Instantaneous Outrageous Outrage: ‘Obama Sides with Palestinians!’

Distorted AP article triggers yet another fake outrage
Wingnuts • Views: 54,373

In three short paragraphs about President Obama’s speech this morning, the Associated Press warps the story beyond recognition: Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders.

WASHINGTON – 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.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians’ opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel’s desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

Wow. Rarely have I seen such blatant distortion in a mainstream news release. Here’s the exact quote from Obama’s speech:

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.

Note: he didn’t say “1967 borders,” he didn’t “side with the Palestinians,” and he absolutely did still insist on mutually agreed swaps and secure borders for both countries. It’s nothing but a re-wording of the same position the US has taken for many years.

Based on this distorted and very misleading AP article, Fox News instantly put together a screaming fake outrage headline, currently leading on their front page:

Drudge Report also jumped on it, running a huge headline: “OBAMA SIDES WITH PALESTINIANS!”

And of course, it’s already all over the right wing blogosphere that President Obama “told Israel to move back to the pre-1967 borders.”

No. He didn’t.

All this fake outrage spread throughout the Internet within minutes after the President’s speech, like a virtual wingnut flash mob.

I guess it’s too much to ask these people to report what the President actually said.

UPDATE at 5/19/11 4:50:18 pm

Ben Smith comments:

Count me among those who have covered spats between the U.S. and Israel in some detail, and are a bit perplexed why sources from the New York Times to Benjamin Netanyahu are acting as though a Rubicon has been crossed by Obama’s restating universal assumptions and U.S. policy, and meanwhile slapping down the key Palestinian diplomatic drive.

Jeffrey Goldberg comments:

I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

UPDATE at 5/19/11 5:00:44 pm

This section of Obama’s speech is certainly not “siding with the Palestinians” — in fact, he’s clearly saying that Palestinians will never have a state while they reject Israel’s right to exist:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

Jump to bottom

782 comments

1 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:26:09am

they report what they heard, not what he said

2 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:26:12am

'virtual wingnut flash mob' is exactly what it is. Good phrase!

3 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:26:26am

Lying about what he said in this way does weaken Israel, too. It makes them seem more vulnerable, and damages the relationship between the US and Israel to the extent that Jews in Israel (or here) believe it.

Such a thoughtless line of attack.

4 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:27:06am

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

- Mark Twain

5 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:27:41am

re: #3 Obdicut

Lying about what he said in this way does weaken Israel, too. It makes them seem more vulnerable, and damages the relationship between the US and Israel to the extent that Jews in Israel (or here) believe it.

Such a thoughtless line of attack.

But it's an attack on Obama, so it all cancels out

6 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:27:48am

Can't even blame a lack of reading comprehension. It was read aloud to them.

7 Bulworth  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:28:06am
virtual wingnut flash mob.

A good way of describing rightwing reactions to much of anything these days.

8 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:31:18am

Charles, how can they report what the President actually said, when they know in their hearts what they want him to have said?

9 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:31:39am

Yet another effort to play into the Republican base's fear that Obama isn't one of us. That Obama isn't out for Christian Americans. That Obama is a Muslim loving foreigner, no matter what the birth certificate says.

Reality doesn't matter to the Republican base, (and hasn't for quite some time) they're fanatical, radical, and out to take back America from the fake traitorous Socialist Muslim Athiest Americans, No matter what the cost to the country.

They'll destroy America to Save America.

10 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:33:34am

I'm a bit puzzled on all this, to be honest. Every media outlet I see (AP, NYT, BBC) says pre-1967. Are we really sure that this is just someone in the media getting confused and others running with it? I'm starting to wonder if we aren't the ones that are mistaken here, since I'd have thought the White House would have been very quick to correct this mistake if it was, in fact, a mistake.

11 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:33:43am

re: #9 bloodstar

Yet another effort to play into the Republican base's fear that Obama isn't one of us. That Obama isn't out for Christian Americans. That Obama is a Muslim loving foreigner, no matter what the birth certificate says.

Reality doesn't matter to the Republican base, (and hasn't for quite some time) they're fanatical, radical, and out to take back America from the fake traitorous Socialist Muslim Athiest Americans, No matter what the cost to the country.

They'll destroy America to Save America.

Let's see how that all works for them in 2012. They've already started their various initatives to disenfranchise voters. They've got nothing left but attempts to suppress the vote.

12 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:34:04am

Netanyahu responds:

Netanyahu: 1967 borders can't be defended

Israel's prime minister has rejected a key aspect of President Barack Obama's policy speech, saying that a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.

In a statement released late Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible."

The tough stand could set the stage for a tense meeting Friday when Netanyahu goes to the White House.

In his speech, Obama said a future Palestinian state must be based in territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, with minor adjustments reached through negotiations.

Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.

13 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:34:15am

re: #10 Simply Sarah

I'm a bit puzzled on all this, to be honest. Every media outlet I see (AP, NYT, BBC) says pre-1967. Are we really sure that this is just someone in the media getting confused and others running with it? I'm starting to wonder if we aren't the ones that are mistaken here, since I'd have thought the White House would have been very quick to correct this mistake if it was, in fact, a mistake.

Everybody quotes from the AP.

14 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:34:47am

re: #10 Simply Sarah

I'm a bit puzzled on all this, to be honest. Every media outlet I see (AP, NYT, BBC) says pre-1967. Are we really sure that this is just someone in the media getting confused and others running with it? I'm starting to wonder if we aren't the ones that are mistaken here, since I'd have thought the White House would have been very quick to correct this mistake if it was, in fact, a mistake.

Who started this? Is AP following Drudge and Fox?

15 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:35:02am

re: #10 Simply Sarah

that's how the machine works. the misrepresentation has taken on a life of its own my wife and mother-in-law used to do that to me a lot - get me so mixed up I was back-checking to see where I screwed up.

16 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:35:17am

Omigod. Thanks to Charles for pointing this out so quickly.

How can we expect the Israelis and Palestinians to make peace, if the US Democrats and the US Republicans are fighting each other every day?

17 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:05am

Unfortunately, if it was only limited to Fox and Drudge it could be contained in the wingnut echo chamber, but AP has poisoned the water for everybody.

18 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:09am

re: #14 Alouette

Who started this? Is AP following Drudge and Fox?

Drudge linked to the AP report and then BAM......Obama sides with Israel

19 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:09am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

Good thing Obama didn't say that they had to return to the 1967 borders, then. He included the absolutely vital "with mutually agreed swaps".

20 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:12am

I wish I could pull quotes from Bush, Clinton, GWB, and other Presidents over their stance on Israel's border and final status negotiations, but the jist has been that final borders would be determined through the parties negotiations as part of final status talks. The final borders could be conceivably along the lines of the Green Line, except that everyone recognizes that due to demographics and changes since 1967 that the border would take into account communities that straddle the line, new growth, etc. - in other words there would be land swaps to maintain a contiguous West Bank.

This article by Dore Gold notes the Bush position in mid 2006, as compared to Clinton, and how Bush focused on defensible borders and that meeting Israel's security needs would come before a lasting peace agreement. Obama hasn't wavered from the latter.

Obama may have tweaked the language Bush used, but didn't revert back to how Clinton formulated things. In sum, this isn't a major shift in US policy in the slightest.

Moreover, Obama clearly states that nothing can happen until Palestinians accept a 2-state solution, and given that Hamas and Fatah both refuse to do so, nothing can proceed.

21 Bulworth  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:15am
When people refer to the “1967 lines” they’re always talking about the post-war armistice lines. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to have their journalism examined.

I hadn't actually realized this. Good to know.

22 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:22am

re: #14 Alouette

Who started this? Is AP following Drudge and Fox?

I don't know! It's confusing the hell out of me since it's not even like it's reporting on a breaking event where information is confused. This was a public speech and I'm trying to fathom how the MSM could be so, well, out of it and wrong. Did no one watch the speech?

23 Velvet Elvis  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:36:47am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

Sounds like even he's listening to fox and not the actual speech.

24 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:37:06am

So Obama says lines and AP says borders. I'm not surprised at Fox but AP? This is huge.

25 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:37:16am

I wish reporters would stick to reporting and stop trying to "shape" the story.

26 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:37:38am

The worst part is is the White House points out, 'Hey, numbskulls, that wasn't what the president said,' then it will be spun as Obama 'waffling' or 'vacillating.'

You can't win with these dopes.

27 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:38:05am

The Times jumps on this bandwagon too - claiming that Obama backs a deal on 1967 lines.

*facepalm*.

Gee, how about this as a headline - Palestinians get nothing until they accept a 2-state solution. Forget talking about borders until the Palestinians take that simple and first step.

28 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:38:08am

re: #10 Simply Sarah

I'm a bit puzzled on all this, to be honest. Every media outlet I see (AP, NYT, BBC) says pre-1967. Are we really sure that this is just someone in the media getting confused and others running with it? I'm starting to wonder if we aren't the ones that are mistaken here, since I'd have thought the White House would have been very quick to correct this mistake if it was, in fact, a mistake.

He said "1967 lines." That can only mean one thing -- the armistice lines following the 6-Day War. He absolutely did not say "pre-1967 borders."

29 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:38:29am

It gets a willing audience though. And Fox just wants to stir up shit...which they're doing.

30 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:38:38am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

This is even worse. Now Netanyahu is responding, not to Obama's words (which Charles quoted verbatim), but he is responding to the right-wing DISTORTION of Obama's words. That's actually a bit scary to me: this isn't a pair of talking heads arguing on CNN or Fox; this is the Prime Minister of Israel who apparently didn't take the time to get his facts (about the speech) straight.

31 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:38:49am

re: #22 Simply Sarah

I don't know! It's confusing the hell out of me since it's not even like it's reporting on a breaking event where information is confused. This was a public speech and I'm trying to fathom how the MSM could be so, well, out of it and wrong. Did no one watch the speech?

What's so infuriating is that this was debunked moments after AP reported it.....

but it won't matter. Every conversation around Obama's Israel policy will now be focused on the "fact" that he sided with Palestine.

32 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:39:04am

re: #23 Conservative Moonbat

Sounds like even he's listening to fox and not the actual speech.

Right, everyone knows Benjamin Netanyahu always checks with Fox News before making any public statements.

33 sattv4u2  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:39:14am

hmmmm

Netanyahu's Office Tweets Disapproving Response to President Obama’s Speech

[Link: blogs.abcnews.com...]

34 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:39:47am

re: #32 NJDhockeyfan

Right, everyone knows Benjamin Netanyahu always checks with Fox News before making any public statements.

It's not even just Fox reporting this. It seems to be every Western news organization.

35 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:04am

re: #33 sattv4u2

hmmm

Netanyahu's Office Tweets Disapproving Response to President Obama’s Speech

[Link: blogs.abcnews.com...]

Which means an aide posted a comment.

36 sattv4u2  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:06am

re: #32 NJDhockeyfan

(((sorry ,, didn't see your #12)))

37 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:13am

AP doubles down on headline:

Obama tells Israel: Go back to 1967 borders.

And now every single affiliate that picks up the AP news feed is blasting this headline.

We are so fucked.

38 Velvet Elvis  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:39am

re: #32 NJDhockeyfan

Right, everyone knows Benjamin Netanyahu always checks with Fox News before making any public statements.

Well he sure didn't check with the White House.

39 Petero1818  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:44am

Most honest Israel watchers will tell you that the Obama administration has been essentially a continuation of the American policies of the last 20 years towards the Israel / Palestinian conflict. Any attempt to characterize it differently is dishonest. About the only real difference we have seen is a President who is not afraid to talk directly to Arabs about this conflict as opposed to talking about Arabs and this conflict.

40 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:51am

re: #30 Ming

This is even worse. Now Netanyahu is responding, not to Obama's words (which Charles quoted verbatim), but he is responding to the right-wing DISTORTION of Obama's words. That's actually a bit scary to me: this isn't a pair of talking heads arguing on CNN or Fox; this is the Prime Minister of Israel who apparently didn't take the time to get his facts (about the speech) straight.

Associated Press reports are now considered right-wing DISTORTION? I didn't know that.

41 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:40:52am

re: #30 Ming

Not surprising given the way that the media is handling matters - he's got to address the media response as much as the official diplomatic one.

Bet that he wont comment or criticize the fact that Obama demanded the Palestinians accept a 2-state solution.

This is public diplomacy - and it is all too often a mess - precisely because the media gets so much of this stuff wrong or inaccurate.

42 sattv4u2  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:41:06am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which means an aide posted a comment.

I see

So will that aide be fired for unauthorized use of Benjamins Twitter account?!?!

43 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:41:07am

I'm not the conspiracy-minded type, but it's kinda hard to look at this and not think there was some kind of setup going on.

44 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:41:22am

re: #40 NJDhockeyfan

Associated Press reports are now considered right-wing DISTORTION? I didn't know that.

In this particular case it couldn't be more obvious

45 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:41:31am

re: #34 Simply Sarah

It's not even just Fox reporting this. It seems to be every Western news organization.

Prolly because everybody is using the same AP feed.

46 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:41:32am

re: #34 Simply Sarah

It's not even just Fox reporting this. It seems to be every Western news organization.

Shhhh...your not supposed to notice that.

47 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:42:01am

re: #30 Ming

This is even worse. Now Netanyahu is responding, not to Obama's words (which Charles quoted verbatim), but he is responding to the right-wing DISTORTION of Obama's words. That's actually a bit scary to me: this isn't a pair of talking heads arguing on CNN or Fox; this is the Prime Minister of Israel who apparently didn't take the time to get his facts (about the speech) straight.

EXACTLY.

48 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:42:04am

re: #43 makeitstop

I'm not the conspiracy-minded type, but it's kinda hard to look at this and not think there was some kind of setup going on.

AP fucked up and the Wingnut Wurlitzer cranked into overdrive.

49 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:42:23am

re: #38 Conservative Moonbat

Well he sure didn't check with the White House.

Tomorrows meeting should be interesting.

50 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:42:35am

re: #28 Charles

He said "1967 lines." That can only mean one thing -- the armistice lines following the 6-Day War. He absolutely did not say "pre-1967 borders."

AP says: Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — was a significant shift in the U.S. approach and seemed certain to anger Israel.

Gah.

51 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:42:52am

re: #46 NJDhockeyfan

Shhh...your not supposed to notice that.

We're not supposed to notice that everyone is ignoring what Obama actually said?

52 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:43:02am

The BORDERS should be based on the 1967 LINES with mutually agreed swaps. That sounds like "1967 borders" to me. I don't know how that can be anything else.

Which btw, the green line was never intended to be a permanent border. That's only a recent invention.

Obama also said, "How can you make peace with someone who does not recognize your existence?"

So you can't take point #1 without point #2. You simply cannot have any negotiation with a country that doesn't recognize your existence in the first place. Back to square 1 we go.

And of course, maybe even more importantly, this is no different than the stand of the last two presidencies. Why don't the wingnuts go scream at Dubya?

53 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:43:17am

re: #30 Ming

He knows that he can get a lot more leverage responding to the distortion...

54 Ericus58  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:43:41am

re: #10 Simply Sarah

I'm a bit puzzled on all this, to be honest. Every media outlet I see (AP, NYT, BBC) says pre-1967. Are we really sure that this is just someone in the media getting confused and others running with it? I'm starting to wonder if we aren't the ones that are mistaken here, since I'd have thought the White House would have been very quick to correct this mistake if it was, in fact, a mistake.



"Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders."

Reported by the BBC

55 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:43:52am

[Link: www.theatlantic.com...]


I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

Hillary said the same in 2009


UPDATE: Here is what Hillary Clinton said 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."
56 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:43:55am

re: #45 reine.de.tout

Prolly because everybody is using the same AP feed.

Which makes it a much, much worse toxic lie spill.

57 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:44:28am

re: #11 iceweasel

Let's see how that all works for them in 2012. They've already started their various initatives to disenfranchise voters. They've got nothing left but attempts to suppress the vote.

If they hold the line on the debt limit and force America into an economic tailspin, enough of America will blame Obama for the Republican demolition of the economy to give them a chance to win in 2012.

At the risk of further hyperbole, if the Republicans manage to keep from raising the debt limit, We'll have an economic crisis that will make the Great Depression look like robust economic times.

But it won't matter to the Republicans, because they'll have won, even if they've consigned America to the ash heap of history.

The Deficits and debt are a problem. Refusing to raise the debt limit is NOT the solution (or specifically, it's the worst possible solution out of the whole lot).

58 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:44:31am

re: #40 NJDhockeyfan

Associated Press reports are now considered right-wing DISTORTION? I didn't know that.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I say its a duck.

If what they print is a right wing distortion then they've printed in this particular case a right wing distortion that nobody should be paying any attention to except to mock and deride.

59 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:44:43am

re: #39 Petero1818

Most honest Israel watchers will tell you that the Obama administration has been essentially a continuation of the American policies of the last 20 years towards the Israel / Palestinian conflict. Any attempt to characterize it differently is dishonest. About the only real difference we have seen is a President who is not afraid to talk directly to Arabs about this conflict as opposed to talking about Arabs and this conflict.

Honestly -
The Roi and I were running some errands earlier and we somehow got on the topic of current international affaris, and he made the comment that he would having trouble telling Obama apart from Bush on these things.

60 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:44:44am

re: #45 reine.de.tout

Prolly because everybody is using the same AP feed.

That's entirely possible. That doesn't make it any less shocking to me. I try to expect at least *something* from BBC commentators or NYT writers. Like, I dunno, watching the speech they're writing about. I'm also wondering how long the White House will take to correct this, as it's already spinning out of control.

61 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:45:54am

Palestinians call 'urgent' meeting after Obama speech

RAMALLAH, Palestinian Territories — Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas called an "urgent" leadership meeting after US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy speech, a Palestinian official said Thursday.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the meeting would examine Obama's remarks, as he also called on Israel to "give peace the chance it deserves."

"President Abbas decided to call the Palestinian leadership to an urgent meeting as soon as possible and consult with the Arab brothers to discuss US President Barack Obama's speech," Erekat told reporters.

In a key speech at the State Department in Washington, Obama called for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders but said a Palestinian bid for UN recognition of a unilateral proclamation of statehood would not work.

62 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:46:16am

re: #56 Alouette

Which makes it a much, much worse toxic lie spill.

And even more especially so, when you consider that these news organizations quite often get typed copies of these speeches before or right after they're given. So the information is most likely right there in front of them, available to them all . . .

63 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:46:19am

re: #30 Ming

This is even worse. Now Netanyahu is responding, not to Obama's words (which Charles quoted verbatim), but he is responding to the right-wing DISTORTION of Obama's words. That's actually a bit scary to me: this isn't a pair of talking heads arguing on CNN or Fox; this is the Prime Minister of Israel who apparently didn't take the time to get his facts (about the speech) straight.

Actually, Netanyahu is using 'lines' too, which means that Israel no longer accepts the premise that the 1967 lines with adjustments is a viable solution for peace.

I'm curious what Netanyahu thinks the borders should be if not the previous standing policy and agreement?

64 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:46:52am

re: #49 NJDhockeyfan

Tomorrows meeting should be interesting.

What's interesting is how dislike for Obama translates into vague cheering for a foreign head of state.

Seeing it on all the comments. ABC news even.

So amazingly transparent and patriotic.

65 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:47:09am

re: #58 jamesfirecat

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I say its a duck.

If what they print is a right wing distortion then they've printed in this particular case a right wing distortion that nobody should be paying any attention to except to mock and deride.

Well then the wingnuts must have taken over HuffPo because the insanity over there is up from normal.

66 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:47:40am

re: #64 Stanley Sea

What's interesting is how dislike for Obama translates into vague cheering for a foreign head of state.

Seeing it on all the comments. ABC news even.

So amazingly transparent and patriotic.

It's not like Obama's a Real American anyway.

67 elizajane  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:48:00am

He didn't just side with the Palestinians, he did it during Jewish History Month! The outrage!

Or so claims the headline on TownHall, to which I will not deign to provide a link.

68 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:48:12am

re: #40 NJDhockeyfan

Sorry, not all the sources in the blog post are right-wing. Some of them (Fox, Drudge) mentioned in the blog post, I would consider right-wing. But my point was completely different. It doesn't matter if it's right-wing distortion or left-wing distortion (and we've all seen plenty of both). What worries me is what an important leader, Netanyahu, responds to the press reports, and not to the President's SPEECH ITSELF. As Charles quoted, the President referred to the 1967 borders, plus mutually-agreed land swaps. It makes no sense that those words are the cause for immediate outrage.

69 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:48:39am

re: #60 Simply Sarah

That's entirely possible. That doesn't make it any less shocking to me. I try to expect at least *something* from BBC commentators or NYT writers. Like, I dunno, watching the speech they're writing about. I'm also wondering how long the White House will take to correct this, as it's already spinning out of control.

I'm thinking that there are more and more reporters and editors who know no history whatsoever, which makes writing on things that go back 50 years or more very difficult, if not impossible.

70 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:48:51am

re: #30 Ming

This is even worse. Now Netanyahu is responding, not to Obama's words (which Charles quoted verbatim), but he is responding to the right-wing DISTORTION of Obama's words. That's actually a bit scary to me: this isn't a pair of talking heads arguing on CNN or Fox; this is the Prime Minister of Israel who apparently didn't take the time to get his facts (about the speech) straight.

It sometimes looks like Dem presidents aren't as supportive as Rep presidents, but I don't think it's really true. Maybe the notion started with Nixon, the most supportive U.S. Pres ever. Bush was probably more verbally supportive than Obama or Clinton, tougher talk, but our policies haven't changed.

Well then we have Clinton's major fuck-up with both prime ministers (Rabin and Barak) which paved the way for the terrorist Arafat to win the nobel prize. I think there's some of that "hate the Left - love the Right" left over on how Israel views our president.

71 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:49:30am

Here's something nobody's talking about by being distracted with this bullshit which was the most important phrase of the speech. He said that anyone willing to take the risk in establishing a democracy would enjoy the full support of the US. He didn't say diplomatic support or financial support, he said full support.

Why this isn't the most important part of the speech is baffling.

72 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:49:31am

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

Well then the wingnuts must have taken over HuffPo because the insanity over there is up from normal.

I don't know what you're talking about and I fail to see how it matters concerning our current debate that whenever ANY newsource (even Daily Show or Colbert Report) just gets a story flat out WRONG they should be called on it and no one should take action based on what was said in that story.

Could you explain how it relates to me?

73 Petero1818  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:50:33am

re: #59 reine.de.tout

Absolutely correct.

74 Ericus58  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:50:43am

re: #48 iceweasel

AP fucked up and the Wingnut Wurlitzer cranked into overdrive.

Make it stop!!!
Nice!

75 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:50:53am

re: #40 NJDhockeyfan

Associated Press reports are now considered right-wing DISTORTION? I didn't know that.

Welcome to the party. Bout time you showed up.

76 Get busy livin'  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:53:11am

It's not just the right-wing new blogs/news organizations that got it wrong:

77 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:54:34am

re: #76 Get busy livin'

It's not just the right-wing new blogs/news organizations that got it wrong: [Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

That makes MSNBC a wingnut news organization now!

78 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:54:58am

HuffPo comment:

gwithc
76 Fans
5 minutes ago (2:42 PM)
Whoo hoo. This is a step in the right direction by our conservati­ve president.

If the zionists never decided to infiltrate the area none of this would have ever happened. They should have stayed in Europe where they were descended from.

79 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:55:02am

Obama can go back and point out what he said. This will be seen as condescending and talking down to us. Or flip-flopping.

What he said was considered and nuanced. In other words, fodder for the soundbyte-driven news cycle.

80 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:55:16am

OT but funny (showed up on my twitter).

elmorse
I'll make you a deal: if you're wrong on the Rapture, we get gay marriage.

LOL

81 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:55:36am

HuffPo comment:

gwithc
76 Fans
5 minutes ago (2:42 PM)
Whoo hoo. This is a step in the right direction by our conservati­ve president.

If the zionists never decided to infiltrate the area none of this would have ever happened. They should have stayed in Europe where they were descended from.

82 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:55:47am

This is the kind of thing that should have been left to back-channel negotiations and that Obama should have stated simply that Israel and the Palestinians have to discuss these matters with the groundwork based on the fact that the Palestinians accept a Jewish state of Israel - Israel's right to exist.

If he left it at that, it would have been sufficient.

Instead, this speech, which covers so much more ground, has become all about Israel and its response to a misinterpreted statement that doesn't actually change the US position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

83 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:55:53am

re: #12 NJDhockeyfan

Netanyahu responds:

Netanyahu: 1967 borders can't be defended

This is stupid.... even Netanyahu got it wrong. What a terrible leader.

84 Get busy livin'  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:56:13am

re: #77 NJDhockeyfan

The Huffington Post too!

85 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:56:20am

re: #79 ralphieboy

Obama can go back and point out what he said. This will be seen as condescending and talking down to us. Or flip-flopping.

What he said was considered and nuanced. In other words, fodder for the soundbyte-driven news cycle.

Well, the thing is, the 1967 comment *wasn't* all that nuanced. It was, at least in the text on the White House website, just a quick repeating of long-standing American policy that merited only a single line.

86 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:57:05am

Obama simply restated the US position. This is just absurd.

Netanyahu is picking fights with Obama for other reasons. He knows this is nothing new.

87 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:57:14am

re: #85 Simply Sarah

It was nuanced enough to be taken out of context and twisted, like leaving out the bit about "agreed swaps".

88 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:57:32am

On the flip side - Obama gave everyone what they wanted.

The right gets their outrageous outrage; the left gets their outrageous outrage.

Israeli right wingers get to once again insist that the US can't be trusted on defending its security. Palestinians get to claim the US supports them (ignoring the whole part about accepting Israel's right to exist).

Etc.
/

89 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:57:51am

re: #84 Get busy livin'

The Huffington Post too!

The wingnuts are taking over the world!

90 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:58:01am

re: #78 NJDhockeyfan

HuffPo comment:

Zionists infiltrate.... The Holocaust survivors were "infiltrators".

WOW. Fuckin anti-Semites everywhere.

91 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:58:04am

re: #88 lawhawk

Same as it ever was...

92 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:58:10am

re: #81 NJDhockeyfan

HuffPo comment:

Quit being so fucking predictable.

93 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:58:24am

re: #76 Get busy livin'

It's not just the right-wing new blogs/news organizations that got it wrong: [Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

They also posted a transcript, so they are contradicting themselves.

94 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:58:48am

re: #92 Stanley Sea

Quit being so fucking predictable.

HuffPo is predictable.

95 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:59:32am

re: #76 Get busy livin'

It's not just the right-wing new blogs/news organizations that got it wrong: [Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

That's the same AP article, repackaged by MSNBC.

96 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:59:41am

Can someone explain to me how Obama's speech was any different from damn near every speech about Israel and the Palestinians from every other POTUS?

All the outrageous outrage is confusing.

97 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 11:59:54am

re: #94 NJDhockeyfan

HuffPo is predictable.

Any large site with poorly moderated (or unmoderated) comments is predictibly filled with bile.

98 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:00:17pm

re: #86 Charles

Wiggle room with Israeli domestic politics.

Same for Abbas and the Palestinians. That iteration of the borders statements could have been done with the intention of getting the Palestinians to come up with something new (hence "urgent meetings"), while Netenyahu gets to bitch about the "new" formulation for the sake of keeping his coalition together, but the "Israel and its right to exist" clearly shows that Obama knows that without the latter, the border issue will never come up.

99 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:00:21pm

re: #96 Lidane


Obama gave it. Clear as black and white.

100 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:00:33pm

I'm afraid we all may be wrong here. I think Israel has redefined their conditions for peace, which is to include all the settlements they've made, as well as further territorial concessions from the Palestinians in order to ensure the security of the Israeli state.

I think that's been the De Facto position of Israel for several years now, so it doesn't matter that the US position used to agree with the Israelis before, NOW it is out of step with the current Israeli position, therefore the President is now a Socialist Athiest Muslim loving Israeli hater.

101 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:00:54pm

re: #97 iceweasel

Any large site with poorly moderated (or unmoderated) comments is predictibly filled with bile.

There is an internet law in your statement, somewhere:

"All available bandwidth, if left unmoderated, will be filled in equal parts by pornography and angry racists"

102 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:01:15pm

Reuters now reporting:

Netanyahu rejects total pullback to 1967 borders

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.

