Afterthought... Reconsideration

>> Friday, May 20, 2011

For Obama to say Israel must retreat to pre-67 borders... it's the same as supporting the Palestinians' stated goal of destroying Israel. If Obama wants Israel to retreat to such an indefensible position then Obama desires the destruction of Israel. Either that, or Obama is the most naive commander in chief this nation has ever seated.


BenT - the unbeliever,  May 20, 2011 at 1:34 PM  

Here's Sec. of State Clinton in 2009:
"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

Here's Obama this week:
"[W]hile the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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."

You show me the difference between those two statements. Obama's position hasn't changed. Nor is it radically different from the positions of Pres. Bush, Pres. Clinton, Pres. Bush, Sr. or Pres. Reagan. You have fallen for a manufactured outrage.

ELAshley May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM  

No manufactured outrage Ben. Seriously. In this regard I'm not any more outraged by Obama than I am by Hillary, Bush, or whomever else has or will have a say in our foreign policy toward, and as it affects, the state of Israel.


You're right, Bush has advocated the same crappy 'solution'. ANYONE who pushes the pre-67 borders is, in effect, declaring themselves on the side of the Palestinians who, as stated in their several and various charters [Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.] desire the utter and complete destruction of Israel. And for the record, Mahmoud Abbas, president/leader of the Palestinian Authority is also a prominent member of Fatah... a terrorist organisation.

ELAshley May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM  

Hmm. Where did Ben's comment go?

BenT - the unbeliever,  May 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM  

"Israel won a war started by the other side, it occupied some of their territory, and then it decided to take some of that territory forever. We can argue endlessly about whether any of this was justified, but "demographic changes" is definitely not the usual way of referring to territory seized in a war."

via Kevin Drum

The 1967 borders were the settled borders before the six-day war. They have to be the starting point for any discussion of separate sovereign Israel and Palestine discussions...with MUTUALLY AGREED land swaps to account for changing populations. Notice that every president since Carter has laid down the same line on this issue.


"And for the record, Mahmoud Abbas, president/leader of the Palestinian Authority is also a prominent member of Fatah... a terrorist organisation."

Supporters of Israel have done an amazing job of painting every organization of Palestinian statehood as terrorists or affiliated with terrorists. In the end there is no one who represents the Palestinian people who hasn't been accused of terrorism. The path to peace will have to run through a person or organization that people who unequivocally support Israel find distasteful.

ELAshley May 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM  

Abbas, is the defacto leader of Fatah. Fatah was established and ruled by Yasser Arafat. It's charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. That call has yet to be repudiated, let alone rescinded.

"They have to be the starting point for any discussion..."

No, they don't. What has to be the starting point of ANY discussion is their laying down of arms and forsaking their stated desire to see Israel utterly destroyed. Israel has no desire to kill any 'Palestinian,' but most Palestinians do in fact wish to see Israel destroyed. When the Palestinians can stop stockpiling weapons and lobbing rockets into Israel, then and ONLY then can we talk about Israel giving land for peace. Because every time Israel has given land for peace, no peace has resulted.

Mark May 20, 2011 at 5:57 PM  

Actually, no President but Obama has ever advocated for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. The information Bent has provided is a lie. He might not think it's a lie, but a lie it is, nonetheless.


The United States has historically backed
Israel’s view that UN Security Council
Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the
Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does
not require a full withdrawal to the 1949
armistice lines (sometimes loosely called
the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to
that interpretation, both Democratic and
Republican administrations have argued that
Israel was entitled to “defensible borders.”
In other words, the American backing of
defensible borders has been bipartisan,
right up to the latest rendition provided by
President George W. Bush in April 2004. And
it has been rooted in America’s longstanding
support for the security of Israel, which
has gone well beyond the various legal
interpretations of UN resolutions.

Read the rest yourself.

Jim May 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM  

"Actually, no President but Obama has ever advocated for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders."

This is clearly false. Here's George W. Bush in January 2008:

The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967.

Marshall Art May 21, 2011 at 1:07 AM  

What's the problem with Israel occupying their own land. That's like saying Jim should stop occupying his home. There's no such thing as a Palestinian as there has never been a country of Palestine. That area before the '40's included Jews, Arabs and others and they were all referred to as Palestinians. We should not be involved with trying to see a Palestinian state formed. There should be no such state formed because they don't deserve one. Anyone who's loosely paid attention should see that obvious fact.

Mark May 21, 2011 at 5:33 AM  

That's a ridiculous argument, Jim. To what country's occupation was Mr. Bush referring? Read the article I linked, Jim. I realize it might be a little too cerebral for non-thinking Liberals like you, but if you take your time and re-read many of the harder parts you will see that George W. Bush never advocated for a return to pre-1967 borders.

