Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

southsiderosie

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — 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 baseline for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the first time an American president has explicitly taken that position.

“At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent that ever,” he said.

Although Mr. Obama said that “the core issues” dividing Israelis and Palestinians remained to be negotiated, including the searing questions of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, he spoke with striking frustration that efforts to support an agreement had so far failed. “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome,” he said.

His decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state marks a subtle — but, for the contentious Israeli-Palestinian peace process, potentially important — shift by the United States a step closer to the position of the Palestinians.

The shift is vital to the Palestinians because it means the Americans implicitly back their view that new Israeli settlement construction would have to be reversed — or compensated for — in talks over the borders for a new Palestinians state.

The outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement came in what the president called “a moment of opportunity” after six months of political upheaval that has at times left the administration scrambling to keep up. The speech was an attempt to articulate a cohesive American policy to an Arab Spring that took a dark turn as the euphoria of popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gave way to violent crackdowns in Bahrain and Syria, a civil war in Libya and political stalemate in Yemen.

<snip>
Full version

Is this a sign of real change? An opportunistic speech before the Israeli PM's visit next week? Or just someone catching up with the tail end of a movement?

I think this is a pretty momentous statement on the Israeli-Palestinian situation from an American president, particularly one who is facing an election next year. Republicans will start beating him over the head on this in 3...2..

thebman

I think Obama has decided he is losing the vote of people that are pro-Israeli anyway so he is going to try to attract the vote of the opposite side.

Nodin

...it does however immediately raise the spectre of him once more talking the talk but failing to perambulate soon thereafter. Unless he's prepared to get tough with the Israelis, nothing is going to change.

sdanseo

We all know Israel are too stubborn to deserve any backing, let alone US backing. Obama should pull the plug on them, they're nothing more than a country full of bigoted murderous idiots still grinding out stupid policies untouched because of a 70 year old gult trip re the holocaust.

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

...it does however immediately raise the spectre of him once more talking the talk but failing to perambulate soon thereafter. Unless he's prepared to get tough with the Israelis, nothing is going to change.

I agree with this - I worry that it will just be "Cairo II". Especially with an upcoming election.

Now if he would just lift the Cuban embargo, he could effectively piss off the remaining 50% of the South Florida electorate.

KeithAFC

I think the Israeli people are entitled to self determination and freedom in the Israeli state and I support their cause 100%. I think Obama should keep his nose out. Same with Washington DC intervening in our own country.

southsiderosie

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the Israeli people are entitled to self determination and freedom in the Israeli state and I support their cause 100%. I think Obama should keep his nose out. Same with Washington DC intervening in our own country.

By keep his nose out, I am assuming you mean the US should not send billions in military aid annually and should stop interfering when Israel comes up at the UN. I wholeheartedly agree.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree with this - I worry that it will just be "Cairo II". Especially with an upcoming election.

Now if he would just lift the Cuban embargo, he could effectively piss off the remaining 50% of the South Florida electorate.

The other thing is that - to the best of my knowledge - he'd require congress if he were to start the 'tough' approach. Seeing as getting congress onside to any issue is the equivalent of herding cats, and having noticed no change in the unaminity of almost unquestioning US support for Israel, it just appears that he's setting himself up to fail.

Tis odd, from an intelligent man. Maybe he's on too much coffee in the mornings...can make one overly optimistic.

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the Israeli people are entitled to self determination and freedom in the Israeli state and I support their cause 100%. I think Obama should keep his nose out. Same with Washington DC intervening in our own country.

Anywhere America has an interest it will intervene.
Do you think the Palestinian people deserve freedom and self determination also? It's a humanitarian crisis going on over there, the Israeli's will happily exterminate the Palestinian people.



Are these borders fair? The green is the Palestinian land, which shows the loss of land and seizing of territory by the Israelis.
The state is Palestine is recognised by nearly every country in the world bar North America, Australia and the EU.

irishh_bob

thebman wrote: »

I think Obama has decided he is losing the vote of people that are pro-Israeli anyway so he is going to try to attract the vote of the opposite side.

the opposite side , you do realise that hes running for election in america , dont you ? , not ireland or any other country for that matter

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

Anywhere America has an interest it will intervene.
Do you think the Palestinian people deserve freedom and self determination also? It's a humanitarian crisis going on over there, the Israeli's will happily exterminate the Palestinian people.



