arabs or palestinians refugees 'flood' into the Palestinian state, the point is that if israel withdraws to the 67 border they will have continuous border and control immigration, so the arabs can immigrate into the palestinian state but not into israel. israel can negotiate that in return for the 67 borders, no palestinian refugees return to israel proper..these things your saying is just making excuses to maintain the aphartied scheme, it's fearmongering.

In factIsrael has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state

This is because Israel can see the writing on the wall: in 40 years there will be more Arabs in Israel than Israelis, which will inevitably put the "democratic" in democratic Israel into question. The two state solution is their plan to maintain a Jewish majority nation.

And regarding the title of this thread, "Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders". The US gives Israel $3,000,000,000 every year. Perhaps it's time for the US treasury to forget to write one those checks.

The "Two States for Two Peoples" idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after "Two States for Two Peoples" would be implemented, the new "Palestinian state" would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the "moderates" within the PLO insist that any "Israel" left standing within "Two States for Two Peoples" must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any "two-state solution" on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24^th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from "Palestine" and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.

That such a "two-state solution" will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The "two-state solution" is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called "one-state solution," favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.

[up-country_sinclair]

I personally don't think Israel is an apartheid state, but just because you copy and paste an editorial from an ultra right-wing blog doesn't mean it's not. And putting quotation marks around certain words doesn't mean they're not legitimate. It's actually quite juvenile.

Edited May 20, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[samurai]

The Arab world invented the "Palestinian people" so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical "inalienable right" for so long that few people recall that pursuing "self-determination" can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of "self-determination" within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. "Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.

The Arab world decided that the "Palestinians" must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of "self-determination."

[/size]

http://archive.front...spx?ARTID=35869

Is that for real or is that the work of some media prankster?

The focus on Nazi-Germany and explanation of the term "self-determination" raises suspicion, specially in an Israel thread.

[kuffki]

You would need to seek clarification from the author or the magazine

The Arab world invented the "Palestinian people" so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical "inalienable right" for so long that few people recall that pursuing "self-determination" can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of "self-determination" within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. "Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.

The Arab world decided that the "Palestinians" must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of "self-determination."

[/size]

http://archive.front...spx?ARTID=35869

Is that for real or is that the work of some media prankster?

The focus on Nazi-Germany and explanation of the term "self-determination" raises suspicion, specially in an Israel thread.

[cheeryble]

Isn't the State Dept called Little Jerusalem?

First I heard it. Source please? Called by who? Hamas?

It may have come to me via The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt but I believe it's a long used term.

Mearsheimer as a critic of Israel is what is therefore termed "a self-hating Jew" an amusing term.

I might add I'm no sort of anti Jew as.....and this isn't just a rhetorical device.....one of my longest standing closest friends is a New York Jew and I admire many of the race. I detest a few too.

Edited May 20, 2011 by cheeryble

[cheeryble]

I worked under a contract with the U.S. Department of State for a time. There are a large and verbal number of pro-Israeli employees and there were various references to the Department suggesting the same, at least at that time. I very much doubt that you will find a link to it.

Interesting background thanks Scott.

I don't believe, however, that foreign policy per se is set by these people and I don't believe that is the subject of the thread.

It does however set the scene....and who is providing the policy makers with information and advice, if not the State Dept?

Edited May 20, 2011 by cheeryble

[Ulysses G.]

I might add I'm no sort of anti Jew as.....and this isn't just a rhetorical device.....one of my longest standing closest friends is a New York Jew and I admire many of the race. I detest a few too.

George Wallace always said that some of his "best freinds" were black. With freinds like that...

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[samurai]

The one and only Jewish/Zionist state of Israel has as much right to self determination to continue to be a Jewish majority state as do the over FIFTY Islamic states in the world, correct?

Not correct, its a false analogy.

The Palestinians continue to demand the "right of return" even after they get their state, and they WILL get their state, and they SHOULD get their state. However, when they demand unconditional Palestinian right of return, there is no doubt they are demanding the end of the Jewish state of Israel as a majority Arabic Israel is no longer the Jewish state of Israel, that's obvious.

Another false analogy. The right of return to a state is a Zionist concept.

The Palestinians want return to a geographic region, for them its the homeland, with land as in soil. Something you can touch, smell and grow root vegetables in it and comes with childhood memories how did you cast somersaults on it.

That Malaysia is a Muslim country has no meaning for them.

.

That won't happen without war, and I tend to agree with the Washington Post, the Palestinian leaders WANT war.

Yes, nothing else have the Palestinian leaders in mind. At age 18 every Palestinian must serve in the army, really everyone, men for 3 years and woman for 2 years. 6.3% of the GDP is used for military expenditures. (in comparison USA 4.7%, Iran 1.8%, Libya 1.2%, Venezuela 1.3%)

[Ulysses G.]

