Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders

apple0154 said:
Considering one of the main points of disagreement is the Temple Mount where the (Muslin) Dome of the Rock stands and where the (Jewish) Second Temple stood that is the first area that requires attention. It is the "center" of both the Jewish people and the Muslims and because of the influence from and the beliefs in that particular area it needs to be removed from the picture.

Like parents taking away a toy when two children constantly fight over it the world (United nations?) needs to address that problem. In order to restore a portion of world harmony either that area is forever designated a world site accessible to all and under the control/ownership of a world council or the area is obliterated.

One possible solution is to nuclear contaminate the soil so it's of no use to anyone.

This nonsense has to stop and if the opposing parties can't agree, take the "toy" away. Once the thing upon which people focus is removed, as when a toy is taken out of sight, they move on to other things.
Click to expand...

contaminate the whole city or even all 'holy' sites worldwide - just do not get caught
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea, yea, yea spare us the Israeli lobby propaganda. It was soooooo refreshing to hear Obama put the smack down on Israel. It's about damned time too. Isreali's need to learn that their national interests are not ours.
Click to expand...

Yeah, who gives a damn about those Zionist kikes - is that right, Mott? You truly are blind to reality. It's as though you intentionally take the irrational position on any given issue solely for the sake of being "different."

Israel's security is most certainly of importance to the United States. It is the only democracy in a region that hosts what are among the most brutal, backward regimes in the world. A stable, secure Israel is therefore in our best interests.
 
Saint Tomato said:
Yeah, who gives a damn about those Zionist kikes - is that right, Mott? You truly are blind to reality. It's as though you intentionally take the irrational position on any given issue solely for the sake of being "different."

Israel's security is most certainly of importance to the United States. It is the only democracy in a region that hosts what are among the most brutal, backward regimes in the world. A stable, secure Israel is therefore in our best interests.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, a stable and secure Saudi Arabia is also seen to be in the best interests of the US, taking the form of propping up a rather brutal, some would say backward autocratic monarchical dictatorship.

So paradoxically, the US (and many others in the west) policy of maintaining a stable and secure Middle East has resulted in many of these brutal and backward regimes continuing for far longer than than almost everyone thought desirable.
 
Saint Tomato said:
Yeah, who gives a damn about those Zionist kikes - is that right, Mott? You truly are blind to reality. It's as though you intentionally take the irrational position on any given issue solely for the sake of being "different."

Israel's security is most certainly of importance to the United States. It is the only democracy in a region that hosts what are among the most brutal, backward regimes in the world. A stable, secure Israel is therefore in our best interests.
Click to expand...

Hey fuck you you little twerp. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm no anti-semite. US Foreign policy is supposed to advance the best interest or OUR nation and not some other nation and all to often we have supported attrocious acts by Israelis in a manner that is not in our self interest. That shit has to stop and if your to fucking stupid to see that, well that's your problem but don't accuse me of being an anti-semite cause you don't have a better argument you intellectual midget!

Israels security may be of interest to the US but we should not tolerate any act they wish to commit cause a bunch of "end of days" religious wackos want to.
 
charver said:
With all due respect, a stable and secure Saudi Arabia is also seen to be in the best interests of the US, taking the form of propping up a rather brutal, some would say backward autocratic monarchical dictatorship.

So paradoxically, the US (and many others in the west) policy of maintaining a stable and secure Middle East has resulted in many of these brutal and backward regimes continuing for far longer than than almost everyone thought desirable.
Click to expand...
If he had half an ounce of brains you shouldn't of had to explain that to him.
 
I expect that Israel will need to decide now if they can count on the US. The answer is, "No." So what does Israel decide is in its best interests? Why is this administration further destabilizing the ME?
 
The Obama got slammed by Bibi on this. There's no way that Israel would accept the crap that he's dealing.

Israel needs defensive borders or attacks from their Arab neighbors will never cease.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The Obama got slammed by Bibi on this. There's no way that Israel would accept the crap that he's dealing.

Israel needs defensive borders or attacks from their Arab neighbors will never cease.
Click to expand...

As a Jewish commentator stated: "It matters not what borders the Israeli's have . They were attacked before 1967 and after 1967." "War is what the Arab's in the region want against Israel- it is a lucrative past time."
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The pre-1967 borders have been part of the proposed solution for decades, dating back to 1967 and UN Security Council Resolution 242.
Click to expand...



The new Republican doctrine demands erasing the old Republican doctrine, even if the old doctrine was acceptable a few years ago. GOP hacks are as busy as apparatchiks in the old Soviet Union who erased out-of-favor Communist VIPs from official photographs.


Anything that President Obama proposes is automatically subjected to bristling condemnation, even if the GOP supported it three years ago.


Given that, it’s no great surprise that Mitt Romney is claiming Obama “threw Israel under the bus” in his Mid-East speech yesterday, in which the president called for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.


‘But just for the sake of adherence to facts, it’s worthwhile to check out recent history. As Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg points out:


I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here.


This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years.


This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.(Emphasis added.)


So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?’




​





gop-hypocrites.jpg
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker...lestinian-state/?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker
 
Ice Dancer said:
As a Jewish commentator stated: "It matters not what borders the Israeli's have . They were attacked before 1967 and after 1967." "War is what the Arab's in the region want against Israel- it is a lucrative past time."
Click to expand...
Lots of Jews are liberal and therefore have no understanding of what Israel needs. The Arabs attacked Israel in 1967 and were beaten back to defensible borders. When you lose a war you lose your land.
 
Anything that The Obama supports creates an orgasmic response by liberals, even if they excoriated Bush for doing it three years ago.
 
Those who can, answer simple questions.

Those who can't....resort to childish insults.

You're a fucking troll and I am sick of your shit. Nobody here even likes you, so why don't you do everyone a favor and get lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top