Obama ‘Clarifies’ 1967 Border Demands


Pages: 1 2

In a speech to the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday morning, President Obama tried to offer some clarification to his remarks on Thursday at the State Department where he stated that “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.”

Stung by an outburst of condemnation and criticism for those remarks – and a stern lecture from Prime Minister Netanyahu after their White House meeting – the president attempted to quell the controversy by reiterating America’s strong support for the state of Israel, and placing his comments on creating a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders in the context of “mutually agreed swaps” of land that would alter those boundaries substantially.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.

The president’s excuse for this significant change in US policy was the prospect of a vote at the United Nations this fall that would recognize Palestinian statehood – a turn of events that carries great risk for both Israel and America.

But he insisted that the border issue be the starting point for negotiations – a ploy to restart direct talks with the Palestinians – and that other issues like the “right of return” for Palestinians and the status of Jerusalem be worked out later. In effect, President Obama has sided 100% with the Palestinians in their claims just as the new unity government of Hamas and Fatah takes shape. And while Obama stated that “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist,” he did not make Palestinian adherence to the Quartet Principles a prerequisite for negotiations. (The Quartet principles include recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and agreeing to abide by previous negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.)

The Palestinians, of course, were overjoyed that Obama had sided with their long-held contention that a Palestinian state should be formed out of Israel’s 1967 borders. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, “If Netanyahu agrees, we shall turn over a new leaf…Once Netanyahu says that the negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, then everything will be set.”

Note that Mr. Erekat said nothing about “mutually agreed swaps” of land. The reason is simple. As Dore Gold pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Abbas does not believe in such swaps. “Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule,” wrote Gold. It doesn’t sound promising when one side in negotiations rejects the other’s right to exist and refuses to talk about defensible borders.

As Netanyahu told President Obama at the White House on Friday, “[W]hile Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines because these lines are indefensible.”  The Israeli prime minister also reminded the president that conditions on the ground in Israel had been altered over the past 44 years, with demographic changes putting much of the Israeli population outside the 1967 borders.

White House aides were said to be “infuriated” with Netanyahu’s “lecturing tone” after that Oval Office meeting with the president. But the Israelis had their own complaints about the president’s speech on Thursday beyond the border issue. The president was silent about the “right of return” that the Palestinians say is necessary for any peace agreement. Previous presidents have rejected this claim as unworkable. Also, Netanyahu rightly pointed out that the attack on Israel in 1948 resulted in two refugee problems; a Palestinian exodus that the Arab world did nothing about and the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands that Israel solved by absorbing the newcomers. The Israeli prime minister stated flatly that a return of Palestinian refugees to Israel would destroy the Jewish state. “”[T]hat’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, it’s not going to happen,” he said.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.fxexchangerate.com/ fxgeorges

    And in any event, lurker, Obama also stated there could be no negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as long as Hamas participates in it, demanding that the recent truce between Hamas and the PA be thrown out as a condition for even negotiations to take place. This makes whatever else he says moot, aside from the fact that Netanyahu has clearly vetoed it.

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    In reality my children, just now being recalled to serve for another 6 months with the IDF, found the manicured and blue haired US AIPAC Jews quite amusing. Amusing
    in a pathetic sort of way. I wonder how many of those folk serven in the US military, forget the IDF.
    We know what the foreigners script has been ever since the self cover up of 1948.
    In that context we know what to expect since Oslo and culminating by September or a bit later.
    And tersely let me assure one and all that we have the means to attend to our national interests which shall not be dictated by either the State Department gangs, the person with birth certificate in the WH or the quadriga or the flotsam at the "un".

    In four mnths all will come to the fore.

    • kafir4life

      I suspect that Heir Obama has other plans for us that may relieve any concerns he has over the "Jewish vote".

      The capo Senator from NY, Schmuckles Chumer has already indicated a willingness to take his mentor, and owner of the Democrat party, George Soros old job confiscating property from Jews. Calls to his office have confirmed he's quite excited about the possibility.

    • Dispozovdaburka

      Universal Underworld cycle in Mayan Calendar ends on October 28, 2011.

      • ziontruth

        Please. Why do people accord those pagan fortune-tellings* any kind of importance?

        *Not prophecies. Prophecy as in the Bible only foretells a possible future, to be averted if the nation repents. Fortune-telling, forbidden by the Torah, foretells an inescapable future destined to happen no matter what people do to prevent it (cf. King Oedipus or the modern Star Wars trilogies).

        • Dispozovdaburka

          Thank you for noting Zion truth.

          People can :conciously pray
          to
          :metaphysicaly change the future:
          or the
          outcome of their Destiny,
          that is why we must seriously consider the implications of
          Obama's Muslim Prayer Day on the Mall, September
          *Virgo 2009
          " Where 50,000 Muslim Men wereasked to pray from 4:30 AM to evening to
          "Pray For the SOUL of America".:
          Which *MetephisalY" impregnates the Virgin "Cosmos" with the "Phallic symbol or seed of Osiris<"
          And yes, my friend,
          the Torah should forbid this.
          Blessings and Light

    • Dispozovdaburka

      My friend ShnmuelHaLevi-
      I want you to know that you have many friends here in this world.
      More than you will ever know.
      Although the world is has more and more talk about " distance or lack of of the Light "
      "darkness being of the conciousness of Islam,
      This Islamic conciousness or lack of "
      will ultimately yeild the
      Bightest Light.
      There are many who understand
      that without darkness of conciousness,
      the Messiah
      cannot appear.
      Blessings and Light to you and Israel.
      Fear not as the Light is Always with Israel.
      Blessings and Light,
      Always,
      Monsier SHmuell-HaLevi
      G-d bless you too for speaking up for all of us,.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    OBAMA'S AIPAC SPEECH: IS HE NAIVE, OR INSANE?

    Obama did a splendid job yesterday reading from his teleprompter. But in the course of his speech when he told AIPAC (who cheered his insincere pro-Israel statements) that he wasn't "naive" he should have been laughed off the stage. Trying to restart a failed and disastrous peace process with an implacable enemy hell-bent on Israel's destruction is not just naive, it's insane in the Einsteinian sense; for what better term is there to describe someone who imagines he can succeed where better men under more promising conditions have failed?

    continued

    • Matthew Quigley

      No, Barack Hussein O'Himmler is just evil.

    • jacob

      What happens to OBAMA is that his narcissism is of such a degree, that he is
      convinced he can snow under anybody and everybody and speaking to an
      audience like AIPAC whose majority are DEMOCRAPS, as most American
      Jews genetically are, will swallow all of it (AS IT DID) line, hook and sinker…

      And, isn't the proof of in the pudding ???