An excellent speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. The American people will stand by Israel despite Obama's demands.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in front of President Obama and the media, explicitly rejected the president's call for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

Sitting beside Obama following a private Oval Office meeting, the visiting prime minister said Friday that he values the president's efforts to advance the peace process and intends to work with him. But he said the president's call for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the Six-Day War is not tenable.

"We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president," Netanyahu said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/netanyahu-white-house-obamas-mideast-speech/

[luckizuchinni]

PS. I hope you do realize that at least half of US military equipment was developed by Israel and given for "FREE" so this cheque that US gives is not only support but also a payment for new technology.

Reference, please.

[samurai]

PS. I hope you do realize that at least half of US military equipment was developed by Israel and given for "FREE" so this cheque that US gives is not only support but also a payment for new technology.

Reference, please.

Probably from one of his anti-imperialist web pages. They say Israel use its conflict with the neighbours as big testing ground for the development of new weapon technology.

[kuffki]

You got source to show otherwise ?since my word not good enough for you?

Please feel free to dispute it with evidence

PS. I hope you do realize that at least half of US military equipment was developed by Israel and given for "FREE" so this cheque that US gives is not only support but also a payment for new technology.

Reference, please.

[johna]

An excellent speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. The American people will stand by Israel despite Obama's demands.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in front of President Obama and the media, explicitly rejected the president's call for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

Sitting beside Obama following a private Oval Office meeting, the visiting prime minister said Friday that he values the president's efforts to advance the peace process and intends to work with him. But he said the president's call for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the Six-Day War is not tenable.

"We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president," Netanyahu said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/netanyahu-white-house-obamas-mideast-speech/

If the American people stand by Israel it will be because they were forced to, not because they wanted to.

Americans are not happy with Israel, despite all the Jewish dominated media which never fails to support Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

Why even bother to post such blatant lies?

February 28, 2011

Americans Maintain Broad Support for Israel

U.S. adults nearly four times as likely to side with Israelis as with Palestinians

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict held fairly steady over the past year, with a near record-high 63% continuing to say their sympathies lie more with the Israelis. Seventeen percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americans-maintain-broad-support-israel.aspx

[Ulysses G.]

You keep bringing up NAZI Germany in these threads

That is only because the Israel-haters keep using the flimsiest of excuses to post anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli theories, links and and views - something like this absurd, hateful post that I am now responding to.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

I don't think anyone needs a poll to show that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not support bus-bombing, suicide-vest wearing, mask-wearing, Islamo-fascist Arabs walking the streets with AK-47s. As with any population, you will have the 10-15% incurably clueless who will but they are the exception to the rule. If the Palestinain leadership had half a brain between them they would have gone the Ghandi-Martin Luther King Jr way of doing things and then THEY WOULD have a majority of Americans behind them. But, they are led by corrupt crooks and fanatics who know that with peace, their money from Arab gov'ts will dry up and then they;ll have to quit playing soldier and get legit jobs.

Obama just lost the $upport of the Jewish community back home who were foolish enough to back him the first time around. I think he is trying to throw the election just so he can retire with all those cool presidential benefits before he is 52. Then he can have his own show on ESPN or the Golf Channel.

[kuffki]

Please elaborate who and how would force American people?

also please even speculate as to why American people will evev consider supporting someone who celebrates every terror act in USA or mourns the death of a terrorist or burns American flag.

Ps. What is Jewish dominated media? Are those people not American ? Of Jewish religion. They certainly not Israeli

An excellent speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. The American people will stand by Israel despite Obama's demands.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in front of President Obama and the media, explicitly rejected the president's call for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders.

Sitting beside Obama following a private Oval Office meeting, the visiting prime minister said Friday that he values the president's efforts to advance the peace process and intends to work with him. But he said the president's call for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the Six-Day War is not tenable.

"We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president," Netanyahu said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/netanyahu-white-house-obamas-mideast-speech/

If the American people stand by Israel it will be because they were forced to, not because they wanted to.

Americans are not happy with Israel, despite all the Jewish dominated media which never fails to support Israel.

Edited May 21, 2011 by kuffki

[up-country_sinclair]

up-country_sinclair

I personally don't think Israel is an apartheid state, but just because you copy and paste an editorial from an ultra right-wing blog doesn't mean it's not. And putting quotation marks around certain words doesn't mean they're not legitimate. It's actually quite juvenile.

Is it safe to assume that you are just trolling?!

You stated that I copy/pasted text(which I did and did post link to source) but you then state that I put quotation marks . But if it's copy/paste that means I did not and the author did.