In a statement after President Barack Obama's speech outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said before heading to Washington that "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence".

"That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004," the statement added, alluding to a previous letter from Washington suggesting Israel could keep larger settlement blocs as part a peace deal with the Palestinians.

103 elizajane  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:01:46pm

re: #96 Lidane

Can someone explain to me how Obama's speech was any different from damn near every speech about Israel and the Palestinians from every other POTUS?

All the outrageous outrage is confusing.

It isn't very different. As far as I can tell, G. W. Bush proposed pretty much the same thing using pretty much the same language in 2007, although the far Right didn't like it then either.

104 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:02:01pm

re: #101 imp_62

There is an internet law in your statement, somewhere:

"All available bandwidth, if left unmoderated, will be filled in equal parts by pornography and angry racists"

I would much rather welcome the pornography than the racism.

105 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:02:03pm

re: #96 Lidane

It wasn't - at least not on the issue of drawing borders/lines.

Where it diverges? Obama demands Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist (okay, that's enshrined in Oslo, but it required restating once again).

The Palestinian-Israeli portion of the speech was a repackaging of US position on the conflict for the past 20+ years - at least as since Madrid.

106 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:02:22pm

re: #101 imp_62

There is an internet law in your statement, somewhere:

"All available bandwidth, if left unmoderated, will be filled in equal parts by pornography and angry racists"

Something like that. The loud shrieking by obsessives (and these types are always obsessive) drive away anyone who engages in rational discourse.

107 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:02:57pm

re: #104 marjoriemoon

I would much rather welcome the pornography than the racism.

And then there is the overlap which we will not discuss on a family weblog...

108 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:03:19pm

re: #102 NJDhockeyfan

And that isn't actually a change of Israel's position either - Israel would be willing to have land swaps (conceived under Oslo), taking portions of the West Bank for its settlements in exchange for Palestinian majority areas within the Green Line.

109 sattv4u2  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:03:23pm

re: #62 reine.de.tout

And even more especially so, when you consider that these news organizations quite often get typed copies of these speeches before or right after they're given. So the information is most likely right there in front of them, available to them all . . .

As they say here

"THIS"

110 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:03:33pm

re: #102 NJDhockeyfan

Same news organizations that pushed this bullshit.

111 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:03:36pm

re: #102 NJDhockeyfan

Which wasn't what Obama said.
Jesus Christ.

112 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:03:37pm

It's snowing here... and thundering, and lightning.

113 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:04:06pm

re: #112 Walter L. Newton

It's snowing here... and thundering, and lightning.

Cool!

114 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:05:20pm

re: #102 NJDhockeyfan

Reuters now reporting:

Netanyahu rejects total pullback to 1967 borders

The thing is though, however the president was heard, and quite frankly, I heard 1967 borders, it's good that Bibi says this thing so that no one is confused on what he means or plans to do. Israel will not dismantle homes and not give them more land in that area. Gaza, the Sinai, how much more until there's nothing? That may be the Arab plan, but it's not the Jews plan.

115 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:05:23pm

re: #112 Walter L. Newton

It's snowing here... and thundering, and lightning.

I updinged that statement because you rarely say something that doesn't piss anybody off :)

116 sattv4u2  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:05:38pm

re: #112 Walter L. Newton

It's snowing here... and thundering, and lightning.

It's the beginning of the end

117 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:06:06pm

re: #111 Varek Raith

Which wasn't what Obama said.
Jesus Christ.

OUTRAGE! ZOMG!

118 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:06:16pm

re: #107 imp_62

And then there is the overlap which we will not discuss on a family weblog...

You're talking about Madonna's Sex book, right? Or that's just RACIAL pornography!

119 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:07:04pm

re: #116 sattv4u2

It's the beginning of the end

Oh, right - I forgot that all my Christian friends will be raptured Saturday... what does that mean for Sunday brunch invitations?

120 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:07:16pm

re: #83 Walter L. Newton

This is stupid... even Netanyahu got it wrong. What a terrible leader.

He's probably going by news reports. These bogus headlines could cause a diplomatic incident.

121 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:07:20pm

Jimmy Carter's friends react to the speech:

Hamas: Obama speech a complete failure

The Hamas movement called US President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech a "complete failure," saying it was like "throwing sand in the eyes of the public."

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri claimed the speech lacked content, adding that his organization "is opposed to intervention in our internal affairs." Abu Zuhri urged the Palestinian Authority to dismiss the speech, and emphasized the need to "coordinate the stances of Palestinian forces against the American arrogance."

122 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:07:28pm

re: #119 imp_62

Oh, right - I forgot that all my Christian friends will be raptured Saturday... what does that mean for Sunday brunch invitations?

It means the mimosas are free. ;)

123 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:09:08pm

re: #115 imp_62

I updinged that statement because you rarely say something that doesn't piss anybody off :)

Fuck you.

124 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:09:34pm

re: #105 lawhawk

It wasn't - at least not on the issue of drawing borders/lines.

Where it diverges? Obama demands Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist (okay, that's enshrined in Oslo, but it required restating once again).

The Palestinian-Israeli portion of the speech was a repackaging of US position on the conflict for the past 20+ years - at least as since Madrid.

See, that's what I thought. It didn't sound much different from the speeches I'd hear Clinton and Bush give.

That just makes the outrageous outrage irritating as well as confusing.

125 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:09:51pm

Who posted the quote about how a lie can travel about the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes?

[Link: www.salon.com...]

126 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:09:59pm

re: #123 Walter L. Newton

Fuck you.

What - no foreplay? A drink? At least squeeze my ass briefly...

127 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:10:05pm

re: #59 reine.de.tout

Honestly -
The Roi and I were running some errands earlier and we somehow got on the topic of current international affaris, and he made the comment that he would having trouble telling Obama apart from Bush on these things.

That the policy has been consistent doesn't surprise me since that is the only realistic basis for a long-term solution.

The failure is that for some reason each administration somehow seems to think that they will be the great savior of the ME as a way to boost their numbers and they inevitably fail since the solution will come from the people and leaders there - not the US.

And to this point I think the Obama Administration has not positioned themselves as claiming they will trigger a breakthrough, which is a first in recent US Presidential history.

128 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:10:19pm

re: #108 lawhawk

And that isn't actually a change of Israel's position either - Israel would be willing to have land swaps (conceived under Oslo), taking portions of the West Bank for its settlements in exchange for Palestinian majority areas within the Green Line.

Oslo went too far. I don't know how they're going to figure out Jerusalem.

129 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:10:42pm

re: #120 Killgore Trout

He's probably going by news reports. These bogus headlines could cause a diplomatic incident.

I sure President Obama will clarify to Netanyahu what he really said. They will probably work it out when Netanyahu comes to the US in a few days.

130 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:10:42pm

Here are the words from the speech, as quoted in the blog post:

"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."

I really find it troubling that the above words are causing so much controversy.

I happen to agree with Netanyahu that the 1967 borders, with no land swaps, are indefensible. I agree completely. But that's not what Obama was talking about.

I regret having to pick on Netanyahu here; I don't always agree with him, but I believe he's sincere in his desire for real peace and security for Israel. But it bothers me that (1) The President of the United States says: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.", and (2) the Prime Minister of Israel has a strong negative reaction to THAT.

131 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:11:24pm

re: #129 Walter L. Newton

I sure President Obama will clarify to Netanyahu what he really said. They will probably work it out when Netanyahu comes to the US in a few days.

He's on his way now. The meeting is tomorrow.

132 gwlaw99  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:11:32pm

The Green line is the 1948 Armistice line.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

133 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:12:05pm

Reuters: Netanyahu rejects total pullback to 1967 borders
Ugh. Didn't anyone actually watch the speech? This is embarrassing.

134 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:12:32pm

I'm on a roll today! Anyway, to generalize my comment #130, it bothers me that President Obama says many things that are rather mainstream and reasonable, and so many people GO BALLISTIC, practically every day, over some utterance by Obama.

135 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:12:33pm

re: #130 Ming

It also bears pointing out that Obama's statement is in line with UN Resolution 242. So there really is not anything new to outrage anyone. Responses by Hamas and ilk are predictable.

136 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:13:51pm

re: #133 Killgore Trout

Reuters: Netanyahu rejects total pullback to 1967 borders
Ugh. Didn't anyone actually watch the speech? This is embarrassing.

This is why I'm utterly, utterly lost here and wondering if we've just missed something somewhere, since it looks like absolutely everyone else is responding to something completely different. I just don't get it. Again, this was a fucking speech that was broadcast and everything.

137 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:14:01pm

re: #57 bloodstar

If they hold the line on the debt limit and force America into an economic tailspin, enough of America will blame Obama for the Republican demolition of the economy to give them a chance to win in 2012.

At the risk of further hyperbole, if the Republicans manage to keep from raising the debt limit, We'll have an economic crisis that will make the Great Depression look like robust economic times.

But it won't matter to the Republicans, because they'll have won, even if they've consigned America to the ash heap of history.

The Deficits and debt are a problem. Refusing to raise the debt limit is NOT the solution (or specifically, it's the worst possible solution out of the whole lot).

The very fact the good faith and credit of this country is now fair game for partisan warfare may be enough to send our interest rate significantly higher.

The GOP is willing to risk adding billions in interest rate hikes onto our national debt all so they can win spin cycles.

They are fucking unhinged, and dangerous to all of us.

138 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:14:16pm

re: #119 imp_62

Oh, right - I forgot that all my Christian friends will be raptured Saturday... what does that mean for Sunday brunch invitations?

I suggest, then, that NOW is the time to buy that lottery ticket. After Saturday, you chances of winning are going to go wayyyy up.

139 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:14:43pm

re: #131 NJDhockeyfan

He's on his way now. The meeting is tomorrow.

I quite sure the White House will correct this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

140 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:15:07pm

re: #123 Walter L. Newton

Fuck you.

You are such a sweetheart!

I want to kiss you!

*smooch*

141 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:15:08pm

re: #132 gwlaw99

The Green line is the 1948 Armistice line.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Obama didn't even mention the Green Line. He said "the 1967 lines."

142 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:15:13pm

re: #130 Ming

Here are the words from the speech, as quoted in the blog post:

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

And this is what they heard:

"Israel should withdraw to the pre-1967 borders!


And this is what they are sure he meant:

Death to Israel! Long live Intifada!

143 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:15:31pm

re: #139 Walter L. Newton

I quite sure the White House will correct this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

What's to correct?
It's the media and Netanyahu who completely misinterpreted what he said.

144 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:15:39pm

re: #136 Simply Sarah

This is why I'm utterly, utterly lost here and wondering if we've just missed something somewhere, since it looks like absolutely everyone else is responding to something completely different. I just don't get it. Again, this was a fucking speech that was broadcast and everything.

I think the original buzz from the bogus story caught fire, now all the news agencies want to cash in on the traffic generated.

145 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:16:41pm

re: #139 Walter L. Newton

I quite sure the White House will correct this in 5... 4... 3... 2...


Any comment they might make to "straighten out" the issue would just be more water on the outrageous outrage mill.

146 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:16:42pm

re: #133 Killgore Trout

Reuters: Netanyahu rejects total pullback to 1967 borders
Ugh. Didn't anyone actually watch the speech? This is embarrassing.

Embarrassment implies the ability to be shamed...and that left the far right wing several years back.

147 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:16:50pm

re: #139 Walter L. Newton

I quite sure the White House will correct this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

The White House has nothing to "correct." The media are the ones who should correct their false reports.

148 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:16:51pm

re: #128 marjoriemoon

Oslo left the issue up to the parties to figure. In that respect, the document was brilliant since it left the details to be negotiated over years into the future, rather than trying to resolve every last issue in one shot.

However, the fatal flaw for Oslo and every document since is that the Palestinians have continued to refuse to accept Israel's existence, and everything is predicated on that one thing - Israel can't have its security if the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's existence (which is one heck of a precondition).

If you want to divide up Jerusalem in some fashion, it's quite possible on paper. Internationalize the Old City, the Palestinians get East Jerusalem outside the Old City and Israel gets to annex the area up to the Old City walls. Within the Old City, the status quo is maintained as far as religious access and the rough borders where each of the quarters run.

It's possible to make those negotiations happen, and some in Israel will see this as blasphemy - giving up any hold on Jerusalem (seeing how it was all annexed under the Jerusalem law). That's a tough road to overcome, particularly in light of the fact that the Palestinians refuse Israel's existence even to this day (more than a 15 years after Oslo).

149 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:16:55pm

re: #143 Varek Raith

What's to correct?
It's the media and Netanyahu who completely misinterpreted what he said.

I quite sure the White House will correct clarify this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

150 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:17:37pm

re: #133 Killgore Trout

As stated above, he's not actually stating anything new on Israel's position about the final status borders either.

151 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:17:47pm

re: #141 Charles

Obama didn't even mention the Green Line. He said "the 1967 lines."

Obama keeps overestimating the intelligence and historical knowledge of most of his audience...

:(

152 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:17:49pm

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

By what, talking more slowly?

Just pointing at the transcript?

153 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:17:53pm

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

I quite sure the White House will correct clarify this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

The White House has nothing to "clarify." What Obama said was a perfectly clear restatement of long-standing US policy.

154 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:18:08pm

re: #144 Killgore Trout

I think the original buzz from the bogus story caught fire, now all the news agencies want to cash in on the traffic generated.

This is making it very hard for me to hold out hope in my mind for the integrity of at least some segments of the media. *sigh*

155 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:18:12pm

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

I quite sure the White House will correct clarify this in 5... 4... 3... 2...

It was clear enough to start with. They cannot achieve clarity in minds that are muddled beyond repair.

156 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:18:59pm

re: #143 Varek Raith

What's to correct?
It's the media and Netanyahu who completely misinterpreted what he said.

With the news spreading that Obama said that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders and even Netanyahu responded to that report you would think the WH would want clarify that statement right away.

157 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:19:26pm

re: #147 Charles

The White House has nothing to "correct." The media are the ones who should correct their false reports.

Sure, but I think the White House might need to smack them and tell them to stop being stupid before it's too late to be corrected.

158 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:19:29pm

re: #156 NJDhockeyfan

With the news spreading that Obama said that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders and even Netanyahu responded to that report you would think the WH would want clarify that statement right away.

Sigh.
Figures.

159 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:19:35pm

re: #152 Obdicut

By what, talking more slowly?

Just pointing at the transcript?

I suppose he could name what month in 1967 he wants the lines based off of... and what week in that month.... and what day in that week... at what hour of that day... at what minute of that hour.... at what second of that minute....

160 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:20:06pm

What a massive clusterfuck this is turning out to be.

161 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:20:34pm

re: #153 Charles

The White House has nothing to "clarify." What Obama said was a perfectly clear restatement of long-standing US policy.


Apparently is wasn't perfectly clear since all the news organization are reporting something different.

162 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:21:00pm

re: #156 NJDhockeyfan

With the news spreading that Obama said that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders and even Netanyahu responded to that report you would think the WH would want clarify that statement right away.

Send out the press spokesman with a vcr of the speech, powerpoint presentation with the text and the words "evebn you can figure this shit out..." - turns and leaves the room.

163 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:21:11pm

Yes Obama needs to clarify his clear position that has been distorted//. Like producing multiple birth certificates. The attacks come from completely false assertions because facts don't fit their narrative.
Which makes them intellectual weaklings.

164 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:21:16pm

The problem is that the 1967 borders or lines, or whatever you call them, could be defended by Israel if hostilities were to arise with extreme difficulty. Israel's future security, perhaps even existence, would become dependent upon a future Palestinian government - a government that would, at this point, include Hamas members.

That's a very scary prospect.

I can't imagine Israel agreeing to this without significant border adjustments, and I don't know where the "tradeable" territory within pre-1967 Israel is.

I might suggest, as an alternative, that Israel be allowed to "buy" land outside the pre-1967 borders, with compensation payments to individual Palestinians (not the Palestinian government).

165 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:21:43pm

re: #163 Amory Blaine

Yes Obama needs to clarify his clear position that has been distorted//. Like producing multiple birth certificates. The attacks come from completely false assertions because facts don't fit their narrative.
Which makes them intellectual weaklings.

The long-form 1967 borders..........

166 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:21:57pm

re: #159 jamesfirecat

I suppose he could name what month in 1967 he wants the lines based off of... and what week in that month... and what day in that week... at what hour of that day... at what minute of that hour... at what second of that minute...

I agree with Charles on this one. I do not believe that BHO was being purposefully vague on this issue. "1967 lines" refers to the post 6 Day War armistice lines. Chronologically, the line predating "!967 Lines" are the 1967 cease fire lines, and then the 1947 armistice lines. 1967 Lines can refer to one thing, and one thing only.

167 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:22:01pm

At the end of the day after all this outrageous outrage, the fact is that the Palestinians still refuse to accept the precondition of Israel's existence as part of a 2-state solution; the US backs final borders to be determined between the parties including land swaps; and the Israelis lack a partner in peace from the Palestinians.

To that end, this portion of the speech breaks no new ground, doesn't amend or alter longstanding US positions, or introduce new factors into the political calculus between the parties to reach a peace deal.

168 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:22:02pm

re: #161 NJDhockeyfan

Apparently is wasn't perfectly clear since all the news organization are reporting something different.

It's not President Obama's fault that his words are being misrepresented.

169 The Optimist  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:23:12pm

Obama said--

For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.

One side is getting killed and the other side is humiliated? Mr. Obama, this is not an equal comparison.

Moreover, Gaza and the West Bank are not occupied. Israel left years ago. Mr. Obama, wake up.

Never living in a nation of their own? Mr. Obama, did you just say that there never was a Palestinian nation?? Then how and when are they occupied? I guess Kurds, Native Americans, Southerners, Baptists, Mongolians, and hundreds of other minorities never living in a nation of their own is somehow different.

The problem is that Arabs, Persians, and Palestinians keep attacking Israel and won't stop. They lost 6 wars and want to recoup their losses. Mr. Obama, tell the Palestinians to stop violence and accept Israel as a neighbor.

170 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:23:17pm

From Sullivan:

1.20 pm. A small indication of what will come from the far right. Obama's mere reference to the 1967 borders prompts Drudge's headline: Obama Sides With Palestine. If we acknowledge that the 1967 borders have long been the template for US policy - with mutually agreed land-swaps - then every president in memory has been siding with Palestine

171 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:12pm

This is absolutely crazy.

Off the rails.

SWC: Israel Should Reject a Return to 1967 'Auschwitz' Borders

SWC: Simon Wiesenthal Center

[Link: www.wiesenthal.com...]

172 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:13pm

re: #164 martinsmithy

For me, the most important part of Obama's speech was this:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

Yet somehow nobody's bother to report on that. That's a direct slap against Hamas-- and Fatah, to a lesser extent-- and to almost every other Arab nation. That's a strong call to account.

173 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:18pm

In an article published yesterday (Published: May 18, 2011) NYT was unclear too...

But Mr. Obama did not plan to present an American blueprint for peace, White House officials said, and it remained unclear if he would even endorse a Palestinian state on pre-1967 lines, a move opposed, administration officials said, by his chief Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross. Mr. Obama did seek to increase pressure on Syria by imposing largely symbolic sanctions on its leader, President Bashar al-Assad, in the wake of the bloody crackdown there.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

174 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:30pm

re: #168 Charles

It's not President Obama's fault that his words are being misrepresented.


Yes it is: he uttered them knowing full well what would happen.

/

175 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:35pm

Even the New York Times is picking this up:

Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama for the first time on Thursday publicly called for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would create a non-militarized Palestinian state on the basis of Israel’s borders before the 1967 war that led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

W.T.F.

176 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:37pm

re: #168 Charles

It's not President Obama's fault that his words are being misrepresented.

It obviously is his fault - he should know by now the average viewer can't handle words of more than one syllable or ideas any more complex than "USA, USA, USA!".

177 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:46pm

re: #28 Charles

But negotiations based upon the "1967 lines" as occurred AFTER the six-day war makes no sense, because such lines included the entire West Bank and Gaza.

If that's what he meant, Netanyahu would be jumping for joy and Hamas (and Hizbullah) would be lobbing missiles into Israel in protest.

I can't imagine that's what President Obama meant.

178 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:24:53pm

re: #169 Venezuela lover

Mr. Obama, tell the Palestinians to stop violence and accept Israel as a neighbor.

He did. Why are you choosing to ignore that? What the hell?

179 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:25:11pm

I hate the MSM...this is precisely why
bunch of info pervs

180 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:25:32pm

re: #177 martinsmithy

I can't imagine that's what President Obama meant.

Why?

181 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:25:52pm

re: #177 martinsmithy

The 1967 Armistice lines never included the West Bank or Gaza. Fact check before post.

182 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:26:14pm

re: #168 Charles

It's not President Obama's fault that his words are being misrepresented.

This is true, but you can't lose sight of the fact that, in the end, it doesn't matter what you actually say, only what people think you said, and if he just lets this be because it's not what he said, well, it might as well be what he said as far as most people will be concerned.

183 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:26:34pm

And going back to the pre-six day war borders, those borders completely excluded Jews from the entire old city of Jerusalem.

I can only imagine what the Palestinians would extract from Israel in return for any of the old city.

184 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:26:38pm

re: #169 Venezuela lover

Mr. Obama, tell the Palestinians to stop violence and accept Israel as a neighbor.

Do you honestly think that they would if he did?

185 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:26:59pm

Right wing MKs: Obama is the new Arafat

Knesset members on the Right expressed outrage on Thursday night at US President Barack Obama's call for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps in an exchange of territory for security.

They called upon Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reject Obama's plan when he meets with him on Friday in Washington.

"Barack Hussein Obama adopted the staged plan for Israel's destruction of Yasser Arafat, and he is trying to force it on our prime minister," said Likud MK Danny Danon. "All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: To tell Obama forget about it."

National Union MK Michael Ben-Ari also slammed Obama's speech, calling it "a landmine with pretty wrapping."

Environment Minister Gilad Erdan, who as a minister close to Netanyahu must be more diplomatic, complained on Channel 2 that according to Obama's approach, the Palestinians would receive their demands on borders before negotiations begin.

"Once they have everything from the start, they have no reason to make any concessions,"Erdan said.

But opposition leader Tzipi Livni said Obama's plan was clearly in Israel's interests, while the diplomatic stalemate that she believes was brought on by Netanyahu is not.

186 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:27:16pm

re: #164 martinsmithy

The problem is that the 1967 borders or lines, or whatever you call them, could be defended by Israel if hostilities were to arise with extreme difficulty. Israel's future security, perhaps even existence, would become dependent upon a future Palestinian government - a government that would, at this point, include Hamas members.

That's a very scary prospect.

I can't imagine Israel agreeing to this without significant border adjustments, and I don't know where the "tradeable" territory within pre-1967 Israel is.

I might suggest, as an alternative, that Israel be allowed to "buy" land outside the pre-1967 borders, with compensation payments to individual Palestinians (not the Palestinian government).

I'm not sure how Israel, with one of the best equipped military forces in the world and 200+ tactical and strategic nuclear weapons on hand, is going to be threatened by any Palestinian State regardless of where the borders are drawn.

The only thing that will be a threat to Israel (in an existential sense) will be a similar nuclear power with the ability to deliver those weapons, and borders will not have anything to do with that at all.

187 zora  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:28:09pm

OT, but i had to share this.

Revenge Of The Climate Science Nerds

188 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:28:31pm

re: #186 celticdragon

I'm not sure how Israel, with one of the best equipped military forces in the world and 200+ tactical and strategic nuclear weapons on hand, is going to be threatened by any Palestinian State regardless of where the borders are drawn. [...]

Ask the parents of the children killed in terrorist attacks on buses. Ask the Shalits.

189 Amory Blaine  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:28:35pm

Maybe the promise of a self determining Middle East is what is scaring people.

190 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:28:49pm

re: #169 Venezuela lover

Mr. Obama, tell the Palestinians to stop violence and accept Israel as a neighbor.

You obviously didn't even read or listen to the speech, because he did say exactly that.

191 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:29:21pm

I better go do some work before the bosses ask me why I'm still in the office.

Later lizards!

192 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:29:58pm

Also, I apologize if I've gotten this wrong, but my understanding has always been that, at its core, the land split solution was always to use the West Bank and Gaza as a start for a Palestinian state, followed by exchanging parts of them for other hunks of the rest of Israel to get an agreed upon division. Am I mistaken in this? I admit that it's entirely possible I am, since this is far from my area of expertise.

193 shutdown  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:30:04pm

Carpool time. Later....

194 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:30:54pm

For the love of Zod, this is ridiculous.

195 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:31:04pm

I would really hope that communication between Israel and the US is not accomplished by both sides reading the other's newspapers. I would hope there is a more direction line.

196 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:33:16pm

re: #186 celticdragon

Actually, the events of the past couple of months do show the limitations of the IDF.

Consider that under many iterations of a land swap deal and contiguous borders, Israel would have several areas where Israeli territory is quite thin - less than 10 miles wide in some places. Palestinian protesters could swarm the border and encamp on those areas - suddenly you're not talking about contiguous Israeli territory, but rather Israel cleaved in two by an unconventional force where the military opening fire could result in mass casualties among "civilians" who may be unarmed but have every intention of being martyred for the cause of liberating Israel from Israeli hands.

That initial incursion could spread and mutate to the point where Israel's military would have no choice but to open fire to prevent Israel's territory from being completely compromised and its economy ground to a halt as transportation and access on ground is stopped through the affected areas.

A narrow border gives Israel very little room for error in dealing with such possibilities, regardless of the amount of power it can project against a conventional military. This is asymmetric warfare.

197 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:33:21pm

re: #194 Varek Raith

For the love of Zod, this is ridiculous.

I agree.

198 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:33:23pm

re: #181 imp_62

The 1967 Armistice lines never included the West Bank or Gaza. Fact check before post.

Could someone please explain to me what the difference between the "1967 borders" and the "1967 lines" are, or provide a link in map form? It is Israel's position that the borders/lines/whatever you want to call them dividing the State of Israel from the territories controlled by Syria, Jordan and Israel on June 4, 1967 would be very difficult to defend against an aggressive attack. Also, Jews had no access to the old city of Jerusalem under these borders/lines/whatever.

To return to these lines is a non-starter for Israel.

199 Locker  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:35:36pm

Sure seems like a lot of old and barely used names are popping up. Maybe it's just my imagination.

200 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:37:12pm

re: #177 martinsmithy

But negotiations based upon the "1967 lines" as occurred AFTER the six-day war makes no sense, because such lines included the entire West Bank and Gaza.

This is a lie. Israel never annexed either the West Bank or Gaza, only East Jerusalem.

re: #183 martinsmithy

And going back to the pre-six day war borders, those borders completely excluded Jews from the entire old city of Jerusalem.

I can only imagine what the Palestinians would extract from Israel in return for any of the old city.

Another lie. Israel incorporated and annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, the 1980 Jerusalem Law was a redeclaration of this fact.

201 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:37:15pm

re: #198 martinsmithy

Could someone please explain to me what the difference between the "1967 borders" and the "1967 lines" are, or provide a link in map form? It is Israel's position that the borders/lines/whatever you want to call them dividing the State of Israel from the territories controlled by Syria, Jordan and Israel on June 4, 1967 would be very difficult to defend against an aggressive attack. Also, Jews had no access to the old city of Jerusalem under these borders/lines/whatever.

To return to these lines is a non-starter for Israel.

There were no "1967 borders." There were only the armistice lines after the 6-Day War; that's why Obama used the phrase "1967 lines."

The media are using "borders" incorrectly.

And as for the Jerusalem question, this is why the US position has been that land swaps have to be mutually agreed upon. Which Obama also repeated.

202 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:37:17pm

re: #180 Obdicut

Why?

So you seriously think that President Obama said "start the negotiations" based upon borders that divided the land in the British Mandate of Palestine west of the Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, Dead Sea, and Gulf of Aqaba thus - 100% Israel 0% Palestine?

That's delusional.

203 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:37:18pm

re: #195 EmmmieG

Reason enough to keep the back channels open. Public diplomacy - particularly in the ME has been prone to abject failure when making promises that are reliant on unreliable parties whose interests are often antithetical to US ones and it puts Presidential credibility and prestige unnecessarily on the line.

204 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:38:22pm

re: #202 martinsmithy

That's delusional.

Is is your comprehension of what Obama said.