      Aren't quite a few of them trying to convince people that it isn't that the horse
      is so thin, harp can be played on his ribs…
      NO:
      It is that the fat inside pushes the ribs outwards…! ! !

    • Dispozovdaburka

      I wish that I could express,
      to all
      that evil can go to the extreme of too far "right" as many remember- OR
      to"too far Left."
      Evil has no limits to expression
      Obama is as his end of time predictions
      The the "Epitome of Evil."
      Nostradamus's.
      End of Days
      Anti Christ,.
      Speaks in forked tongue,
      has no real identiy,
      is regarded as a New World Messiah
      He is everthing that represents what the current world "is not:,
      Once you undersrand who he is,
      the easier is to deal with him,
      As is known.

  • geez

    Junior Senator Obama once again shows it's been 3 years of amateur hour in the White House. It's a shame we can't "walk back" his election, but what we can do is make absolutely sure he's a one term President and at the same time keep junior Senator Clinton the heck out of the White House too. Talk about dumb and dumber!

    • kafir4life

      Assuming there isn't martial law declared before the election (if things look bad for Obama re-selection, he'll "delay" the elections until we're "thinking clearly"), our national nightmare will end in 608 days, 4 hours.

      • Dennis X

        sorry, four more is at hand

    • scum

      Hmm, amateur hour. Let's talk about WMD 'mistakes' ; let's talk about Katrina; let's talk about 2008 deregulation crash; let's talk about . . . IDIOTS ON PARADE

    • Jim_C

      "junior senator" well let's see: there are only 43 people in the entire history of the United States who have had more experience as POTUS than Barack Obama. And that number will dwindle considerably come January 2013.

      • Frankwye

        Just so that you understand what he is saying. He was elected with very little experience and has acted that way.

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    Without a scintilla of evidence that the Palistinians were ready to do an Anwar Sadat and accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State Obama (like Bush 41 and Clinton before him) recklessly plunged ahead pressuring Israel to make unilateral concessions on freezing settlements, wisely resisted by Netanyahu. After two years of Obama relentlessly demanding concessions from Israel, then publicly raising the issue of the 67 borders, Netanyahu had enough and put an end to this nonesense by politely scolding a livid president in public. Obama is insanely blind to his own naivity and folly, as are all the fairyland losers on the radical Left when it comes to the Middle East and the civilizational war with Islam.

    Click my name to continue reading this widely linked Townhall piece.

  • aspacia

    Obama is an Israeli and U.S. nightmare. Funny, how the Arab refugee problem will not be resolved, but the Jews resolved their refugee problem from the Arab and European worlds.

    Israel does want peace, but Arab/Muslim honor will not allow it. Arabs would rather die and suffer than admit defeat.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Sad and true. The Arabs do not learn from the past, they seem to be geared to
      take a severe beating after working up their courage shelling school buses
      and forcing women and children into crowds with suicide belts. What great
      manhood, the Israelis should put the pestiferous rats out of their misery
      and attain a true peace…………………………………………………..William

      • aspacia

        Regardless of International opinion, those who reside in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza who wish Israel harm should be expelled.

  • Beth

    Glenn Beck believes Obama Admin. will use the UN "Right to Protect Act," the same one trial balooned in Libya to assert a military "protection" force in the Palestinian terrioties. (You know so Jews can't say new policy created just for them.) Knowing that Samantha Powers (Obambi's right hand anti-semite) believes it will be necessary to take away the money given to Isreal, give it to a new Palestinian state, build them a huge military to fight off who…well you decide.
    (http://keywiki.org/index.php/Samantha_Powers)
    I don't think its so crazy. I could see it now, Palestinian's go to UN annouce they want state based on 1967 lines, as layed out by US President Obama, and they get yes vote. Isreal has troops in the West Bank protecting Isreali citizens and bamb, UN must send in troops to protect Palestinians from Israeli agression, done.
    End result war and more Jews die.

    • Matthew Quigley

      Beth, I suspect you may be right.

    • scum

      There are 2 basic problems in relying on Glenn Beck, of all people, for your political information: 1) Glenn 2) Beck

      • frankwye

        Time will tell. Lefties never pay attention to, "I told you so"-about anything anyway. They don't pay attention to "history repeating itself."

        So lets try: Americanthinker.com- the coming assault on Isreal. (Not GB)

  • voted against carter

    if you are jewish,… WHY would you vote for obama???

    he wants you dead. just like his arab buddy's.

    he just said so in his speech. How hard is that to understand???

    • Dennis X

      I don't care whay you do , just do it without our 3 billion in tax dollars each year!!!

      • Beth

        Dennis, this is not the forum to go in depth to your well spent 3billion in technology, military prowess and knowledge, intelligence. We American's get a great bang for our buck. I don't mind looking to withdraw US Aid, but do it with your head not out of frustration and ignorance.

        • Dennis X

          Technology, inteligence and military prowess for israel, the us gets 0. Your the big boys on the block, you really don't want peace, or care about international opinion, why not just nuke palestinians, you know you really just want them all dead. My point is that 3 billion can do alot more good staying at home.

          • MixMChess

            Wrong, Israel provides strategic and military aid to the U.S. Israeli firms developed "the Amos and Ofeq satellites and the world's first operational anti-missile missile system, the Arrow, unmanned air vehicles (UAV or pilotless aircraft) systems, including the Hunter….Python and Popeye 'smart' airborne missiles…passive armor, naval decoys, …ceramic armor, air-breathing propulsion, and air-to-air, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missiles." Technology and support all shared with the U.S.

            You're also forgetting that the vast majority of what Israel receives must be spent in the United States to generate profits and jobs. For example, "Peter McPherson, former administrator of the Agency for International Development, estimated that every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the U.S."

            If Israel were not a secure military ally, the US would have to deploy its own troops to the Middle East to ensure the stability of the region. U.S. military analysts "estimate that the U.S. would have to spend the equivalent of $150 billion a year in the Middle East to maintain a force equivalent to Israel's."

            What about all the aid to the Arab countries? Does that upset you or just aid to Israel? What about the fact that the U.S. spends far more on ensuring the defense of Japan, South Korea and Western Europe than it spends on Israel.

          • MixMChess

            "Your the big boys on the block, you really don't want peace, or care about international opinion, why not just nuke palestinians, you know you really just want them all dead."

            You answered your own question… If Israel really didn't care about the Palestinians or international opinion it could easily bomb or nuke them into oblivion. Duh!

          • ziontruth

            "…or care about international opinion,…"

            What is this thing "international opinion" people always talk about? Every time I examine it in denial, all I find is the usual Marxist articles of orthodoxy.

