Obama lays out U.S. vision for supporting Arab democracy

Quote:The Jews are usually a safe D vote but this will peel many off There was a news article on Fox News after the last election, where they were discussing the number of American Jews that voted for Obama...

Like you, I think this may be a straw that breaks the camel's back in that respect...Hopefully they will wake up, before it's too late for real reversal of attitudes...
 
AMEN!! It is obvious that Obombus doesn't KNOW the Lord that said this...calling oneself a Christian because they have been IN a church is like calling yourself a car bacause you are standing in your garage. I believe God can differentiate between those who follow the imposter-in-chief and those of US who don't!

Bob
 
If the glove fits...... we must evict.......
smile.gif
 
The ironic thing is, if this wasn't tongue in cheek, Obama might actually go for it with the way he feels about those of us in TX.

Netanyahu Urges U.S. Return to 1845 Borders

Israeli PM calls for “just solution” to end the conflict.

Aboard Air Force Aleph (Reuters) – Speaking to reporters accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his long flight to the United States tonight, Netanyahu spoke of the injustice and hardship Mexicans have endured since American forces annexed Texas in 1845. “Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes – the only homes they had known for centuries – and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,” Netanyahu said. “The Israeli and Mexican people agree on this: This festering wound will never heal until America takes bold steps to return to the internationally accepted lines of 1845. Clearly the settlement activity that’s taken place in occupied Mexico since then is illegal. When I meet the President tomorrow I will tell him to halt all building activity in Texas immediately. Two lands for two peoples, yes, but not on land taken by force from Mexico,” the Prime Minister said.

Asked if his hard-line stance could hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment to America’s security and the unshakeable friendship shared by the two countries, then added, “But who was it who said, part of friendship is being able to tell your friend the truth. The ball is now in Obama’s court.”
 
Quote:the injustice and hardship Mexicans have endured since American forces annexed Texas in 1845. “Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes – the only homes they had known for centuries – and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,” I can just see the majority of Texans agreeing to that proposition...
rolleyes.gif
...Actually, most "Mexicans" were happy to assimilate into the Texas/American culture...Just to get away from the Mexican form of governmental injustice...They called themselves Texicans, and prospered...
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgBibi knows the deal-

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...rs_in_statement

Israel will exist until Christ's Millennial Reign, surviving Armegeddon and even Hope and Change. The selling out of our most loyal ally will do us no favors in God's eyes-

Genesis 12:3 "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."


Dawg, You're spot on. The Lord is bound and those covenants will be fulfilled as surely as the Old law was fulfilled by the New.
 
Quote:I can just see the majority of Texans agreeing to that proposition... ...Actually, most "Mexicans" were happy to assimilate into the Texas/American culture...Just to get away from the Mexican form of governmental injustice...They called themselves Texicans, and prospered...


People tend to forget that for almost ten years TX was an independent COUNTRY before it decided to join the United States as a state (with a majority Hispanic voting population). Even today, we are one of the few states that could be totally self sufficient without any fed involvement. We are much more heavily "producers" than teat suckers, and we send (a lot) more money to the feds than we get back (even under Bush).

I don't have any Hispanic blood in me (that I know of), but a whole slew of my (next generation) family does, and they consider me family (and visa versa). To a man, woman, and child they consider themselves AMERICANS, and I proudly acknowledge the Lopez, Gutierrez, and Gonzales lines of my family.

The same equation applies to Israel. Did ya'll know that not only are there Muslim Arab Israelis, there are Muslim Arab Israeli elected Members of Parliament? In fact, almost the only freely elected Arab parliamentarians in the Middle East are members of the Israeli Knesset (Iraq, though not strictly "Arab" might challenge that due to our involvement). Almost 80% of Israeli Arabs wouldn't consider living anywhere else.

The choice for Israel as long as Hamas (and their Iranian masters) are involved, is existence, or genocide of their own population. Hamas is dedicated to the extinction of of all Jews. Hitler and the Third Reich reborn!

I don't think I've ever even been to Israel (maybe on a connecting flight, I used to fly a lot), but I definitely admire and (for the most part) support the Israelis.

Obama screwed the pooch (again) on this one, even Carter was more competent.
 
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. – U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3

I have to wonder why Hamas doesn't qualify as an Enemy. We have formally declared them to be a terrorist organization, yet Obama supports them both rhetorically and financially.
 