205 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:38:29pm

re: #204 Varek Raith

As is your comprehension of what Obama said.

206 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:38:32pm

Thank you for your explanation, Charles.

207 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:39:14pm

re: #204 Varek Raith

Is is your comprehension of what Obama said.

Hard to comprehend what "is" is?

208 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:39:22pm

re: #201 Charles

It's the same kind of craziness when you read through UN SCR 242 - land for peace. One interpretation requires Israel to return all land captured since 1948/9, while the other requires returning lands captured (something less than all. The Oslo documents make it clear that the latter is the accepted version - that there will be land swaps in a final determination, if the Palestinians ever hold up their end of the bargain.

209 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:39:38pm

re: #207 Walter L. Newton

Hard to comprehend what "is" is?

Yep.
Hoisted on my own petard!

210 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:39:50pm

re: #199 Locker

Sure seems like a lot of old and barely used names are popping up. Maybe it's just my imagination.

It's not.

211 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:40:00pm

Even by the warped standards of modern 'journalism,' this is horrifying to watch.

And there's really no calling it back now, no matter who issues a correction or clarification. This is... nuts.

212 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:40:47pm

re: #211 makeitstop

Even by the warped standards of modern 'journalism,' this is horrifying to watch.

And there's really no calling it back now, no matter who issues a correction or clarification. This is... nuts.

Your nic has never been more appropriate.

213 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:41:41pm

re: #211 makeitstop

Even by the warped standards of modern 'journalism,' this is horrifying to watch.

And there's really no calling it back now, no matter who issues a correction or clarification. This is... nuts.

It's insane.....just got out of the car and the local right wing radio host (starts at 3 est) is offering a pretty good preview of what's to come, and it's going to be a whole lot of vile rhetoric all based on a lie.

So frustrating

214 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:42:03pm

re: #211 makeitstop

Even by the warped standards of modern 'journalism,' this is horrifying to watch.

And there's really no calling it back now, no matter who issues a correction or clarification. This is... nuts.

CNN (who doesn't attribute their report on AP) states it the same way...

Nevertheless, the president renewed his push for a two-state solution Thursday, declaring that the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 lines "with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Looks like the whole of the MMM has made a mistake.

215 leftynyc  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:42:14pm

re: #121 NJDhockeyfan

Jimmy Carter's friends react to the speech:

Hamas: Obama speech a complete failure

So he's pissed off everyone. Why does that make me happy?

216 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:42:20pm

re: #212 iceweasel

Your nic has never been more appropriate.

Sadly, it seems more appropriate by the day.

217 jaunte  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:42:45pm

re: #213 mr.fusion

He must have missed the "mutually agreed swaps" part, too.

218 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:43:17pm

OK, let's go back to square 1. President Obama wants negotiations to begin based upon the "1967 lines" which, if I'm not mistaken, is the line that existed on June 4, 1967 between lands controlled by Israel and lands controlled by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria within that part of the British Mandate for Palestine that is west of the Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, Dead Sea, and Gulf of Aqaba.

That's a very difficult pill for Israel to swallow, for many reasons in addition to the indefensible one of Israel cramming as many settlements into the West Bank as it possibly can.

219 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:43:54pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

CNN (who doesn't attribute their report on AP) states it the same way...

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Looks like the whole of the MMM has made a mistake.

And naturally, they will remain beyond reproach for it and the White House will end up taking the heat for their mistake.

220 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:44:32pm

re: #217 jaunte

He must have missed the "mutually agreed swaps" part, too.

Oh that doesn't really matter. I'm in Tampa Fl and it's this guy Todd Schnitt.....think he's syndicated nationally.

He came straight out and said this is "indisputable proof that Barack Hussein Obama is anti-semitic. There's just no other way to interpret it."

221 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:46:37pm

re: #198 martinsmithy

Could someone please explain to me what the difference between the "1967 borders" and the "1967 lines" are, or provide a link in map form? It is Israel's position that the borders/lines/whatever you want to call them dividing the State of Israel from the territories controlled by Syria, Jordan and Israel on June 4, 1967 would be very difficult to defend against an aggressive attack. Also, Jews had no access to the old city of Jerusalem under these borders/lines/whatever.

To return to these lines is a non-starter for Israel.

Here ya go.

222 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:46:56pm

re: #188 imp_62

Ask the parents of the children killed in terrorist attacks on buses. Ask the Shalits.

How in the hell are the current borders stopping that?

Oh, that's right...

They aren't.

Are terror threats to be considered in the same realm as a conventional armored military with artillery and T-72 tanks? I think not. That is what the 'indefensible 1967 border' refers to though: The difficulty of defending those borders against a 1967 style invasion with set piece military armies.

That is not even remotely plausible today.

You don't have the first clue what you are talking about here.

223 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:47:03pm

re: #164 martinsmithy

I can't imagine Israel agreeing to this without significant border adjustments, and I don't know where the "tradeable" territory within pre-1967 Israel is.

I might suggest, as an alternative, that Israel be allowed to "buy" land outside the pre-1967 borders, with compensation payments to individual Palestinians (not the Palestinian government).


You're deliberately misunderstanding.

It's not pre-war lines, it's the post-war lines. Everything won during the six-day war is within the lines we're discussing.

224 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:47:08pm

re: #220 mr.fusion

Oh that doesn't really matter. I'm in Tampa Fl and it's this guy Todd Schnitt...think he's syndicated nationally.

He came straight out and said this is "indisputable proof that Barack Hussein Obama is anti-semitic. There's just no other way to interpret it."

There is just no other way his brain can process it.

225 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:48:09pm

re: #218 martinsmithy

I've pointed this out more times than I can count, but here goes.

Settlements aren't, and never have been, an impediment to peace.

See - Gaza 2005
See - Sinai 1981

In both cases, Israel not only withdrew from territories captured in 1967, but forcibly removed its own citizens from settlements (housing) in those territories in the hope of peace.

That happened with Sinai (peace with Egypt), but the Gaza disengagement resulted in not peace, but a rocket and terror war, which continues through to the present.

Housing can be sold, transferred, and reused.

It isn't what is stopping a peace deal. Palestinians refusing to accept Israel's right to exist is. However, given the way the Palestinians handled the Gaza disengagement and launching into a war with Israel has made further land swaps all the more unpalatable - but that is because the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's existence - not because they built settlements in the West Bank.

226 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:48:22pm

re: #200 goddamnedfrank

This is a lie. Israel never annexed either the West Bank or Gaza, only East Jerusalem.

re: #183 martinsmithy


Another lie. Israel incorporated and annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, the 1980 Jerusalem Law was a redeclaration of this fact.

So now we have another explanation of what President Obama was talking about - the starting point for negotiations is the area of control for each side on June 4, 1967 EXCEPT for the City of Jerusalem, which starts out the negotiations on Israel's side of the ledger.

Does everyone (or anyone) else agree with this formulation? It's somewhat more palatable to the Israelis, I'm sure.

227 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:48:37pm

re: #223 sagehen

You're deliberately misunderstanding.

It's not pre-war lines, it's the post-war lines. Everything won during the six-day war is within the lines we're discussing.

The phrase "the line of June 4, 1967" has been part of the Arab-Israeli peace process lexicon for over five years. Although it encapsulates the extent of the withdrawal demanded of Israel by Syria in the context of a peace treaty its meaning has not been defined in published accounts of Israeli-Syrian negotiations. This article seeks to define the line of June 4, 1967, in its historical context. Its diplomatic definition may, depending on the course of Syrian-Israeli negotiations, be something quite different. As for the historical context, however, the definition has two parts: the conceptual meaning of the phrase and the location of the line itself.

Maybe this helps...

[Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

228 jaunte  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:48:54pm

re: #220 mr.fusion

Oh that doesn't really matter. I'm in Tampa Fl and it's this guy Todd Schnitt...think he's syndicated nationally.

He came straight out and said this is "indisputable proof that Barack Hussein Obama is anti-semitic. There's just no other way to interpret it."

Anothe part that Schnitt missed:

"Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean it will be easy to come back to the table," Obama said, noting the new unity deal between Fatah and Hamas, a group foreswarn to Israel's destruction.

"How can one negotiate with a party that shows itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?" Obama said. "Palestinians have to provide a credible answer to that question."

229 Girl with a Pearl Earring  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:49:35pm

MSNBC: "Obama tells Israel: Go back to 1967 borders":

CNN says "pre-1967 lines":

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

"STORY HIGHLIGHTS:

* Recent events show oppression will not work in the Middle East anymore, Obama says
* The president announces $2 billion in assistance for Egypt
* He announces a trade plan for the region
* A two-state Arab-Israeli solution should be based on 1967 borders, Obama says"

FTA: "Nevertheless, the president renewed his push for a two-state solution Thursday, declaring that the borders of Israel and a future Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 lines "with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.""

230 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:50:21pm

Did no one watch what Obama said?!?!

231 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:50:27pm

Admittedly I'm popping in and out of the thread, as I'm at work, now on a lunch break. As I peruse the web the prevailing take is he did mean the pre 67 borders. A clarification is desperately needed.

But from BBC we do have the following

Key points in Mr Obama's speech:
The borders of Israel and a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders with agreed swaps

Al Jazeera
Israeli reaction
Reacting to the address shortly afterwards, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said a Palestinian state should not be established at the "expense of Israeli existence". He appreciated the US president's address but rejected any withdrawal tp "indefensible" 1967 borders.
Jerusalem Post
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.

Haaretz
After Obama speech, Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders
PM responds to Obama's proposal for two state solution based on 1967 borders, says such a solution would leave many Israelis in the West bank outside Israel's borders.

232 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:50:44pm

re: #196 lawhawk

Actually, the events of the past couple of months do show the limitations of the IDF.

Consider that under many iterations of a land swap deal and contiguous borders, Israel would have several areas where Israeli territory is quite thin - less than 10 miles wide in some places. Palestinian protesters could swarm the border and encamp on those areas - suddenly you're not talking about contiguous Israeli territory, but rather Israel cleaved in two by an unconventional force where the military opening fire could result in mass casualties among "civilians" who may be unarmed but have every intention of being martyred for the cause of liberating Israel from Israeli hands.

That initial incursion could spread and mutate to the point where Israel's military would have no choice but to open fire to prevent Israel's territory from being completely compromised and its economy ground to a halt as transportation and access on ground is stopped through the affected areas.

A narrow border gives Israel very little room for error in dealing with such possibilities, regardless of the amount of power it can project against a conventional military. This is asymmetric warfare.

So to make this work...we have to find thousands of Palestinian potential martyrs who are willing to die in a sit in.

Uh...okay...

233 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:50:46pm

It's almost like the wingnuts (and Netyahanu, WTF?) would prefer Obama had a more combative attitude towards Israel.

234 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:51:39pm

re: #230 Varek Raith

Did no one watch what Obama said?!?!

I'm thinking everybody ran with the advance transcript, and even got that wrong.

235 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:51:50pm

re: #230 Varek Raith

Did no one watch what Obama said?!?!

otiated, 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.

Transcript...

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

236 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:52:19pm

What a fucking mess.

237 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:53:06pm

re: #233 Obdicut

Where else online do we have the armistice lines interpretation as accepted?
It seems at best Obamas choice of words has led the great majority of onlookers with the wrong impression.

238 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:53:15pm

re: #233 Obdicut

It's almost like the wingnuts (and Netyahanu, WTF?) would prefer Obama had a more combative attitude towards Israel.

The Wingnuts simply want a club to bash Obama with.

I can't speak to Netanyahu. He must have gotten it second-hand through an aide or something.

239 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:54:06pm

re: #237 Rightwingconspirator

Why didn't they get the wrong impression the last five times those words were used?

What changed?

240 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:54:55pm

re: #239 Obdicut

Why didn't they get the wrong impression the last five times those words were used?

What changed?

They were spoken by a black man with the middle name Hussein.

241 dragonfire1981  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:00pm

I am no huge Israel expert. Can someone briefly explain to me why Mid east peace between these peples is Americas responsibility?

242 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:07pm

re: #48 iceweasel

AP fucked up and the Wingnut Wurlitzer cranked into overdrive.


I like the descriptions "Wingnut Wurlitzer" and "right-wing noise machine," but I think I like Charles's "Pez dispenser" from a couple days ago even more.

243 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:18pm

re: #238 makeitstop

The Wingnuts simply want a club to bash Obama with.

I can't speak to Netanyahu. He must have gotten it second-hand through an aide or something.

Netanyahu is perfectly able to mis-construe by himself.

244 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:20pm

Allen West: Obama's Recognition of Pre-1967 Borders 'Beginning of the End' for Jewish State


"Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state," said West, R-Fla., one of the leading Tea Party thinkers in the House Republican freshman class," West said in a prepared statement.
245 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:55:21pm

re: #237 Rightwingconspirator

It seems at best Obamas choice of words has led the great majority of onlookers with the wrong impression.

Obama can shoose whatever words he wants and they will still leave the wrong impression with a lot of people

246 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:56:16pm

re: #241 dragonfire1981

I am no huge Israel expert. Can someone briefly explain to me why Mid east peace between these peples is Americas responsibility?

America pays the bills and sells the arms (in a bi-partisan fashion), and the GOP need Israel for Jesus to come back, or something.

247 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:56:21pm
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist. As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

Barack Obama, 5/19/2011

Everything else is moot unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist. That includes any talk of final status borders.

248 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:56:28pm

re: #241 dragonfire1981

I am no huge Israel expert. Can someone briefly explain to me why Mid east peace between these peples is Americas responsibility?

Because we are pretty much Israel's only ally.

249 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:56:43pm

re: #239 Obdicut

Why didn't they get the wrong impression the last five times those words were used?

What changed?

That question would be better directed at Netanyahu and the Israeli media.

250 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:56:43pm

re: #245 ralphieboy

Obama can shoose whatever words he wants and they will still leave the wrong impression with a lot of people

Including Netanyahu?

251 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:57:00pm

re: #213 mr.fusion

It's insane...just got out of the car and the local right wing radio host (starts at 3 est) is offering a pretty good preview of what's to come, and it's going to be a whole lot of vile rhetoric all based on a lie.

So frustrating

Yeah, this birth certificate thing has to sto... oh, we're still talking about the speech.

252 Wozza Matter?  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:57:17pm

re: #250 Walter L. Newton

Including Netanyahu?

Often, especially Netanyahu.

253 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:57:29pm

re: #245 ralphieboy

Obama can shoose whatever words he wants and they will still leave the wrong impression with a lot of people

Not like this. This is not just Fox and friends. It's totally mainstream.

254 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:57:33pm
255 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:57:49pm

OK, OK. Since I think my question got lost in the shuffle and I've gone from thinking I understood the situation to being less and less sure, I'll try again. Under standing U.S. policy, what, exactly, are the areas that would be considered, by default, "Palestinian"at the start of any horse trading in a peace deal? My understanding has always been that this was to include the West Bank and Gaza and that is it, since asking Israel to move back to the pre-war lines is rather ridiculous. Am I correct here or am I confused?

256 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:58:22pm
257 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:58:52pm

re: #242 BongCrodny

I like the descriptions "Wingnut Wurlitzer" and "right-wing noise machine," but I think I like Charles's "Pez dispenser" from a couple days ago even more.

I do too. The image of a pez dispenser with O'Reilly's head on it opening up like Ichi the Killer cracks me up.

258 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:58:56pm

re: #223 sagehen

I suggest you look at post #200 for an alternative viewpoint. And post #221 for the third version.

To recap:

Version 1: The "1967 lines" refers to the territories controlled by Israel and Egypt/Jordan/Syria on June 4, 1967.

Version 2: The "1967 lines" refers to the territories controlled by Israel and Egypt/Jordan/Syria on June 4, 1967 EXCEPT for the old city of Jerusalem, which is on the Israeli side of the lines.

Version 3: The "1967 lines" refers to the territories controlled by Israel at the CONCLUSION of the six-day war, which includes the entire portion of the British Mandate of Palestine lying west of the Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, Dead Sea, and Gulf of Aqaba.

(Let's leave the Golan Heights out the discussion for now, since in any negotiation all or parts of it would be returned to Syria, not incorporated into a Palestinian state).

Which of these three formulations do you think the "1967 lines" means?

259 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:59:03pm

re: #237 Rightwingconspirator

Where else online do we have the armistice lines interpretation as accepted?

Anybody got this?

260 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:59:10pm

re: #244 Killgore Trout

said West, R-Fla., one of the leading Tea Party thinkers in the House Republican freshman class

Hahahaha!

261 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:59:13pm

re: #254 makeitstop

This is just jaw-dropping.

This is insanity. All the MSM is running the same bogus story.

262 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 12:59:24pm

Congratulations Media!
You're the winner of the "WTF WERE YOU WATCHING?!" Award!

263 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:00:04pm

re: #250 Walter L. Newton

Including Netanyahu?


Especially Nethanyahu. he knows he can get a lot of mileage speaking out against a fake outrage than he can opposing a consistently held, thought-out and rational position.

264 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:01:03pm

re: #239 Obdicut

Why didn't they get the wrong impression the last five times those words were used?

What changed?

My answer was not meant to be curt, I'd love to have an answer to your question. Particularly abroad.

265 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:01:19pm

USA today: Obama tells Israel: Go back to 1967 borders
ABC: Obama Speech Backlash on Call to Reinstate 1967 Mideast Borders

266 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:02:10pm

Does this just become the new reality because the press won't report the truth?

267 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:02:15pm

It sounds to me that, Netanyahu notwithstanding, we have a bunch of people who know nothing of what's been going on in Israel for the past few decades commenting on it. Do I have that about that?

Probably some people deliberately misinterpreting it, too...

268 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:02:24pm

re: #256 Killgore Trout

ABC
Obama Urges Israel to Go Back to 1967 Borders

So much for the whole "librul lamestream media", right?

The media is wired to report stories that fit a narrative (no matter how implausible in reality) and the GOP has built this narrative for the last three years wherein Obama hates Israel.

Of course, this won't stop the GOP from continuing their 40 year crusade against "liberal media elites", even though they have largely shaped the dysfunctional nature of that same media.

269 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:03pm

There does seem to be somethin more to this than just sloppy journalism, as if Obama has touched a nerve.

270 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:05pm

re: #247 lawhawk

Barack Obama, 5/19/2011

Everything else is moot unless the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist. That includes any talk of final status borders.

And personally, I would have some problems trusting Hamas at their word when they say, as they apparently have recently, that they recognize Israel's right to exist.

271 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:07pm

We have a little experience with "wingnut thought", such as it is, around here. We know wingnuts are predisposed to accuse people of abandoning Israel, because when the wingnuts got upset at Charles for breaking with them, it is the first thing they predicted he would do next.

272 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:15pm

re: #266 Killgore Trout

Does this just become the new reality because the press won't report the truth?

Yes.

273 iossarian  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:45pm

re: #266 Killgore Trout

Does this just become the new reality because the press won't report the truth?

LGF becomes hotbed of Trutherism!

274 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:45pm

Ugh, my inbox is now full of complaints about Obama's speech including a good friend who didn't read the speech and only went by what was in the media reports on MSNBC.

275 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:03:57pm

re: #237 Rightwingconspirator

It seems at best Obamas choice of words has led the great majority of onlookers with the wrong impression.

When Obama told children to stay in school and study hard, it left onlookers with the wrong impression. There's not much to be done when a large number of onlookers are deeply vested in wrong impressions.

277 leftynyc  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:04:11pm

re: #233 Obdicut

It's almost like the wingnuts (and Netyahanu, WTF?) would prefer Obama had a more combative attitude towards Israel.

It would fit their narrative and that's why we're seeing an across the board ignoring of what was actually said. The AP needs to be put out to pasture.

278 Digital Display  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:04:29pm

re: #272 iceweasel

Yes.

Hi Ice..I owe you an email

279 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:04:38pm

re: #269 ralphieboy

There does seem to be somethin more to this than just sloppy journalism, as if Obama has touched a nerve.

It's more like wingnuts have ripped their nerves out and thrown them at Obama.

280 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:05:10pm

re: #270 martinsmithy

And personally, I would have some problems trusting Hamas at their word when they say, as they apparently have recently, that they recognize Israel's right to exist.

I would trust Hamas about as far as I could throw a Merkava main battle tank...which is pretty effing limited.

281 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:05:19pm

re: #271 wrenchwench

We have a little experience with "wingnut thought", such as it is, around here. We know wingnuts are predisposed to accuse people of abandoning Israel, because when the wingnuts got upset at Charles for breaking with them, it is the first thing they predicted he would do next.

Accusing people of abandoning Israel is the first tool people often pull out of their kit. They've been salivating at the prospect of accusing CJ of abandoning it for two years now. And they've done it to Obama pretty much non-stop, in defiance of reality.
The reality based world is just not fun for wingnuts anymore.

282 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:05:46pm

re: #233 Obdicut

It's almost like the wingnuts (and Netyahanu, WTF?) would prefer Obama had a more combative attitude towards Israel.

Maybe Netanyahu wants to appear as if he had to be on the defense for now? With wingnuts and a lot of other people having an overly emotional and irrational reaction to anything Middle East related, I am pretty sure it's not about sincerely caring for Israel but using her as projection for domestic conflicts, no matter how much you distort the actual issue in the process. I am fairly used to this.

283 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:05:49pm

Apparently the writers at the Atlantic took the 'Reading and Comprehension' class in journalism school.

284 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:03pm

re: #257 iceweasel

I do too. The image of a pez dispenser with O'Reilly's head on it opening up like Ichi the Killer cracks me up.


A piece of manufactured plastic spitting out little pills of empty calories.

Yup.

285 martinsmithy  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:05pm

re: #261 Killgore Trout

This is insanity. All the MSM is running the same bogus story.

The problem with your analysis is that the story is only "bogus" if "1967 borders" and "1967 lines" are not the same actual boundaries on the ground. What is your understanding of the difference?

286 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:12pm

re: #255 Simply Sarah

OK, OK. Since I think my question got lost in the shuffle and I've gone from thinking I understood the situation to being less and less sure, I'll try again. Under standing U.S. policy, what, exactly, are the areas that would be considered, by default, "Palestinian"at the start of any horse trading in a peace deal? My understanding has always been that this was to include the West Bank and Gaza and that is it, since asking Israel to move back to the pre-war lines is rather ridiculous. Am I correct here or am I confused?

I ask mostly because I'm finding it hard to fathom how the above could be true and yet have the media think Obama would make such a drastic change in policy with an almost offhand, single sentence remark that was a tiny part of a much broader speech. I mean, I'm honestly lost here. This would be like declaring war on Iran in one line in the middle of a speech on public funding for schools.

287 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:16pm

re: #274 lawhawk

Ugh, my inbox is now full of complaints about Obama's speech including a good friend who didn't read the speech and only went by what was in the media reports on MSNBC.

That's what I find shocking. The entire media are all pushing the same bogus story. I'm not seeing any corrections or retractions.

288 iossarian  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:20pm

Earnest LGF Lizard: "But, but, that's not what he said at all - look at the transcript! WHY WON'T ANYONE LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT!"

Serious Person: "Yawn. Go away, silly Transcripter."

290 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:27pm

re: #255 Simply Sarah

OK, OK. Since I think my question got lost in the shuffle and I've gone from thinking I understood the situation to being less and less sure, I'll try again. Under standing U.S. policy, what, exactly, are the areas that would be considered, by default, "Palestinian"at the start of any horse trading in a peace deal? My understanding has always been that this was to include the West Bank and Gaza and that is it, since asking Israel to move back to the pre-war lines is rather ridiculous. Am I correct here or am I confused?

You are correct;.

291 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:06:55pm

re: #278 HoosierHoops

Hi Ice..I owe you an email

Hi Hoops! Anytime, take your time. Always happy to see you. :-)

292 RadicalModerate  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:07:02pm

Well, crap. CNN just reported that Strauss-Kahn just got granted bail.
He's supposed to surrender all travel documents, but a New York judge will allow him to post bond.

Personally, I think this is a VERY BAD idea, as even without those documents, he is still a serious flight risk, given his connections within European financial and governmental agencies.

293 Ericus58  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:07:08pm

re: #280 celticdragon

I would trust Hamas about as far as I could throw a Merkava main battle tank...which is pretty effing limited.

Is that with or without the engine?
/

294 califleftyb  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:07:56pm

re: #28 Charles

Nope, sorry, Charles you've got it wrong. The phrase 1967 lines has always implied the pre-war borders and are in fact the lines agreed upon in the 1949 armistice. Please note that President Obama then when on to say "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces..." If he is referring to the post-1967 war borders, please explain from where to where this withdrawal refers? The fact is the "mutual swaps" the President referred to is adjustments to the salient of Latrun and other minor adjustments.

For an excellent analysis of the history of the US position on this matter see:
[Link: www.defensibleborders.org...]

295 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:08:04pm
"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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

I understand this as follows: He is referring to the lines before the 6 Day War, i.e. the 1949 armistice lines. (After the Six Day War, the "West Bank an Gaza are in Israeli hands!) As for land swaps, he means that Israel can keep some of the settlements as long as they give the new Arab state territory in return. Some Israeli politicians have also put this idea forward: give the new Arab state parts of Israel that are heavily populated by Arabs in return for the settlements becoming a part of Israel. Israeli Arabs have repeatedly rejected this. They may call themselves "Palestinian", but they do not want to be part of "Palestine"!

Another problem here is that a contiguous "Palestinian" state (connecting the "West Bank" to the "Gaza Strip" would make Israel noncontiguous.

296 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:08:38pm

re: #276 Jeff In Ohio

The ADL has drank the Obama Kool Aid

LGF gets the call out from Jeff Goldberg

Finally, a little sanity. Probably won't do a bit of good, though.

297 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:08:41pm

re: #293 Ericus58

Is that with or without the engine?
/

With engine, half ammo load and six infantry riding in the back.

298 iossarian  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:08:46pm

re: #286 Simply Sarah

I ask mostly because I'm finding it hard to fathom how the above could be true and yet have the media think Obama would make such a drastic change in policy with an almost offhand, single sentence remark that was a tiny part of a much broader speech. I mean, I'm honestly lost here. This would be like declaring war on Iran in one line in the middle of a speech on public funding for schools.

He did that last month and no-one even noticed.

Partial transcript:

"And so, I think we can all agree that only when we commit ourselves to the education of our children can we truly secure the future of our nation, especially given that, as of 12 o'clock today, we are at war with Iran, and furthermore I would like to ask everyone to remember that special teacher they had in 2nd grade."

299 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:09:06pm

re: #248 Killgore Trout

Because we are pretty much Israel's only ally.

With all due respect: I think there's a few more than that.

300 Ericus58  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:09:51pm

re: #297 celticdragon

With engine, half ammo load and six infantry riding in the back.

Brilliant! I forgot about the troopers.

301 AK-47%  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:10:06pm

re: #248 Killgore Trout

Because we are pretty much Israel's only ally.

I have not checked my figures, but I am sure we are their biggest financial supporter.

302 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:11:06pm

re: #287 Killgore Trout

It's absolutely infuriating. There are other more serious issues with Obama's speech - such as his position on Syria, that are now drowned out in this stuff.

And if Obama was truly talking about 1967 borders as the media keeps shilling, then in reality he'd be talking about the post 1948 border (aka the Green Line), but that's not the terminology he used.

There was a specific reason he used 1967 line - with agreed upon land swaps, because it is a reference back to UN SCR 242 and 338 and Oslo, all of which involve land for peace and do not require Israel to return to the pre 1967 Green Line border.

303 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:12:47pm

re: #295 Cosmic X

I understand this as follows: He is referring to the lines before the 6 Day War, i.e. the 1949 armistice lines.

Your understanding is wrong.

If he meant the 1949 lines, he wouldn't have called them the 1967 lines.

Duh.

304 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:12:50pm
305 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:14:16pm

re: #301 ralphieboy

I have not checked my figures, but I am sure we are their biggest financial supporter customer for their awesome medical, military and IT technology.

ftfy

306 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:14:53pm

re: #294 califleftyb

excellent link.....thanks.....

307 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:14:56pm

I still can not find a major re: #288 iossarian

Earnest LGF Lizard: "But, but, that's not what he said at all - look at the transcript! WHY WON'T ANYONE LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT!"

Serious Person: "Yawn. Go away, silly Transcripter."

That is exactly what I am getting at my Jewish owned place of employment right now.