            For that reason, any sane nation, loving life and liberty, would do best to ignore this so-called international opinion. Being called in violation of international opinion or law is much like being called a "raaaaacist": It's a good indication you're on the right track.

          • ziontruth

            "in denial" -> "in detail"

            Complaints to ziggyf@psychoanalysis.org.at

    • Jim_C

      Not all American Jews support President Obama. Just the educated, intelligent, compassionate, good-looking ones.

      • Frankwye

        Yes, Leftists all consider themselves so much smarter than everyone else. That is in the definition of Lefty. Elitists through and through.

      • nina

        Is this supposed to be humor?

      • ziontruth

        Or as George Orwell said: There are some ideas so absurd that only a member of the intelligentsia could believe them.

        Not all American Jews. Just the educated idiots and intelligent fools.

    • eliekheder

      because American Jews are dumb… I believe they are fake Jews, they may be one day thrown out of the USA and won't have a place to go.

  • Dave Schwep

    a letter to the White House :

    Mr President,

    In your speech three days ago you stated:

    "we believe that the borders of Israel/Palestine should be based upon the 1967 line – " In these words you have outright lied to the American people and to the people of the world when you are aware of the fact that over 70% of the American people stand strongly with Israel and support her as a very close ally. How dare you assume to speak for us who stand with Israel. Surrounded by enemies, Israel was attacked by a league of confederated Arab nations from all sides during that Six-day War yet she miraculously won the war. These Arab muslim nations remain on a mission to destroy Israel. Their goal to 'drive the Jews into the sea' has never been renounced! And we are to give into the 'Arab Demands' when Israel only suffers more each time she relinquishes land to their demands? Preposterous! You know the Gaza strip has become a launching pad for daily rocket attacks upon Israel – - and 'You, Barack Obama', want Israel to give more land to them – land which Israel won on the Defensive! Yes, it is You,' Barak Obama' because this is Your wish and NOT the American people ! You have betrayed the people of the United States of America.
    It is "we the people" and you have postulated contrary-wise. Mr. Obama, it is past time for you to resign and step down from the position you hold as President of the United States.

    David Schwep
    USA

    • Jim_C

      "resign"…sure. You wish, Dave.

      By the way, our policy toward Israel has not altered significantly, nor will it, so get off your hysterical high horse. You, and many here, aren't really concerned–you're really just looking for an excuse to be outraged, aren't you?

      • Frankwye

        Leftism is always outragous.

  • OLJingoist

    Question:………If the poser is not a muslim, how come he always makes decisions favorable to muslims.
    The poser is thumbing his nose at America. And our publicly educated children have been made his stooges. To carry his water.
    Has anyone else noticed that everything this poser says has to be explained to us by someone else. He does say exactly what he means. It is just that his base won't except it and changes his message.
    He is the worst threat to freedom and liberty this country has EVER seen.

    • Dispozovdaburka

      He is clearly "Nostrodamus's 3rd Antichrist."
      Just an observation.
      No judgement.

  • Spider

    Can anyone tell me how this anti-semite (- Obama- brother to Reverend Wright and Louis Farakon ) could have lulled more than 80% of Jews in this country to vote for him ?? It sounds to me from the applouse he received at AIPAC that even after all that has been said and done that Jews are still buying his bald faced lies. I can not understand how otherwise smart and good people blindly follow someone with a "D" after their name who clearly would allow his Mu-Slim conspirators to commit genocide against their own people.

    • AzDebi

      AND…they'll vote for him again in 2012!

    • Jim_C

      He has only duped the intelligent, compassionate, educated, good looking Jews.

      But the ignorant, mean and homely bozos see through Obama's disguise.

      • Frankwye

        I word history.

        See Nixon and RED DIAPER DOPER BABIES.

      • ziontruth

        As I said, the intelligent and educated are the easiest to dupe.

        What's with that "good-looking" bit, anyway? Why do you drag this odd man out ("good-looking" is mostly nature) among all the acquired traits (intelligence and education are nurture)?

        • Frankwye

          Lefttist compassion comes with force.

  • macdaddy31

    Obama claims that he just needed to shake up the status quo because the stalemate could not continue for another 10, 20 30 or more years. There is some truth to that. However, instead of putting all of the onus on Israel, which has been done since before the time of its creation, perhaps the best way to accomplish this is simply to start putting public demands on the Palestinians and the Arab world? What a concept, heh? Maybe ask that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state in clear, public, unambiguous words. Ask that they stop inciting their masses to kill, hate and never accept Israel in clear, public, unambiguous words. Ask that the Palestinians pursue and punish without later back door release those that are directly or indirectly responsible for violence against Israel and Jews. Ask that they release Shalit. Ask that they not celebrate vicious mass murderers of children in any form or fashion. That all these things are expressly, unambiguously said to their people on a continuous basis. Maybe that would be the catalyst for changing the status quo. Maybe we ought to try that approach for once.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    Obama is more of a threat to America than he is to Israel. Netanyahu is bright and tough enough to reject Obama's ludicrous proposals. And Israelis know that any state that relies on America for its protection is naively ignoring history; also that any statesman or voter who believes anything Obama has to say needs his head examined. But we voted in this disaster and he has a good chance of getting in again in 2011 which will speed America on its decline to a third world status. The Arabs grow suicide bombers and judging from AIPAC's welcome to Obama it is safe to say that American Jews produce suicide voters.

  • tagalog

    This proposal of President Obama is a non-starter. Israel intends to make its borders defensible, and giving up areas of the West Bank will not do that. Israel is willing to make peace with Arabs but is not wiling to load the gun and hand it over to Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestines, and Arab antisemites of all stripes and kinds so it can be pointed at their collective head and fired.

    The Arabs, Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah all operate on the concept that Israel is to be destroyed, and won't make a permanent peace in which Israel and the Jews play a part.

    So there won't be peace in the foreseeable future and Obama is out of his mind and has not learned the slightest thing from a half-century of history.

    Israel, quite rightly, believes that land conquered during a war (or series of wars) belongs the force that has conquered it. Even the Muslims proclaim that (they think Spain and Portugal -al-Andalus- still belong to them after 700 years plus). But Israel would no doubt like to save the expense of defending the land they won with a peace. But the Arabs will never agree to that. If the Arabs had succeeded in any one of the three wars they've fought to take Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, you wouldn't see them voluntarily handing it over to someone else.

    • Jim_C

      These proposals are always "non-starters," aren't they?

