# Obama throws Israel under the bus



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-endorses-palestinian-border-demands/

WASHINGTON      (AP) &#8212; President Barack Obama is endorsing the  Palestinians&#8217; demand for  their future state to be based on the borders  that existed before the  1967 Middle East war, in a move that will  likely infuriate Israel.  Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state  have to be determined  through negotiations.




our ONE ally in the middle east, and he wee-wee's all over them

Nobama may be the dumbest president since Carter, certainly the least trustworthy to our allies, and the most congenial to the terrorists


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

this actually disturbs me.
not so much because he is chosing sides between Israel and Palestine... that doesn't effect me so much as I belong to neither group.
What bugs me is that he wants to support a return to borders before a war, how it used to be... I am a big believer of to the victor goes the spoils.
What if he decides to apply that logic to the USA? we going to return the southwest to Mexico?

Oh wait, nevermind he is trying to do that by default already isn't he? Not securing the borders, posting signs in areas of the USA warning Americans to stay out because its unsafe, allowing illegal immigrants to operate as they want and direct agencies to not deport them.... I see... well at least he is consistent.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

oh, and the unsigned neg rep ding calling me crass?

coward


----------



## CoryKS (May 19, 2011)

"Oh hey, sorry your attempt to exterminate us didn't work out.  Here's your land back."


----------



## WC_lun (May 19, 2011)

I'm not sure I like the push to make the borders the pre-1967 war borders.  However, you guys are aware that this has actually been the policy of EVERY president from Clinton on, right?  This is not new stuff.  In fact, if there is a critique of today's speach it is that it did not add anything new or anything substatiative.  Another little tidbit of info.  Israel was fine with the 1967 borders when Clinton was brokering a peace deal.  The only exception to this was new Israeli settlements that were not within those borders and it became the failing point between the Palestinians and Israelis.  Since then, Clinton, Bush, and now Omaba has said that those settlements need to be removed for the peace process to move forward.

So in short, there is nothing new here.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not sure I like the push to make the borders the pre-1967 war borders. However, you guys are aware that this has actually been the policy of EVERY president from Clinton on, right? This is not new stuff. In fact, if there is a critique of today's speach it is that it did not add anything new or anything substatiative. Another little tidbit of info. Israel was fine with the 1967 borders when Clinton was brokering a peace deal. The only exception to this was new Israeli settlements that were not within those borders and it became the failing point between the Palestinians and Israelis. Since then, Clinton, Bush, and now Omaba has said that those settlements need to be removed for the peace process to move forward.
> 
> So in short, there is nothing new here.


 
this is the first time I read anything about any of our politicians let alone the president pushing for this. I am not saying I do not believe you, but has there been any stories about that?


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> this is the first time I read anything about any of our politicians let alone the president pushing for this. I am not saying I do not believe you, but has there been any stories about that?



Shows you how important it was in the past. ^_^


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

saying it happened, from a partisan hack doesnt mean it actually happened


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

granfire said:


> Shows you how important it was in the past. ^_^


 
naw it could just be that as I have gotten older and my order of important things has changed that I have just been paying more attention lately lol


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> naw it could just be that as I have gotten older and my order of important things has changed that I have just been paying more attention lately lol




Nah, it's really never been more than a blip on the radar. Pops up now and then, with a short docu, then gone again for a couple of years at a time.

(could it be another "ZOMFG, OBAMA is screwing UP" deals?)


----------



## WC_lun (May 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> saying it happened, from a partisan hack doesnt mean it actually happened


 
Now that is like the pot calling the kettle black.  I agree wholeheartedly too.  LOL


I was interested so I did a little research.  There is a couple of articles, one on the Time web site and there was another on Yahoo.  There were some older ones from a Google search.  Of course it is easier to call me a liar than actually do research. ...and we are back to Twin Fist's facetious statement.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

i love having stalkers

anyway, just one more example of how this moronic idiot isnt fit to be elected dog catcher much less Senetor much less president


----------



## WC_lun (May 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i love having stalkers


 
Don't flatter yourself.  My interest is in the subjects brought up in The Study. However, when I see ignorant post I usually respond so others don't believe the BS.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

our ONE ally in the middle east, and he wee-wee's all over them

Nobama may be the dumbest president since Carter, certainly the least  trustworthy to our allies, and the most congenial to the terrorists


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-endorses-palestinian-border-demands/
> 
> WASHINGTON      (AP)  President Barack Obama is endorsing the  Palestinians demand for  their future state to be based on the borders  that existed before the  1967 Middle East war, in a move that will  likely infuriate Israel.  Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state  have to be determined  through negotiations.
> 
> ...