Are these borders fair? The green is the Palestinian land, which shows the loss of land and seizing of territory by the Israelis.
The state is Palestine is recognised by nearly every country in the world bar North America, Australia and the EU.

It seems to me that first picture of palestinian land is wrong too because they stole that land off the Kingdom of Israel.

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

It seems to me that first picture of palestinian land is wrong too because they stole that land off the Kingdom of Israel.

history was never you britts strongest subject , the israelis in actual fact took it off the britts through a terrorist campaign in the forties

Hannibal

KeithAFC wrote: »

It seems to me that first picture of palestinian land is wrong too because they stole that land off the Kingdom of Israel.

Actually the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Israel in xyzBC. With the exception of the christian Crusades its been in Arab hands for nearly the whole of the last 2000 years.

KeithAFC

irishh_bob wrote: »

history was never you britts strongest subject , the israelis in actual fact took it off the britts through a terrorist campaign in the forties

Im talking way before that. If it was the Israeli state (kingdom) then, then why should it change now? Should the native Americans get their land back?

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im talking way before that. If it was the Israeli state (kingdom) then, then why should it change now? Should the native Americans get their land back?

so you think the indians shouldnt have gotten thier land back , despite the fact that they only lost it a mere 500 yrs ago max where as the israelis who lost theres nearly 2 millenia ago have a perfectly legitimite claim on thier back yard , bit of a contradictiong there me thinks , btw , ive no strong feelings on the matter either way but acknowledge that america is hopelessly biased on this issue

southsiderosie

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im talking way before that. If it was the Israeli state (kingdom) then, then why should it change now? Should the native Americans get their land back?

If changes in population are due to very specific state-led policies of ethnic cleansing and land encroachment, then yes the window is open for the state to redress past wrongs.

Pride Fighter

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the Israeli people are entitled to self determination and freedom in the Israeli state and I support their cause 100%. I think Obama should keep his nose out. Same with Washington DC intervening in our own country.

Palestine is NOT Israel.

I firmly believe Israel and Palestine can co-exist side by side, both independent Republics. It is not anti-semitic or anti-Israeli to want an independent Palestine.

dlofnep

Lads, it's best to ignore wee Keith on these matters. He's slightly naive about the whole situation, bless him.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Lads, it's best to ignore wee Keith on these matters. He's slightly naive about the whole situation, bless him.

Anything which was said which was wrong? Nope. Like its been said, not by me, 2 millenia ago, it wasn't palestinian land.

Pride Fighter

KeithAFC wrote: »

Anything which was said which was wrong? Nope. Like its been said, not by me, 2 millenia ago, it wasn't palestinian land.

Who said it??

virmilitaris

KeithAFC wrote: »

Anything which was said which was wrong? Nope. Like its been said, not by me, 2 millenia ago, it wasn't palestinian land.

Not that I give a flying f*&k but what the hell has that got to do with anything ? The North of Ireland wasn't British a few hundred years ago. Does that give the IRA legitimacy ?

We are talking about now. Everyone knows that the only solution to the Palestinian question is a two state one. What form that takes, where the borders are etc is a different question. But the fact remains that the only reasonable solution is the two state one. (That or genocide which the 'religious' on both sides seem to want)

And if it hadn't been for religious nutjob Israeli's and religious nutjob Palestinians and religious nutjob Americans then that's what we would have had years ago.

steelcityblues

Maybe since that right nasty piece of work Rahm Emmanuel left for Chicago, the President is (publicly) developing a good deal more guts than before.

Just maybe.

conscious

Obama does what he is told by his advisers like brzezinski, he is a complete puppet

Jelle1880

Dotsey wrote: »

Anywhere America has an interest it will intervene.
Do you think the Palestinian people deserve freedom and self determination also? It's a humanitarian crisis going on over there, the Israeli's will happily exterminate the Palestinian people.



Are these borders fair? The green is the Palestinian land, which shows the loss of land and seizing of territory by the Israelis.
The state is Palestine is recognised by nearly every country in the world bar North America, Australia and the EU.