      Personally I would like to see a situation where Israel would do precisely what the U.S. has been asking all these years, reiterated by Obama. Yes, it would leave them momentarily vulnerable–key word MOMENTARILY. Then, should there be an attack, Israel could say "Hey, look, world–we did everything you asked. Now we're going to do what we have to do."

      Either that, or stop supplying Israel with aid–thus, with no strings attached, letting them do what they need to do. (I don't like this one, because Israel's isolated enough as it is).

      • Frankwye

        So you say ignore history, their charter, their stated goals and wait til there is a lot of bloodshed.

        • Jim_C

          There is no "ignoring" at all. Surely you know there will be bloodshed, anyway. But doing what the USA has been asking for decades, now, puts Israel in a political position to be finally able to do what they need to do.

          • Frankwye

            No one will care about Isreal.

          • Frankwye

            Sure you are ignoring. Palestinian Jordanians left their homes to join with Egypt and other Arab countries to attack Isreal. Isreal won and took "buffers" of land.
            Isn't this what you are asking of them again? AGAIN?

          • tagalog

            This seems like an appropriate moment to remind everyone that the Arab nations ejected (i.e., "kicked out") their Jewish citizens after the first Arab-Israel War, and Israel took those people in and made them full citizens of Israel no matter what country they had come from, while Israel did NOT "kick out" its Arab populace; they left and went to DP camps as "refugees" (where the 4th and 5th generations are still classified as "refugees" to this day) and were never taken in by the nations of their Arab brethren. Isn't that interesting?

          • ziontruth

            What Israel needs to do is expel all the Arab settler-colonists from the Land of Israel. Surely you're not suggesting giving away Judea and Samaria would put "Israel in a political position to be finally able" to do that?

          • Frankwye

            ?

  • pagegl

    Obama stated that Israel would share a border with the Palestinian state only and that the Palestinian state would border Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. I wonder if he has seen a map of Israel. I would like for him to draw his idea of this border on a map with the current borders. There is no way this border can be implemented without reducing the size of Israel significantly.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Look at a map? He is still trying to deal with America's 57 States………..William

  • Alfonz Shmedlap

    M., 05/23/11 common era

    Our Beloved Comrade Husein charmed the intermarried, assimilated AIPAC. They love him even now because he favors even more "gun control," abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, diversity workshops, and multiculturalism. They are Jews for Nothing.

  • Jhon

    That Hussein really looks like a monkey though

    • Dennis X

      kinda reminds me of your mother

      • sandykramer

        Nice gradeschool response. No need for invectives. Obama's behaviour speaks for itself.

        • Jim_C

          "Gradeschool response, no need for invectives"–right, because the original poster brought up some great logic, right?

          I'm sincerely amazed dimbulbs like you can operate a keyboard, frankly. So kudos to you.

  • sedoanman

    “In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a ‘clarification,’ when people react adversely to what was plainly said.” – Thomas Sowell

  • tagalog

    How many democracies do you think there are in the Near East?

    • Frankwye

      Or middle east for that matter.

  • Fred Dawes

    Obama understands one fact he needs money, so he got to backtrek on his hate sheech on Israel

  • LindaRivera

    Obama wants to make sure he gets all those Jewish votes and Jewish money donations for his campaign.

  • Frankwye

    So, should all countries, give back land acquired through defensive wars, especially if that land acts as a buffer to constant attacks, just to see if there might be peace?

    • Frankwye

      Just in case you want any examples, look at P

    • Jim_C

      There's nothing new about it. We did that with Japan after WWII.

      Israel's problem is very real: it was "founded ugly." As much as anyone wants to spin it, there happened to be people there at the time.

      Now, Israel's founding is nothing unusual. In many ways, our own founding was "uglier." Israel's "disadvantage" is that it was founded in modern times, and our modern standards aren't quite as brutal anymore. So yes, they should give back those lands. In short, they should do everything the United States has asked them to do for decades, now. I understand why Bibi doesn't want to: Bibi doesn't believe there will ever be peace. He may be right: but what he needs to get through his head is that by doing what the United States is asking, it puts him in a politically unassailable position and gives Israel the opportunity to take care of business decisively, if need be.

      • Frankwye

        If you believe that one I have a bridge…

        Japan signed a treaty.

        If Isreal did everything you suggest. No one would care, just like right now they don't care whenever Pals send missiles.

      • ziontruth

        "Israel's 'disadvantage' is that it was founded in modern times, and our modern standards aren't quite as brutal anymore."

        I see some rigging here, folks. I see some armchair preaching that conveniently leaves the preacher free not to face the consequences of his own preaching.

        This is little different than Muchiboy's calls for the Jews to evacuate parts of the Land of Israel for the sake of the "indigenous" (in reality: Arab settler-colonists; we Jews are the indigenous here), but when I told him he should leave Canada for the sake of the First Nations there, he had a set of convenient excuses as to why he doesn't have to do so. Foremost among his excuses: This very "statute of expiration" you just now laid out.

        This Jew, yours truly, is PO'ed right now and gives the world the finger. You may think, "How childish!", but then you must remember a lot of us are ready to follow through our belief in our national sovereignty to the bitter end. You know what I mean. You know it involves not just us but all our enemies. I hope it'll never come to that, but push us too far and you'll be needing a miracle.

        "In short, they should do everything the United States has asked them to do for decades, now."

        No. Take your aid and shove it in your face. Netanyahu managed to reduce it to 1.1% of Israel's GDP during his tenure as Minister of Finance; we're almost weaned, and we're not going to take this imperious attitude lying down anymore.

        • Jim_C

          Really? No. You'll do what you're told, and you'll like it.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Was he trying the Clintinesque ploy of what I say today is reality as it is coming out
    of my lying mouth and yesterday does not count, just the new story is truth for
    today and forget your lying ears. What a guy, and just leaving Ireland where he
    found his lineage on the run but couldn't find a birth certificate in years. Israel
    beware, come later in the election cycle he will show up in Jerusalem for his
    bar mitzvah…….and Irish Jew………or a lost Kennedy……….William

  • Dispozovdaburka

    Obama :
    what a guy.

  • Dispozovdaburka

    God bless Bibi.
    He is a TRUE leader.

  • montlasky

    The president is regurgitating the same old quartet road maps with a hidden dip in the road trying to cover up the true meaning of what if ostensibly “the same old beautiful chorus girls”.
    They all want a settlement at the expense of the Jewish state which will include the Right of Return, no more building of settlements,, no East Jerusalem and all the destructive elements to destroy Israel. They will keep on trying and we will keep on resisting. Nothing will change except a potential war on three fronts. Testing Obama’s resolve to assist in this circumstance is like holding the gun in an assisted suicide.