That "Ally" shot up the USS liberty, knowingly, genius. they are no better than any other turdbag country over there. Keep your dogma to your self, its so old.


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> oh, and the unsigned neg rep ding calling me crass?
> 
> coward




To the moderation: Is this kind of abusive line being tolerated now?


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i love having stalkers
> 
> anyway, just one more example of how this moronic idiot isnt fit to be elected dog catcher much less Senetor much less president




You're not important enough to have stalkers. You're a troll, and a damn mediocre one. trolling politics on a MA forum, your troll is very, very weak.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

nice to see a new stalker.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> nice to see a new stalker.


We are Legion.:lurk:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

clearly

/ bow


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> nice to see a new stalker.




your delusion is your weakness, troll.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

Gentlemen, if I might use the term generously, it is not considered on this site to be good argumentation to liberally apply insults to other members as the core tenent of your position.

It is fine to strongly disagree and, within the confines of the Study, to put your points across with vigour.  What is not fine is to malign and impugn the personality and character of your fellow posters in distinctly derogatory terms.

By all means disagree with the views that offend you but please do not extend that license into insulting and offending those with whom you disagree.

A certain amount of latitude is allowed in the Study because it is all too easy for 'heat' to build but a good rule of thumb is that if something would earn you a thump on the nose in the 3D world then it is best not to say it here in the Web where you are 'safe' from such physical consequences.


Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

*-Admin Notice-

Enough of the personal shots.  Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.

See someone else breaking them?
Report it.  That's this thing here:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Can't stand the other person? Then put the SOB on your 'ignore' list, or grow a thicker skin already. 
 Just because they disagree with you, isn't a rules violation. 
Being a jackass is. 

Back to the bloody original topic.
*


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

And now the israeli PM pretty much just told the obamasia to shove it up his harvard educated *** and twist it


bravo


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> And now the israeli PM pretty much just told the obamasia to shove it up his harvard educated *** and twist it
> 
> 
> bravo


Just hypotheticaly, lets pretend Obama, Knew this would happen, but by showing favor to the opposite position, he keeps them at the table to negotiate a Peace at a lesser cost to Israel. Just maybe...
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

i would not bet on that for just one reason above all others, he has a history of expecting people to do whatever he wants just because it is HIM asking...


----------



## billc (May 21, 2011)

the wisdom of Gene Simmons, of KISS fame.  He says it well, so here he is...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/h...-he-has-no-f-ing-idea-what-the-world-is-like/


----------



## billc (May 21, 2011)

Hugh Hewitt, practising attorney, law professor, author and radio host, interviews Mark Steyn, columnist to the world, and they discuss Obama's speech on the 67 border.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=9ef90326-5f62-4694-9b35-36def9d1642e

From the interview:


HH: I begin on this Thursday as I do when we are lucky with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn. You can read everything Mark writes at www.steynonline.com. Mark, a remarkable speech by the President today, your assessment? 
MS: Well, at a certain level, it was filled with the usual narcissism. He said that America had failed to speak to the broader aspirations of people in the Middle East, and thats why two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement. I was interested to see the result of that. In 2008, which youll recall was the last year of the Bush, Texas cowboy terror, 83% of Arabs had a very or somewhat negative view of the United States. By 2010, which was the second year of the Obama broaden engagement approach, 85% had a very or somewhat negative view. So much for the outreach. The fact is that this narcissistic buffoon gave this speech that placed himself front and center of developments in the Middle East. And in fact, the United States, for the first time in 70 years, is utterly irrelevant to whats going on in the Middle East.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2011)

What's said for public consumption isn't always what is said in the actual negociations so we'll have to see what happens, I'm betting nothing. 
Been away working, have to say Obama whatever his politics is a pleasant man, polite and his wife is much taller than I thought lol!