308 Ericus58  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:15:28pm

Well everyone, I'm off line for probably the next 3 days.
My wife and I are jetting down to San Fran tonight.

Tomorrow is my Son's Commissioning Ceremony into the U.S. Army, and his graduation from USF (BS in Finance) is Saturday.

I'll find a way to share some pics.

Take care all.

309 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:15:41pm

re: #300 Ericus58

Brilliant! I forgot about the troopers.

Yeah. The Merkava can cut down on ammo and act as an APC. Cool feature, along with putting the engine in front.

A bunch of the latest model version were supposed to be sold to Georgia just before the scuffle with Russia. It's a shame they didn't get there. New Israeli ATGM's were giving the Russian Army some real problems and smashing the hell out the T-80's.

310 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:16:34pm

re: #303 sagehen

They are the 1967 lines before the 1967 war. As I and others have already explained, the phrase "full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces " makes no sense if we are talking about after the 1967 war!

312 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:18:20pm

re: #241 dragonfire1981

I am no huge Israel expert. Can someone briefly explain to me why Mid east peace between these peples is Americas responsibility?

It's in our own best economic interest to see that the oil continues to flow, the countries that control most of it have an irrational hatred of Israel, which in response has developed nuclear weapons.

Also, nobody else is stepping up to the plate.

313 Girl with a Pearl Earring  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:18:22pm

re: #294 califleftyb

Thanks for posting that link.

314 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:18:24pm

this just all goes to show that it is a braver man than me who even attempts to solve the middle east.

315 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:19:48pm

re: #241 dragonfire1981

I am no huge Israel expert. Can someone briefly explain to me why Mid east peace between these peples is Americas responsibility?

It's not. But it is an important internal political football since a number of lobbies and political donor groups think it is.

316 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:20:43pm

re: #315 oaktree

We kind of ended up hold the bag when it comes to the Middle East after WWII.

317 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:21:11pm

re: #310 Cosmic X

They are the 1967 lines before the 1967 war. As I and others have already explained, the phrase "full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces " makes no sense if we are talking about after the 1967 war!

It makes perfect sense, Israel maintains military forces in land it controls but never annexed, like the West Bank.

318 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:21:51pm

re: #310 Cosmic X

They are the 1967 lines before the 1967 war. As I and others have already explained, the phrase "full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces " makes no sense if we are talking about after the 1967 war!

It would seem to me that this could refer to withdrawal of forces from the West Bank.


The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.

319 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:00pm

So how long should a clarification from the white house take? We have this big misunderstanding by just about everyone except right here.

320 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:11pm

NYT: As Obama Endorses ’67 Borders, Netanyahu Objects

President Obama’s endorsement on Thursday of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute based on the 1967 borders — the first time an American president has explicitly endorsed those borders as the baseline for negotiations over a Palestinian state — prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to push back and the Palestinian leadership to call an urgent meeting.


Ugh, I'm getting a headache

321 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:16pm

re: #230 Varek Raith

Did no one watch what Obama said?!?!

I caught it on the news later. Can you believe what he said?
///

322 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:30pm
Israeli intellectuals call for Palestinian state based on 1967 line
A group of prominent Israeli intellectuals and artists have come out in favour of creating a Palestinian state based on the 1967 line marking the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.

The 47 signatories include 17 recipients of the Israel Prize, the country's highest civilian honour. Among them are Shulamit Aloni, the civil rights pioneer, the actress Hannah Marom and Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer.

Their statement backs the Palestinian drive for recognition by the United Nations, in the absence of progress in peace talks with Israel. The Israeli government opposes the unilateral initiative.

The statement, released on Wednesday, calls for an Israeli pullout from the West Bank. It says, "The complete end of occupation is a fundamental condition for the freedom of both peoples."

The Israel laureates plan to sign the petition on Thursday, in a symbolic ceremony in front of the building where the state of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948.

I guess Drudge will say they all hate Israel also...

323 The Left  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:36pm

re: #308 Ericus58

Well everyone, I'm off line for probably the next 3 days.
My wife and I are jetting down to San Fran tonight.

Tomorrow is my Son's Commissioning Ceremony into the U.S. Army, and his graduation from USF (BS in Finance) is Saturday.

I'll find a way to share some pics.

Take care all.

Congratulations! Have a wonderful trip.

324 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:55pm

Reuters (as reported on France 24)...

Among the parameters he laid down was that any agreement creating a state of Palestine must be based on borders that existed before Israel captured the West Bank in a 1967 Arab-Israel war but “with mutually agreed swaps” of land.

[Link: www.france24.com...]

325 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:22:59pm

re: #319 Rightwingconspirator

So how long should a clarification from the white house take? We have this big misunderstanding by just about everyone except right here.

Hopefully soon. This is unbelievable.

326 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:23:31pm

re: #322 celticdragon

of course they do! They're INTELLECTUALS!!!

327 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:23:52pm

re: #316 ProLifeLiberal

We kind of ended up hold the bag when it comes to the Middle East after WWII.

Given the UK and French interference in Egypt in 1956 that isn't completely true.

The Cold War did play a large role since the ME was a useful place to fight the idealogical proxy war that went on for all those years.

328 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:24:05pm

re: #308 Ericus58

Well everyone, I'm off line for probably the next 3 days.
My wife and I are jetting down to San Fran tonight.

Tomorrow is my Son's Commissioning Ceremony into the U.S. Army, and his graduation from USF (BS in Finance) is Saturday.

I'll find a way to share some pics.

Take care all.

Congrats and best wishes to your son.

Tell him to "watch his six" out there...from a former Cav Trooper.

330 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:24:36pm

From Limbaugh's daily email:

President Obama Times His Speech on the Arab Spring
to Dodge Rush's Program (and to Give Away the Store)

If they need money, let them ask the Saudis. Why give $2B to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Iranian satellites?

Obama to Israel: Go Back to Your 1967 Borders
Bin Laden wishes he'd lived to see this day, folks.

Cornel West Calls Obama "a Black Mascot" and
"Puppet"; Peter Fonda Says Obama is a "Traitor"

It all makes Obama look centrist, so he loves it.

"The Arab Spring is an uprising against Israel, not a flowering of democracy." (Rush 24/7 Members: Listen)

How Rush Deals with Dunderheads: The whole point of satire is to put one over on some of the people.

The bold is as it was in the original.

331 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:25:02pm
332 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:25:59pm

re: #318 Simply Sarah


It would seem to me that this could refer to withdrawal of forces from the West Bank.

Those are the lines before the Six Day War, i.e. the 1949 Armistice lines!

333 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:26:10pm

Been trying to catch up here....and one question comes to mind!
What line the President intended to mean..Pre 67 or post 67 is totally
irrelevant!(Except to U.S.)
The Palestinians ie...Hamas,Hezbollah or the people themselves
WILL NOT EXCEPT ANY DEAL!
Name one peace treaty they have kept........Cease fire??
I hope this proves me wrong but history proves me right!
Shalom!!

334 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:27:10pm

Is it known who wrote the AP article everybody is running with?

335 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:27:46pm

re: #334 000G

Is it known who wrote the AP article everybody is running with?

Karl Rove?

336 califleftyb  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:27:56pm

re: #294 califleftyb

Nope, sorry, Charles you've got it wrong. The phrase 1967 lines has always implied the pre-war borders and are in fact the lines agreed upon in the 1949 armistice. Please note that President Obama then when on to say "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces..." If he is referring to the post-1967 war borders, please explain from where to where this withdrawal refers? The fact is the "mutual swaps" the President referred to is adjustments to the salient of Latrun and other minor adjustments.

For an excellent analysis of the history of the US position on this matter see:
[Link: www.defensibleborders.org...]

I want to add a clarification as the why the Obama speech is such a game changer. I think that Charles and others believe that it has ALWAYS been the US position - and that President Obama's is just reiterating it - that the US supports an Israeli withdrawal back to the pre-1967 borders with adjustments, and thus Pres. Obama's statement is no change at all and thus there has been an over-reaction. But this is NOT TRUE! The US position from President Johnson through Pres. GW Bush is that the final borders be based on "defensible borders". The US has NEVER used the pre-1967 borders as a framework, in fact it has been an evolving Israeli position that has moved it closer to this concept, but nevertheless the US has held that final borders need to be negotiated between the two parties. Thus for President Obama to now endorse what is basically the "Saudi plan" has taken the legs out from Israel to negotiate a settlement as it sees fit that meets it's security arrangements, as the Saudi Plan was a non-starter for Israel.

337 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:29:36pm

re: #334 000G

Is it known who wrote the AP article everybody is running with?

I was wondering the same thing. I haven't seen a byline anywhere yet.

338 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:30:14pm

re: #336 califleftyb

And you're getting this "pre-1967" stuff from where?

339 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:30:44pm

Haaretz is happy with the speech, thinks Netanyahu should be as well.

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

340 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:30:47pm

re: #337 makeitstop

I was wondering the same thing. I haven't seen a byline anywhere yet.

News agencies blurbs usually don't include author's names. But I think in this case there is some public interest.

341 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:31:06pm

How did Obama saying '1967 lines' get morphed into 'pre-1967 lines?'

Just wondering.

342 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:31:22pm

re: #332 Cosmic X

Those are the lines before the Six Day War, i.e. the 1949 Armistice lines!

That's not entirely true. That doesn't include the Golan Heights, for one.

343 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:31:46pm

so lets see.....AP, Reuters, CNN, NPR, FOX all seem to agree that Obama called for a return to the pre Six Day war borders, Netanyahu is having a wall-eyed fit, no correction from the White House, Arab world has made no denounciations yet........could we here at LGF be wrong on this?

344 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:32:06pm

re: #341 makeitstop

How did Obama saying '1967 lines' get morphed into 'pre-1967 lines?'

Just wondering.

Bad reporting from people who didn't watch the speech.

345 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:32:19pm

re: #336 califleftyb

He is some support:

But one Middle East scholar said Obama went further than any of his predecessors in outlining a vision for a Palestinian state. "It is very significant,” Robert Danin of the Council on Foreign Relations told Reuters. “For the first time, the United States has articulated what the territorial basis for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians should be and explicitly identified the pre (1967) Six-Day War line as the basis for the borders. This has never been done before ... This is a significant development and this is, in effect, an embrace of the Palestinian position on borders."
346 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:32:34pm

re: #336 califleftyb

How are you getting "Pre-1967" out of "1967"?

347 reine.de.tout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:32:57pm

re: #344 Killgore Trout

Bad reporting from people who didn't watch the speech.

And who never took a history course in their life.

348 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:33:45pm

re: #346 Obdicut

How are you getting "Pre-1967" out of "1967"?

That's the third time he/she has been asked.

It's driving me nuts over here.

349 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:33:47pm

re: #312 goddamnedfrank

It's in our own best economic interest to see that the oil continues to flow, the countries that control most of it have an irrational hatred of Israel, which in response has developed nuclear weapons.

Also, nobody else is stepping up to the plate.

Also, American voters have a visceral attachment to the place. Even if they've never been there and will never go there. We feel squirmy when it's under threat.

350 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:34:32pm

re: #343 Big Steve

so lets see...AP, Reuters, CNN, NPR, FOX all seem to agree that Obama called for a return to the pre Six Day war borders, Netanyahu is having a wall-eyed fit, no correction from the White House, Arab world has made no denounciations yet...could we here at LGF be wrong on this?

I don't think so. Obama reiterated 20 year old American policy. He didn't stumble, misspeak or use a wrong phrase. I would be very surprised if Obama's speech was intended as any policy shift on Israel or borders.

351 califleftyb  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:34:34pm

re: #315 oaktree

Your vacuous comment deserves a reply. What does the US get in return for friendship with Israel? Check out History. During the cold war the US was facing Communist hegemony on three fronts, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East and had to invest vast sums and fight wars to counter the Soviets on two of those fronts, but no American soldier was lost in the ME (other then through acts of Arab terrorism). It was Israel that paid the price for keeping the Soviets out, the Six Day war, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War were all proxy wars.

Today US military aid to Israel is earmarked for spending IN THE US, supporting US industries and creating jobs for Americans (not to mention Israel’s foreign currency reserves are invested in US government bonds). Americans don't support Israel because of the strength of any lobby; rather because both countries have shared values. Israel has earned American support the hard way and is in fact America's best friend

352 elizajane  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:34:40pm

Romney jumps on the "Obama Hates Israel" bandwagon:

"President Obama "disrespected" Israel and threw it "under the bus" in a wide-ranging speech on the Middle East on Thursday, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney charged.

Romney strongly criticized Obama, who, in a speech at the State Department, called for Israel to return to its border lines as drawn before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

[Link: thehill.com...]

353 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:35:28pm

re: #336 califleftyb

BZZZZ. Wrong.

Initially, the Clinton administration supported the idea of defensible borders in its January 17, 1997, letter by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But with the 2001 Clinton Parameters, the idea of defensible borders was dropped and replaced by "security guarantees." Indeed, Clinton proposed "an international presence in Palestine to provide border security along the Jordan Valley."

In contrast, Bush refers to defensible borders in the context of preserving and strengthening "Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself."

Obama's statement:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

That's along the lines of defensible borders - and not security guarantees as per the Clinton formulation.

Moreover, that ignores the specific use of 1967 rather than 1948 as a basis for a border or line.

354 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:35:41pm

re: #342 Simply Sarah

That's not entirely true. That doesn't include the Golan Heights, for one.

Correct, but tre: #343 Big Steve

he speech did not deal with the Syrians!

355 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:35:49pm

re: #342 Simply Sarah

That's not entirely true. That doesn't include the Golan Heights, for one.

That being said, however, I *am* somewhat unsure what distinction is being made here between pre and post lines, since you are correct in that if Gaza and the West Bank are on the table, there seems to be little difference in substance when talking about the Palestinians.

356 simoom  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:35:52pm

re: #336 califleftyb

I want to add a clarification as the why the Obama speech is such a game changer. I think that Charles and others believe that it has ALWAYS been the US position - and that President Obama's is just reiterating it - that the US supports an Israeli withdrawal back to the pre-1967 borders with adjustments, and thus Pres. Obama's statement is no change at all and thus there has been an over-reaction. But this is NOT TRUE! The US position from President Johnson through Pres. GW Bush is that the final borders be based on "defensible borders". The US has NEVER used the pre-1967 borders as a framework, in fact it has been an evolving Israeli position that has moved it closer to this concept, but nevertheless the US has held that final borders need to be negotiated between the two parties. Thus for President Obama to now endorse what is basically the "Saudi plan" has taken the legs out from Israel to negotiate a settlement as it sees fit that meets it's security arrangements, as the Saudi Plan was a non-starter for Israel.

From President George W. Bush's 2008 address:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

As we make progress toward security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to Sept. 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.

...

I've asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution building.

Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them.

This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognized borders.

We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror.

357 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:35:54pm

re: #351 califleftyb

What does the US get in return for friendship with Israel?

Why are you pretending that was the question that was asked?

358 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:36:19pm

re: #333 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY

The Palestinians ie...Hamas,Hezbollah or the people themselves
WILL NOT EXCEPT ANY DEAL!

That is what I am afraid of...and Palestinian intransigence in the past when they did get a good offer has made it pretty fucking unlikely that any Israeli leader will be willing to negotiate now.

Netanyahu is an asshole and probably a bigot. He doesn't give a shit how many non Israelis get hurt or squeezed off their own property or out of their livelihoods as long as the right people get nice streets and attractive homes.

But...the Palestinians shoved real fucking hard to put that asshole in there, didn't they...

They cut their own throats when they had an honest negotiating partner on the other side. Now, it will be years if not decades before they are given another chance like what they had 15 years ago.

359 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:36:34pm

re: #354 Cosmic X

Sorry, that comment got garbled!

360 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:37:07pm

re: #343 Big Steve

so lets see...AP, Reuters, CNN, NPR, FOX all seem to agree that Obama called for a return to the pre Six Day war borders, Netanyahu is having a wall-eyed fit, no correction from the White House, Arab world has made no denounciations yet...could we here at LGF be wrong on this?

No.

361 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:37:16pm

re: #356 simoom

Yep. I'm hearing that his use of 'occupation' was somehow unprecedented from blithering right-wingers, when that's always been the US terminology.

Sigh.

362 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:37:37pm

re: #350 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. Obama reiterated 20 year old American policy. He didn't stumble, misspeak or use a wrong phrase. I would be very surprised if Obama's speech was intended as any policy shift on Israel or borders.

I've looked around. He was saying this back in 2008 and 2009. There was nothing new at all in this speech.

363 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:37:54pm

re: #350 Killgore Trout

I don't think so. Obama reiterated 20 year old American policy. He didn't stumble, misspeak or use a wrong phrase. I would be very surprised if Obama's speech was intended as any policy shift on Israel or borders.


Probably you are right but then why make the speech?

364 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:38:13pm

re: #351 califleftyb

Israel has earned American support the hard way and is in fact America's best friend

Just a minor nitpick, but I'm not a fan of calling Israel our best friend over, say, Britain, who has actually shed blood with us many times over. Just sayin'.

365 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:38:44pm

re: #346 Obdicut

How are you getting "Pre-1967" out of "1967"?

Shut up, that's how!

366 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:38:54pm

re: #363 Big Steve

Probably you are right but then why make the speech?

Some things need to be repeated occasionally. Especially if there is any opening to implement a policy.

367 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:38:54pm

re: #363 Big Steve

Probably you are right but then why make the speech?

This was 1/1000th of this speech. Most of it was calling for more democracy in the Arab world, and calling many Arab nations onto the carpet.

The media's distortion of this into mainly an attack on Israel is bizarre.

368 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:39:14pm

re: #363 Big Steve

Probably you are right but then why make the speech?

It was more about voicing support for the popular revolutions and putting dictators on notice.

369 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:40:18pm

OT, but still about the president

Another reason I really, REALLY like this guy

370 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:40:33pm

re: #353 lawhawk

You both link to Dore Gold. Maybe we should get his comments on the speech.

371 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:40:40pm

re: #364 JasonA

Just a minor nitpick, but I'm not a fan of calling Israel our best friend over, say, Britain, who has actually shed blood with us many times over. Just sayin'.

No, I would not call Israel our best friend. We share common interests. England would be in the best friend category (as much as it pains me to say that as a Scot!)

372 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:40:58pm

The Christian Science Monitor has a good headline for the reaction:

In Obama's Middle East Speech, a little something for everyone to hate

373 RadicalModerate  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:41:02pm

re: #364 JasonA

Just a minor nitpick, but I'm not a fan of calling Israel our best friend over, say, Britain, who has actually shed blood with us many times over. Just sayin'.

I think a more accurate statement would be that the United States is Israel's best friend. However, this does not mean that the converse is true, even though they are a strong ally.

374 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:41:07pm

re: #363 Big Steve

It was meant to be a comprehensive speech on the ME, and this was the portion dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There shouldn't have been any controversy over these items, but apparently mentioning 1967 and line is turned into demands that Israel return to its 1948 border, which is clearly not what he stated.

Moreover, everyone is ignoring the actual policy change - which is that if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist they don't get a state. That's the strongest iteration of those comments by a President, whether it was Clinton, Bush or Obama.

375 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:41:41pm

re: #354 Cosmic X

Correct, but tre: #343 Big Steve

he speech did not deal with the Syrians!

Overall, it seems to mostly be about how it is being parsed. Obama was saying, it seemed, that we'd start with Gaza and the West Bank simply as a beginning location, but that there would be land exchanges involved so that all parties were happy (Good luck with that...), which isn't really a new concept. Whereas the media seems to be spinning it as Obama saying Israel needs to give up all of Gaza and the West Bank with nothing in return and no adjustments after the fact.

376 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:42:03pm

re: #371 celticdragon

How about, to ease your mind, we find another nation.

I advocate for Canada being the best friend, with Britain in a narrow second.

377 Obdicut  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:42:12pm

re: #374 lawhawk

Moreover, everyone is ignoring the actual policy change - which is that if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist they don't get a state. That's the strongest iteration of those comments by a President, whether it was Clinton, Bush or Obama.

Exactly. It's a recognition that that's the starting point, that if that isn't acknowledged, what the hell are we even talking about?

And that's getting ignored. By Netanyahu as well. That's disappointing.

378 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:42:24pm

re: #376 ProLifeLiberal

How about, to ease your mind, we find another nation.

I advocate for Canada being the best friend, with Britain in a narrow second.

LOL!

379 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:42:31pm

re: #368 Killgore Trout

It was more about voicing support for the popular revolutions and putting dictators on notice.


Again true but I for one have no problem with there being an exploration of borders with Israel and its neighbors and I kind of wish the President was signaling a change to US policy. Something needs to get everyone off the schnide.

380 Locker  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:44:22pm

We can pick our best friend from the list of powerful countries who joined our "multi-national force" to invade Iraq. I'm currently pulling for Moldova, Iceland or Estonia.

381 califleftyb  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:45:29pm

re: #356 simoom

If you are implying that "based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338," means return to the pre-1967 borders then you are wrong. Joseph P. Sisco, said: "I was engaged in the negotiation for months of that resolution. That resolution did not say 'total withdrawal.' The proposal said, 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,' not 'from the territories,' which means Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."
Who was Sisco? He wote Resolution 242 and 338!

382 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:45:59pm

re: #379 Big Steve

Again true but I for one have no problem with there being an exploration of borders with Israel and its neighbors and I kind of wish the President was signaling a change to US policy. Something needs to get everyone off the schnide.

I wouldn't give one square inch of land the Jews sit on right now....non-negotiable, period and forever

383 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:46:06pm

re: #147 Charles

I must disagree given the sheer extent of the "pre 67 borders" interpretation. A clarification that is bold and rapid only helps Israel, and US policy continuity.

384 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:46:21pm

re: #376 ProLifeLiberal

How about, to ease your mind, we find another nation.

I advocate for Canada being the best friend, with Britain in a narrow second.

Canada and Britain are good bros for sure, but South Korea is our best friend. Any country that follows your drunk ass into Vietnam is the one you want to go barhopping with.

385 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:46:39pm

re: #380 Locker

We can pick our best friend from the list of powerful countries who joined our "multi-national force" to invade Iraq. I'm currently pulling for Moldova, Iceland or Estonia.

They all sound like cool drinking buddies.

386 celticdragon  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:46:54pm

re: #384 goddamnedfrank

Canada and Britain are good bros for sure, but South Korea is our best friend. Any country that follows your drunk ass into Vietnam is the one you want to go barhopping with.

Win!

387 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:47:26pm

I think Walter Mead gets the speech about right:

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.

The President is nailing his colors to the mast of the Anglo-American revolutionary tradition. Open societies, open economies, religious freedom, minority rights: these are revolutionary ideas in much of the world. Americans have often been globally isolated as we stand for the rights of ordinary people (like immigrant African chambermaids in New York hotels) against the privilege of elites. A faith in the capacity of the common woman and the common man to make good decisions (and in their right to make those decisions even if they are sometimes wrong) is the basis of America’s political faith; President Obama proclaimed today that this needs to be the basis of our policy in the Middle East.

388 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:47:49pm

re: #384 goddamnedfrank

Canada and Britain are good bros for sure, but South Korea is our best friend. Any country that follows your drunk ass into Vietnam is the one you want to go barhopping with.

and the Aussies, the original tunnel rats...tough guys

389 Big Steve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:48:38pm

re: #382 albusteve

I wouldn't give one square inch of land the Jews sit on right now...non-negotiable, period and forever


then the current situation will persist....

390 prairiefire  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:49:00pm

re: #385 celticdragon

They all sound like cool drinking buddies.

Agreed. I think I could get absolutely hammered with Estonia.

391 Cosmic X  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:49:10pm

Official Response From Netanyahu to Obama’s Israel, Palestine 1967 Border Remarks

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a re-affirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines. Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace. Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

392 califleftyb  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:49:54pm

re: #364 JasonA

I can't argue against that (although burning the White House was kind of a lousy thing to do)

393 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:49:56pm

re: #384 goddamnedfrank

I'll give you that one.

394 simoom  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:51:45pm

re: #374 lawhawk

Moreover, everyone is ignoring the actual policy change - which is that if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist they don't get a state. That's the strongest iteration of those comments by a President, whether it was Clinton, Bush or Obama.

There also was the President's public rejection of the Palestinian UN-recognized-state strategy:

"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state."
395 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:52:48pm

re: #389 Big Steve

then the current situation will persist...

giving up land will not stop the problem...the Palistinians would rapidly fill up any land and move somehow to aquire more...most likely via belligerence

396 The Optimist  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:53:03pm
re: #164 martinsmithy

For me, the most important part of Obama's speech was this:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.


Yet somehow nobody's bother to report on that. That's a direct slap against Hamas-- and Fatah, to a lesser extent-- and to almost every other Arab nation. That's a strong call to account.

I agree totally. Do Palestinians want peace and prosperity? or do they want hatred and vengeance for past wars they started.

397 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:53:46pm

re: #392 califleftyb

I can't argue against that (although burning the White House was kind of a lousy thing to do)

Sometimes buddies can act like dicks. Look at Rick James and Charlie Murphy.

398 Locker  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:55:11pm

re: #397 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sometimes buddies can act like dicks. Look at Rick James and Charlie Murphy.

Bitch come over here and have sex with CHARLIE MURPHY!

399 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:56:01pm

re: #398 Locker

Bitch come over here and have sex with CHARLIE MURPHY!

UNITY!

400 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:56:39pm

re: #383 Rightwingconspirator

I must disagree given the sheer extent of the "pre 67 borders" interpretation. A clarification that is bold and rapid only helps Israel, and US policy continuity.

The snarkier the better in this case.....

Any earlier post suggested Jay Carney come out with a giant Power Point slide with the President's words on it and then just walking out. I might suggest the middle finger being raised the entire time as well

401 Slap  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:56:57pm

re: #384 goddamnedfrank

Canada and Britain are good bros for sure, but South Korea is our best friend. Any country that follows your drunk ass into Vietnam is the one you want to go barhopping with.

Are we talking All-Time Best Bros here? If we're not confined to that, I'd say that post-1945 Germany and Japan have been pretty damned good drinking buddies. (Cold War-era Germany, I dare say, was our BESTEST bud during those times.)

402 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:58:07pm

re: #148 lawhawk

Oslo left the issue up to the parties to figure. In that respect, the document was brilliant since it left the details to be negotiated over years into the future, rather than trying to resolve every last issue in one shot.

However, the fatal flaw for Oslo and every document since is that the Palestinians have continued to refuse to accept Israel's existence, and everything is predicated on that one thing - Israel can't have its security if the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's existence (which is one heck of a precondition).

If you want to divide up Jerusalem in some fashion, it's quite possible on paper. Internationalize the Old City, the Palestinians get East Jerusalem outside the Old City and Israel gets to annex the area up to the Old City walls. Within the Old City, the status quo is maintained as far as religious access and the rough borders where each of the quarters run.

It's possible to make those negotiations happen, and some in Israel will see this as blasphemy - giving up any hold on Jerusalem (seeing how it was all annexed under the Jerusalem law). That's a tough road to overcome, particularly in light of the fact that the Palestinians refuse Israel's existence even to this day (more than a 15 years after Oslo).

Sorry for late response, busy day.

Maybe I was mixing up the Camp David Accords with Oslo when I said that it went too far. (Hard to keep these things straight, but that's why we have you :>)

I'm of the ones who see blasphemy in dividing up Jerusalem. I don't want it. One other "small" detail (really the biggest of all) is who gets Jerusalem as capitol and that's something Israel can never give up. So even if they could divvy up the city as you say above, that will always be a point of contention.

403 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 1:58:21pm

re: #400 mr.fusion

The snarkier the better in this case...

Any earlier post suggested Jay Carney come out with a giant Power Point slide with the President's words on it and then just walking out. I might suggest the middle finger being raised the entire time as well

Singling out which news agency got it right and wrong would also be nice. The Press secretary can just point at each reporter, "Fuck you, Fuck you, You're cool, Fuck you".

404 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:00:25pm

re: #403 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Singling out which news agency got it right and wrong would also be nice. The Press secretary can just point at each reporter, "Fuck you, Fuck you, You're cool, Fuck you".

I approve of this approach 100%.

405 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:01:59pm

re: #403 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Singling out which news agency got it right and wrong would also be nice. The Press secretary can just point at each reporter, "Fuck you, Fuck you, You're cool, Fuck you".