  • nina

    No. You didn't explain. Why exactly do American Jews vote mostly Democratic? I would really want to know.

  • sandykramer

    The present POTUS knows as much about international geopolitics as Harold Camping knows about eschatology.

  • sandykramer

    But he excels in taquiyya.

  • ziontruth

    "…your looking at four more years."

    Four more years, with no reelection considerations and judging from the way things are already going (the rushed bills, the czars and other flattenings of the American Constitution), are years at the end of which you'll be living in a gigantic Cuba North.

    But hey, if that's what you want…

  • Glennd1

    I wonder if you folks notice just how deformed and derivative the entire discussion is? How is it that entire articles on "borders" contain no maps? You see, folks, if you look at a map and the "territory" that Israel wants, the rapacious nature of Israel's land claims becomes obvious. Set aside the "defensibility" argument, for a moment. The Jewish settlements on Arab land hold more than half a million Israeli Jews, the large majority of them being orthodox extremists who claim ownership of "the river to the sea" and see their settlements as a key way of advancing their cause.

    But on to that pesky map. You'll see that that the land claims which Israel wants to make based on "settlements" slice any Palestinian state into an absurd mish-mash, with entire border to border strips carved right through it, and major population areas. Most of these were constructed without "approvals", but lots of Israeli govt money, and other sources of money from Zionist extremists. Here's a link to the settlements that have been sprinkled across the West Bank. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&amp;…

    The Israeli strategy is to win via illegal expansion what they didn't win from the U.N. or via war. And by putting critical mass of over 500,000 citizens in those settlements, it claims that it now can't be undone due to the disruption of so many lives. Funnily, the Israelis claim no such privilege for the 630,000 Arabs living in Palestine that they forced from their homes between '47-'49. Fyi, the claims I'm making are uncontroversial, commonly accepted by folks on both sides of the debate.

    But see, instead of hearing facts, we are treated to the propaganda of Netanyahu at AIPAC or when speaking to our congress. We never discuss the "map" – cuz those facts point to an intentional campaign by Israel to dispossess the Palestinians of even more of their land. This is agreed to by the U.N., and the International Criminal Court – unequivocally. So, instead we here bromides about our "special" relationship. You remember, the one in which we've made enemies of most of the rest of the world by ignoring the crimes committed againt the Arabs living in Palestine during the formation of the state of Israel by Israelis paramilitary, terrorist and military forces? Fyi, if you don't know that Zionists committed terrorism in the name of their Jewish state for decades in Palestine before '48 – then you don't know anything about the history of this conflict? But that is just another aspect of the assymetric "truth" most American's possess about the region.

    As for Obama insisting on '67 borders as a starting point, it's even more insulting to see the Israeli reaction for a Palestinian. The Palestinian, if accepting this formulation, is asked to give up on the right of return to their legitimate homeland, a right affirmed by th U.N. every year since '49, fyi, for those of you inform yourselves via Dershowitz versus actual credible observers and historians. Moreover, by using the specific term "swaps", given the history of negotiations, he's suggesting support for he 5% of what has been found to legitimately be Palestinian territory by the ICJ, slicing their remaining country into ribbons. And I'm supposed to see why the Israelis are so insulted by Obama's speech?

    • ziontruth

      "You see, folks, if you look at a map…"

      You would realize that the Jewish State is tiny and has no land to spare. You would realize the sheer injustice of the demand that land be taken from the tiny State of the Jews. Possibly, you might even alight upon the harsh truth that it is this patently unjust demand that made the Arab imperialists, possessors of over 20 states spanning a huge mass of the globe, recast their arguments by inventing a non-Jewish "Palestinian nation" from scratch—for the purpose of inverting the truth of the Jewish David vs. Arab Goliath.

      The Land of Israel is the indigenous territory of the Jewish nation, the one and only true Palestinian nation. By definition there cannot be any such thing as a "Jewish settlement" in Palestine, any more than a "Greek settlement" in Greece, for the Jews are the indigenous Palestinians. The illicitly named "Palestinians" are part of the Arab nation, whose indigenous entitlement is the Arabian Peninsula alone; outside this area they are the settlers and colonists and land-thieves. Tulkarm is an Arab settlement on Jewish soil, as are Bil'in and Umm El Fahm. For the sake of a just and viable peace, all Arab settlers currently situated on the soil of the indigenous Palestinian nation, the Jewish nation, will have to evacuate; they are now stealing land.

      This is the true position; the lies of the anti-Zionists will not stand.

      • ziontruth

        Sorry for the double-post.

    • MixMChess

      "The Jewish settlements on Arab land hold more than half a million Israeli Jews, the large majority of them being orthodox extremists who claim ownership of "the river to the sea" and see their settlements as a key way of advancing their cause."

      As usual, Glenn is playing fast and loose with the facts to defame Israel and promote his antisemitism. There are only approximately 350,000 Jews living in the W. Bank. While the majority of them are religious orthodox Jews, they are not at all extremists.

      Of course, Palestinians (both the Palestinian Authority and other Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas) have made it clear that the acquisition of the West Bank and Gaza strip is just a first stage – the creation of a launching ground for the conquest of all of Israel. They openly declare that they will wipe the Jews out "from the river to the sea."

      The Palestinians are not interested in creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it is the elimination of the state of Israel and the expulsion of the Jews from the land of Israel.

    • MixMChess

      "You'll see that that the land claims which Israel wants to make based on "settlements" slice any Palestinian state into an absurd mish-mash, with entire border to border strips carved right through it, and major population areas."

      First, Israel has already stated that any final compromise would involve dismantling some of the W. Bank Settlements and even exchanging Israeli land to the Palestinians (as an even exchange of land). Any argument that a future Palestinian state will be a mish-mash or checkerboard pattern is bunk.

      Second, the settlements exist on LESS than 1.6% of the W. Bank, and over 85% of these settlements are suburbs/municipalities of major Israeli cities.

    • MixMChess

      "Funnily, the Israelis claim no such privilege for the 630,000 Arabs living in Palestine that they forced from their homes between '47-'49. Fyi, the claims I'm making are uncontroversial, commonly accepted by folks on both sides of the debate. "

      Whoops, looks like you're LYING AGAIN Glenn. As I have previously proved to you and everyone else, even Benny Morris admits that the vast majority of Arabs (Palestinians) were never forced from their homes. The Arabs left on their own accord at the urging of Arab governments who promised them spoils of war and to push the Jews into the sea. Try pulling you're head out of your ass for once.

    • MixMChess

      "We never discuss the "map" – cuz those facts point to an intentional campaign by Israel to dispossess the Palestinians of even more of their land."