Ah, that one again.
Trust me, if the Israeli's wanted to exterminate the Arabs they would have done so, they are well capable of it.

Do you want me to show you a little map of how many land Israel got left with after the British moved out, compared to what they had originally ?

wes

So Obama has finally come to the same position that Geogre W Bush has when he was President? Nothing to see here at all.

Also, the Palestinians didn't steal any land, they are descended from Jews and the various occupiers of that bit of land over the centuries. What some people don't understand, is that over time, Religion and culture can change. When people invade, they tend to inter-marry with the indigenous populace etc over time, and that what happened with the Palestinians, who adopted Christianity under the Roman, and then Islam under the Arab invaders. Them changing there Religion or inter-marrying with occupiers, does not mean they stop being the indigenous people.

They are the indigenous people, and they had there land stolen by European colonists, who made either a bizarre 3000 year old land claim or said God gave it to them. The claim is utterly laughable, and the fact that people seem to think it valid doubly so.

wes

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Do you want me to show you a little map of how many land Israel got left with after the British moved out, compared to what they had originally ?

The land was never Israel's in the first place.......

If we are to follow that logic, we can all claim land in Africa, which would be absurd......

wes

I taught the following reply from Netanyahu was interesting:

Israeli PM Netanyahu rejects Obama '1967 borders' view

His current position pretty much means there cannot be peace, and considering the fact that Israel just announced more land theft, I think the Palestinians were right to walk away from negotiations. They have no partner for peace in Israel, if Netanyahu isn't willing to go back to the 1967 borders (more less with agreed swaps if needed).

Zubeneschamali

wes wrote: »

The land was never Israel's in the first place.......

If we are to follow that logic, we can all claim land in Africa, which would be absurd......

So how long do the Israelis have to occupy the land before it becomes theirs?

People seem to think the American Indians are out of luck, so a few hundred years should do it, but by that logic, 800 years of oppression should have made Ireland British.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

They are the indigenous people, and they had there land stolen by European colonists, who made either a bizarre 3000 year old land claim or said God gave it to them. The claim is utterly laughable, and the fact that people seem to think it valid doubly so.

You really ought to actually travel there and see for yourself what its like. You'll find that whacked-out thinking and justification for what has happened there is not exclusive to hardline Jewish residents but easy to find amongst the Muslims and Christians in the area too.

Jews went there having been treated like sh*t-on-a-shoe for centuries by Europeans. While this doesn't justify any of the violence perpetrated by the Arab and Israeli sides of the conflict there, particularly in the past 60-70 years, it does explain why certain Jews headed for Israel/Palestine in the first place.

Compromise will be tough. There'll be tough questions such as why should Israel recognise the Arab part of the region when the Arab part refused to recognise the Israeli part in 1948? With Israeli coalitions needing the hardline right to edge majorities and Hamas involved on the flipside, don't hold your breath for a solution for a while yet. Lots to be done and results will not happen without further violence.

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

You really ought to actually travel there and see for yourself what its like. You'll find that whacked-out thinking and justification for what has happened there is not exclusive to hardline Jewish residents but easy to find amongst the Muslims and Christians in the area too.

I am well aware of both sides nutters, but I was addressing point specifically raised on this thread, so I saw no need to address other views, which are similarly nutty, because no one on this thread echoed those views.

So you point here is irrelvant to anything I said.

JustinDee wrote: »

Jews went there having been treated like sh*t-on-a-shoe for centuries by Europeans. While this doesn't justify any of the violence perpetrated by the Arab and Israeli sides of the conflict there, particularly in the past 60-70 years, it does explain why certain Jews headed for Israel/Palestine in the first place.

Yes, everyone is well aware of Jewish suffering in Europe. Israel regularly uses that as an excuse to screw over the Palestinians.

However why should the Palestinians have to suffer for others crimes? Why should they have given anything to Israeli's? From a Palestinian POV, what was done to Jews in Europe is irrelvant, and I would have to agree with them, its not there fault, and they shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Also, the Palestinians have suffered directly at the hands of Israel, and I find there position far easier to understand, as there anger is actually addressed at the state who screwed them over.