I think that leases us with Charles, Sullivan, and Jeffrey Goldberg...

406 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:02:07pm

re: #148 lawhawk

What about a third option on Jerusalem?

407 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:02:10pm

re: #405 JasonA

leaves

408 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:03:24pm

re: #405 JasonA

I think that leases us with Charles, Sullivan, and Jeffrey Goldberg...

That works for me

409 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:04:14pm

re: #401 Slap

Are we talking All-Time Best Bros here? If we're not confined to that, I'd say that post-1945 Germany and Japan have been pretty damned good drinking buddies. (Cold War-era Germany, I dare say, was our BESTEST bud during those times.)

West Germany had the best beer for sure, but refused to go slumming and modern Germany almost wallows in its own shame (which is cool compared to Japan, but kind of a downer.) Japan's hilarious at first, but as it gets drunker it wants to debate the A-bomb and refuses to acknowledge its own past screwed up behavior. Total buzzkill.

410 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:04:42pm
411 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:06:13pm

Israel is the world's best friend. Military prowess and inventions, medical inventions, computer inventions, biotech, tech, environment. What's not to like?

412 Velvet Elvis  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:06:23pm

Are there any lefty sites celebrating the call for the return to the pre-1967 boarders? I checked a few and they are being sane.

413 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:06:42pm

OK, I'm going to admit that, as I've shaken the cobwebs out of my head and remembered what everything is again, I'm a bit confused at where the furor over the term pre-1967 or pre-war vs. post-war or 1967 or whatever.

As other people have pointed out, the major difference in territory before and after the war was taking control of Gaza and the West Bank. If we assume that those would, before any land swapping, be handed over to the Palestinians, what is the real difference between the two, outside of the obviously important exception of Jerusalem? Is that what the issue with the terms here is mostly stemming from?

414 The Optimist  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:07:16pm

Why Jerusalem as a palestinian capital? Locate their capital in any place in Gaza or the West Bank. Palestinians want Jerusalem because Israel has it and they want to steal it.

415 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:07:32pm

re: #410 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Rapture billboards make millions for non-profit

I'm kinda pissed it's on a Saturday. What a way to ruin a weekend. And if during the week, I would so want to call in sick on Rapture Day. "Can't come to work today. I'm waiting for the Rapture."

416 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:08:00pm

re: #410 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Rapture billboards make millions for non-profit

We'll need to update PT Barnum's estimate. Apparently, there's actually a sucker born every 23.3 seconds.

417 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:09:29pm

re: #414 Venezuela lover

Jerusalem is important in Islam as well. And Christianity. Which makes the whole issue real complicated.

418 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:09:31pm

re: #364 JasonA

Just a minor nitpick, but I'm not a fan of calling Israel our best friend over, say, Britain, who has actually shed blood with us many times over. Just sayin'.

I'd ship it.

419 PhillyPretzel  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:09:44pm

re: #411 marjoriemoon
There are some folks because of all that has been done by Israel they hate them for doing so much.

420 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:10:14pm

re: #416 makeitstop

We'll need to update PT Barnum's estimate. Apparently, there's actually a sucker born every 23.3 seconds.

Whatever. All I know is I'm off tomorrow and I'm going to max out the credit cards on strippers and booze in anticipation of Christ's apocalyptic return.

421 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:10:43pm

re: #418 jamesfirecat

I'd ship it.

Why did you make me click on that?

422 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:11:33pm

re: #415 marjoriemoon

I'm kinda pissed it's on a Saturday. What a way to ruin a weekend. And if during the week, I would so want to call in sick on Rapture Day. "Can't come to work today. I'm waiting for the Rapture."

We got a 20lb turkey on sale for $10 bucks and are having Thanksgiving 2 on Saturday.

423 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:11:53pm

re: #421 JasonA

Why did you make me click on that?

I don't get it..two guys making out, ship it?
wtf has that got to do with American allies?

424 Girl with a Pearl Earring  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:12:14pm

re: #410 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Harold Camping has done this before. And since he apparently believes it's going to happen THIS TIME, I'm sure he has updated his will and signed over all his earthly possessions to someone, right?

425 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:15:24pm

re: #423 albusteve

I don't get it..two guys making out, ship it?
wtf has that got to do with American allies?

He's telling me to write a story based on a sexual relationship. It's a fiction thing.

426 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:16:04pm

re: #423 albusteve

I don't get it..two guys making out, ship it?
wtf has that got to do with American allies?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

America

England

American and England (non shipping this time)

427 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:16:07pm

re: #421 JasonA

I knew what the picture would be about, just not its exact contents.

428 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:16:38pm

re: #421 JasonA

Why did you make me click on that?

I find argyle socks a little disturbing myself.

429 Romantic Heretic  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:16:47pm

re: #346 Obdicut

How are you getting "Pre-1967" out of "1967"?

Because Obama is an enemy of Israel therefor when he says "1967" he means "pre-1967".

Don't you know everyone speaks in code? /

430 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:17:08pm

re: #417 ProLifeLiberal

Jerusalem is important in Islam as well. And Christianity. Which makes the whole issue real complicated.

Important to Christians also, but will never carry the same weight as it does to Jews. Islam has Mecca as their holy of holies.

431 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:18:20pm

re: #417 ProLifeLiberal

Jerusalem is important in Islam as well. And Christianity. Which makes the whole issue real complicated.

Woop I kinda glazed over the Christian portion of your comment, but same applies.

432 freetoken  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:18:33pm

Over at the Discoverioid Blog, Casey Luskin launches into an attack of Gibberson's and Collins' latest book The Language of Science and Faith; Luskin's argument is essentially a standard creationist blather, not a covered up "intelligent design" argument, but an all out attack on that there can be shown to be any "macro" evolution.

Gibberson and Collins rightfully explains that the division between "macro" and "micro" is arbitrary, because any given number of generations into which one divides the lineage pretty much determines which is which.

The "intelligent design" proponents really need to drop the ruse. They don't even try to cover up their essentially creationism any more.

433 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:18:56pm

re: #422 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We got a 20lb turkey on sale for $10 bucks and are having Thanksgiving 2 on Saturday.

Such a deal! It's the deal of the century! Thank goodness, eh?

434 gwlaw99  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:21:21pm

The Green line is the 1948 Armistice line.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Obama didn't even mention the Green Line. He said "the 1967 lines."

Charles,
I agree the land swaps makes all the difference, but you are wrong about what the 1967 linesmeans . The 1967 line means the line BEFORE the 1967 war which is the same border as 1949. The END of the 1967 war resulted was Israel in control of the west bank and the Sinai.

435 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:21:48pm

re: #430 marjoriemoon

Important to Christians also, but will never carry the same weight as it does to Jews. Islam has Mecca as their holy of holies.

You once asked about Catholics and the Vatican in a similar discussion. The Catholics traditionally consider the Church of theHoly Sepulchre, in the Old City, the most important site in the world. That's why it could be used as the recruiting poster for the crusades. (Places, even the 'most important', are not as important as they are in other religions, though.)

436 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:21:50pm

re: #380 Locker

We can pick our best friend from the list of powerful countries who joined our "multi-national force" to invade Iraq. I'm currently pulling for Moldova, Iceland or Estonia.

Don't forget Poland!!

437 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:21:50pm

re: #432 freetoken

The "intelligent design" proponents really need to drop the ruse. They don't even try to cover up their essentially creationism any more.

Perhaps, after witnessing some success in a few states, they don't feel they need to anymore.

438 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:22:35pm

re: #379 Big Steve

Again true but I for one have no problem with there being an exploration of borders with Israel and its neighbors and I kind of wish the President was signaling a change to US policy. Something needs to get everyone off the schnide.

The land swaps along '67 lines has already been agreed to but it's not really the issue. Last time negotiations fell apart it was over Jerusalem as a Palestinian capitol and ownership of the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock.Even the much publicized "right of return" isn't a serious stumbling block in earnest negotiations.

439 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:23:14pm

re: #436 sagehen

Don't forget Poland!!

Our most reliable voting ally in the UN is probably the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

440 What, me worry?  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:26:29pm

re: #435 Decatur Deb

You once asked about Catholics and the Vatican in a similar discussion. The Catholics traditionally consider the Church of theHoly Sepulchre, in the Old City, the most important site in the world. That's why it could be used as the recruiting poster for the crusades. (Places, even the 'most important', are not as important as they are in other religions, though.)

Oh dear, you brought up THAT discussion! heh Well I was trying to impart the importance of other religions and their holy places, but no, I didn't realize that the Church of the Holy Sepluchre was more important than the Vatican. Is that something all Catholics recognize? I was in that church and was amazed by it. In fact, it's the only part of non-Jewish Israel that I have a vivid memory of. Quite impressive.

441 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:26:37pm

re: #422 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We got a 20lb turkey on sale for $10 bucks and are having Thanksgiving 2 on Saturday.

Try to get to the pumpkin pie before 6:00 PM.

442 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:26:55pm

re: #420 JasonA

Whatever. All I know is I'm off tomorrow and I'm going to max out the credit cards on strippers and booze in anticipation of Christ's apocalyptic return.

I'm going to find an empty church with a nice, heated baptism pool and claim it as a sovereign citizen. When the parishioners show up on Sunday I'll assume they're all post apocalyptic sinners and challenge them to some Thunderdome.

443 Olsonist  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:27:26pm

I haven't posted in quite some time. I got annoyed by some of the regulars. But I'm really impressed by the level of discussion.

Ok, so I bit on the 1967 borders vs lines as did does the NYTimes as of 2:22 PST. And it's good to get straightened out on that. It kinda reminds me of the SNL Weekend Update line: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Obama is reiterating long standing policy. Nothing to see here. Move along.

444 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:28:03pm

re: #433 marjoriemoon

Such a deal! It's the deal of the century! Thank goodness, eh?

.49 a pound if you had the discount card. Roast Turkey, homemade stuffing, mashed potatoes, and lima beans for me!

445 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:28:20pm

re: #411 marjoriemoon

Israel is the world's best friend. Military prowess and inventions, medical inventions, computer inventions, biotech, tech, environment. What's not to like?

After the Haiti earthquake, they were on the ground with a fully-functional mobile hospital (including fully-equipped operating rooms) within 24 hours. They offered tours to the relief workers from other countries, and handed out (free!) blueprints and equipment lists just in case anybody wants to copy them.

446 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:28:57pm

re: #443 Olsonist

I haven't posted in quite some time. I got annoyed by some of the regulars.

Do you have a link to back that up?

Kidding.

Welcome back.

447 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:30:37pm

Bryan Fischer loves him some Geert Wilders, gets his hate on


Our president appears to hate the Christian roots of America while being infatuated with the demonic domination that Islam represents.

The bottom line here is that if America does not seat someone in the Oval Office in 2012 who is aware of the dark dangers of Islam and who celebrates the superiority of Judeo-Christian culture over the backwardness of Islamic culture, we may run out of time to save Western civilization.

The steps I advocate are simple:

1. No more mosques, period. They are recruiting and training centers for jihad on American soil.

2. No more Muslim immigration to the United States. There is no such thing as moderate Islam. Islam itself is a dangerous infection, and every devout Muslim is a carrier.

3. No Muslims in the United States military. Remember Ft. Hood?

4. No sharia law, anywhere, under any circumstances, in the United States. The foundation of American jurisprudence is the Judeo-Christian tradition, not the Qur’an.

Lest you think I’m exaggerating the dangers, read the excerpts from Wilders’ talk that I have included below. It’s lengthy, but well worth the read. You can read the whole thing here.

448 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:32:09pm

re: #434 gwlaw99

The Green line is the 1948 Armistice line.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Obama didn't even mention the Green Line. He said "the 1967 lines."

Charles,
I agree the land swaps makes all the difference, but you are wrong about what the 1967 linesmeans . The 1967 line means the line BEFORE the 1967 war which is the same border as 1949. The END of the 1967 war resulted was Israel in control of the west bank and the Sinai.

No matter how you choose to define the "1967 lines," the fact is that the Green Line is essentially Israel's border today. The only part that wasn't within the Green Line is East Jerusalem, and this is clearly the reason for the statements about mutually agreed land swaps.

The most important point is that none of this is remotely new, or shocking, or outrageous. Obama merely restated the position the US has held for years.

449 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:32:10pm

re: #440 marjoriemoon

Oh dear, you brought up THAT discussion! heh Well I was trying to impart the importance of other religions and their holy places, but no, I didn't realize that the Church of the Holy Sepluchre was more important than the Vatican. Is that something all Catholics recognize? I was in that church and was amazed by it. In fact, it's the only part of non-Jewish Israel that I have a vivid memory of. Quite impressive.

Yes-- The Vatican is important as an administrative HQ, but the only religiously-important event there is the martyrdom and burial of the first pope. The most important event theologically was the death and resurrection, both located on the Holy Sepulchre site. (When we visited St. Peter's in the Vatican I told the kids: "This is the building that destroyed Christendom." It's construction costs were a symbol of everything going wrong in Renaissance Christianity.)

450 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:33:27pm

re: #423 albusteve

I don't get it..two guys making out, ship it?
wtf has that got to do with American allies?

"Hetalia" is a manga where each character is an anthropomorphized representation of a country. The two in that pic are the US and UK.

451 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:34:15pm

re: #449 Decatur Deb

Yes-- The Vatican is important as an administrative HQ, but the only religiously-important event there is the martyrdom and burial of the first pope. The most important event theologically was the death and resurrection, both located on the Holy Sepulchre site. (When we visited St. Peter's in the Vatican I told the kids: "This is the building that destroyed Christendom." It's construction costs were a symbol of everything going wrong in Renaissance Christianity.)

Seeing the many gold objects on display there did not improve my attitude towards the Church...

452 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:34:34pm

Plus, a double dose of Fischer: Homosexuals are nazis

“The homosexual agenda is just like Islam: there is no room for dissent, there is no room to leave, once you’re in, you can’t leave. Muslims won’t let you leave, homosexuals won’t let you leave — if you leave, they claim you’re faking it, so there’s no way out. There’s no freedom of choice, there’s no freedom of religion — if you have religious views about homosexual behavior, you are squashed.

“I mean, ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Homosexual activists, when it comes to freedom of speech, are Nazis. When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism. You criticize homosexual behavior, they tag you as a bigot and a homophobe and then they got to work to silence you just like the Roman Catholic Church did in the days of Galileo — it’s no different; it’s the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

“Ladies and gentlemen, they are Nazis. Do not be under any illusions about what homosexual activists will do with your freedoms and your religion if they have the opportunity. They’ll do the same thing to you that the Nazis did to their opponents in Nazi Germany.’

453 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:35:18pm

Ok. I think I found the origin of the '67 borders outrage:
Pajamas Media - Is Obama planning to call on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders?
(published 2 days ago)

According to Yedioth Ahronoth, Obama will call on Israel to withdraw to the 1967 cease-fire lines with territorial adjustments that will be agreed on in the negotiations with the Palestinian National Authority. The president will label the West Bank settlements as “illegal” and emphasize that Israel must halt their construction.

Yedioth Ahronoth is an Israeli Tabloid....

It is published in tabloid format[citation needed], and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis."[7] It has been described as "undoubtedly the country's number-one paper."[2] The paper is open to a wide range of political views.[1]

454 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:37:11pm

re: #448 Charles

No matter how you choose to define the "1967 lines," the fact is that the Green Line is essentially Israel's border today. The only part that wasn't within the Green Line is East Jerusalem, and this is clearly the reason for the statements about mutually agreed land swaps.

The most important point is that none of this is remotely new, or shocking, or outrageous. Obama merely restated the position the US has held for years.

Not only that, but Israel incorporated and annexed East Jerusalem in 1967. Combined with his stated prerequisite that the Palestinians must accept Israel's right to exist his statement of 1967 lines is pretty strong. He may actually be coming out in favor of recognizing the annexation, which would be a new US position.

455 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:37:22pm

re: #453 Killgore Trout

Ok. I think I found the origin of the '67 borders outrage:
Pajamas Media - Is Obama planning to call on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders?
(published 2 days ago)

Yedioth Ahronoth is an Israeli Tabloid...

Oh. So the spontaneous outrage was planned a couple of days ago. Figures.

456 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:37:47pm

re: #447 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He's the 3rd most disgusting American currently. He's a disgrace to the nation.

Can we deport him?

457 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:38:02pm

re: #452 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"When it comes to freedom of religion, they are Nazis. There is no room in their world dissent, there is no room in their world for disagreement, there is no room in their world for criticism".

*AHEM!*

458 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:38:45pm

re: #451 wrenchwench

Seeing the many gold objects on display there did not improve my attitude towards the Church...

That's only the gold they got back after the French plundered the Papal States a couple times. The Church was on the gold standard long before Ron Paul.

459 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:38:53pm

re: #453 Killgore Trout

Ok. I think I found the origin of the '67 borders outrage:
Pajamas Media - Is Obama planning to call on Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders?
(published 2 days ago)

Yedioth Ahronoth is an Israeli Tabloid...

So, My guess would be is that AP and possibly Fox had their outrageous headlines prepared ahead of time based on the rumor. As soon as they heard "67 borders mentioned in the speech they just published their pre-prepared material. The rest of the media just kept repeating the bogus headlines without checking.

460 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:39:13pm

re: #457 Slumbering Behemoth

*AHEM!*

Why, that appears to be black.

461 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:40:11pm

re: #460 wrenchwench

Why, that appears to be black.

At least he's got something to pee in.

462 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:41:02pm

Heh...Gingrich still trying to unspin his web of retardation...

GINGRICH: By the way, it was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer.

LIMBAUGH: Well then what did you apologize to him about?

GINGRICH: Because it was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble, which he doesn’t need or deserve.

Oh, that's it...completely unrelated topic.

463 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:41:37pm

OT: But the older I get, the more I look like this dude when I crawl out of bed in the morning. I guess I need to start cultivating a cruel surliness.

464 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:41:38pm

re: #462 darthstar

Heh...Gingrich still trying to unspin his web of retardation...

Oh, that's it...completely unrelated topic.

Impressive that a man of his girth can twist so well.

465 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:41:40pm

re: #461 darthstar

That would be torturing the pot.

466 Olsonist  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:43:07pm

re: #446 wrenchwench

467 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:43:43pm

re: #462 darthstar

He was clearly talking about this Ryan.

468 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:44:18pm

re: #455 JasonA

Oh. So the spontaneous outrage was planned a couple of days ago. Figures.

I figured something was up. Everybody bit on the Outrage a little too quickly.

469 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:44:28pm

re: #463 Slumbering Behemoth

OT: But the older I get, the more I look like this dude when I crawl out of bed in the morning. I guess I need to start cultivating a cruel surliness.

The only cure for the stubble is to quit shaving all together.

470 Locker  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:44:30pm

Lawyer: "Black! Did you say black!? You called him black!?"
Cartman: "He is black."
Lawyer: "See! He said it again!"

471 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:44:39pm

re: #410 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Rapture billboards make millions for non-profit


"Complex bible arithmetic."


I don't know about you, but I always use allegorical stories in my mathematical equations.

472 freetoken  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:45:01pm

One more OT note from today: Looks like Kentucky loves Ham:

Ark Encounter gets approval for $43 million tax break, but Ken Ham is Already Compromised (UPDATE)

I just returned from Frankfort, where the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority just unanimously approved up to $43 million in tax breaks for Ken Ham to build a giant boat with dinosaurs that a 600-year old man herded onto it, plus an estimated $11 million in tax payer money to build road improvements for it.

[...]

473 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:45:46pm

re: #464 JasonA

Impressive that a man of his girth can twist so well.

Ever seen Sammo Hung in action?

474 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:45:55pm

re: #466 Olsonist

[Video]

Nice! The Garrett Morris hard-of-hearing interpretation, PLUS subtitles!

475 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:46:41pm

re: #455 JasonA

Oh. So the spontaneous outrage was planned a couple of days ago. Figures.

I remember Fox pushed the "publish" button too early on a story once, criticizing President Obama for a speech before he even gave it or talking about how McCain beat him in a debate before it happened...something like that. Funny when that happens...shows they have no bias.

476 Locker  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:47:13pm

Hey CNN welcome to the misquote party. These morons even include the quote which makes their headline invalid:

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
[Link: us.cnn.com...]

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," Obama continued.

Gee no PRE in there anywhere other than the addition by CNN.

477 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:47:31pm

Obama clarifies....
President Obama Talks More About Israel’s Borders With BBC As Republicans Attack

To the BBC, the president said, "the basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognizing that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides. That's on the one hand and on the other hand, and this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel is going to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank and that security element is going to be important to the Israelis.”

The president said that the Israelis "will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they have seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah."

478 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:48:59pm

re: #472 freetoken

One more OT note from today: Looks like Kentucky loves Ham:

Ark Encounter gets approval for $43 million tax break, but Ken Ham is Already Compromised (UPDATE)

You gotta love a bible-themed tax shelter...and when the project fails to launch, but the tax breaks have been exercised, it'll still be a great capital write off for him.

479 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:50:45pm

Will Budget Cuts Leave Us Unprepared for Zombie Apocalypse?

"So what do you need to do before zombies…or hurricanes or pandemics for example, actually happen? First of all, you should have an emergency kit in your house," Dr.Ali S. Khan, assistant surgeon general of the United States, wrote in a blog on CDC's web site. "This includes things like water, food, and other supplies to get you through the first couple of days before you can locate a zombie-free refugee camp."

While the zombie stuff may be tongue-in-cheek, the overall message is serious: It's critical to be ready for real disasters -- from storms to diseases to terrorist attacks. The problem, experts say, is that no matter how many earthquakes, floods or other disasters happen, people still don't make an effort to prepare for them.

"Numerous studies have shown that uptake of preparedness messages has been minimal," said Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York. "We haven't gotten much above 10 of 15 percent of the public being aware of the need for preparedness." Redlener said other pressures, such as the economy, unemployment and day-to-day challenges make it difficult for people to focus on preparedness.

Khan said he hopes the blog can change that.

"We hope that it's translating into more people understanding what the role of public health is and that they have a personal responsibility for preparing for disasters." Using the zombie apocalypse scenario, he said, was an effort to get people engaged to get ready for hurricane season, which starts June 1.

The readiness message is especially important, experts say, in light of federal budget cuts that slashed more than $100 million from public health preparedness programs when they say much more money is needed.

480 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:51:41pm

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that Drunken Pam at Atlas Shrieks has a take on this subject.

MIDEAST SPEECH: OBAMA'S JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL
A MOMENT OF RUINATION, WEAKNESS AND BETRAYAL.

Good grief.

481 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:51:54pm

re: #472 freetoken

One more OT note from today: Looks like Kentucky loves Ham:

Ark Encounter gets approval for $43 million tax break, but Ken Ham is Already Compromised (UPDATE)

That was a fun read.

I spoke with Gil Lawson (KY's Tourism spokesperson) and asked if there was any concern about damaging the reputation of Kentucky by giving a government stamp of approval and tax breaks/funding towards building a giant boat with dinosaurs on it. He claimed that it shouldn't be an issue, because there are lots of different successful parks, including ones that have talking mice with big ears. The only problem with that line of thinking, though, is that a park with a talking mouse is presented as fantasy, and it's also more plausible than a 600-year old man herding a saddled T-Rex onto a giant boat a few thousand years ago. So there's that.

The paragraphs before and after that one are just as good. Haven't watched the videos yet.

482 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:52:48pm

Christian Science Monitor gets the award for the first MSM outlet to get it right....
Obama's speech a 'historic shift' on Israel and Palestine? No.

483 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:53:49pm
484 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:54:33pm

re: #472 freetoken

Ark Encounter gets approval for $43 million tax break, but Ken Ham is Already Compromised (UPDATE)

I just returned from Frankfort, where the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority just unanimously approved up to $43 million in tax breaks for Ken Ham to build a giant boat with dinosaurs that a 600-year old man herded onto it, plus an estimated $11 million in tax payer money to build road improvements for it.


So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

485 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:55:31pm

re: #483 darthstar

"Hand over your money or I'm gonna split your... dude, WTF"?

486 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:55:33pm

re: #484 BongCrodny

So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

They turned into birds, but you have to believe in evolution to believe that.

487 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:56:13pm

re: #484 BongCrodny

So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs are part of the sekrit, socialist conspiracy created by Obama to discredit God.

488 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:56:22pm

re: #483 darthstar

Discuss

I don't get it. Is it shopped? huh?

489 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:57:10pm

re: #484 BongCrodny

So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs were flakes. They got the memo but decided to go surfing instead.

490 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:57:17pm

re: #482 Killgore Trout

Christian Science Monitor gets the award for the first MSM outlet to get it right...
Obama's speech a 'historic shift' on Israel and Palestine? No.

I've found that CSM is usually very balanced and bias free in their reporting.

491 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:57:35pm

re: #484 BongCrodny

So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

See my Avatar.

492 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:58:36pm

re: #491 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

See my Avatar.

Brilliant.

493 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:59:06pm

re: #483 darthstar

Discuss


I could use one of those.re: #491 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

See my Avatar.

That's awesome. I love the shovel.

494 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 2:59:14pm
495 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:00:17pm

re: #484 BongCrodny

So if Noah led them onto the Ark, then what the fuck happened to the dinosaurs?

I was gonna post something from "Answers in Genesis", but reading that treacle has turned my brain into fetid mud.

496 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:00:57pm

At the same time Drudge implies that Obama is outright anti-Israel, you've got several neoconservatives praising his speech, at least to the extent that they think it sounds just like something Bush would have delivered.

This phony controversy will be over tomorrow when Netanyahu and Obama say something along the lines of, "We're having productive talks and moving forward."

497 freetoken  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:01:20pm

re: #494 darthstar

A couple of days ago while walking home from the store a loud noise erupted from the street corner - a street preacher was in full bark mode (quite a loud and strong voice), which could be heard from a block away. Waving what appeared to be a Bible, in full on damnation mode. Hadn't seen one of those is quite a while.

Wonder how weird it will get tomorrow?

498 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:01:25pm

Catholic Church blames pedophilia on hippies

the report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s.

Known occurrences of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.

The “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and by Pope Benedict XVI after it erupted in Europe in 2010.

But this study is likely to be regarded as the most authoritative analysis of the scandal in the Catholic Church in America. The study, initiated in 2006, was conducted by a team of researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City at a cost of $1.8 million. About half was provided by the bishops, with additional money contributed by Catholic organizations and foundations. The National Institute of Justice, the research agency of the United States Department of Justice, supplied about $280,000.

499 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:01:25pm

Kiwi pops
Image: Iwpbi.jpg

Would work for bananas too

500 BongCrodny  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:01:43pm

"Noah, you simply have to get rid of those things. There's dinosaur shit everywhere."

501 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:02:55pm

re: #496 palomino

At the same time Drudge implies that Obama is outright anti-Israel, you've got several neoconservatives praising his speech, at least to the extent that they think it sounds just like something Bush would have delivered.

This phony controversy will be over tomorrow when Netanyahu and Obama say something along the lines of, "We're having productive talks and moving forward."

The story has been so widely misreported that I'm afraid the damage has already been done.

502 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:05:03pm

"If you believe a 600 year old man could find enough wood to build a boat big enough to house two of every animal to ever exist, along with all the food and freshwater those animals would need, you might be a creationist".

503 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:06:26pm

re: #502 Slumbering Behemoth

"If you believe a 600 year old man could find enough wood to build a boat big enough to house two of every animal to ever exist, along with all the food and freshwater those animals would need, you might be a creationist".

I'm too lazy to get that done in seven hundred years!

504 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:06:54pm

re: #501 Killgore Trout

The story has been so widely misreported that I'm afraid the damage has already been done.

look at Drudges header now....hahaha!
what a bunch of pimps

505 freetoken  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:07:35pm

re: #501 Killgore Trout

And this is why politicians, when they are on their game, keep statements simple, using no more than 10th grade English, and repeat their words often. Short sentences (much shorter than the Germanic grammar can allow) help.

Instant squawk machines can and will contort pretty much anything. Given that the religious right & glibertarians have sold the idea that Obama is the incarnation of evil ever since before he was nominated it is to be expected that they'll take every word he utters and try to make it a further proof.

506 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:07:47pm

BIBI SOCKS BO IN THE JAW!