      Right, that's why Israel completely withdrew from Gaza and dismantled 3 of the W. Bank settlements in 2005. Israel is actively giving up territory so how in your right mind can you claim the Palestinians are being dispossessed of more land? The only people being dispossessed of land are ISRAELIS.

    • MixMChess

      ""Fyi, if you don't know that Zionists committed terrorism in the name of their Jewish state for decades in Palestine before '48 – then you don't know anything about the history of this conflict?"

      This is a blatant lie, there is only one notable terrorist attack by the Zionists (which was against the British) in 1946, not for decades as Glenn claims. Of course, this one terror attack was clearly an aberration, and nothing compared to the very real decades long campaign of terrorism and violence committed by the Arabs against the Zionists and British.

    • MixMChess

      "The Palestinian, if accepting this formulation, is asked to give up on the right of return to their legitimate homeland, a right affirmed by th U.N. every year since '49,"

      You completely made that up, and you can't even pretend to know about international law. Negotiations have always been based on UN Resolution 242. Oddly enough, the Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only "alluded" to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem.” The generic term “refugee is also to be applied to the Jewish refugees from Arab lands." You're a joke Glenn.

  • Glennd1

    (cont'd) No Palestinian supports the position outlined by Obama, nor do any international institutions. They instead start with the law, facts and rights and have all come to the conclusion which would eliminate Israeli settlements as illegal and give Palestinians the land back that these Zionist maniacs stole from them as a starting point. To negotiate away one's rights as described by Obama as an opening position is seen as idiotic to Palestinians – whether or not they are part of Hamas or Fatah or are even very open to a negotiated, two state solution. It's not even in the realm of possible for any Palestinian leader of any stripe to consider doing. This is the same issue as Hamas's rejection of the legitimacy of the State of Israel as a core condition for negotiating. They believe that giving up this crucial distinction legitamizes the theft of Arab lands in the first place. How can they not believe that? The west forced the U.N. to make gift of a territory to the Zionists against the wishes of all nations in the region. We just plopped it down there, after 50 yrs of Zionist's advancing their cause politically, socially and violently. And now we say, well, you just have to accept it? And we are surprised when they don't? They haven't budged on this in 63 yrs, why would anyone in their rights minds think they would now?

    Fyi, none of the above signals my support for Hamas. They have been so deformed by hate and Islamism that they, and their masters in Hezbollah and echoed by their maniacal Salafists fellow travelers that they are beyond the pale morally and should be shunned. However, I don't find the actions of Israel in "transferring" 630,000 Arabs off their newly awarded land, in what amounts to "ethnic cleansing" – this said by Benny Morris, a leading Jewish, Israeli, Zionist historian (he claims the ethnic cleansing was justified), any more morally palatable, do you? Really, so if the U.N decided to give your town back to the Native Americans (who have much more recent and credible claims to huge chunks of our land), and then the next day, Indian paramilitary and military groups forced you and hundreds of thousands of your neighbors from their homes, you'd be okay with it? Really? Cuz that's what happened to the Arabs living Palestine. Period, dot, end of sentence. And the U.S. should continue to turn a blind eye to it, now that it's agreed to by virtually all sober observers of the facts? Wow, now that is immoral.

    The U.S. has no legitimate moral or national interest in promoting the religious claims to land of Jewish people. It's none of our affair. Let's follow the facts, the law and sort out the rights of those in this conflict, and if we do, we'll quickly conclude that the fundamental complaint of the Palestinians about being dispossessed intentionally by the Zionists is factually correct, and will be forced to face the awful act that we are complicit in the action. Wake up America – stop marching lockstep with what the right or left are telling you!!

    • ziontruth

      "It's none of our affair."

      As I told you once before: If you really took that above to heart, you would never have written the rest of what you have written. A true isolationist doesn't take sides. You take the anti-Israel side.

      A true isolationist would condemn Obama's pressuring of Netanyahu just as much U.S. support of Israel. You are not a true isolationist. You are a fraud. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing, an anti-Zionist pretending to be an isolationist.

      • Glennd1

        Once again, you provide another example of "non-argument". Note he doesn't argue against anything I've stated, but instead to accuses me of being an "anti-Zionist" – which I surely am, but is using it in a way that might make one think I'm anti-semitic. Read my comments again. There is nothing isolationist about what I'm suggesting. What I say is that whether or not the Jews have a state in their God given homeland is not relevant to the U.S.

        I don't care if you all kill each other over your stupid, fairy tale religions. But don't tell me the Zionists are the "good guys" after all they've done. And don't tell me the Palestinians weren't driven from their land in a crime against humanity. I'm sick to death of both parties, but particularly the kind Ziontruth represents.

        As he said here many times before, he wants the land God gave him and his people. Don't you understand, they are "the chosen" by God, in their eyes, and their claims to land are therefore superior. Lol, how can any American think we should take sides in this religious-land conflict? Now Ziontruth will come back and prattle on endlessly about the legitimacy of Jewish claims to Palestinian lands, but the facts are plain. There hasn't been a Jewish state their since the Roman empire, as Horowitz plainly states. No other ethnic or religious group has been given lands from another group of people based on ancient claims. Can you imagine, resetting the maps to 1900 years ago? How absurd, what a huge lie, but hey, if you're a good American, you support Israel, right? What a joke.

        • ziontruth

          "But don't tell me the Zionists are the 'good guys' after all they've done."

          I won't. All I want you (and all anti-Zionists) to do is shut up. And since you have stated this whole business should be no affair of yours, I'm calling on you to stand true to that principle by putting the lid on all the anti-Zionist points you spout as if you were some kind of interventionist, internationalist lefty.

          "And don't tell me the Palestinians…"

          I'll tell you the ones you call "Palestinians" are not really Palestinians. They are Arabs. Only the Jews can be truly called Palestinians. The Arabs who happen to reside in Palestine (as illegal settlers) have nothing unique to tie them to this land. Jews, on the other hand, have the connection to Palestine woven throughout their entire culture.

          "Don't you understand, they are 'the chosen' by God, in their eyes, and their claims to land are therefore superior."

          The Muslims too believe they're chosen by God; and unlike the Jews, the territory they claim as The Chosen isn't a small strip of land on the eastern Mediterranean coast but the entire world, including wherever you may be right now. If it's hard-nosed realism you care about, you ought to make a little less noise about the Jews and a little more noise about the Muslims. Or just shut up, as isolationism demands you do.

          "There hasn't been a Jewish state their since the Roman empire, as Horowitz plainly states."

