Wow, Benny Netanyahu puts it to Barry

[Dr.Drock]

Ok 27 pages in and I still haven't heard anyone explain why Obama's 1967 border comment is outrageous and Bush saying the same thing in 2007 about the 1967 border is no big deal.

As an independent it's fun watching some of you people pretend to stand on principle and have these moments of fake outrage, when the truth is it's solely about partisan hackery.

When Obama stops signing bills that agree to send tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars giftwrapped to Israel maybe I'll start believing all this anti-Israel jibberish (even though that wouldn't be an anti-Israel move, but you could at least argue it).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok 27 pages in and I still haven't heard anyone explain why Obama's 1967 border comment is outrageous and Bush saying the same thing in 2007 about the 1967 border is no big deal.

As an independent it's fun watching some of you people pretend to stand on principle and have these moments of fake outrage, when the truth is it's solely about partisan hackery.

When Obama stops signing bills that agree to send tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars giftwrapped to Israel maybe I'll start believing all this anti-Israel jibberish (even though that wouldn't be an anti-Israel move, but you could at least argue it).

Post Bush's quote and I will show you the difference, between the to two comments.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ok 27 pages in and I still haven't heard anyone explain why Obama's 1967 border comment is outrageous and Bush saying the same thing in 2007 about the 1967 border is no big deal.

As an independent it's fun watching some of you people pretend to stand on principle and have these moments of fake outrage, when the truth is it's solely about partisan hackery.

When Obama stops signing bills that agree to send tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars giftwrapped to Israel maybe I'll start believing all this anti-Israel jibberish (even though that wouldn't be an anti-Israel move, but you could at least argue it).

Post Bush's quote and I will show you the difference, between the to two comments.

President Bush's Speech at Annapolis, November 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations

"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security."-George Bush

"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," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

"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," Obama continued.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN

Now please do your best to tell me the difference between

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,

and

The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people

without sounding like a partisan hack.

Thanks

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok 27 pages in and I still haven't heard anyone explain why Obama's 1967 border comment is outrageous and Bush saying the same thing in 2007 about the 1967 border is no big deal.

As an independent it's fun watching some of you people pretend to stand on principle and have these moments of fake outrage, when the truth is it's solely about partisan hackery.

When Obama stops signing bills that agree to send tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars giftwrapped to Israel maybe I'll start believing all this anti-Israel jibberish (even though that wouldn't be an anti-Israel move, but you could at least argue it).

Post Bush's quote and I will show you the difference, between the to two comments.

President Bush's Speech at Annapolis, November 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations

"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security."-George Bush

"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," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

"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," Obama continued.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN

Now please do your best to tell me the difference between

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,

and

The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people

without sounding like a partisan hack.

Thanks

Moving he borderlines
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,

No mention of moving the borderlines just ending the occupation
"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement.

Without the words borderline 1967 you haven't got anything that equals the other.

 

[mudwhistle]

You and everyone thanking your post are rooting against America. I'm most amused.

Everthiong the shit head and chief is doing going against America. and those who support the punk in chief are rooting for the down fall of America. The left cannot hate America for 50 years and now say they love America.

Yep, and I remember assholes like you calling President Kennedy a 'pinko punk'.

Face it, your idiot in chief gave Bin Laden a free pass for over seven years. President Obama gave the orders that got him.

However much you may not like it, most of America is no longer racist, and appreciate our President's efforts on the behalf of this nation.

That must explain why the GOP won back 66 seats in the last election.

The voters wanted to thank Obama for the fine job he's doing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Post Bush's quote and I will show you the difference, between the to two comments.

President Bush's Speech at Annapolis, November 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations

"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security."-George Bush

"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," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

"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," Obama continued.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN

Now please do your best to tell me the difference between

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,

and

The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people

without sounding like a partisan hack.

Thanks

Moving he borderlines
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,

No mention of moving the borderlines just ending the occupation
"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement.

Without the words borderline 1967 you haven't got anything that equals the other.

You know reading it again it looks like what Bush said is much worse than Obama.

Obama's talking about a border, Bush is accusing Israel of occupation and that they haven't even started to negotiate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

President Bush's Speech at Annapolis, November 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations

"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security."-George Bush

"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," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

"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," Obama continued.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN

Now please do your best to tell me the difference between

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,

and

The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement. This settlement will establish Palestine as a Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people

without sounding like a partisan hack.

Thanks

Moving he borderlines
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,

No mention of moving the borderlines just ending the occupation
"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement.