----------



## cdunn (Jun 3, 2011)

I don't really want to debate the 'goodness' of the call for the '67 borders, but let it be shown for the historical record that it was Bush II's policy. And Clinton's. And Bush I's. And, although the two state solution started with Bush I, Reagan pushed for Israeli withdraw from occupied territory. And Carter. And, offically, Nixon, though he didn't try very hard. And one presumes Johnson, since the US voted for UN Resolution 262 under him. 

So, that leaves just Ford that dropped the demand.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 3, 2011)

a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter who comes up with it


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 3, 2011)

It's a negociating point. When you want a raise you never start by saying what you will accept, the same as you don't advertise the price you'll accept for your car, you ask for more then it's bargained down so both of you get what you want. It won't happen as Obama well knows, he starts with that then the bargaining starts. Israel will get what it wants in the end as will Hamas who sadly will never be satisfied though and will soon start demanding more ie the total eradication of Israel and the Jewish people.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> oh, and the unsigned neg rep ding calling me crass?
> 
> coward



true that

i don't give neg reps. If i don't like a post i might not respond, won't thank it, or just say i don't like it.


----------



## crushing (Jun 3, 2011)

Don't they mean 1949 borders when they keep saying "1967 borders"?  Israel's present borders were established in 1967, were they not?  Before the 1967 borders I think they had 1949 borders.

I'm curious if it influences the consumer of the information in different ways depending on which date is being used and if that is why one descriptor is used for the borders over another.


----------



## granfire (Jun 3, 2011)

crushing said:


> Don't they mean 1949 borders when they keep saying "1967 borders"?  Israel's present borders were established in 1967, were they not?  Before the 1967 borders I think they had 1949 borders.
> 
> I'm curious if it influences the consumer of the information in different ways depending on which date is being used and if that is why one descriptor is used for the borders over another.



I think pre Yomkipur....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2011)

I have to say that much as I disagree with what has happened to the Palestinian people (I always put up the question of how we would react if the same thing happened to us), the clock is not going to go back.

The Israelis have been through too much to ever just relinquish control of what they won through force of arms - and, realistically, why should they?  Of course, the British Empire let go of territories when we were ready to do so (or agreements required it) but we weren't giving up the only place on Earth that we had that we could call 'home'.

I know one tank commander who would be able to give me that answer, or at least some insight into the question but sadly I haven't seen him since 1982 when he was recalled from the Economics degree course he was on with me to go and fight in the Lebanon .


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I have to say that much as I disagree with what has happened to the Palestinian people (I always put up the question of how we would react if the same thing happened to us), the clock is not going to go back.
> 
> The Israelis have been through too much to ever just relinquish control of what they won through force of arms - and, realistically, why should they? Of course, the British Empire let go of territories when we were ready to do so (or agreements required it) but we weren't giving up the only place on Earth that we had that we could call 'home'.
> 
> I know one tank commander who would be able to give me that answer, or at least some insight into the question but sadly I haven't seen him since 1982 when he was recalled from the Economics degree course he was on with me to go and fight in the Lebanon .


 
Well what the Palestinians 'went through' is a matter of opinion, many gave up their homes in pre Israeli Independance days because the Arab leaders promised them the Jews would be pushed into the sea and they could take their homes and land.A lot of islreali land was purchesed from Arabs who didn't want the arid useless desert little realising the Israelis would irrigate it.

Palestine never belonged to the Palestinians, it was owned by the British practically right up to Israeli Independance!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well what the Palestinians 'went through' is a matter of opinion, many gave up their homes in pre Israeli Independance days because the Arab leaders promised them the Jews would be pushed into the sea and they could take their homes and land.A lot of islreali land was purchesed from Arabs who didn't want the arid useless desert little realising the Israelis would irrigate it.
> 
> Palestine never belonged to the Palestinians, it was owned by the British practically right up to Israeli Independance!


I can't imagine the Palestinians were happy about that either?
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I can't imagine the Palestinians were happy about that either?
> Sean


I doubt it! Though I think they preferred it to the previous 'owners' the Turks, known for their cruelty. In fact most of the problems we currently have in the Middle East can be dated back to the carve up of land there by the Allies after the First World War.


----------