          True. But that's none of your business. Not America's business to support Israel, but not America's business to tell Israel to stop building on its own land either. How about you condemn Obama for his intervention against Israel and not just for his apparent support?

          "No other ethnic or religious group has been given lands from another group of people based on ancient claims. Can you imagine, resetting the maps to 1900 years ago?"

          The Jewish nation is probably the only nation still extant after thousands of years including being scattered (so don't go bringing the Chinese as a counter-example—they never left their land). Therefore, this scenario of ancient nations stampeding to reset the world is nothing but an anti-Zionist fictional ploy.

          On the other hand, if every miniscule group of people starting calling themselves a nation like the Arab settlers in Palestine have done, then the world would really become a madhouse. But for some reason you have nothing to say about that, huh? Only the Jews get the end of that stick.

          You are scum, a piece of excrement, a tool of darkness, an agent of imperialism, a Jew-hater, an excuser of Islamic terrorism, all in all a willing servant of evil. But God is writing it all down at this very moment.

          • Glennd1

            Hey Zion – Any God who is on your side isn't much of a God. Your arguments are degrading, you are reduced to weak polemic and irrelevancy. The Zionist agenda is being revealed very nicely by you.

            As for whether it is my business or not, as an American, I'm told our security guarantees, direct military aid and the other billions give to Israel is in our interest and a moral obligation. Upon examining the history and facts carefully, it turns out I disagreed mightily, but my government persists. So, I come on right-wing sites and publish the little known truth about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the hopes that some readers go, hmm, I didn't know that. Let me go do some research. And then reads say the wikipedia account of the Arab exodus from the part of Palestine, forced upon them by Zionists and then the state of Israel.

            I only hope other Americans start thinking it all through.

          • Frankwye

            Hes got to be a plant or shill. I don't know any zionist that thinks that stuff.

            So glennd do you think all those borders set by Briton should be removed too or just Isreal?

        • MixMChess

          "And don't tell me the Palestinians weren't driven from their land in a crime against humanity."

          They weren't you nitwit.

    • MixMChess

      "However, I don't find the actions of Israel in "transferring" 630,000 Arabs off their newly awarded land, in what amounts to "ethnic cleansing" – this said by Benny Morris, a leading Jewish, Israeli, Zionist historian (he claims the ethnic cleansing was justified), any more morally palatable, do you?"

      You are a LIAR. Benny Morris has gone on the record stating that Israel never engaged in ethnic cleansing, denying that such a policy existed: "There was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight." Nice try though.

      • Glennd1

        He wrote so in his book, 1948, using those exact words. He's been asked publicly the same question and he said it amounted to ethnic cleansing in at least one TV interview I saw. Here is a quote. When a Haaretz interviewer called the 1948 Palestinian exodus "ethnic cleansing," Morris responded that "[t]here are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing." This is in an Israeli newspaper. Now who is the liar?

        He does claim it was warranted because of the genocidal threat to the Jews trying to set up their state of Israel. That is straight up Benny Morris – and since you don't seem to want to acknowledge history, and the intentional cleansing of Arab's from Israel, which all historians now acknowledge happened, it is you who is the liar.

        For those of you who don't know, in Zionist circles the issue was sanitized and referred to as "transfer" for years before it actually happened. This wasn't some spur of the moment act, no, many Zionists are on record talking about the need to "transfer" the Arab''s living in Jewish territory due to the need to establish a state with an overwhelming Jewsih majority. It isn't a mystery, they didn't just flee. And even if they did, as only one or two sadly delusional people believe, they had a right, guaranteed under international law to return to their homes. The U.N. passes a resolution every year since '49 demanding the right of return, but Israel and the U.S. just ignore it.

        It won't go away, no matter how much you scream and call names and distort and lie. The facts are brutal, and the more Americans who know them, the less support the Zionists have. Can't happen too soon for me.

        • MixMChess

          'You're an idiot Glenn… Benny Morris originally made the "ethnic cleansing" charge in his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", which was published in 1987.

          Since then, he has repudiated the "ethnic cleansing" charges. In his 2004 book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", Morris revised his original "thesis" based on new documents released since his initial book nearly 17 years before. Birth Revisited conclusively states that a large "proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes" than Morris had previously described. Morris states that: "It is clear from thenew documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm's way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish-dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate. There is no doubt that, throughout, the departure of dependents lowered the morale of the remaining males and paved the way for their eventual departure as well."

          As Morris makes clear, the Arabs created the refugee problem: "the problem wasn't created by the Zionists but by the Arabs themselves, and stemmed directly from their violent assault on Israel. Had the Palestinians and the Arab states refrained from launching a war to destroy the emergent Jewish state, there would have been no refugees and none would exist today."

          Its fairly obvious that you just copied and pasted a quote from Morris that you pulled from Wikipedia. If you actually read the interview you would have learned that Morris merely conceded that one particular expulsion (Lod in the Sharon valley) was "ethnic cleansing." What the interviewer (Ari Shavit) and Morris didn't mention is that Lod was that Morris subsequently confirmed that even the Lod "expulsion" was a hoax. Yigal Allon confirmed that Lod residents were told leave by the Arab Legion, so the Arab Legion could recapture the town. The residents also left because they were panic-stricken over Arab Legion created rumors of Israeli marauding. Even Benny Morris confirmed this: "The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: 'Any opposition to this order…is an obstacle to the holy war…and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.'"

          So who's the liar now, oh that's right you are still the LIAR.

        • MixMChess

          "He does claim it was warranted because of the genocidal threat to the Jews trying to set up their state of Israel."

          Benny Morris lamented the that fact that David Ben-Gurion didn't expel all Arab of the Arabs in 1948. Again acknowledging that there wasn't a massive expulsion or ethnic cleansing as you like to LIE about.

        • MixMChess

          "For those of you who don't know, in Zionist circles the issue was sanitized and referred to as "transfer" for years before it actually happened. This wasn't some spur of the moment act, no, many Zionists are on record talking about the need to "transfer" the Arab''s living in Jewish territory due to the need to establish a state with an overwhelming Jewsih majority."

          This is another LIE by Glenn. Zionists never raised the idea of TRANSFER. It was Britain's Peel Commission who raised it in 1937. Zionist discussions about it were all in response to the Peel Commission proposal to divide Palestine and exchange populations so each area would be either all Jewish or all Arab. The Zionists always flatly rejected the idea of transfer.

          As David Ben Gurion stated in 1937 "…compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by Jews…Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to PROPOSE it." [emphasis added]

          As Historian Itzhak Galnoo states, "transfer as a concrete possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report-it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the UN partition plan of 1947. Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past."