If you actually took the time read what I posted, you would see that I wrote "certain words". What I was referencing was putting quotation marks around the word Palestinian. The abhorrent implication being that Palestinians don't exist. This despicable attempt to dehumanize Palestinians is similar to what happened to another group during World War II.

You then go on stating it's right-wing site, which only means you did not even read it, because if you open the site you would learn it's a magazine not just the site!

Just because the name of the blog is 'frontpagemag', doesn't really mean it's a magazine. You can't buy it at a bookstore or newspaper stand. It's an online blog put out by ultra right-wing zealots.

It does have anti Israel , pro Iran and whatever else pieces !

Perhaps it's time to stop trolling and start reading!

Physician, heal thyself.

[kuffki]

Either I am still drunk or something wrong with my eyes but what does Jewish declaration of war on nazi have to do with middle eastern conflict ?

Can you post and underline where I brought up nazi Germany " I keep bringing up"

And post where I compared nazi to Palestinians ?

Arabs yes, without being specific . Furthermore, the author of the piece did, not me! Only in last sentence!

But i guess it's too hard to read the entire link to acknowledge the truth, much wiser to pick one word and go off subject, so posting rubbish does not appear as foolish

You keep bringing up NAZI Germany in these threads and then comparing the Palestinians to Nazi's like they have some shared agenda, like the Palestinians are facists because they want basic human rights..it was actually the zionists and german facists that had a shared agenda and ideology.. and it it ok that i don't click on your 'source' "archive font" i think i'll get infected if i go to another one of your rightwing zionist propaghanda sites

read:

http://www.winterson...es/jdecwar.html

and the first chapter of the transfer aggreement:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0025111302

When Hitler came to power in 1933 these Jewish groups in NY started protesting and calling for boycotts because of his anti-jewish politics, so guess what-the Zionists stepped in and 'mediated' between the Nazi's and Jewish groups and they came up with the transfer agreement; so there was never going to be any boycott or sanctions of nazi germany because instead Germany agreed to treat jews like garbage, in exchange Jews would only be allowed to escape these ghettos if they moved to Palestine and gave Jewish Palestine ALL their money! + the immigration fee, transportation fee the result was most didn't have the money to get out and were stuck in the ghettos-they couldn't escape to America or France or anywhere, they could only leave if they agreed to goto Palestine-which they couldn't afford, when the war came they all wound up dead-THX zionists! you guys are doin it for The Jewish People!

Germany with all the protests and boycotts called off went on to borrow billions from US banks from 1933-1939 and buildup their economy and war machine so the German people thought hitler was some kind of <deleted> genius.

Think about it this way, it's 1920-30sh, Palestine is an arab country, the zionists want to do 2 things, first they need to get jews to move there, few of them want to-why would you want to move from a 1st world country to this undeveloped backwater? They also want to get rid of the Palestinians, that came in 1948 as you know.. The Nazi's "The master Race", the Zionists "The Chosen People" in both cases the agenda is to create an ethno-non-pluristic state, sounds like a match made in hell; The Nazi's agenda get the Jews out of Europe; The Zionist Agenda-get the Jews out of Europe (but into Palestine) shared ideology and shared agenda! The Transfer Agreement.

The "Two States for Two Peoples" idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after "Two States for Two Peoples" would be implemented, the new "Palestinian state" would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the "moderates" within the PLO insist that any "Israel" left standing within "Two States for Two Peoples" must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any "two-state solution" on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24^th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from "Palestine" and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.

That such a "two-state solution" will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The "two-state solution" is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called "one-state solution," favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.

Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime

Truth

Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle Eastthat does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate

The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of "Palestinian Arabs," but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish self-determination, using violence.

No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any "homeland," although they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a "people" at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when "Palestine" was detached from Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term "Nakba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world, as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab assault of annihilation and genocide.

The Arab world invented the "Palestinian people" so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical "inalienable right" for so long that few people recall that pursuing "self-determination" can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of "self-determination" within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. "Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.

The Arab world decided that the "Palestinians" must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of "self-determination."

http://archive.front...spx?ARTID=35869

Edited May 21, 2011 by kuffki

[Ulysses G.]

What I was referencing was putting quotation marks around the word Palestinian. The abhorrent implication being that Palestinians don't exist. This despicable attempt to dehumanize Palestinians is similar to what happened to another group during World War II.

Stop the trolling. It has nothing to do with "dehumanizing" anyone. The reason for putting quotation marks around the word Palestinian is because there has never been such an Arab country or a people. That is a fact.

The proper term is Arabs and they mostly came fron surrounding countries.

Have fun trying to answer these questions.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.