507 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:08:11pm

re: #497 freetoken

A couple of days ago while walking home from the store a loud noise erupted from the street corner - a street preacher was in full bark mode (quite a loud and strong voice), which could be heard from a block away. Waving what appeared to be a Bible, in full on damnation mode. Hadn't seen one of those is quite a while.

Wonder how weird it will get tomorrow?

Just in case the world doesn't actually end tomorrow, what are these charlatan preachers gonna tell their parishoners? Should make for some humorous spin on these mistaken predictions.

508 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:09:31pm

re: #504 albusteve

look at Drudges header now...hahaha!
what a bunch of pimps

Ugh.

509 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:09:57pm

re: #507 palomino

Just in case the world doesn't actually end tomorrow, what are these charlatan preachers gonna tell their parishoners? Should make for some humorous spin on these mistaken predictions.

"Thanks for the millions. You can piss off now".

510 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:10:51pm

re: #507 palomino

Just in case the world doesn't actually end tomorrow, what are these charlatan preachers gonna tell their parishoners? Should make for some humorous spin on these mistaken predictions.

it's God's will...we must do more, send in the checks

511 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:11:11pm

re: #501 Killgore Trout

The story has been so widely misreported that I'm afraid the damage has already been done.

Maybe, but I don't think a lot of rational people will suddenly start believing that Obama is a closet Muslim who hates Israel. People inclined to believe such BS already arrived at their erroneous conclusion a long time ago.

512 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:11:49pm

re: #507 palomino

Just in case the world doesn't actually end tomorrow, what are these charlatan preachers gonna tell their parishoners? Should make for some humorous spin on these mistaken predictions.

"Whoops, misplaced a decimal point. No harm done. You can read all about it in my new book, 'Judgement day 2021'"

513 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:12:09pm

re: #507 palomino

Just in case the world doesn't actually end tomorrow, what are these charlatan preachers gonna tell their parishoners? Should make for some humorous spin on these mistaken predictions.

'Pray harder. And send more money.'

514 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:13:46pm

re: #513 makeitstop

'Pray harder. And send more money.'

LIGHTS...CAMERA...SILENCE ON THE SET...

515 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:13:47pm

Did anyone figure out the Louis Vuitton head? Really, I need an explanation.

516 gwlaw99  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:14:55pm

"No matter how you choose to define the "1967 lines," the fact is that the Green Line is essentially Israel's border today. The only part that wasn't within the Green Line is East Jerusalem, and this is clearly the reason for the statements about mutually agreed land swaps.

The most important point is that none of this is remotely new, or shocking, or outrageous. Obama merely restated the position the US has held for years."

I am not quibling with Obama. I am quibling with your misunderstanding of the meaning of land swaps and the meaning of thethe Green line which is not "essentially" Israel's border -- that is the whole crux of the issue. When Palestinians refer to the green line or the 1967 border, they explicitly mean the removal of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from towns just over the green line the west bank. Towns where no Palestinian has ever lived nor was ever part of any arab country. So it is important to undestand that land swaps refers to keeping the Israeli towns just over the green line in exchange for land that is on the Israeli side of the green line. It really has nothing to do with Jerusalem which is another issue entirely.

517 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:15:59pm

re: #515 Stanley Sea

Did anyone figure out the Louis Vuitton head? Really, I need an explanation.

Gross photoshop, is my 2 cents.

518 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:16:27pm

re: #504 albusteve

look at Drudges header now...hahaha!
what a bunch of pimps

OMFG it's in red!

.....i pray we don't reach "blaring siren" level soon

519 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:17:47pm

re: #518 mr.fusion

OMFG it's in red!

...i pray we don't reach "blaring siren" level soon

They're saving that for when Obama calls them out for misrepresenting him.

520 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:19:00pm

re: #519 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're saving that for when Obama calls them out for misrepresenting him.

Or as I think it'll be worded, "Obama Flip-flops on Israel!"

521 odorlesspaintthinner  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:19:22pm

I don't think the directors of Pallywood have even the first intention of abiding by the rules no matter what borders are agreed on. The major point here is that Obama made a speech the day before Netanyahu is scheduled to arrive and issued details which he did not clear with the Prime Minister of our ally, forcing him to issue an immediate repudiation. This is bad diplomacy at best, a snake-like move at worst. Obama has made it a policy to publicly muscle Netanyahu for the benefit of the Muslim world he is so desperate to court. It's failed in the past, why would it succeed now?

522 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:19:50pm

re: #520 JasonA

Or as I think it'll be worded, "Obama Flip-flops on Israel!"

Exactly what I was going to post.

They really are that predictable.

523 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:20:40pm

re: #520 JasonA

Or as I think it'll be worded, "Obama Flip-flops on Israel!"

I'm going with the term "back tracks". That seems to be the buzzword of the day.

524 freetoken  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:20:46pm

re: #521 odorlesspaintthinner

Sorry for you... but the United States doesn't have to run by any foreign leader the already established foreign policy of this nation.

You're just looking for a way to hate on the President.

525 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:21:12pm

re: #515 Stanley Sea

Did anyone figure out the Louis Vuitton head? Really, I need an explanation.

Art.

526 Mocking Jay  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:21:33pm

re: #521 odorlesspaintthinner

Huh. I'm too dumb to figure out which details Obama spoke of that haven't been a part of our policy for the last decade plus. Could you explain it to me?

527 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:21:36pm

re: #521 odorlesspaintthinner

I don't think the directors of Pallywood have even the first intention of abiding by the rules no matter what borders are agreed on. The major point here is that Obama made a speech the day before Netanyahu is scheduled to arrive and issued details which he did not clear with the Prime Minister of our ally, forcing him to issue an immediate repudiation. This is bad diplomacy at best, a snake-like move at worst. Obama has made it a policy to publicly muscle Netanyahu for the benefit of the Muslim world he is so desperate to court. It's failed in the past, why would it succeed now?

please post the repudiation, thanks

528 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:24:00pm

re: #525 Decatur Deb

Art.

You forgot a word. Bad Art.

529 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:25:49pm

re: #525 Decatur Deb

Art.

I thought it looked like Art, but it was kinda hard to tell without seeing his face.

/

530 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:27:02pm

re: #525 Decatur Deb

Art.

It's an illustration of the familiar phrase "more money than brains".

531 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:27:18pm

re: #518 mr.fusion

OMFG it's in red!

...i pray we don't reach "blaring siren" level soon

Image: douchebag_drudge_siren_alert_to_an_outrageous_nontroversy..gif

532 Haikugoalie  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:33:23pm

the sixty seven lines
means what you make them to mean
therein is the rub


if the MB gains
control of Egypt, hope for peace
is lost for decades

533 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:35:20pm

re: #516 gwlaw99

"No matter how you choose to define the "1967 lines," the fact is that the Green Line is essentially Israel's border today. The only part that wasn't within the Green Line is East Jerusalem, and this is clearly the reason for the statements about mutually agreed land swaps.

The most important point is that none of this is remotely new, or shocking, or outrageous. Obama merely restated the position the US has held for years."

I am not quibling with Obama. I am quibling with your misunderstanding of the meaning of land swaps and the meaning of thethe Green line which is not "essentially" Israel's border -- that is the whole crux of the issue. When Palestinians refer to the green line or the 1967 border, they explicitly mean the removal of hundreds of thousands of Israelis from towns just over the green line the west bank. Towns where no Palestinian has ever lived nor was ever part of any arab country. So it is important to undestand that land swaps refers to keeping the Israeli towns just over the green line in exchange for land that is on the Israeli side of the green line. It really has nothing to do with Jerusalem which is another issue entirely.

You can quibble all you like, but you're not making sense. Neither President Obama nor anyone else mentioned the Green Line today. I know very well what Palestinians mean when they talk about the Green Line, but what does that have to do with any of this?

Pretty obviously, the status of Jerusalem would have to be part of whatever agreement is mutually reached.

This is such a non-issue, I find it amazing that people are getting worked up about it. It's been US policy for at least 10 years.

534 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:36:33pm

re: #459 Killgore Trout

So, My guess would be is that AP and possibly Fox had their outrageous headlines prepared ahead of time based on the rumor. As soon as they heard "67 borders mentioned in the speech they just published their pre-prepared material. The rest of the media just kept repeating the bogus headlines without checking.

I think that is pretty close to the mark, except that media outlets were not basing today's reports on a rumor. Rather, and far more likely, key media outlets received background briefings by administration officials in advance -- hence, the source of the rumors on which Yediot based its story. In addition, AP and other wire services almost certainly had their "theme" set, given their reflexist propagandizing for the anti-Israel cause and their related desire to try and make Prime Minister Netanyahu look bad before he meets with President Obama. As for Fox, they have become as predictably reflexive in their approach to events as CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, et al., are in their reporting.

535 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:39:06pm

re: #477 Killgore Trout

Obama clarifies...
President Obama Talks More About Israel’s Borders With BBC As Republicans Attack

This is why, much as I despise the BBC and its anti-Israel bias, I find myself abandoning American media outlets and turning to the BBC for news.

536 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:41:01pm

re: #535 sliv_the_eli

This is why, much as I despise the BBC and its anti-Israel bias, I find myself abandoning American media outlets and turning to the BBC for news.

This has been a huge mass fail for the vast majority of media outlets worldwide. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

537 Renaissance_Man  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:42:03pm

re: #511 palomino

Maybe, but I don't think a lot of rational people will suddenly start believing that Obama is a closet Muslim who hates Israel. People inclined to believe such BS already arrived at their erroneous conclusion a long time ago.

No, probably not. But they will believe that Obama and Democrats are not good friends of Israel. They'll believe it because it will become 'common knowledge'.

That's the real harm in all of this relentless, endless spin. It does the country no further damage to make an angry wingnut angrier. Such people are already addicted to their rage, and will believe anything - anything - if it furthers their preconceived notions. The real damage is in the repetition, the way repeating falsehoods makes them become accepted as 'common knowledge'. After a time, even non-cultists will believe one or two of these falsehoods, simply because nobody has the time or inclination to go seeking the truth about everything they hear.

538 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:45:19pm

'Taxi' star Jeff Conaway hospitalized in a coma


Jeff Conaway's manager says the former star of "Taxi" and "Grease" is in a coma following a drug overdose, possibly from pain pills. Manager Phil Brock says the 60-year-old actor was found unconscious on May 11. He is hospitalized in critical condition.

Brock says Conaway is in a coma in an Encino, Calif., hospital and his recovery is uncertain. The name of the hospital was not disclosed.

539 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:45:49pm

re: #538 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

'Taxi' star Jeff Conaway hospitalized in a coma

I saw that.
Damn.

540 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:46:18pm

re: #536 Killgore Trout

This has been a huge mass fail for the vast majority of media outlets worldwide. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

dysfunction junction...everywhere I look around me I see a bad moon...America seems to have some sort of macabre death wish....I'm so glad that my money is secure and I'm hunkered down

541 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:46:39pm

re: #533 Charles

This is such a non-issue, I find it amazing that people are getting worked up about it. It's been US policy for at least 10 years.

Obama said it. That's enough to trigger all the outrageous outrage.

542 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:48:30pm

re: #535 sliv_the_eli

This is why, much as I despise the BBC and its anti-Israel bias, I find myself abandoning American media outlets and turning to the BBC for news.

That and after watching enough Monty Python` in the recent past, anything said in a British Accent automatically becomes funny.

543 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:50:24pm

I hate to do this but you've got to give Ed Morissey over at hotair some credit:

Link

Update: I’m not sure how the AP came up with this:

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.

Er … no, he didn’t. He said that the settlement should “be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” That’s been the US position for quite a while.

Update II: Seriously, how the Associated Press could make this kind of a mistake is beyond me. Not only is this point clear in the text, Obama delivered it accurately as well.

544 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:51:07pm

re: #543 mr.fusion

I hate to do this but you've got to give Ed Morissey over at hotair some credit:

Link

I scroll, therefore I am

545 boxhead  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:52:49pm

re: #542 jamesfirecat

That and after watching enough Monty Python` in the recent past, anything said in a British Accent automatically becomes funny.

And now for something completely different.

546 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:52:54pm

re: #540 albusteve

dysfunction junction...everywhere I look around me I see a bad moon...America seems to have some sort of macabre death wish...I'm so glad that my money is secure and I'm hunkered down

I'm starting to question my own sanity. After all these hours they're still at it...
Jake Trapper : The U.S. Policy Shift on 1967 Borders Explained

Now, President Obama has placed the United States closer to the Palestinian camp and endorsed their aspirations of a state along those pre-1967 lines.

MSNBC: Analysis: Palestinians win Obama '67 lines mention
I wonder if this is a moronic convergence. The wingnuts want to believe that Obama is turning on Israel and siding with the Palestinians and the lefties want Obama to turn on Israel and support the Palestinians.
Neither side has any interest in reporting what Obama actually said.

547 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:53:13pm

re: #543 mr.fusion

I hate to do this but you've got to give Ed Morissey over at hotair some credit:

Link

How long before the folks at Hot Air start calling for a lynching of Ed?

548 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:53:48pm

re: #547 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

How long before the folks at Hot Air start calling for a lynching of Ed?

His audience isn't buying it.

549 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:54:05pm

On this matter, I believe Obama hits the nail on the head.

He is right to stipulate the 67 demarcation lines a starting point for border negotiations. Where else to begin- the 48 lines?

What we are seeing from both Israel and the Arab world was entirely predictable. Everyone is posturing, no is happy. I could care less for thge theater.

I say this as an ardent defender of Israel.

Charles take on the matter and the phony outrage is right on the money- no reservations whatsoever. More than anyone else, he has insight on the matter.

Mr Obama, more than any of his recent predecessors, has chosen to address the matter in the most substantive of terms. Further, he has initiated a conversation that cannot be reduced to sound bites or slogans.

He expects all the parties ti behave like adults= a most refreshing turn of events in this highly charged environment. Hes agenda is neither left nor right on this matter.

He has chosen the moral path.

550 mr.fusion  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:55:13pm

re: #548 Killgore Trout

His audience isn't buying it.

Exactly......they're basically pretending the "updates" to his post never even happened

Actually more likely is they aren't even reading the post, just typing away in a furious rage after seeing the headline

551 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:55:46pm

re: #546 Killgore Trout

I'm starting to question my own sanity. After all these hours they're still at it...
Jake Trapper : The U.S. Policy Shift on 1967 Borders Explained

MSNBC: Analysis: Palestinians win Obama '67 lines mention
I wonder if this is a moronic convergence. The wingnuts want to believe that Obama is turning on Israel and siding with the Palestinians and the lefties want Obama to turn on Israel and support the Palestinians.
Neither side has any interest in reporting what Obama actually said.

slow news and an inclination to make shit up...altho this particular transgression is particularly vile...I just don't have a clue, but nine of it surprises me....the MSM sets it up, then cashes in on the bullshit they invent

552 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:56:10pm

re: #546 Killgore Trout

It's giving me a headache. I'm already historically ignorant on this issue, and this is just making me dumber. If that's even possible.

553 Kragar  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:56:21pm

re: #548 Killgore Trout

His audience isn't buying it.

They're on to his "rational interpretation and directly quoting the President" tricks.

554 odorlesspaintthinner  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:56:54pm

"And the AP’s first sentence is completely false:

…based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

When people refer to the “1967 lines” they’re always talking about the post-war armistice lines. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to have their journalism examined."

From The Washington Post, 6/17/05, by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William B. Quandt

"For the first time, an American president [GWB] had openly sided with the current Israeli view that the passage of time and new realities obviated Israel's obligation to withdraw more or less to the 1967 lines (essentially the same as the 1949 armistice lines) in return for peace, recognition and security."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, considers the 1967 lines to refer to the borders existing before the 1967 war.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

555 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:57:53pm

re: #553 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They're on to his "rational interpretation and directly quoting the President" tricks.

They won't fall for the video, either. It's not the whole speech, so it's out of context.

556 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:57:55pm

The media still haven't watched the speech I see.
9_9

557 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:58:02pm

re: #554 odorlesspaintthinner

"And the AP’s first sentence is completely false:

…based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

When people refer to the “1967 lines” they’re always talking about the post-war armistice lines. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to have their journalism examined."

From The Washington Post, 6/17/05, by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William B. Quandt

"For the first time, an American president [GWB] had openly sided with the current Israeli view that the passage of time and new realities obviated Israel's obligation to withdraw more or less to the 1967 lines (essentially the same as the 1949 armistice lines) in return for peace, recognition and security."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, considers the 1967 lines to refer to the borders existing before the 1967 war.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

where's the link to the repudiation I asked for?...was I not polite?

558 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:58:06pm
559 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 3:58:42pm

re: #558 Charles

Image: sleeper.jpg

LOL...keep that one

560 odorlesspaintthinner  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:00:13pm

AND THE NEW YORK TIMES thinks so, too:

"Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama on Thursday publicly called for the borders prevailing before the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to be the starting point for talks to settle the conflict there, the first time an American president has explicitly taken that position. He also said that a new Palestinian state should be demilitarized. "

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

561 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:01:24pm

re: #560 odorlesspaintthinner

AND THE NEW YORK TIMES thinks so, too:

"Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama on Thursday publicly called for the borders prevailing before the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to be the starting point for talks to settle the conflict there, the first time an American president has explicitly taken that position. He also said that a new Palestinian state should be demilitarized. "

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

They were armistice lines.

Mid East 101

562 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:02:14pm
563 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:02:29pm

re: #543 mr.fusion

I hate to do this but you've got to give Ed Morissey over at hotair some credit:

Link

I'm not a big fan either, but never be afraid to give credit where credit is due. I saw that as well, and I'm glad he's straightforward and honest about it.

564 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:02:44pm

re: #562 Varek Raith

Image: 3258738570_bb84a3d88a.jpg

Good one

565 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:03:17pm

re: #540 albusteve

dysfunction junction...

566 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:03:20pm

re: #536 Killgore Trout

This has been a huge mass fail for the vast majority of media outlets worldwide. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

I am far less sanguine about the intentions of the vast majoirty of media outlets, having carefully observed and studied over a period of many years their intentional distortions of the facts when discussing Arab and Israeli affairs. While today's distortions are a "fail" in the sense that the media has again, but all too predictably, failed its duty to report the facts truthfully, they are not a "fail" in the sense of something being unintended.
On the contrary, the "spin" that was put on President Obama's speech from the first moments is a direct outgrowth of several factors, such as (1) intentional decisions by media outlets to push a particular viewpoint in order to increase viewership/readership and maximize profits (Fox and MSNBC come to mind as examples from both sides of the U.S. political spectrum) (2) cost cutting that results in increased reliance on reports from the wire services; (3) general lack of knowledge or understanding of history by a generation of reporters who were taught at university that all history is propaganda and, thus, that there are no actual facts; and (4) a general philosophy held by the so-called intellectual elites in the West that the perceived underdog is always, and by that fact alone, in the right. Of course, the influence of petrodollars and, also, of the parlor anti-Semitism that has always existed and has become increasingly open among European elites, also play roles in the media's approach to the Jew among nations, Israel.
Unfortunately, these problems will not disappear any time soon, if ever.

567 God of Binders with Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:03:28pm

re: #562 Varek Raith

Ha!

568 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:03:32pm

re: #560 odorlesspaintthinner

AND THE NEW YORK TIMES thinks so, too:

"Seeking to harness the seismic political change still unfolding in the Arab world, President Obama on Thursday publicly called for the borders prevailing before the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to be the starting point for talks to settle the conflict there, the first time an American president has explicitly taken that position. He also said that a new Palestinian state should be demilitarized. "

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

we know that, we are way past that...we are all the way forward to BO's repudiation, remember?

569 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:05:00pm

There hasn't been enough information coming out of Libya to justify an update page. :(

Only big things are that there is continued shooting in Tripoli, and the story about the 2 women of the Qaddafi family leaving the nation is gaining traction. Also, some journalists in Italy are noticing a larger than average number of planes going up.

570 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:05:08pm

re: #565 Lidane

[Video]

cool music....really nice piano

571 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:06:02pm

re: #542 jamesfirecat

That and after watching enough Monty Python` in the recent past, anything said in a British Accent automatically becomes funny.

It would probaly make an intersting sociology thesis to examine why we Americans find British accents to be both funny and sophisticated.

572 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:08:24pm

re: #546 Killgore Trout

I'm starting to question my own sanity. After all these hours they're still at it...
Jake Trapper : The U.S. Policy Shift on 1967 Borders Explained


MSNBC: Analysis: Palestinians win Obama '67 lines mention
I wonder if this is a moronic convergence. The wingnuts want to believe that Obama is turning on Israel and siding with the Palestinians and the lefties want Obama to turn on Israel and support the Palestinians.
Neither side has any interest in reporting what Obama actually said.

KT, that may be the most spot-on analysis of the issue that I ahve seen all day.

573 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:09:52pm

Bush
Bush urges Israeli occupation end

Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel
adjustments to the pre-1967 boundaries "to reflect current realities" - a reference to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank
574 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:10:05pm

re: #571 sliv_the_eli

It would probaly make an intersting sociology thesis to examine why we Americans find British accents to be both funny and sophisticated.


English people are (when viewed from some American's eyes) Comically Serious which in turn is why some English people (I can dig up the quote if you like) see America as an entire nation sized Disneyland where human beings have their natural traits extrapolated to an outrageous degree.

575 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:10:44pm

re: #572 sliv_the_eli

KT, that may be the most spot-on analysis of the issue that I ahve seen all day.

It's just a guess. I'm honestly perplexed by the whole thing. It just makes no sense at all.

576 boxhead  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:11:46pm

re: #575 Killgore Trout

It's just a guess. I'm honestly perplexed by the whole thing. It just makes no sense at all.

It is kind of cool knowing that we are some of the few people that actually has a clue.... sad but cool.

577 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:13:16pm

the key to the Palistinian problem is actually not the P's themselves...it's Jordan, who refuse to step up and do the right thing

578 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:15:23pm

re: #575 Killgore Trout

It's just a guess. I'm honestly perplexed by the whole thing. It just makes no sense at all.

For decades, peace in the region has been predicated on three ideas agreed upon by the UN, Quartet, US, Russia, etc:

Cessation of violence
Secure borders
Diplomatic recognition

Simple enough, right?

Welcome to the ME

579 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:16:22pm

if the Palistinians were smart, which they don't appear to be, they would set up a couple of mammoth desal plants in Gaza and go into the water business

580 odorlesspaintthinner  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:16:27pm

re: #568 albusteve

Repudiation of Obama comments by Netanyahu, reported in The New York Times:

"Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries."

"He said the 2004 letter was endorsed not only by a strong bipartisan majority but by the then senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “By mentioning the 1967 lines today, President Obama is going back on what had been an American commitment less than a decade ago,” he added."

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

581 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:18:46pm

re: #580 odorlesspaintthinner

Repudiation of Obama comments by Netanyahu, reported in The New York Times:

"Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

Those commitments came in a letter from President George W. Bush which stated, among other things that “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries."

"He said the 2004 letter was endorsed not only by a strong bipartisan majority but by the then senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “By mentioning the 1967 lines today, President Obama is going back on what had been an American commitment less than a decade ago,” he added."

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

I guess you missed the question that you yourself induced...where has BO repudiated his initial words?...complicated I know, but you don't need to cut and paste together this crap...just a link to the question, thanks

582 sliv_the_eli  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:18:59pm

re: #575 Killgore Trout

It's just a guess. I'm honestly perplexed by the whole thing. It just makes no sense at all.

It's not a random guess, though. This is an issue highlighted by LGF posters every day. We, as a society, have largely abandoned reasoned, fact-based discussion of serious issues in favor of speaking past each other and noting only whether the other person agrees or disagrees with our pre-conceived notions. Consequently, it should come as no surprise when left-leaning media spin the same line in President Obama's speech to fit their pre-conceived notions, and the pre-conceived notions of their readership, despite the fact that the President said nothing particularly new or that, objectively, differs from what both the current President and his immediate predecessor have been ssaying for the past decade.

583 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:19:35pm

The Obama bashing was inevitable and planned

He could have announced a cure for cancer today and the morns still would have been outraged.

584 Joo-LiZ  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:19:38pm

I have to admit, I'm just as stumped/mystified at the media reaction as the rest of you.

I for one found the speech to be incredibly refreshing, and I think Obama moved much closer to Israel's stance than anyone predicted.

The far Lefty anti-Israel/pro-Pal crowd has grounds to be upset, I think Obama did move away from them.

The only reasons I can think for the MSM framing (tin hat reason first, more reasonable second) are:
1) They are hoping to drown out what was actually said and generate Israeli/US ill-feeling (a Bibi/Obama clash would be great for the news cycles)

or

2) It was leaked that he would mention that '67 lines in advance, the other positions were not expected, so they prepared their shock and outrage long before the speech actually happened and let it loose as soon as they heard the keywords -- without bothering to double-check or think twice.

585 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:25:10pm

re: #580 odorlesspaintthinner

I guess I don't understand who is repudiating whom....your #521 was ambiguous in that regard....and when you say it's 'bad diplomacy'...who are you referring to?

586 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:26:22pm

re: #585 albusteve

I guess I don't understand who is repudiating whom...your #521 was ambiguous in that regard...and when you say it's 'bad diplomacy'...who are you referring to?

That one seems more interested in arguing points covered hours ago, Steve.

587 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:28:41pm

re: #586 makeitstop

That one seems more interested in arguing points covered hours ago, Steve.

it's coming together, I misread one of the posts...Bibi has repudiated BO's words which were not his words and this is bad diplomacy...clear as mud now

588 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:29:02pm

Now Online: 1,909
Logged in: 120
Today
Page Views: 67,171
Visits: 57,044

589 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:30:23pm

re: #587 albusteve

it's coming together, I misread one of the posts...Bibi has repudiated BO's words which were not his words and this is bad diplomacy...clear as mud now

Yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of it.

590 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:30:54pm

re: #588 Stanley Sea

Now Online: 1,909
Logged in: 120
Today
Page Views: 67,171
Visits: 57,044

How many drinking beer?

591 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:32:46pm

I checked out of the main discussion a while ago. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to really talk about it at length, and Obama's speech didn't sound that different to me than what I've heard for the last 20+ years from other presidents.

That said, it's been fascinating to watch all the outrage and all the freakouts over what he said.

592 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:32:54pm

re: #590 researchok

How many drinking beer?

Wine, thank you very much!

593 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:33:06pm

a terrific slide show of the Mighty Mississippi rolling down to the Gulf
[Link: www.theatlantic.com...]

hang on brothers and sisters...this too will pass

594 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:33:49pm

re: #592 Stanley Sea

Wine, thank you very much!

COFFEE

595 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:33:52pm

re: #591 Lidane

I checked out of the main discussion a while ago. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to really talk about it at length, and Obama's speech didn't sound that different to me than what I've heard for the last 20+ years from other presidents.

That said, it's been fascinating to watch all the outrage and all the freakouts over what he said.

It was a very different speech.

It was right on the money.

596 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:34:05pm

re: #590 researchok

How many drinking beer?

In 27 minutes I'll be drinking wine. Does that count?

597 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:34:20pm

re: #596 Killgore Trout

26

598 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:34:29pm

re: #594 Varek Raith

COFFEE

Prune juice
/

599 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:35:02pm

re: #598 researchok

Prune juice
/

You post betrays your age.
/

600 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:35:05pm

re: #596 Killgore Trout

In 27 minutes I'll be drinking wine. Does that count?

Yes, though you lose double points for the delay.

601 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:35:23pm

re: #599 Varek Raith

You post betrays your age.
/

I'm 14
/

602 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:36:07pm

re: #596 Killgore Trout

In 27 minutes I'll be drinking wine. Does that count?

Why 27 minutes?
It's happy hour SOMEWHERE!

603 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:36:17pm

re: #590 researchok

How many drinking beer?

I just had some very nice 17 year old Japanese scotch (yes, really...who knew the Japanese made single malts like this?) that my boss had in his office...very smooth, smoky...

604 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:36:48pm

re: #603 darthstar

I just had some very nice 17 year old Japanese scotch (yes, really...who knew the Japanese made single malts like this?) that my boss had in his office...very smooth, smoky...

Brand?

605 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:36:49pm

re: #596 Killgore Trout

In 27 minutes I'll be drinking wine. Does that count?

why do you have to be so damned strict?...
DRINK!

606 Digital Display  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:37:48pm

re: #602 Floral Giraffe

Why 27 minutes?
It's happy hour SOMEWHERE!