          The Population Exchange Committee was set up in 1937 by the British only to explore the pros and cons of the Peel plan's recommendation. When the Peel plan was abandoned, the Population Exchange Committee disbanded, within eight months of its founding.

        • MixMChess

          "It isn't a mystery, they didn't just flee."

          Yes, they did. The Zionists frequently "urged Palestinians not to flee the areas they secured" and encouraged them to stay in their homes and communities. "Arabs left cities like Haifa, Tiberias, and the Jaffa region because they were told that those who accepted Israeli protection would be treated as defectors when the Arab forces were victorious." Arabs also left because they were promised spoils and riches from the war and "swift victory over the Jews."

          As the Economist reported in 1948 on the residents of Haifa: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit…It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained…and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

          The majority of Palestinians fled before full-scale hostilities began and without even seeing an Israeli soldier. For example, as historian Efraim Karsh points out, "approximately 390,000 Palestinians-over half the total refugee population-had fled by early June, 1948, just two weeks after the full-scale war had begun."

          General John Bagot Glubb, British commander of the Arab Legion reported to the London Daily Mail in 1948 that Arab "villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."

          Arab and Palestinian spokespeople have subsequently confirmed that Arab leaders had encouraged Palestinians to leave. Syrian Prime Minister Haled al Azm admitted that "we ourselves are the ones who encouraged [the Palestinians] to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."

          Habib Issa, Secretary general of the Arab League, stated to the Al Hoda Newspaper in 1951 that, "brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading armies mow them down."

          Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada-al-Janub in 1948 that "the refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two…Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

          Even Mahmoud Abbas admitted to the Wall Street Journal in 2003 that it was the Arab armies who "forced them [the Palestinians] to emigrate and leave their homeland and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettoes in which the Jews used to live."

    • Glennd1

      Not even reading the tedious word parsing. If anyone who isn't a madman is reading all this, know that my account of the facts is supported by many historians. These guys quote debunked propaganda which has been disproven by real historians for decades now, just read some Benny Morris. The Israelis have much blood on their hands – from the get-go, and Zionism is a religious supremacist movement seeking a Jewish state. I mean. what other religious state's do we offer support to? How did this become an issue of national significance that we labor over, and think we have a moral obligation to defend Israel?

      And of course, I denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as reprehensible. I can see the evil of both parties, can you?

      • MixMChess

        "The Israelis have much blood on their hands – from the get-go, and Zionism is a religious supremacist movement seeking a Jewish state."

        Wrong, Israelis have no blood on their hands. It was the Arabs that had organized a campaign of terrorism against the Jews for nearly 30 years until 1948. Recall, in 1948 the Arab governments proudly proclaimed that the war against Israel was a "war of extermination" and "genocide" promising to "push the Jews into the sea."

        As for religious state, this claim is laughable as usual. Zionism was a secular movement founded by a secular Jew, Theodor Herzl. He based Zionism on Jewish historical and cultural connection to the land. That is why modern Israel remains a secular democracy with no official state religion that guarantees equal civil rights for all of its citizens regardless of background. Did you know that Israeli Arabs enjoy more civil rights in Israel than they do in any other Arab/Islamic country in the WORLD?

        "I mean. what other religious state's do we offer support to?"

        Are you really that dense? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE… basically any Middle Eastern country OTHER than Israel, or any country in the Arab/Islamic bloc.
        http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/24/its-

  • Frankwye

    That is the Marxist strategy to find or create oppression to use for political gain.

  • Frankwye

    Who owns or controls the settlements? No one is being displaced right. Can a Palestinian, Muslim or Arab settle in Isreal? Yes.

    Palestinians never had a country. They were technically Jordanians. Great Briton made up all the boundaries not just Isreals.

    • Glennd1

      Frank, You seem like an earnest guy, but you have to stop with this "Great Briton" set the boundaries nonsense. It's not only untrue about the formation of the Jewish territory, which was done by the U.N. resolution – not Great Britain, and also ignores the history of both the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations. Each nation in the region has it's own historical arc, and these are complex issues. Would you be surprised to know that the U.S. insisted on a codicil to the British Mandate for Palestine that stated emphatically that the U.S. would not use military or other force to enforce the agreement. Do you give any consideration to the ridiculousness of western nations giving away land that isn't their's to give, and then look away while hundreds of thousands are run off their homes as a result?

      But you seem to suggest because of this that the Arabs living in Palestine should have no gripe when 630,000 of them were forced off their land by an intentional campaign by the Zionists? As well, you seem to suggest that I should care about how the rest of the countries should feel about their borders. I don't but I'm also not being asked to support putting U.S. lives, treasure and prestige behind a nation who's very formation required a crime against humanity.

      • FrankS

        The Balfour Declaration of 1917 (dated 2 November 1917) was a formal statement of policy by the British government stating that

        His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[1]

      • FrankS

        The Palestine refugee problem was created in the course of the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. The war, and the flight of the refugees, known in Arabic as the Nakba (disaster), were central formative events that determined the national character of Israel and of the Palestinians, and helped to define the conflict in its present terms.

        When the UN voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in 1947, Palestinian Arabs opposed the plan, and immediately initiated riots , a blockade of Jewish Jerusalem, and ambushes of buses and other transport throughout the British Mandate territories. The British looked on for the most part and did nothing as long as the mandate continued. Arab irregulars stationed themselves in various towns and initiated attacks on nearby Jewish towns and blockade of transport. The Haganah underground of the Jewish Agency organized defense and later went over to the offensive. Dissident terrorist groups, the Irgun and LEHI, organized both attacks and terror bombings in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem. When the mandate expired, the Jews declared a state in accordance with the partition resolution, and the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq invaded Palestine.

      • FrankS

        The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories

  • http://www.seoserviceaz.com/blog/Tucson-search-engine-optimization Tucson search engine

    Uh Oh!!! Expect Obama to send bailout money to KalifOrnia!

  • http://www.geringerglobaltravel.com/ Indian tours

    The Center for Health Care Statistics estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year. Once these children turn 21, they are eligible to petition for their parents to join them as residents.

  • http://bangkok-realestate.net Bangkok Real Estate

    On Sundays, the western gates are open for runners to run on to Silom Road. The park is normally closed at night due to the incidences of vandalism, robberies and murders reported. Chatuchak Park and Rama IX Park are two of Bangkok's largest parks.

  • http://www.bridgepaydayloan.ca/ Canada payday loans

    I want to take this moment to say that I really love this blog. I find the subject of evolution and creationism to be rather interestin

  • Frankwye

    Oh, and Lefty = namecalling, 'cause they aint got no facts.