If you read it, you will see it contains the following (among other obvious referrals):

Bush wrote: “The United States
reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s
security, including secure and defensible
borders, and to preserve and strengthen
Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself,
by itself, against any threat or possible
combination of threats".

Jim May 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM  

What you cite from Bush in no way refutes that the 1967 borders has been US policy for YEARS. It has always been understood that there would have to be land swaps to provide defensible borders.

"We should not be involved with trying to see a Palestinian state formed. There should be no such state formed because they don't deserve one."

Well that's an interesting opinion-I believe shared by very few (could be wrong). But it doesn't matter what you think. Israel will NEVER, EVER be secure without an agreement with Palestinians, and pretty much the entire WORLD agrees that that includes 2 states.

Without this, Israel is NEVER to be secure, and a stable Middle East and reliable resource flow from the Middle East is an unachievable dream. It doesn't matter one bit who you think deserves what.

Mark May 21, 2011 at 11:44 AM  

Jim, you really need to refrain from arguing until after you actually read the article I linked.

Trying to argue against facts presented in an article without actually reading the article makes you look stupid.

The term, "land swaps" isn't synonymous with the term "pre-1967 borders". There can be land swaps without leaving Israel indefensible and re-drawing their borders back to a time when they weren't able to properly defend themselves. Changing the focus of the topic doesn't change the facts.

Mark May 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM  

"What you cite from Bush in no way refutes that the 1967 borders has been US policy for YEARS."

Perhaps not, but the entire rest of the article does.

BenT - the unbeliever,  May 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM  

Obviously Israel can defend themselves based on the 1967 borders. That was the status quo before the Six Days War. Israel triumphed in that war...ergo...

Marshall Art May 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM  

"Well that's an interesting opinion-I believe shared by very few (could be wrong). But it doesn't matter what you think. Israel will NEVER, EVER be secure without an agreement with Palestinians, and pretty much the entire WORLD agrees that that includes 2 states."

I doubt few share my opinion. The problem is that few want to view the world as it is, and this includes some leaders of nations. The fact is that Israel will NEVER, EVER be secure...PERIOD. The reason for this is plain to see: Too many other nations want to exterminate them. They don't want to be a friendly neighbor, they want to wipe them out. Even since the peace between Israel and Egypt became official policy of Egypt, elements inside the country sought to change it. Recall the reasons Sadat was assassinated.

As for the pallies, they have in their charter the intention of wiping out Israel. Every move Israel has made to make peace was used by its enemies to f**k over Israel. Remember what the pallies did will Gaza? They destroyed the Israeli built facilities that could have been used immediately to benefit the pallie people. Instead, they destroyed it and used the area to launch attacks deeper into Israel. The idea of statehood for a people defined by their hatred is unthinkable and irresponsible to support for a nation that claims deep ties and friendship with the victim of that hatred. Anyone who thinks a peace can be established and true friendship can flourish between Israel and the surrounding muslim influenced nations, and/or those who call themselves Palestinans, hasn't been paying attention and are fools for lending any support for the idea.

Mark May 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM  

There's no arguing with anti-Semites like Bent and Jim. They will never admit they are wrong.

Jim May 21, 2011 at 11:04 PM  

"There's no arguing with anti-Semites like Bent and Jim."

There you go playing the anti-Semite card. Don't kiss Israel's ass and you're a Jew hater.

Mark May 22, 2011 at 11:20 AM  

If you want to call me a racist because I don't kiss Obama's Jim, I can call you an anti-Semite.

Quid pro Quo.

Marshall Art May 22, 2011 at 1:10 PM  

"There's no arguing with anti-Semites like Bent and Jim."

Don't argue. Just present inconctrovertable facts to support your opinion (when possible---it isn't always necessary depending on the opinion), and insist the opposition supports their's with incontrovertable facts of their own. How well that is accomplished will indicate the likelihood that one side or the other is right or wrong.

I would also caution against using the "anti-semite card" for two reasons:

1. It's makes one sound like a liberal.

2. Support for Palestinian statehood does not indicate hatred for Israel, but only a very poor understanding of the facts. Here's one: there is no precedent (that I can recall) of a group of people calling themselves something they never were in order to demand and regain land that was never theirs in the first place. Individuals Arabs may have owned land in Israel before the 1940's, but they abandoned it in order to make way for the destruction of the Jews which never manifested. Too bad for them. They picked the wrong side and lost.

BenT - the unbeliever,  May 22, 2011 at 1:22 PM  

On borders, Bush said any peace agreement "will require mutually agreed adjustments" to the lines drawn for Israel in the late 1940s. He was referring primarily to Israeli neighborhoods on disputed lands that Israel would keep when an independent Palestinian state is formed.