Without the words borderline 1967 you haven't got anything that equals the other.

You know reading it again it looks like what Bush said is much worse than Obama.

Obama's talking about a border, Bush is accusing Israel of occupation and that they haven't even started to negotiate.

Occupation? like the Federal government occupies land in every state?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Moving he borderlines
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,

No mention of moving the borderlines just ending the occupation
"The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin -- to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement.

Without the words borderline 1967 you haven't got anything that equals the other.

You know reading it again it looks like what Bush said is much worse than Obama.

Obama's talking about a border, Bush is accusing Israel of occupation and that they haven't even started to negotiate.

Occupation? like the Federal government occupies land in every state?

I'm certain that's the same spin you'd put on it if Obama said that.


This is just another example of the media and our political parties drumming up a non-issue into something huge to take our focus off the stuff that actually matters like the economy, debt, gas prices etc.

Rather than picking apart words on a man with a history of empty rhetoric, why not go by what he actually does? What he actually does is send US taxpayer dollars by the tens of billions in a single year to Israel.

Actions>rhetoric

My hope is someday that common sense sinks into the american political spectrum.

 

[blastoff]

Israel was attacked by the Arab world and got their hat handed to them. Why should they give anything back. Note that note one other country in the ME has done a thing for the Palestinians. Most of them live in Saudi Arabia or Jordon, neither country wants them, wonder why?

Had a lot of business relationships in that part of the world and once asked a Saudi I'd become friends with as a result of our relationship what the deal was with the Palestinians vis-a-vis the rest of the Arab world.

He smiled when he told me "they're like our *******." And then went on to say most of the countries funnel them money to help make life miserable for the Jews.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know reading it again it looks like what Bush said is much worse than Obama.

Obama's talking about a border, Bush is accusing Israel of occupation and that they haven't even started to negotiate.

Occupation? like the Federal government occupies land in every state?

I'm certain that's the same spin you'd put on it if Obama said that.


This is just another example of the media and our political parties drumming up a non-issue into something huge to take our focus off the stuff that actually matters like the economy, debt, gas prices etc.

Rather than picking apart words on a man with a history of empty rhetoric, why not go by what he actually does? What he actually does is send US taxpayer dollars by the tens of billions in a single year to Israel.

Actions>rhetoric

My hope is someday that common sense sinks into the american political spectrum.

Everybody heard Obamush's words if it was anything like what Bush said why didn't Ehud Olmert say no Mr. Bush Israel is not going to move it's borders?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Israel was attacked by the Arab world and got their hat handed to them. Why should they give anything back. Note that note one other country in the ME has done a thing for the Palestinians. Most of them live in Saudi Arabia or Jordon, neither country wants them, wonder why?

Had a lot of business relationships in that part of the world and once asked a Saudi I'd become friends with as a result of our relationship what the deal was with the Palestinians vis-a-vis the rest of the Arab world.

He smiled when he told me "they're like our *******." And then went on to say most of the countries funnel them money to help make life miserable for the Jews.

True statement and is the opinion of the Arab world.^^^^^^^^

 

[iggy pop]

The attempts of the left following this joint appearance between Obama and Netanyahu to spin this as a positive for Obama is laughable.

The strained relationship between this administration and Israel is due to one thing: this president's contempt for perceived American abuses and imperialistic actions in the Middle East. This president as expressed a resentment of the actions of Israel, and has given credibility to a fictitious 'Palestinian' state. He has given credibility to HAMAS, he has given credibility to the propaganda of hate that has come to define the 'Palestinian' argument against the Jewish state. The far left's mantra on America's role in the Middle East is reflected in Obama's actions.

OMG! totally. I've seen like 10 denials that Obama ever even suggested that. And they wonder why they are given no credibility.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Occupation? like the Federal government occupies land in every state?

I'm certain that's the same spin you'd put on it if Obama said that.


This is just another example of the media and our political parties drumming up a non-issue into something huge to take our focus off the stuff that actually matters like the economy, debt, gas prices etc.

Rather than picking apart words on a man with a history of empty rhetoric, why not go by what he actually does? What he actually does is send US taxpayer dollars by the tens of billions in a single year to Israel.

Actions>rhetoric

My hope is someday that common sense sinks into the american political spectrum.

Everybody heard Obamush's words if it was anything like what Bush said why didn't Ehud Olmert say no Mr. Bush Israel is not going to move it's borders?

The quotes look awfully similar to me. Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

No reaction from him was necessary because there was no hysterical media reaction, as there is this time.

