My, my, how they scurry and scuttle to support illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing. It appears that this dude will be every bit as accomodating to the arms industry as 'Bomber' McCain . Time to get rid of him, before he gives WW3 a shot in the arm.

I've been telling you for some time that Obama isn't any different on Israel / Palestine than the others......

Matt

I've been waiting for him to irrevocably commit himself, like the others. Every dog deserves a chance.

Now it's looking again like America versus the law-abiding international community. That's one dumb policy.

"law-abiding community"??...that's one dumb statement.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

That's one dumb comprehension. International law forbids invasion and the acquisition of territory by war. Borders cannot be changed without negotiation by involved parties. Jerusalem cannot be considered to be 'Israeli' without agreement by all parties. The Zionists, along with yet another American Zionist lackey, Barack Obama it appears, want to disregard international law. Clearly, such illegalities must be opposed by all necessary means.

Is there a ban on calling for candidates to be chucked off the balcony, or does that just relate to incumbent arsehole Presidents ?

Anybody seen a mod lately ?


Might just as well start demolishing the jackass now as wait 'til he's got his feet under the White House table.

"I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked."

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

You cannot call for violence against a US politician, or presidential candidate.

We're a US based forum, and that's the law of the land.

In future, if you have a question, PM a member of the staff. Don't post in a thread, then whine when we don't get back to you in what you consider an appropriate timeframe.

Matt

I hope you don't think that 99% of the US electorate give a hoot what Hamas or Fatah think....

Matt

I guess Obama lost his endorsements.

Whilst I would like to see a settlement with Jerusalem on the plate, this argument appears very selective.

The occupied territories were part of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. They attacked Israel repeatedly and the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied when Jordan attacked Israel seeking to destroy it. Who violated these principles you are speaking of? Jordan did. Israel has been willing to discuss peace (Oslo, etc). Hamas, etc, want Israel as a state removed and fight in acts of war to achieve that. Who is violating these principles you speak of?

__________________

Moon, what you need to try to wrap your head around is the fact that America will never do anything to appease groups like Hamas and Fatah.

It doesn't matter who sits in the White House. It will never happen...

I think it was telling that one day after clinching the nomination, Obama pandered to AIPAC.

On the surface, it looks like he's no advocate of the Palestinians. He's really just focused on getting elected at this point which means going after the Jewish vote....(there's not much of a Palestinian vote here).

The Palestinians should take a step back though and think about the alternative. At least Obama is reasonable enough to be a peace broker and champion the peace process like Bush or McCain never could.

But perhaps that's precisely why Hamas, Fatah, and Palestinians are up in arms over Obama..... they certainly spurn compromise and are perhaps discarding peace.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

So, will you be endorsing anyone in this campaign, moon?

How is his position reasonable?

Beyond the fact that he was speaking to a Jewish audience and declared his intent to fully support Israel as an ally and her right to defend herself, he reiterated a commitment to peace in his speech.

He also said that Hamas can be a partner for peace, assuming that they recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce violence. Perhaps a tall order, but it's a statement that "If you behave, we can make a deal".

Of the choices for American president, Obama is the more likely peace broker. Ghandi isn't running, so it's either McCain or Obama.

Seems reasonable to me. Do you see unreasonable aspects of his stance? Did you expect something else?

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Hmmm ... I mean to say "more reasonable." His position on the Israel/Palestine issue is indistinguishable from those of Bush and McCain. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard of Bush or McCain declaring a sharing of Jerusalem off the table as Obama has done here. I simply see no reason for heightened optimism for peace here based on an Obama presidency.