Earlier in the day, Bush had said Palestinians deserve better than a "Swiss cheese" state fitted around Israeli land and security bulwarks.

"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear," he said. "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Bush was referring to the West Bank when he spoke of occupation.

Bush offered no specifics to resolve the fate of disputed Jerusalem, but urged both sides to work toward a solution in what he said could be the most difficult issue to settle in a long list of them.

"I know Jerusalem is a tough issue," Bush said. "Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns."

"It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement," the president said. "Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties."

Read more:

Bloviating Zeppelin May 22, 2011 at 6:34 PM  

Bibi actually had the temerity to "lecture" Obama in their recent press sitting. I have to admit, that was probably the rudest public treatment of a sitting American president by the head of state of another nation that I have ever witnessed in my 60+ years.

That said, Obama deserved every molecule of his public excoriation. "That's not going to happen" was a PERFECT line.

This again indicates how precisely IGNORANT and indefensibly NAIVE is our current president.

Did Obama think that he was going to dictate, in PUBLIC, border terms to an independent Western nation and expect no rejoinder, likewise in public -- particularly when Obama can't and won't control his own border on the south?

Literally, Obama was LECTURED-to by Netanyahu. It is embarrassing, for me, to watch this.

But the insipid Obama DESERVED every bit of public slapping he received.


ELAshley May 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM  

I want to clear the floor of a few erroneous arguments...

First, the argument that Bush, Clinton, et al, down through years of administrations, all supported a return to pre-1967 borders. It's irrelevant. The only reason the media and their online parrots are all citing this is to make Obama look better. They know he stuck his hand in the cake and they're trying to smooth the icing. They're actively trying to save his presidency.

Second, the argument that if only Israel would make gestures toward the 'Palestinian' people, greater facilitation toward peace could be made. First, Israel HAS given land back... repeatedly... and no peace has resulted.

Third, the idea that BenT put forward that the number of rockets launched into Israel has actually declined, and that if Israel defended its borders in '67 they can do it again today.

Did I say erroneous arguments? Let me add the word 'facetious'.

The fact that ANY US president insists a sovereign nation retreat, give up land, step down from positions of leadership, what have you, demonstrates both an arrogant and hypocritical spirit. Especially for this president since he can't or won't even protect our own border.

BenT's 'ergo argument', as well, displays a dangerous level of naivete. His argument supposes Israels' enemies do not possess modern technologies, that they aren't supplied with modern weaponry, that they can only perform at 1967 levels. It supposes that Israels' enemies have not grown in their capacity to devise winnable strategies and tactics. Yes, Israel could wipe each of these nations off the map with nukes, but is Israel to foolish as to do so?


ELAshley May 23, 2011 at 9:05 AM  


The declining number of missiles into Israel... the fact that ANY number of missiles are launched into Israel is proof positive that the Palestinians cannot be trusted. Lands in the West Bank were returned to the Palestinians... Israelis forcibly removed from their homes. Same thing, more recently, in Gaza. Israelis forcibly removed from their homes and those homes bulldozed to prevent them from returning... All of Gaza given to the Palestinians who, in very short order, turned it into a wasteland; destroying groves of fruit trees, and public services, using their new front line to launch rockets even further into Israel.

This is not the character of a people who desire peace. Neither is it the character of a people desirous of peace to teach its children that the murder of Jews is a good and holy thing... have none of you been paying attention? The so-called 'Palestinians' have been teaching in their schools the most hateful, vile propaganda to their children, raising new generations of homicide bombers and jihadists. Perpetuating this hatred of Jews to another generation.

The Left has consistently taken the side of killers, and jihadists over the rights of a people who genuinely desire to live in peace with its neighbors. Israel has demonstrated its desire to live in peace, protecting itself only when it felt it must. Now, it's the 'Palestinians' turn to demonstrate restraint.

Let them cease ALL rocket launches into Israel. Let them burn or destroy EVERY textbook that teaches hatred toward Israel, and cease ALL children's television programing that teaches the same. Let them FORSAKE their stated, codified, desire to see Israel utterly destroyed. Let them come to the table with these things more than simply 'set in motion,' but, rather, COMPLETE AND SUSTAINED over a period of seven years minimum, then let them come to the table asking for a state of their own. Let them freely open trade with Israel, and allow Israelis who live in Palestinian territories to live free of harassment, or threat life and limb. When this happens, then let's talk of a Palestinian state.


ELAshley May 23, 2011 at 9:29 AM  

Any talk of which or how many other presidents used the pre-67 lines as a starting point for peace is irrelevant. It represents nothing more than a time-wasting effort at ass-covering.