JustinDee wrote: »

Compromise will be tough. There'll be tough questions such as why should Israel recognise the Arab part of the region when the Arab part refused to recognise the Israeli part in 1948?

Why should the Arabs have recognised a colonial land grab? Seems to me that no one wants to ask hard questions of Israel, as to what right they had to steal Palestinian land in the first place, which is to say, they didn't have any, and even less right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. All of this btw there still doing. If you want to bring up 1948, the question will be far harder on Israel, than the Palestinians.

JustinDee wrote: »

With Israeli coalitions needing the hardline right to edge majorities and Hamas involved on the flipside, don't hold your breath for a solution for a while yet. Lots to be done and results will not happen without further violence.

Israel had plenty of oppurtunity to make peace, before Hamas came to power during the Palestinian elections. Between the Arab Peace plan and the offers made by Fatah (see the leaked Palestine Paper on Al Jazeera's web site), it can be clearly seen that no matter what the Palestinians do, Israel seems unwilling to compromise.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Yes, everyone is well aware of Jewish suffering in Europe. Israel regularly uses that as an excuse to screw over the Palestinians.

However why should the Palestinians have to suffer for others crimes? Why should they have given anything to Israeli's? From a Palestinian POV, what was done to Jews in Europe is irrelvant, and I would have to agree with them, its not there fault, and they shouldn't have to suffer for it

I never mentioned centuries of European antisemitism to justify violence or settlement expansion. I explained why they went there in the first place. And I'm not just talking about the 40s either. It isn't irrelevant in the slightest.

wes wrote: »

Also, the Palestinians have suffered directly at the hands of Israel, and I find there position far easier to understand, as there anger is actually addressed at the state who screwed them over

Sure. Whatever your cause-du-jour is. I'm sure you're very open minded about the whole thing, having read your previous posts on it.

wes wrote: »

Why should the Arabs have recognised a colonial land grab? Seems to me that no one wants to ask hard questions of Israel, as to what right they had to steal Palestinian land in the first place, which is to say, they didn't have any, and even less right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. All of this btw there still doing

Members majority in the UN GA was behind it. Thats why.

wes wrote: »

Israel had plenty of oppurtunity to make peace, before Hamas came to power during the Palestinian elections. Between the Arab Peace plan and the offers made by Fatah (see the leaked Palestine Paper on Al Jazeera's web site), it can be clearly seen that no matter what the Palestinians do, Israel seems unwilling to compromise.

This is just down to the Israelis, is it? Blinkered as buggery. No Israeli government will deal with Hamas until Hamas stands down. There is no basis for trust from either side. Even the average on-the-street sanctimonious paddy who is up for the cause can see that.

Nodin

JustinDee wrote: »

This is just down to the Israelis, is it? Blinkered as buggery. No Israeli government will deal with Hamas until Hamas stands down. There is no basis for trust from either side. Even the average on-the-street sanctimonious paddy who is up for the cause can see that.

Its funny then, that they didn't seem to eager to deal with Abbas when he was collaborating with them against Hamas....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/palestine-papers

mprgst78

Why can't Obama keep his nose out of this issue? He should cut all funding to the Middle East. No aid for anyone

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Anything which was said which was wrong? Nope. Like its been said, not by me, 2 millenia ago, it wasn't palestinian land.

was count antrim british one millenia ago let alone two , surely you can see the silliness of your chosen criteria

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

I never mentioned centuries of European antisemitism to justify violence or settlement expansion. I explained why they went there in the first place. And I'm not just talking about the 40s either. It isn't irrelevant in the slightest.

I meant Israel uses it to justify there violence, and yes from a Palestinian POV, it is irrelvant, as they are not repsonsible for Jewish suffering. The only relevance to them is in understand some of the Zionist motivation on taking there land.

JustinDee wrote: »

Sure. Whatever your cause-du-jour is. I'm sure you're very open minded about the whole thing, having read your previous posts on it.

Nice to see you so dismissive of Palestinian suffering at the hand of Israel, and there anger at the actual perpetrators of there suffering. You know the entire cause of the conflict that we are discussing......

JustinDee wrote: »

Members majority in the UN GA was behind it. Thats why.