The Thunder basketball game starts then!

607 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:38:08pm

I think KT has more self control than most...more than me for sure, my bar is open round the clock

608 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:38:25pm

re: #602 Floral Giraffe

Why 27 minutes?
It's happy hour SOMEWHERE!

Even 5pm is a bit early otherwise I get sleepy and go to bed too early then wake up in the middle of the night. I work at home and live alone so I can keep whatever hours I want but I try to be as normal as possible. It takes a little effort.

609 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:38:39pm

re: #606 HoosierHoops

LOL!
Hello, you!

610 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:39:08pm

re: #604 researchok

Brand?

馬鹿
/

611 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:39:51pm

re: #608 Killgore Trout

Even 5pm is a bit early otherwise I get sleepy and go to bed too early then wake up in the middle of the night. I work at home and live alone so I can keep whatever hours I want but I try to be as normal as possible. It takes a little effort.

*Heavy German accent*

"I adhere to strriccct drinking dizipline...."

612 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:40:14pm

re: #610 Varek Raith

馬鹿
/

My Google Translate plugin worked on that.

613 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:40:21pm

re: #610 Varek Raith

馬鹿
/

LOL

614 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:40:24pm

re: #611 researchok

*Heavy German accent*

"I adhere to strriccct drinking dizipline..."

oh fuck off and pass the Red Stripe

615 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:41:03pm

re: #124 Lidane

See, that's what I thought. It didn't sound much different from the speeches I'd hear Clinton and Bush give.

That just makes the outrageous outrage irritating as well as confusing.

You know how only Nixon could go to China?

Only Barack Obama can't say what the U.S. has been saying for a bazillion years.

616 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:41:16pm

re: #607 albusteve

I think KT has more self control than most...more than me for sure, my bar is open round the clock

It's the work at home/self employed thing. I do allow myself plenty of time top post on LGF throughout the day while I'm working but I've known so many people who've failed because they lack discipline, watch tv, take naps, etc. instead of working as much as they should. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

617 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:42:28pm

re: #616 Killgore Trout

It's the work at home/self employed thing. I do allow myself plenty of time top post on LGF throughout the day while I'm working but I've known so many people who've failed because they lack discipline, watch tv, take naps, etc. instead of working as much as they should. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

**scurries back to work**

618 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:42:56pm

re: #612 wrenchwench

My Google Translate plugin worked on that.

Damn
/

619 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:43:13pm

re: #616 Killgore Trout

It's the work at home/self employed thing. I do allow myself plenty of time top post on LGF throughout the day while I'm working but I've known so many people who've failed because they lack discipline, watch tv, take naps, etc. instead of working as much as they should. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

Those things are bad?
/

620 ContinentalOp  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:43:25pm
When people refer to the “1967 lines” they’re always talking about the post-war armistice lines.

I'm sorry, but this is the opposite of true. When Israeli leaders, Arab leaders, American leaders, diplomats from anywhere/everywhere say 1967 lines , they mean before the Six Day War. Always. Google the phrase. Run it on Nexis.

621 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:43:36pm

re: #616 Killgore Trout

It's the work at home/self employed thing. I do allow myself plenty of time top post on LGF throughout the day while I'm working but I've known so many people who've failed because they lack discipline, watch tv, take naps, etc. instead of working as much as they should. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

I've been self employed most of my life...but with the benefit of getting up and out to the job...if I had to work at home, I'd be...I dunno, it wouldn't work for me....respect mon

622 makeitstop  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:43:37pm

re: #616 Killgore Trout

It's the work at home/self employed thing. I do allow myself plenty of time top post on LGF throughout the day while I'm working but I've known so many people who've failed because they lack discipline, watch tv, take naps, etc. instead of working as much as they should. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

Same situation here. The most distraction I can allow myself is reading/posting here, the radio on in the next room, and petting one of my cats if they wander into the office.

Some days, even that's too much, but...work we must.

623 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:43:50pm

Since everyone is drinking already: This week's episode of My Drunk Kitchen....
My Drunk Kitchen Ep. 6: Brunch?

624 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:44:25pm

In other non Israel related news... Scott Walker is still a jerk.

625 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:45:05pm

re: #623 Killgore Trout

Since everyone is drinking already: This week's episode of My Drunk Kitchen...
My Drunk Kitchen Ep. 6: Brunch?

[Video]

I have turned on so many people to this! Waiting for phone call to end to play it! YAY

626 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:45:26pm

re: #622 makeitstop

Same situation here. The most distraction I can allow myself is reading/posting here, the radio on in the next room, and petting one of my cats if they wander into the office.

Some days, even that's too much, but...work we must.

no we mustn't!
I'm all done anyway...
I think I'll swim to Tahiti now

627 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:45:29pm

re: #624 jamesfirecat

In other non Israel related news... Scott Walker is still a jerk.

The Arafat of governors.

628 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:45:59pm

The Shrieking HarpieTM has posted THREE (count 'em) shrieking rants about Obama "sending Israel to Auschwitz lines" even though she also cut and paste the entire contents of the speech on her shriek blog.

629 simoom  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:46:14pm

Politico's Ben Smith:
[Link: www.politico.com...]

Count me among those who have covered spats between the U.S. and Israel in some detail, and are a bit perplexed why sources from the New York Times to Benjamin Netanyahu are acting as though a Rubicon has been crossed by Obama's restating universal assumptions and U.S. policy, and meanwhile slapping down the key Palestinian diplomatic drive.
630 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:47:42pm

re: #623 Killgore Trout

Since everyone is drinking already: This week's episode of My Drunk Kitchen...
My Drunk Kitchen Ep. 6: Brunch?

[Video]

sorry, for some reason I just want to shove a burrito supreme down her mouth

631 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:49:24pm

re: #625 Stanley Sea

I have turned on so many people to this! Waiting for phone call to end to play it! YAY

Last week's episode was a little under par but this one is pretty good.

632 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:50:08pm

soothing food music...
Savoy Truffle

633 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:50:23pm

re: #630 albusteve

sorry, for some reason I just want to shove a burrito supreme down her mouth

I find her oddly hot but I think it's just the instinctual attraction to drunk chicks.

634 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:51:00pm

re: #633 Killgore Trout

I find her oddly hot but I think it's just the instinctual attraction to drunk chicks.

yup, monkeys are exactly like that too...well studied

635 Lidane  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:52:04pm

Time for a bit of music:

636 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:52:04pm

Prehensile Pasta anyone?

637 Ming  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:53:20pm

I'm really concerned by how little it takes to trigger an all out "war of the pundits" in the United States. How can we help others make peace, when we'll fight against ourselves at the drop of a hat?

It may be that all the partisan outrage is a ploy to distract the public's attention from the speech itself, which I thought was a good speech. This is an historic time, when Arab countries may stand on the verge of great improvements, and there's the potential for peace to break out all over. (Unfortunately, there's also the potential for more war, depending on exactly how various countries evolve, e.g. Egypt.) In such a historic time, it's truly worrisome that all Americans can do is twist the words of a few sentences in the speech, and go back to what we do best: yell at one another.

638 abolitionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:53:52pm

Earlier today, I did a bit of searching on the name Yellowbrix because it appeared in some of the news stories that seem not to have been based on any primary sources (ie, the speech), and this caught my attention:

The foundation of the YellowBrix product line is a proprietary technology that uses artificial intelligence, linguistic pattern analysis, and entity identification to contextually analyze information before delivery to its clients. [snip]
YellowBrix and FluentMedia Merge Posted Feb 06, 2004

I have to wonder if the tsunami of mis-reporting about Obama's speech could be a consequence of widespread and excessive reliance on AI in the news industries for selecting and (re)writing stories.

639 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:53:56pm

I'm removing my point about the 1967 lines from the post above, because it's being misunderstood and used as a point of attack, when it's actually not the important point about the AP's misleading article.

640 ContinentalOp  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:54:23pm

re: #620 ContinentalOp

Or go to Foreign Policy ( [Link: www.foreignpolicy.com...] ) and run an archive search with "1967 borders".

The 1967 ceasefire line includes Gaza and Sinai all the way to the canal. The pre-war 1967 borders are the 1948 ceasefire lines. This may be the cause of confusion.

641 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 4:55:58pm

re: #623 Killgore Trout

LOL!
You post some interestingvideos!

642 Varek Raith  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:03:42pm
643 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:05:30pm

re: #558 Charles

644 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:06:20pm

re: #643 lawhawk

Heh. More than one, actually.

645 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:08:09pm

re: #642 Varek Raith

Next U.S. Navy Ship: USNS Cesar Chavez

FREAKOUT!!!

Fucking Duncan Hunter (legacy Representative from San Diego and a vet) had to come out against it. They had a big local story about it, the dock workers down here, NASCO I think, are like 90% Hispanic. They are very excited to say the least.

646 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:09:22pm

A small but vocal far right faction in the US decided a long time ago that Obama was no friend of Israel. (They're predisposed to flip out every time he mentions Israel, regardless of what he says. These people are predominantly evangelicals, who pretend to have a special place for Israel in their hearts only because its repopulation is a prerequisite for the Rapture, after which Jews (along with all other non-Christians) will be condemned to an eternal sea of fire.)

But the points in the speech being quibbled over are fairly esoteric--most Americans know little of 1967 border lines or settlement swaps. Thus I find it hard to believe that this speech will cause him long term harm. Especially since prominent Jewish Dems in the House already have his back rhetorically on this.

647 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:09:39pm

re: #452 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

thats me, man! ALL FULL-ON NAZI

648 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:11:54pm

Well Haaretz sure seems extremely happy with Obama's speech, seems a little strange if the AP spin is the correct one, don't it?

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

649 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:12:14pm

re: #363 Big Steve

Probably you are right but then why make the speech?

Speech warn't about Israel. Speech was about Syria.

650 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:12:33pm

re: #521 odorlesspaintthinner

let me guess, after this thread we'll never see you again?

later skater

651 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:12:35pm

re: #644 Charles

Heh. More than one, actually.

Hope you & Mr. Beaumont are ready for tonights avalanche!

652 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:12:53pm

re: #649 SanFranciscoZionist

Speech warn't about Israel. Speech was about Syria.

another guy who of course didn't listen to the speech


People are so obvious

653 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:13:22pm

re: #652 WindUpBird

another guy who of course didn't listen to the speech

People are so obvious

Obvious trolls are obvious!

654 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:14:55pm

re: #649 SanFranciscoZionist

Speech warn't about Israel. Speech was about Syria.

it's a good thing I'm not the CinC...if I was I'd quietly give Syria about 6 min to shut down Hez or suffer grave consequence

655 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:15:05pm

re: #623 Killgore Trout

Since everyone is drinking already: This week's episode of My Drunk Kitchen...
My Drunk Kitchen Ep. 6: Brunch?

[Video]

Oh just watched. Fucking hilarious. "wounded"

656 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:15:57pm

re: #648 ausador

Only the far ends of this whole issue would upset by the speech. The reaction various people have show where they lie.

657 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:17:42pm

re: #646 palomino

Obama has surprisingly adopted many of the Bush era policies, much to the consternation of his ardent supporters, but which is never sufficient to the right wingers.

And the policies on Israel and the Palestinians are a continuation of those by Obama's predecessors and isn't a change, despite the protestations by media types who seem to have the reading comprehension of gnats.

658 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:19:01pm

re: #657 lawhawk

Obama has surprisingly adopted many of the Bush era policies, much to the consternation of his ardent supporters, but which is never sufficient to the right wingers.

And the policies on Israel and the Palestinians are a continuation of those by Obama's predecessors and isn't a change, despite the protestations by media types who seem to have the reading comprehension of gnats.

Netanyahu, and the MOT too. Wha?

Thanks for the sanity here.

659 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:20:45pm

re: #434 gwlaw99

The Green line is the 1948 Armistice line.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Obama didn't even mention the Green Line. He said "the 1967 lines."

Charles,
I agree the land swaps makes all the difference, but you are wrong about what the 1967 linesmeans . The 1967 line means the line BEFORE the 1967 war which is the same border as 1949. The END of the 1967 war resulted was Israel in control of the west bank and the Sinai.

Can someone show me a map of WHAT THEY THINK OBAMA MEANT, please? My head is starting to spin, and I actually know a little about the region.

660 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:20:46pm

re: #658 Stanley Sea

Netanyahu, and the MOT too. Wha?

Thanks for the sanity here.

Lawhawk is the go to guy around here...
thanks for all the good stuff bro

661 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:22:42pm

pimping Lawhawks blog here...
[Link: lawhawk.blogspot.com...]

662 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:26:32pm

re: #554 odorlesspaintthinner

"And the AP’s first sentence is completely false:

…based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

When people refer to the “1967 lines” they’re always talking about the post-war armistice lines. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to have their journalism examined."

From The Washington Post, 6/17/05, by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William B. Quandt

"For the first time, an American president [GWB] had openly sided with the current Israeli view that the passage of time and new realities obviated Israel's obligation to withdraw more or less to the 1967 lines (essentially the same as the 1949 armistice lines) in return for peace, recognition and security."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, for one, considers the 1967 lines to refer to the borders existing before the 1967 war.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Dude, you can hit the quote button and edit from there. Please. The quotation marks are doing my head in.

663 sagehen  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:27:23pm

And now Lawrence O'Donnell got it wrong; EJ Dionne is correcting him.

664 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:28:14pm

re: #659 SanFranciscoZionist

Can someone show me a map of WHAT THEY THINK OBAMA MEANT, please? My head is starting to spin, and I actually know a little about the region.

I don't mean to go all whack here, but this is sticking in my head. I think some of the crazier people (yeah the Simon Wiesenthal Center - wha?) referenced Auschwitz.

665 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:28:25pm

re: #573 Killgore Trout

Bush
Bush urges Israeli occupation end

Been SOP for some time. I agree, too, except that doing it with Palestinian cooperation probably not going to happen. I think Sharon was right about Gaza despite everything. Batten down behind defensible borders, and wage diplomacy as best you can from the bunker.

666 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:29:09pm

re: #579 albusteve

if the Palistinians were smart, which they don't appear to be, they would set up a couple of mammoth desal plants in Gaza and go into the water business

The number of money-making schemes available in Gaza blow the mind.

667 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:29:12pm

re: #657 lawhawk

Obama has surprisingly adopted many of the Bush era policies, much to the consternation of his ardent supporters, but which is never sufficient to the right wingers.

And the policies on Israel and the Palestinians are a continuation of those by Obama's predecessors and isn't a change, despite the protestations by media types who seem to have the reading comprehension of gnats.

It's as if the media is just a little suspicious that Obama could possibly be as friendly to Israel as his predecessors. I hesitate to think this is the result of Obama's racial/ethnic background, but I don't see it as the result of anything he's actually said.

668 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:29:26pm

re: #664 Stanley Sea

Wait, I've never associated that with crazy.

Maybe I haven't heard the things you have. Care to explain?

669 recusancy  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:29:51pm

re: #667 palomino

It's as if the media is just a little suspicious that Obama could possibly be as friendly to Israel as his predecessors. I hesitate to think this is the result of Obama's racial/ethnic background, but I don't see it as the result of anything he's actually said.

This.

670 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:30:08pm

re: #668 ProLifeLiberal

Wait, I've never associated that with crazy.

Maybe I haven't heard the things you have. Care to explain?

Here 'tis

[Link: www.wiesenthal.com...]

671 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:31:21pm

re: #620 ContinentalOp

I'm sorry, but this is the opposite of true. When Israeli leaders, Arab leaders, American leaders, diplomats from anywhere/everywhere say 1967 lines , they mean before the Six Day War. Always. Google the phrase. Run it on Nexis.

Leaving the Golan out of this, can someone show me the difference between the two version we're discussing?

672 engineer cat  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:31:42pm

turns out you won't get raptured next saturday if you use Word for Windows 5.2

only unix is pure

who knew???

673 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:32:50pm

re: #658 Stanley Sea

I really don't understand why Bibi was getting all bent out of shape about the 1967 borders issue, but then again it diverts attention from the real policy change - that the US will not back a Palestinian state if they continue refusing to accept Israel's existence. It's as though Bibi and other Israel supporters decided to read a version of the speech that didn't have that in there.

That was the far more important statement IMO on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And that still wasn't the focus of the speech.

674 recusancy  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:33:35pm

re: #673 lawhawk

I really don't understand why Bibi was getting all bent out of shape about the 1967 borders issue, but then again it diverts attention from the real policy change - that the US will not back a Palestinian state if they continue refusing to accept Israel's existence. It's as though Bibi and other Israel supporters decided to read a version of the speech that didn't have that in there.

That was the far more important statement IMO on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And that still wasn't the focus of the speech.

He gets out of shape at every word Obama ever says.

675 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:35:27pm

re: #674 recusancy

He gets out of shape at every word Obama ever says.

Seems to be true, but why?

676 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:36:05pm

re: #673 lawhawk

I really don't understand why Bibi was getting all bent out of shape about the 1967 borders issue, but then again it diverts attention from the real policy change - that the US will not back a Palestinian state if they continue refusing to accept Israel's existence. It's as though Bibi and other Israel supporters decided to read a version of the speech that didn't have that in there.

That was the far more important statement IMO on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And that still wasn't the focus of the speech.

Exactly. It's rather infuriating.

677 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:36:18pm

re: #674 recusancy

He gets out of shape at every word Obama ever says.

don't know about 'gets out of shape', but Israel has many reasons to be edgy right about now

678 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:37:01pm

re: #673 lawhawk

I really don't understand why Bibi was getting all bent out of shape about the 1967 borders issue, but then again it diverts attention from the real policy change - that the US will not back a Palestinian state if they continue refusing to accept Israel's existence. It's as though Bibi and other Israel supporters decided to read a version of the speech that didn't have that in there.

That was the far more important statement IMO on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And that still wasn't the focus of the speech.

I assume he was reacting to press reports rather than the actual speech.

679 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:37:23pm

re: #675 palomino

Seems to be true, but why?

Right Wing v. Left Wing (Although as been said ad infinitum, Obama is the same as predecessors)

?? Does Bibi stay in power being the right winger? Prob.

680 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:37:25pm

re: #664 Stanley Sea

I don't mean to go all whack here, but this is sticking in my head. I think some of the crazier people (yeah the Simon Wiesenthal Center - wha?) referenced Auschwitz.

The ADL seems calm. Let's not worry about the SWC for a bit.

Can someone please explain to me, since I've been out buying groceries, what 67 borders the wingnuts think we're talking about, and what 67 borders we think we're talking about, because God, I'm so confused.

681 recusancy  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:37:25pm

re: #675 palomino

Seems to be true, but why?

He an opportunist. Feels he has the upper hand and can play conservative America against him thereby getting Obama to take any pressure off of Israel to do anything.

682 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:38:02pm

re: #678 Killgore Trout

I assume he was reacting to press reports rather than the actual speech.

Well, that's pragmatic.

683 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:38:05pm

re: #667 palomino

It's as if the media is just a little suspicious that Obama could possibly be as friendly to Israel as his predecessors. I hesitate to think this is the result of Obama's racial/ethnic background, but I don't see it as the result of anything he's actually said.

It's because of a concerted attempt to portray him as anti-Israel that began during the campaign and shows no sign of stopping.

684 lawhawk  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:38:10pm

re: #678 Killgore Trout

That's what I said way back earlier in the thread - and he's got to respond to not only what Obama actually said, but how it's being reported to have been said - b/c appearances often count for as much as the reality.

685 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:39:13pm

re: #680 SanFranciscoZionist

The ADL seems calm. Let's not worry about the SWC for a bit.

Can someone please explain to me, since I've been out buying groceries, what 67 borders the wingnuts think we're talking about, and what 67 borders we think we're talking about, because God, I'm so confused.

Thanks, I won't. I was just a yearly member for many years and have been there I cannot count how many times. :(

686 palomino  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:40:21pm

re: #681 recusancy

He an opportunist. Feels he has the upper hand and can play conservative America against him thereby getting Obama to take any pressure off of Israel to do anything.

Yeah, he's definitely been quite chummy with Huckabee and other US evangelical politicians. He may be bummed that the Huckster's not running.

687 Tharin  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:41:21pm

Now CNN, ABC, and many other news outlets are saying that this is a big shift in US policy, and that Israel would have to move back to the borders "Before" the 1967 war. The lie has been injected into the media bloodstream, and the video clearly shows this is a lie. Amazing...

Some liberal media eh?

688 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:41:24pm

re: #685 Stanley Sea

Thanks, I won't. I was just a yearly member for many years and have been there I cannot count how many times. :(

There's a set of emotional triggers connected to all of this that seem to be firing all at once.

I am saving strength for when this hits lists that are going to be more personal for me. Not that you guys aren't personal, but I don't sit on a board with but one of you.

689 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:41:25pm

re: #670 Stanley Sea

That's more than mildly hyperbolic.

But do they have a history of this, is what I guess I'm asking.

690 wrenchwench  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:43:28pm

re: #687 Tharin

Welcome, hatchling.

691 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:44:44pm

is this the Year Of The Rooster?

692 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:46:33pm

re: #689 ProLifeLiberal

That's more than mildly hyperbolic.

But do they have a history of this, is what I guess I'm asking.

It's just hard when you are trying to learn from smart knowledgeable folks, and are having a good conversation (or for me, reading along) and something like that drops.

I'll live!

693 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:48:38pm

the MSM want's a showdown, a confrontation and best yet, a shooting war...ratings spike and the money rolls in...I hate the MSM

694 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:49:06pm

re: #693 albusteve

They love you too!
///

695 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:49:34pm

re: #680 SanFranciscoZionist

The ADL seems calm. Let's not worry about the SWC for a bit...

I worry, because they are a good and useful force, and seem to have cross-pollinated with the language on AS.

696 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:50:36pm

Out of control.

Israel Bristles at Obama's Call for 1967 Borders
ABC News - ‎31 minutes ago‎

697 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:55:35pm

re: #696 Stanley Sea

Out of control.

Israel Bristles at Obama's Call for 1967 Borders
ABC News - ‎31 minutes ago‎

Yeah, it looks like the MSM is sticking to their bogus story. Maybe it just creates drama. It's a shame because it's an important issue and you'd think they have people on staff who know better.

698 Daniel Ballard  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:56:24pm

re: #680 SanFranciscoZionist

The ADL seems calm. Let's not worry about the SWC for a bit.

Can someone please explain to me, since I've been out buying groceries, what 67 borders the wingnuts think we're talking about, and what 67 borders we think we're talking about, because God, I'm so confused.

This got really awkward at work, a Jewish owned and run company. The anti Obama tirade was as extreme as it was based on the immediate media BS. Even after I printed the transcript with the key paragraph in bold. After I showed the Netanyahu official response it just got worse. The old black/Jewish angst was in full fledged display. All I could do was shut up and walk away. Damn if the media had just got this right...

699 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:57:09pm

willful distortion of facts, broadcast world wide to innocent people who have few means or wherewithall to fact check the mighty MSM, is to me, a considerable weapon....one of these days the !st amendment will come under fire and it's starting right here...what the MSM gets away with is criminal

700 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:57:34pm

re: #697 Killgore Trout

Yeah, it looks like the MSM is sticking to their bogus story. Maybe it just creates drama. It's a shame because it's an important issue and you'd think they have people on staff who know better.

That's because its not just Fox News this time. It's the Associated Press and the rest of the media has too much invested in the AP to let it be weakened. So they've decided to close ranks.

701 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 5:59:56pm

I want to break something.
BBL.

702 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:00:26pm

re: #700 Dark_Falcon

That's because its not just Fox News this time. It's the Associated Press and the rest of the media has too much invested in the AP to let it be weakened. So they've decided to close ranks.

with that behavior, they should all be slammed with an anti trust suit...

703 simoom  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:00:38pm

re: #244 Killgore Trout

Allen West: Obama's Recognition of Pre-1967 Borders 'Beginning of the End' for Jewish State

re: #311 Killgore Trout

Obama 'disrespected' Israel, threw it 'under the bus,' says Romney

A couple more:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
[Link: thecable.foreignpolicy.com...]

"President Obama has betrayed Israel and made a grievous mistake by suggesting borders of Israel go back to pre-1967 borders. This is an outrage to peace, sovereignty of Israel, and a stable Middle East. The nation of Israel was attacked in 1967 from all sides with a determination to annihilate her. Israel needs more security, not less. The Palestinians have steadfastly refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, despite long standing international law to the contrary. The President needs to worry less about the borders of Israel and start securing the borders of the United States."

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
[Link: bachmann.house.gov...]

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) released the following response after President Obama’s speech today on his Middle East policy, which included a dramatic shift away from support of Israel:

“Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first. In a shocking display of betrayal towards our ally, President Obama is now calling on Israel to give up yet more land and return to its 1967 borders. If there is anything that has been proven, the policy of land-for-peace has meant that Israel has continually had to give away increasing amounts of its land and decrease its size. In exchange, it still has not known security. President Obama wants to further this policy by putting Israel in a very vulnerable position with borders that would be extremely difficult to defend.

“I am calling on President Obama to reverse course and clearly renounce the position which he spelled out today. This is an insult to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the day before the Prime Minister is scheduled to come to the United States. President Obama’s remarks are clearly in opposition to the position that Israel has taken in regards to its own borders. These remarks do not reflect the will of the constituents in my district, nor do I believe that they represent the will of the majority of the American people.

“America has stood with Israel since President Harry Truman recognized Israel a mere 11 minutes after Israel became a state in 1948. But during his tenure as President of the United States, President Obama has initiated a policy which shows contempt for Israel’s concern and safety. In an era dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’ we have seen increased volatility in the Middle East region, and President Obama has only added to the heightened hostility by calling on Israel to return to the 1967 borders. I disagree with President Obama and I stand with our friend Israel 100 percent. I am saddened and disappointed deeply by President Obama’s statement.”

704 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:00:44pm

re: #700 Dark_Falcon

That's because its not just Fox News this time. It's the Associated Press and the rest of the media has too much invested in the AP to let it be weakened. So they've decided to close ranks.

When in doubt follow the leader.

705 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:00:50pm

re: #698 Rightwingconspirator

This got really awkward at work, a Jewish owned and run company. The anti Obama tirade was as extreme as it was based on the immediate media BS. Even after I printed the transcript with the key paragraph in bold. After I showed the Netanyahu official response it just got worse. The old black/Jewish angst was in full fledged display. All I could do was shut up and walk away. Damn if the media had just got this right...

Oh you tried. Kudos. And hard.

706 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:01:00pm

re: #701 Floral Giraffe

I want to break something.
BBL.

It won't help. I've been breaking wind all day and all I did was make a big stink.

707 simoom  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:01:15pm

re: #703 simoom

One more:

U.S. Representative Paul C. Broun
[Link: broun.house.gov...]

“It is unfortunate that President Barack Obama’s remarks today did nothing to genuinely promote a lasting peace in the Middle East. Instead, the President clearly communicated that he is willing to sacrifice the long-standing relationship between the United States and Israel, as well as to compromise the legitimate security interests of the state of Israel. President Obama communicated to the most radical elements of the anti-Israeli forces in the region that Israel no longer has a reliable ally in the White House.

“President Obama’s call for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders in ‘land swaps’ with Palestine is utterly unacceptable. This would leave Israel in a highly vulnerable position. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that it would leave the nation ‘indefensible.’

“I strongly urge President Obama to abandon this course of action and demand the recognition of Israel’s right to exist rather than appeasing and encouraging their enemies.”

708 ProGunLiberal  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:01:17pm

re: #692 Stanley Sea

Sorry if I frustrated you.

709 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:01:49pm

re: #699 albusteve

willful distortion of facts, broadcast world wide to innocent people who have few means or wherewithall to fact check the mighty MSM, is to me, a considerable weapon...one of these days the !st amendment will come under fire and it's starting right here...what the MSM gets away with is criminal

PRAVDA USA

seriously close

710 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:02:37pm

re: #704 jamesfirecat

When in doubt follow the leader.

Right off the cliff. That's why we have Iceweasel here; the Iceweasel's favorite food is Blog Lemmings.

/Entirely kidding

711 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:03:24pm

re: #709 Stanley Sea

PRAVDA USA

seriously close

I know it...a runaway media is a serious threat to whoever they target...but it has to end somewhere

712 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:03:59pm

re: #703 simoom

re: #311 Killgore Trout

A couple more:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
[Link: thecable.foreignpolicy.com...]