Why is everybody getting all spun up about this? Remember in 2008 when President Bush said basically the same thing?

Quote: Here’s what Bush said in January, 2008:

There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides…While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

And here’s what Obama said yesterday:

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

 
Obama:We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines...

Bush: I believe that any peace agreement between them [the Israelis and Palestinians] will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities...

Pre '67 lines are the '49 borders. Obama wants to force Israel to go back to them (ain't going to happen), Bush wanted "mutually agreed adjustments" to them meaning Israel would keep part of the territory it won in '67 (Golan, part of the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem).

HUGE difference.
 
Only if taken out of context like you just did. You just left out the part about the “mutually agreed to swaps” and “secure boarders” part. Nice try though.
sneaky2.gif


Quote:We believe 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's not out of context at all, Kioti. The Bush (and Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter) position was substantively and substantially different than Obama's new U.S. policy regarding Israel/Palestine.

The Obama state department has said that "mutually agreed swaps" means that if Israel keeps an acre of the West Bank because there's a settlement there (just as a for instance), then they would have to give up an acre of land inside the '49 borders as a "swap" to compensate. That is most certainly NOT what Bush (or any previous president) said, not anywhere close, nor has it ever been the policy or position of the U.S. (until Obama). Our position has never before been that Israel should under any circumstances whatsoever give up original ('49) territory.

Since Carter, our position has always been that the Israelis should negotiate to gain concessions in return for some of the land they won when they were attacked in '67. In fact, that's how and why Israel gave up the Sinai and Gaza, though the 37 year treaty with Egypt (in return for Sinai) is looking a little precarious nowadays, and forcibly removing 8,000 settlers and giving up Gaza hasn't worked out so well for anybody but Hamas.

If (a big "if") there is ever a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, you can bet the farm that it will include Israel retaining military control of Golan and the high ground of the West Bank, as well as the borders with Jordon and Syria (look at a topo map and you'll see why). They might accept making Jerusalem an "open" city, but they will NOT allow Palestinians the "right of return" into Israel itself. Beyond that they have proven to be open to negotiations, though with the history of non-compliance with previous agreements (other than with Egypt) I wonder why they bother.

The Israelis are not a suicidal people, and until Obama, no American president has ever asked them to be.

Obama is openly supporting and funding terrorists over one of our strongest allies. No President has ever done that before either.
 
That is not how I read it. Bush wanted them to end the occupation that took place in 1967. Wouldn't that have caused them to give up the land they seized during the 6 day war?

Quote:There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.
 
Quote:That is not how I read it. Bush wanted them to end the occupation that took place in 1967. Wouldn't that have caused them to give up the land they seized during the 6 day war?

Nope, that's not what the Bush position meant at all

After the 6 day war Israel controlled app 34,000 sq mi of territory, only 8,019 sq mi of it the original 1949 charter. They have already given back app 24,000 sq mi of that territory including the Suez Canal. Of the land they conquered, Israel claims about 500 sq mi as Israeli territory (Golan, E. Jerusalem, and a small amount in the West Bank). They have always maintained that position is absolutely non-negotiable for security reasons, and (until Obama) we have always agreed. Israel militarily controls an additional 2200 sq mi of conquered land on the West Bank. Up until Obama, our position has always been that Israel should trade some of those 2200 sq mi in return for negotiated concessions.

Obama's position is that regardless of any "swaps", the starting point of the negotiations should be the assumption that Israel will wind up with the equivalent of the original 8,019 sq mi of land.

Ain't gonna happen.
 
I think the whole thing doesn't matter, if Israel gave up all that O wants and the Palestinians agree to it , hamas will still be launching missiles into Israel. Israel's Military high ground is security, such as it is over there. With hamas on the high ground they will bombard Israel and Israel will retaliate and take it back, then they will be the bad guys for it. Lose/Lose, best to keep it like it is. Screw hamas and the rest of the Arabs that want the end of Israel.
 
Quote:Obama's position is that regardless of any "swaps", the starting point of the negotiations should be the assumption that Israel will wind up with the equivalent of the original 8,019 sq mi of land.

Ain't gonna happen.

No matter how many times I read Obama’s speech, I just can’t read that into it. Oh well, just dense I guess. But I do agree with you. Nutin is going to happen!
 
Back
Top