What right did they have to give away someone elses land to recently arrived colonists? Why should the Palestinians have accepted the theft of there land? Also, the GA resolution was non-binding, and the partition was hugely unfair, giving over half the land, to colonists (most recently arrived), who only made up a third of the population. The solution was in no way shapre of form a fair one, anyway it is looked.

JustinDee wrote: »

This is just down to the Israelis, is it? Blinkered as buggery.

Yes, in that instance it was. Of course, you would rather not address reality for whatever bizarre reason. Again, I refer the leaked Palestine papers.

JustinDee wrote: »

No Israeli government will deal with Hamas until Hamas stands down.

Yes, and before Hamas, Israel refused to deal with the PLO, but let not let facts get in the way of a good old rant.

You call me blinkered, and yet you ignore the fact that when Israel were dealing with Fatah, they chose land over peace, which was what I was talking about, and that happened before Hamas won the elections. So, if your going to reply address the point that was made.

Also, Israel had the same song and dance, even before Hamas existed, and I am sure they will come up with a new excuse in the future as needed.

JustinDee wrote: »

There is no basis for trust from either side. Even the average on-the-street sanctimonious paddy who is up for the cause can see that.

Yes there is. Fatah has worked with Israel to stop attacks agianst Israel. Fatah made the effort and Israel ignored it, just like you are ignoring it as it doesn't fit into your view of the conflict. All Fatah got in return for working with Israel was more land theft. Now you can ignore that fact, and call everyone else who points them out blinkered till the cows come home, but until you actually address those points nothing you said make a shred of sense.

irishh_bob

mprgst78 wrote: »

Why can't Obama keep his nose out of this issue? He should cut all funding to the Middle East. No aid for anyone

you make it sound like thier is nothing in it for uncle sam , if america stopped bankrolling the saudis , what price do you think americans would be paying to fill thier 5 litre chevys

mprgst78

irishh_bob wrote: »

you make it sound like thier is nothing in it for uncle sam , if america stopped bankrolling the saudis , what price do you think americans would be paying to fill thier 5 litre chevys

Maybe if he lifted the government ban on oil exploration around the american coastline they wouldn't have that problem

PatsytheNazi

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the Israeli people are entitled to self determination and freedom in the Israeli state and I support their cause 100%. I think Obama should keep his nose out. Same with Washington DC intervening in our own country.

Yes, if America would keep it's nose and dollars out, the Zionazi state would crumble in no time.

PatsytheNazi

dlofnep wrote: »

Lads, it's best to ignore wee Keith on these matters. He's slightly naive about the whole situation, bless him.

Well don't some of the unionists believe that they are the lost tirbe of Israel ( serious !!!).

Nelson McCausland who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism

mprgst78

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

...the Zionazi state would crumble in no time.

Hand me a bucket.

JustinDee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes, if America would keep it's nose and dollars out, the Zionazi state would crumble in no time.

Hopefully the scale of bloodshed you seem to wish for never actually does happen.

If the USSR hadn't kept its snozz out in the 50s (when Britain and France were doing same re. the Suez Canal) and 60s then the Six Day War wouldn't have taken place. If Iran didn't prop up Hezbollah, Lebanon would have been free of a civil war in the early 80s.

If . . . if . . . if . . .

Jelle1880

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Yes, if America would keep it's nose and dollars out, the Zionazi state would crumble in no time.

You do know that the US support only came AFTER Israel completely destroyed 3 attacking armies ?
As in: They didn't need US support then, and they will probably be able to handle themselves just fine if they lose it now.

wes wrote: »

The land was never Israel's in the first place.......


If we are to follow that logic, we can all claim land in Africa, which would be absurd......

Neither was it the Arab's land.

The whole area was a deserted wasteland with a few nomadic tribes here and there.

wes

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You do know that the US support only came AFTER Israel completely destroyed 3 attacking armies ?

The 3 attacking armies combined were actually similar in number to Zionist forces, and were poorly trained and had inferior equipment.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Neither was it the Arab's land.

It was Palestinian land.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The whole area was a deserted wasteland with a few nomadic tribes here and there.

No it wasn't....... Plenty of Palestinians lived there, and only a few were nomadic. The old Zionist lie of there being no people being has been refuted years ago, and most don't bother with such an absurd claim these days.