Time will pass, this non-issue will blow over, and we'll find some other meaningless scenario to hyperventilate about very soon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm certain that's the same spin you'd put on it if Obama said that.


This is just another example of the media and our political parties drumming up a non-issue into something huge to take our focus off the stuff that actually matters like the economy, debt, gas prices etc.

Rather than picking apart words on a man with a history of empty rhetoric, why not go by what he actually does? What he actually does is send US taxpayer dollars by the tens of billions in a single year to Israel.

Actions>rhetoric

My hope is someday that common sense sinks into the american political spectrum.

Everybody heard Obamush's words if it was anything like what Bush said why didn't Ehud Olmert say no Mr. Bush Israel is not going to move it's borders?

The quotes look awfully similar to me. Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

No reaction from him was necessary because there was no hysterical media reaction, as there is this time.

Time will pass, this non-issue will blow over, and we'll find some other meaningless scenario to hyperventilate about very soon.

Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

Your words not Bushes. If the quotes were close t the same meaning Ehud Olmert would have sias the same thing

 

[Dr.Drock]

Everybody heard Obamush's words if it was anything like what Bush said why didn't Ehud Olmert say no Mr. Bush Israel is not going to move it's borders?

The quotes look awfully similar to me. Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

No reaction from him was necessary because there was no hysterical media reaction, as there is this time.

Time will pass, this non-issue will blow over, and we'll find some other meaningless scenario to hyperventilate about very soon.

Bush calling for Israel to concede land and referencing the 1967 borders as well.

Your words not Bushes. If the quotes were close t the same meaning Ehud Olmert would have sias the same thing

"Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel's security."-George Bush

His words not mine, he's the one telling Israel to back off land, take off the blinders.

 

[BlindBoo]

In a stunning straightforward speech Netanyahu laid it on the line to B. Hussein. "It ain't gonna happen Mr. President, we cannot go back to the 1967 boundries". "Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist". I wonder if Benny Netanyahu was born in the USA or maybe it doesn't matter anymore. It would be refreshing to listen to a straight speaking politician for a change.

The remark merely reiterated the position held by both the Clinton and Bush administrations in US-brokered “peace talks” going back more than two decades. Moreover, the reference to “swaps” cleared the way for Israel to lay claim to the large swathes of the occupied West Bank that have been seized for illegal Zionist settlements.

Nonetheless, the Netanyahu government furiously objected to the inclusion of any reference to the “1967 lines” i.e., the borders that existed before the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula.

According to press reports, Netanyahu personally telephoned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to demand that the phrase be removed from the speech, triggering a debate within Obama’s staff that led the speech to be postponed for some 35 minutes. That the speech was vetted with the Netanyahu government speaks volumes about the US-Israeli relationship.

Before leaving Israel, Netanyahu denounced Obama’s proposal, claiming that it reneged on the position taken by the Bush administration that given “new realities on the ground” it was unrealistic to expect a “full and complete” return to the pre-1967 borders. He also reiterated his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the nation state of the Jewish people”―setting up Arabs within its borders for a new round of ethnic cleansing―as a condition for any settlement.

Netanyahu snubs Obama over 1967 border remark

 

[BlindBoo]

Anybody remember when the first President Bush threatend their aid if they didn't stop building and annexing land for settlers in the West Bank?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Anybody remember when the first President Bush threatend their aid if they didn't stop building and annexing land for settlers in the West Bank?

Bush never mentoned moving the borders back the the 1967 borders either.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Anybody remember when the first President Bush threatend their aid if they didn't stop building and annexing land for settlers in the West Bank?

Bush never mentoned moving the borders back the the 1967 borders either.

We get it, you're a hyper-partisan on the level with Truth_Matters.



Even if the Bushes, Obama and Clinton are saying the same thing in principle, if the words aren't exactly the same you'll find a way to say one is ok and the other is a travesty.


Hell even if the words were the same you'd probably pick at facial expressions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Anybody remember when the first President Bush threatend their aid if they didn't stop building and annexing land for settlers in the West Bank?

Bush never mentoned moving the borders back the the 1967 borders either.

We get it, you're a hyper-partisan on the level with Truth_Matters.



Even if the Bushes, Obama and Clinton are saying the same thing in principle, if the words aren't exactly the same you'll find a way to say one is ok and the other is a travesty.


Hell even if the words were the same you'd probably pick at facial expressions.

Right I guess a large portion of America view the same way. They heard obamush say what he said. Obamush made his point clear twice and then back tracked.