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
[Link: bachmann.house.gov...]

So fucking clueless.

What's amazing is their WHOLE platform is lies. Making Obama an enemy.

Gah, I won't break anything, but the wine? It's toast.

713 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:06:14pm

re: #708 ProLifeLiberal

Sorry if I frustrated you.

Nah. Keep doing the Andy Carvin thing for LGF. You couldn't rub me wrong.

714 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:06:27pm

re: #712 Stanley Sea

don't spill the wine!

715 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:07:12pm

re: #708 ProLifeLiberal

Oh and what I meant by "dropped" was the Simon W. Centers's release. It hurt.

SFZ, I'm DROPPING IT!

716 funky chicken  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:08:23pm

I didn't think the speech was bad.

717 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:11:32pm

re: #706 darthstar

It won't help. I've been breaking wind all day and all I did was make a big stink.

LOL!
Wind, was not what I had in mind!

718 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:12:29pm

Let's take a look at Drudge...

Headline...

NETANYAHU TO OBAMA: TAKE IT BACK

719 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:13:07pm

re: #717 Floral Giraffe

LOL!
Wind, was not what I had in mind!

Well, if you're frustrated, trying kicking a hyena. I hear that's always a pick-me-up.

/giraffe humor

720 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:13:28pm

I'm going to take a break and watch the Bruins.

See ya in a few.

721 kristina37  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:13:43pm

re: #374 lawhawk"Moreover, everyone is ignoring the actual policy change - which is that if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist they don't get a state. That's the strongest iteration of those comments by a President, whether it was Clinton, Bush or Obama.""

Exactly. And in terms of the parts of the speech that refer to Israel/Palestine, the part about the requirement that the Palestinians must recognize Israel for anything to proceed may well be the most important part. What concessions were asked of Israel (borders, etc) are actually irrelevant-- if it never actually happens! And none of this will happen if the Palestinians don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

And what are the odds of that happening? Abbas won't say it-- and there's no way Hamas can accept that.

I don't know if this theory of mine is true-- but consider this possibility: the speech was actually not biased against Israel-- in fact, it actually serves their interests. And (if this theory is correct) it wasn't carelessly vague-- it was deliberately a bit vague (Notice the lack of clarity even here as to what "1967 borders" or "1967 lines" actually means). In fact, it may have been quite brilliant.

Why? Perhaps Obama knew that many would interpret it as being too "pro-Palestinian". So now we have a situation where the world perceives (whether true or not) that Obama is making an extremely generous offer to the Palestinians. How could they refuse? If they did refuse what appears to be an unprecedented "pro-Palestinian" offer, then the world would see them for what they actually are-- the real obstacle to peace.

In other words, its possible what Obama did is to devise a clever and subtle strategy...to call the Palestinians bluff!!!

(And that may be why Abbas went into an emergency meeting with staff...he realizes they now have a dilemma). If my theory is correct, Abbas realized the true significance of the speech.

IMO the perception amongst much of the world will be that Obama made a fair, and if anything pro-Palestinian offer-- and if they refuse it, the world would come to realize who is the real obstacle to peace. In other word-- this speech has created a real problem . . . but for the Palestinians, not Israel!

722 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:14:23pm

re: #718 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Let's take a look at Drudge...

Headline...

NETANYAHU TO OBAMA: TAKE IT BACK

Text at the page bottom: "I link to Alex Jones and pull headlines out of my ass. DERP!"

723 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:16:34pm

re: #721 kristina37

I can see your argument, but I'm not so sure. I don't really think Obama is that clever in terms of foreign policy. And even with this offer, Abbas always can balk over the 'right of return'. So I don't think this boxes him in too much.

724 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:19:24pm

Low Rider
War

725 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:19:27pm

re: #718 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Let's take a look at Drudge...

Headline...

NETANYAHU TO OBAMA: TAKE IT BACK

It has to make you wonder what Republican goals for US-Israeli relations actually are. Can't work toward peace...that shit kills defense contracts.

726 researchok  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:21:03pm

The last thing some of these regressive GOP types want is for Obama to succeed in a peace process. Thwarting peace in the region underwritten by a Democrat president is far more important than the peace process itself.

Shame on them.

And while we're at it, shame on the media for hyping falsehoods and promoting discord so as to sensationalize their own shoddy work.

While partisan groups can expected to be shrill as they promote their own highly partisan agendas, the media ought not be complicit,

727 funky chicken  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:21:20pm

re: #52 marjoriemoon

The BORDERS should be based on the 1967 LINES with mutually agreed swaps. That sounds like "1967 borders" to me. I don't know how that can be anything else.

Which btw, the green line was never intended to be a permanent border. That's only a recent invention.

Obama also said, "How can you make peace with someone who does not recognize your existence?"

So you can't take point #1 without point #2. You simply cannot have any negotiation with a country that doesn't recognize your existence in the first place. Back to square 1 we go.

And of course, maybe even more importantly, this is no different than the stand of the last two presidencies. Why don't the wingnuts go scream at Dubya?

Yeah, that's the way I interpreted it--Israel will have to shrink a bit, but I didn't hear anything about doing it until they are assured of recognition and security.

He just kind of threw down the gauntlet and challenged both parties to step up. While I think Israel is far, far better as a civil society than the "Palestinians," etc, I didn't find much objectionable in the speech or the tone.

728 funky chicken  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:23:13pm

re: #374 lawhawk

It was meant to be a comprehensive speech on the ME, and this was the portion dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There shouldn't have been any controversy over these items, but apparently mentioning 1967 and line is turned into demands that Israel return to its 1948 border, which is clearly not what he stated.

Moreover, everyone is ignoring the actual policy change - which is that if the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist they don't get a state. That's the strongest iteration of those comments by a President, whether it was Clinton, Bush or Obama.

You, you dirty Israel-hater!

//

729 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:24:13pm

re: #725 darthstar

It has to make you wonder what Republican goals for US-Israeli relations actually are. Can't work toward peace...that shit kills defense contracts.

yep, an odious international conspiracy backed by the American House of Representatives in cahhoots with every intel agency on earth....billions for the arms dealers and media...I've read about 5 Ludlum books that are way out in front of you...good stuff for movies

730 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:26:35pm

re: #729 albusteve

yep, an odious international conspiracy backed by the American House of Representatives in cahhoots with every intel agency on earth...billions for the arms dealers and media...I've read about 5 Ludlum books that are way out in front of you...good stuff for movies

The second sentence was snark. The first was a serious question. But I already know the answer...it isn't that the Republicans give a fuck about Israel...they just don't like the black guy making speeches that make the US look good and are respected by the rest of the planet...they want that fake Texan back...he at least looks like them.

731 recusancy  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:27:48pm

re: #729 albusteve

yep, an odious international conspiracy backed by the American House of Representatives in cahhoots with every intel agency on earth...billions for the arms dealers and media...I've read about 5 Ludlum books that are way out in front of you...good stuff for movies

No different than the odious conspiracy by the MSM who "want's a showdown, a confrontation and best yet, a shooting war...ratings spike and the money rolls in"

732 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:28:56pm

re: #730 darthstar

The second sentence was snark. The first was a serious question. But I already know the answer...it isn't that the Republicans give a fuck about Israel...they just don't like the black guy making speeches that make the US look good and are respected by the rest of the planet...they want that fake Texan back...he at least looks like them.

really?...your powers of conjure are impressive...
to have the mind of all Republicans in your hand is flat out awesome

733 hugh59  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:29:05pm

Charles, thank you for your information on this issue. I do not know what the truth is. You have made a good point, though I do not know if your position is correct regarding what the President meant by "1967 lines." If he was talking about the post-1967 war lines, those would include the Sinai peninsula as part of Israel.

Last week I was visiting my rabbi's house to listen to information about a congregation trip to Israel. The rabbi brought out a map of Israel that was a bit old. The rabbi apologized for any confusion caused by the inclusion of the Sinai peninsula as part of Israel....but it was the only map he had that showed the level of detail he wanted for describing the trip.

This thread started several hours ago. If the media misreported the President's message, I believe that he has an obligation to correct them. The longer this confusion goes on, the worse it will be for the administration.

Of course, it is also possible that the media interpretation of the President's message is the correct interpretation. I am waiting to see a message from the White House correcting the media. If it does not come soon, I will have no choice but to believe that AP report was correct.

734 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:29:56pm

I'm back! This thread is still going strong?

I haven't seen any news since this afternoon. Have I missed anything?

735 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:30:05pm

re: #731 recusancy

No different than the odious conspiracy by the MSM who "want's a showdown, a confrontation and best yet, a shooting war...ratings spike and the money rolls in"

if you don't think they don't, you are an idealistic waif

736 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:31:12pm

re: #730 darthstar


This Republican says you're full of it.

737 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:32:48pm

re: #724 albusteve

Low Rider
War

[Video]

"please stand for the National Anthem"

738 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:33:23pm

re: #737 Killgore Trout

"please stand for the National Anthem"

LOL
I'm in

739 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:34:00pm

re: #732 albusteve

really?...your powers of conjure are impressive...
to have the mind of all Republicans in your hand is flat out awesome

Not ALL Republicans...just the cocksuckers stupid enough to get in front of a camera and say stupid shit about the president because they think it makes them look cool.

740 jaunte  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:34:21pm

re: #733 hugh59

If the media misreported the President's [fill in subject here], I believe that he has an obligation to correct them. The longer this confusion goes on, the worse it will be for the administration.


I think I've seen this argument before.

741 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:34:51pm

re: #736 Dark_Falcon

This Republican says you're full of it.

You're not an elected official (which, I will say, is too bad. Senator Falcon would be kind of a cool title)

742 albusteve  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:35:33pm

re: #741 darthstar

You're not an elected official (which, I will say, is too bad. Senator Falcon would be kind of a cool title)

BOW BEFORE HIM!
movin up

743 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:35:46pm

re: #739 darthstar

Not ALL Republicans...just the cocksuckers stupid enough to get in front of a camera and say stupid shit about the president because they think it makes them look cool.

Oops...bourbonspeak there...didn't mean to imply all Republicans are cocksuckers, but the ones who get all of the attention on TV do tend to be.

744 darthstar  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:36:45pm

re: #740 jaunte

I think I've seen this argument before.

We need the long form media rebuttal.

745 funky chicken  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:37:14pm

re: #725 darthstar

It has to make you wonder what Republican goals for US-Israeli relations actually are. Can't work toward peace...that shit kills defense contracts.

Um, no.

746 andres  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:37:17pm

re: #740 jaunte

I think I've seen this argument before.

If only Obama would release his birth certificate...

747 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:39:56pm

re: #733 hugh59

If he was talking about the post-1967 war lines, those would include the Sinai peninsula as part of Israel.

It would, if Israel hadn't already traded that land back to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty and an acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist.

See how that works? It's exactly the model being proposed here, made possible by the fact that Israel never annexed the Sinai, the West Bank, or Gaza. The Golan and East Jerusalem have been annexed, they're forever part of Israel now. Now it's true that the US has never recognized Israel's annexation of EJ, but that may change if the Palestinians don't hurry up and recognize Israel's right to exist.

748 kristina37  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:40:00pm

re: #723 Dark_Falcon

Well, I see it as a possibility-- just a thought I had. Actually there's a good probably its not true. I agree with you in that he's probably not that clever (Or that devious :-)

But of course even if that wasn't his intention, it still may play out that way.

And even if the Palestinians "play the 'Right of Return' card"--the Israelis can always point out that one of Obama's conditions was that they recognize Israel-- so if the Palestinians don't meet that condition, then Israel can say they don't have to meet Obama's conditions either.

No matter how this plays out, IMO Obama has made them an offer they can't . . . accept. (i.e. recognize right of Israel to exist).

So, while my intitial reaction was to think this speech created difficulties for Israel, it appears that in actuality the opposite may be true.

749 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:41:57pm

re: #747 goddamnedfrank

but that may change if the Palestinians don't hurry up and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Yeah, that will happen when pigs fly.

750 Dark_Falcon  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:47:33pm

I'm at this point just going to leave the Civil War Woods segment of my LGF/D&D Crossover incomplete. The only things remaining were stats for the Teabagger and Veteran militiamen and the special rules for using the head of the Backstabbing Backbencher to end the fight by placating Singsong Texas Veteran (which was entirely a reference to Taxfreekiller's anger at John Kerry). If ever needed, I can whip up those details, but now I want to past that section to the two-part final battle of the Tomb of Dead Political Gods.

Part 1: The Astral Engine and the Harpy's Wrath

Whether through victory over the Ubersocks or militia, the players reach a large door set into a high wall. Opening it leads them into a huge room with a high ceiling, lit by an immense construct of gems from the Arctic, which glows with Bad Craziness Energy. In the center of it, on can see a pair of black framed glasses the glows brightest of all. This is PALINDROME's Astral Engine, which she has been using to channel immense political power. The glasses are her phylactry, the holder of her soul and bad craziness powers. While the players destruction of her Soul Gems has disrupted the power flow to the Engine, the player's must still shut it down.

Special: If the players entered through Civil War Woods, they fall 20 feet into the chamber from the door. Unless magic is used to cushion the blow, each player takes 2D10 damage.

751 goddamnedfrank  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:48:01pm

re: #749 NJDhockeyfan

but that may change if the Palestinians don't hurry up and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Yeah, that will happen when pigs fly.

Then you agree that Obama has now given the Israelis everything they need to maintain the status quo, being the first US president to predicate the creation of any Palestinian state to its explicit acceptance of Israel's right to exist? As such he's also dropped any mention of settlement freezes, going much further into Israel's corner than any President before him.

752 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:51:08pm

re: #733 hugh59

Class of 2004!
Karma: -78

hugh59

(Logged in)
Registered since: Sep 12, 2004 at 4:02 pm
No. of comments posted: 69
No. of Pages posted: 0

753 NJDhockeyfan  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:54:06pm

re: #751 goddamnedfrank

Then you agree that Obama has now given the Israelis everything they need to maintain the status quo, being the first US president to predicate the creation of any Palestinian state to its explicit acceptance of Israel's right to exist? As such he's also dropped any mention of settlement freezes, going much further into Israel's corner than any President before him.

Well see what happens tomorrow. I am not going to make any guesses on whether Obama has saved Israel & the ME yet.

754 jamesfirecat  Thu, May 19, 2011 6:56:42pm

re: #750 Dark_Falcon

I'm at this point just going to leave the Civil War Woods segment of my LGF/D&D Crossover incomplete. The only things remaining were stats for the Teabagger and Veteran militiamen and the special rules for using the head of the Backstabbing Backbencher to end the fight by placating Singsong Texas Veteran (which was entirely a reference to Taxfreekiller's anger at John Kerry). If ever needed, I can whip up those details, but now I want to past that section to the two-part final battle of the Tomb of Dead Political Gods.

Part 1: The Astral Engine and the Harpy's Wrath

Whether through victory over the Ubersocks or militia, the players reach a large door set into a high wall. Opening it leads them into a huge room with a high ceiling, lit by an immense construct of gems from the Arctic, which glows with Bad Craziness Energy. In the center of it, on can see a pair of black framed glasses the glows brightest of all. This is PALINDROME's Astral Engine, which she has been using to channel immense political power. The glasses are her phylactry, the holder of her soul and bad craziness powers. While the players destruction of her Soul Gems has disrupted the power flow to the Engine, the player's must still shut it down.

Special: If the players entered through Civil War Woods, they fall 20 feet into the chamber from the door. Unless magic is used to cushion the blow, each player takes 2D10 damage.

Are you sure the phylactry shouldn't be a jewel encrusted /made up of jewels flag pin?

Something like this only more so with rubies and diamonds and sapphires?

755 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 7:04:27pm

re: #751 goddamnedfrank

Then you agree that Obama has now given the Israelis everything they need to maintain the status quo, being the first US president to predicate the creation of any Palestinian state to its explicit acceptance of Israel's right to exist? As such he's also dropped any mention of settlement freezes, going much further into Israel's corner than any President before him.


Uh, nope. Educated guess.

756 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, May 19, 2011 7:05:22pm

re: #753 NJDhockeyfan

Well see what happens tomorrow. I am not going to make any guesses on whether Obama has saved Israel & the ME yet.

Again, you are not on the side of the pragmatism. Go Bibi! Right?

757 hugh59  Thu, May 19, 2011 7:11:23pm

re: #752 Floral Giraffe

And this means what? So I have only posted 69 (now 70) times. Not a lot in 7 years, sorry. Hopefully I will make up in quality what I lack in frequency.

@goddamnedfrank, you raised good point. If that was the President's message, then let's hope he is able to make progress. If the media are incorrect and if foreign leaders (particularly Israeli leaders) are responding to incorrect media portrayals, then it could make the peace process even harder. The fact that the media messed this up is not the President's fault. But he needs to set them right.

758 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 19, 2011 9:15:32pm

I wish Obama had been a tiny bit more specific and unambiguous in his statement. The phrase "1967 lines" does have specific meaning to students of the history of the region, but lets not kid ourselves, many journalists aren't exactly students of history, even many of the most influential. Many journalists are just... not all that bright.

I can see how one journalist could have misunderstood the intent of that phrase, and I can see how many lazy journalists could, in turn, quote the AP without carefully parsing the primary source material. Due diligence has become a secondary concern to the need to get the story out there, right now, before competing news outlets can do the same.

Back in the day, when the news of the day moved in a 24-hour cycle, with new stories breaking primarily in the morning with the paper-based news cycle, things like this had a better chance of being corrected before they hit the streets. Now, not so much. Not only that, but a reputation for accuracy isn't as important as it used to be, compared to the necessity of producing profits. "Dog bites man" becomes "man bites dog" becomes "serial dog rapist bites grandmother" in the blink of an eye. If it bleeds, it not only leads, but if it doesn't bleed, say it does anyway because the other guy will.

I'm not convinced the AP's mis-parsing of Obama's speech was deliberate. I am convinced, however, that none of the major news outlets really give a shit either way, else they would be issuing retractions and corrections en masse. They got some eyes to their sites, which pleases their advertisers. After all, they aren't in this to get the truth out there. They are in it to make money.

759 bombarafat  Fri, May 20, 2011 1:51:04am

Actually on April 15, 2004 Bush rejected the idea of 1967 borders.

So this is false.

We need to go back to pre-2008 elections when there was no BHO and Charles Johnson would've put a headline like "Let's give them a state!"

760 freetoken  Fri, May 20, 2011 2:01:16am

Sleeper comes by... logs in... drops one... and then immediately logs out...

Typical.

761 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, May 20, 2011 3:21:14am

re: #760 freetoken

Sleeper comes by... logs in... drops one... and then immediately logs out...

Typical.

Well, they're not housebroken, it happens

762 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, May 20, 2011 3:24:05am

re: #683 SanFranciscoZionist

It's because of a concerted attempt to portray him as anti-Israel that began during the campaign and shows no sign of stopping.

Sekrit muslim president!

Pretty obvious politics

763 eneri  Fri, May 20, 2011 4:52:32am

This comes from his own mouth, not faux news. He just lost the election. The man is a fool, I voted for him, supported him, and argued for him but that has now ended.

764 G.W.  Fri, May 20, 2011 5:40:50am

"The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967": [Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]
If anyone wishes to claim otherwise, could he please provide a single instance where this phrase refers to post six-day war cease fire lines.

The US position has always been that Israel should withdraw to defensible borders. The pre-1967 borders are anything but defensible.

The Green line is not Israel's border today! E.g., even Jimmy Carter, no friend of Israel, has conceded that Gush Etzion will not ever go back to the Palestinians. The city of Ariel has close to 20,000 residents, and will not go back to the Palestinians.

Obama's speech is a departure from previous US policy. However, make no mistake. If the US stance versus Israel toughens, it will simply encourage Israel ignore the US. Israel will not endanger its security simply to secure its friendship with the US.

765 funky chicken  Fri, May 20, 2011 5:46:16am

re: #750 Dark_Falcon

To be fair, TFK's anger towards John Kerry was justified. I'm still absolutely disgusted that Kerry was the democrat party's nominee in 2004.

766 hugh59  Fri, May 20, 2011 6:46:29am

re: #761 WindUpBird

Well, they're not housebroken, it happens

Well, i may not post a lot of comments here, but I usually look back in and answer responses to my comments. But I see why that type of comment would be a problem.

I have seen a few threads at conservative sites making the same point as Charles. No doubt the President will make his meaning to the Israeli prime minister when they meet today.

On an unrelated topic, it is vrry difficult to write a comment on this site using an Android smartphone. Oy, there is a lot of lag time between when I tap the character and when the lettrr appears on my screen

767 califleftyb  Fri, May 20, 2011 8:42:20am

It's unfortunate that so many here seem to have drunk the cool-aid (Obama can do no wrong) and have failed to realize or simple refuse to hear that the Pres. has shifted US foreign policy dramatically on this issue. Frankly, if I wanted to "argue" the case with ideologues, I'd head over to the Huffington Post. Rather, for those who want to better understand these changes I offer this link as some interesting analysis.

[Link: www.washingtoninstitute.org...]

768 Obdicut  Fri, May 20, 2011 8:47:13am

re: #764 G.W.

In that case, again, Obama has still said nothing new.

769 tomg51spence  Fri, May 20, 2011 10:13:47am

Please grant the Palestinians a state.

They would have treaties, alliances, trading partners, rights, choices, citizens and decisions.
And consequences.

Just like everyone else.

770 mr. hammer  Fri, May 20, 2011 12:37:53pm

re: #764 G.W.

"The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967": [Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]
If anyone wishes to claim otherwise, could he please provide a single instance where this phrase refers to post six-day war cease fire lines.

re: #762 WindUpBird

Sekrit muslim president!

Pretty obvious politics

re: #764 G.W.

"The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967": [Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]
If anyone wishes to claim otherwise, could he please provide a single instance where this phrase refers to post six-day war cease fire lines.

Who are you quoting here? I don't see this post.

771 mr. hammer  Fri, May 20, 2011 12:40:02pm

re: #764 G.W.

"The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967": [Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]
If anyone wishes to claim otherwise, could he please provide a single instance where this phrase refers to post six-day war cease fire lines.

Sorry. Just meant to reference the above... Whose post are you quoting from here?

772 arbitraryname  Fri, May 20, 2011 12:57:33pm

I have felt confused about this and asked a friend of mine her opinion. She, too, referred me ot the jewishvirtuallibrary website and she said she feels Obama meant before the war. She said she believes what Obama is saying is that you have to start with the lines from that date for legal reasons and then swap land to get where you want to be, since Israel is not legally entitled to the '67 war land under UN treaty. She said on a practical basis, Israel needs some of that land to be secure and Obama was trying to find a way to make it legal.

773 mr. hammer  Fri, May 20, 2011 1:07:21pm

I am just trying to catch up, and was asking about the quote:

"The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967"


I don't see where that came from.

774 mr. hammer  Fri, May 20, 2011 1:11:01pm

Sorry I keep buggering up my posts. My computer is choking on this site for some reason.

775 The 1SG  Fri, May 20, 2011 4:56:27pm

Thanks for keeping it real, I was at work when this broke and was just catching the ticker at the bottom and headlines before I left for the next assignment. Nice to have the facts finally. I do think the Pale's need to get a grip and stop chucking rockets for anyone to start to listen. Can't reward bad behavior sort of thing.

776 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 20, 2011 8:31:29pm

re: #763 eneri

This comes from his own mouth, not faux news. He just lost the election. The man is a fool, I voted for him, supported him, and argued for him but that has now ended.

Do you think that Obama meant the pre 1967 borders?

Even if he did, do you think that Palestine will agree to recognize Israel's right to exist?

If they do then its a major political breakthrough towards peace, YAY!

If they don't then they've just painted themselves into a corner, and looked like people who won't take "yes" for an answer, assuming this offer is more generous than any previous one... YAY, or at least a useful political weapon for Israel.

If it was more of the same then there's nothing to complain about... if it was what you think it was how do you know that it wasn't just Obama manuvering his foes into a corner?

777 [deleted]  Fri, May 20, 2011 10:48:30pm
778 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 20, 2011 11:44:34pm

Bye now!

779 [deleted]  Sat, May 21, 2011 8:33:33am
780 mr. hammer  Sat, May 21, 2011 8:44:37am

Dunno about any of that. I'm still trying to digest whether this is indeed a case of fake outrage, and I can't figure out where the quote: "The 1967 lines" always refer to "The line of June 4 1967" came from in GW post #764. Did the AP and the others get it wrong? I haven't seen a clarification from the WH.

781 LordNazh  Sat, May 21, 2011 2:52:01pm

test

782 G.W.  Sun, May 22, 2011 1:15:40am

re: #780 mr. hammer

Sorry for the late reply; was away.

The "1967 lines" comes from the president speech:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Raconteurs - ‘Help Me Stranger’ (Official Music Video) Music video for The Raconteurs new single “Help Me Stranger” from their forthcoming album HELP US STRANGER – out June 21st. Pre-order & pre-save HELP US STRANGER here: theraconteurs.lnk.to Director: Yasuhiko ShimizuDirector of Photography: Shunya AraiProducer: Takashi SugaiStylist: Tomohiko ...
Thanos
15 hours, 3 minutes ago
Views: 124 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
‘The Maldives Mystery’ Resolved This is a response to the Academic Agent's "Climate Change -- The Maldives Mystery." I am currently on assignment and won't be able to list sources for at least another week. My apologies for the delay. This is also ...
Thanos
21 hours, 39 minutes ago
Views: 150 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Lil Nas X - Old Town Road (Official Movie) Ft. Billy Ray Cyrus Official video for Lil Nas X’s Billboard #1 hit, “Old Town Road (Remix)” featuring Billy Ray Cyrus. Special guest appearances from Chris Rock, Haha Davis, Rico Nasty, Diplo, Jozzy, Young Kio, and Vince Staples. Listen & Download “Old Town ...
Thanos
21 hours, 49 minutes ago
Views: 156 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Down on the PromenadeProvided to YouTube by CDBaby Down On the Promenade · Marc Monroe Copasetic ℗ 2013 Mark Kelton Released on: 2013-04-23 Auto-generated by YouTube.
Thanos
3 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 325 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Dido - Take You Home (Official Video) The official video for Take You Home, taken from Dido's new album, Still On My Mind. Buy now: dido.lnk.to Follow DidoOfficial site - didomusic.comFacebook - facebook.com Instagram - instagram.comTwitter - @didoofficial Jordan Rossi (Video Producer), John RankinWaddell (Video Director) ...
Thanos
4 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 293 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Norah Jones - Begin Again (Live on the Today Show)‘Begin Again’ comes from Norah Jones’s latest compilation of the same name.Listen to the full compilation here: norahjones.lnk.to See Norah live: norahjones.lnk.to Connect with Norah:norahjones.comfacebook.com@norahjonesinstagram.com #NorahJones #BeginAgain vevo.ly
Thanos
4 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 325 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Bill Evans ‘Peace Piece’ Virtual Museum Exhibit: Pasos Peace Museum (visit: www. pasospeacemuseum.org)—Bill Evans's "Peace Piece" is an unrehearsed modal composition that he recorded for his "Everybody Digs Bill Evans" LP in 1958. It is hailed as one of the most beautiful and ...
Thanos
5 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 328 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Have You Ever Seen the Rain - Endless Summer (Creedence Clearwater Revival Cover) (Grand Canyon) Thanks for watching our cover of "Have You Ever Seen The Rain" by Creedence Clearwater Revival. Subscribe: Please Note: No drones were flown in the Grand Canyon National Park. All drone footage was purchased off shutterstock.com. Follow Endless Summer:Instagram: ...
Thanos
5 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 529 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
The Allman Betts - ‘Melodies Are Memories’ (Live at WFUV) wfuv.org • Follow @wfuv: ow.ly The Allman Betts Band performs "Melodies are Memories" live in Studio A. Recorded 3/27/19. Host: Eric HollandAudio: Chris RussoCameras: Kay Kurkierewicz, Jeffrey Pelayo, Jake Lee, Mackenzie Cranna and Elise LeasureEditor: Jake Lee and Kay ...
Thanos
5 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 345 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Crossfire + Travis Walk (Instrumental) [1989] When I first heard Stevie Ray Vaughan it was like a light went off in my head. Being a hack guitar player I was not unlike any other. You chase sounds in your head.What SRV did was just roll ...
here...not here.....here...not...was I even.....
5 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 323 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0