Nodin

Jelle1880 wrote: »

........

Neither was it the Arab's land.

The whole area was a deserted wasteland with a few nomadic tribes here and there.

The UN survey conducted prior to that organisations failed proposed division put the land under Arab/Palestinian ownership at over 75% of the total, and a similar percentage of the agricultural output to the same community. I suggest a bit of research on your part.

PatsytheNazi

JustinDee wrote: »

Hopefully the scale of bloodshed you seem to wish for never actually does happen.

If the USSR hadn't kept its snozz out in the 50s (when Britain and France were doing same re. the Suez Canal) and 60s then the Six Day War wouldn't have taken place. If Iran didn't prop up Hezbollah, Lebanon would have been free of a civil war in the early 80s.

If . . . if . . . if . . .

:rolleyes: ' Sigh '.......America is presently propping up the Zionazi state. Suez crisis, Six Day War etc are past events decades ago and cannot be changed. It's legitimate to hope that a government change it's present policy.

PatsytheNazi

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You do know that the US support only came AFTER Israel completely destroyed 3 attacking armies ?

Yes I do know US support only came the six day war, but these days Syria, Eygpt and Jordan would be much better equipped than they were back in 1967. As another poster states " The 3 attacking armies combined were actually similar in number to Zionist forces, and were poorly trained and had inferior equipment. "

As in: They didn't need US support then, and they will probably be able to handle themselves just fine if they lose it now.

The Zionazi state has become totally dependant on the Yanks recieving over a $100 Billion of handouts from the Yanks since 1967. The ' miracle ' of little Israel wouldn't be too long fading away without it.

JustinDee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

:rolleyes: ' Sigh '.......America is presently propping up the Zionazi state. Suez crisis, Six Day War etc are past events decades ago and cannot be changed. It's legitimate to hope that a government change it's present policy.

Sigh away, son.

You are still only looking at one side of proxy activity in the region. Since you melodramatically mention the word Nazi, you're implying fascism. Have a look at Gaza. What opposition party is active there? (answer is simple, by the way. It is 'NONE'). Is there an opposition allowed there, even with this apparent accord with Fatah? (answer again, no).

Yes of course its legitimate to hope for a government change. I would like to see a liberal majority party in government in Israel as much as I would like to see Hamas drop the gun and disband their 'breakaway' brigades.

PatsytheNazi

JustinDee wrote: »

Sigh away, son.

You are still only looking at one side of proxy activity in the region. Since you melodramatically mention the word Nazi, you're implying fascism. Have a look at Gaza. What opposition party is active there? (answer is simple, by the way. It is 'NONE'). Is there an opposition allowed there, even with this apparent accord with Fatah? (answer again, no).

Yes of course its legitimate to hope for a government change. I would like to see a liberal majority party in government in Israel as much as I would like to see Hamas drop the gun and disband their 'breakaway' brigades.

Though obviously you wouldn't like to see the Zionazi's drop the American F16 fighter planes, American Apache helicopters, American Abrams tanks, American assault rifles and grenades bombing schools, hospitals and refugee bunkers etc as your a man of ' peace ' aren't you :rolleyes:

Jelle1880

Maybe you need to take a look at what the Israeli's produce themselves regarding military supplies.

They have their own military manufacturers which produce a lot of stuff that's on the same level as that which the US sell them (Not just the US, but Germany, Italy, France, the UK, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Australia,... to name just a few).

Trust me: They will feel it if the US draw out their support, but they definitely won't crumble.

As for the 'Zionazi' thing, grow up.

JustinDee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Though obviously you wouldn't like to see the Zionazi's drop the American F16 fighter planes, American Apache helicopters, American Abrams tanks, American assault rifles and grenades bombing schools, hospitals and refugee bunkers etc as your a man of ' peace ' aren't you :rolleyes:

What utterly generalistic sanctimonious tosh. Its posted like a wet-behind-lugs kid is talking!
Your use of that 'Nazi' word is also pathetic.

reallyoriginal

well my original post was about politics before it got carried off on a tangent. basically doesn't matter what Barrack says Israel will carry on doing the same as they are now