Realities on the ground have changed since 1967. Just as they'd changed since 1920 from 1967. Because Israel was able to defend itself and enlarge its borders in 1967 doesn't mean they could today defend their previous border.

Everyone expects Israel to stop doing this or that, but no one expects Gaza or the West Bank to stop launching rockets or sending in homicide bombers. There is a double standard where Israel is concerned-- Israel can do no good in the worlds' eyes, and the Palestinians can do no wrong.

The simple truth is Israel was given a portion of land in what was once their ancient homeland for a new state. They have enlarged their borders through wars of SELF DEFENSE... not conquest.

America has done the same, but I don't hear any hue and cry about America needing to return land to Mexico or Native Americans. The establishment of our national borders is precedent enough for Israels present borders, with one caveat. Israel didn't seek to take land, it's merely what they've ended up with after failed attempts by other nations/peoples to destroy her as a nation. America on the other hand fought wars to take land that didn't belong to it. Some was legally purchased, but others were stolen through conquest; most notably, stolen from the native tribes that lived here first. The so-called 'Palestinians' deserve to have their land restored to them? Well, let the Hypocrite Americans do as much first, and return land to the native Americans and Mexico. Then perhaps we can justly declare Israel should return land that doesn't belong to it.

Marshall Art May 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM  


You covered things very well. One point of contention I have is this:

"...COMPLETE AND SUSTAINED over a period of seven years minimum..."

I believe the minimum must be at least two generations so that the poison of their ideology can be more thoroughly diluted out of their systems. Islamists are good at biding their time and seven years they can do standing on their heads. As their desire to wipe out the Jews goes back to their founding in the seventh century, seven years just doesn't seem good enough to make any difference.

ELAshley May 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM  

Seven sounded like a nice full number. I would like to see at least twice that myself, perhaps 3 times that. 21 years of sustained genuine peace prior to any final settlement on a Palestinian state.


BenT made a statement on the previous post here, which is as follows:

"Yes the holocaust was bad but eventually Israel can't trade on that tragedy. We don't hold modern Germany beholden to the crimes of Nazi Germany..."

If it were merely the Holocaust upon which Israel "trades," I might be inclined to agree, but BenT isn't considering the entire history of persecution against the Jews.

Here's a new page on American Descent:

2000 Years of Persecution

Have the Palestinians suffered as much? Has any nation or people suffered as much. Considering the history of the Jews should we not be more cognizant of their desire to keep and defend a homeland? What must America's declaration, that Israel must surrender land that enables them to protect their people, sound like to the Average Israeli? That yet another gentile persecution, in a long history of gentile persecutions, seeking to take and destroy once more the flower of Israel?

Does the left have NO grasp of history, when it comes to Israel? Considering the 2000 year history of persecution how long can we reasonably expect BenT's time span, erroneously labeled "eventually", to run out?

Mark May 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM  

Obviously, Bent and Jim still haven't read the article. And, why should they? It refutes every point they've tried to make. Liberals hate to be proven wrong.

I don't expect you to acquiesce, guys. I realize that's asking too much. But, you should at least stop trying to argue against irrefutable facts.

And, by the way, Jim. When I said "I don't kiss Obama's Jim", the comma was in the right place.

Mark May 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM  

OK. Perhaps I am being too hard on you. I think the problem here is that you both fail to understand what the term, "indefensible borders" means.

If the borders are redrawn, Israel would be reduced to the point where the narrowest part of Israel would be approximately 8 miles wide. 8 miles of land could easily be reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble in a matter of hours. There's no defense against that kind of murderous rocket and missile attacks, and both Israel and the mythical Palestine understands this.

Apparently, the only people who don't understand this are Obama and all his adoring fans. Like Jim and Bent.

Or so it would seem. In reality I suspect Obama knows exactly what would happen if Israel was reduced to having to defend an 8 mile wide section of their country. That's why he wants it to happen. It has nothing to do with establishing peace, and everything to do with his obvious hatred of the Jews.

I blame his Muslim upbringing.

BenT - the unbeliever,  May 23, 2011 at 5:14 PM  

Before even getting into the content of the article Mark linked to its plain what the content will be.

Dr. Dore Gold has been closely linked/appointed/employed by PM Netanyahu. So it will be no surprise he supports his viewpoints.

The actual content seems to mostly consist of Dr. Gold presenting short quotes from previous US presidents and explaining how what they mean is exactly in line with what he would like them to mean.

It is truly breathtaking how every president since Johnson has been so closely in sync with each other and with Dr. Gold and PM Netanyahu.

Later I'll respond to Eric's three-part response, but this was easy pickings.

Mark May 23, 2011 at 6:38 PM  

Yes, easy pickings as long as you resort to the age old Liberal practice of attacking the messenger when you can't refute the message.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP