Fri, 05/20/2011 - 09:06
As a Muslim, it is really not surprising that Obama would want Israel to revert back to a border that is frankly indefensible and would eventually bring about the down fall of the state, not surprising at all.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 09:11
But that's not what he said, Simon.
And it's not surprising that a Leeds United player would use the racist canard that Obama is a Muslim.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 09:26
Obama is a Muslim Joe, that is not racism, it is a fact. His father is a Kenyan Muslim, and under Islamic law, if your father is Muslim, you are Muslim.
To be fair, I understand it. As a Jew, my priority is the Jewish people, so as a Muslim I can understand how Obama has (wrongly) view Israel as detrimental to the Islamic faith.
By asking us to revert to the pre 1967 borders, it would make Israel just 8 miles wide, therefore effectively indefensible and a blatant attempt to bring an end to the country representative of the Jews.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 09:57
He is not a Muslim. That's a canard invented by the same people who wanted you and others to believe that he wasn't born in America. Perhaps you need to ask Richard Millett about that.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:00
What is this "us" of which you speak, Snoddy? Do you live in Israel? Must be a helluva a commute for a not-very-good Leeds player
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:23
You can still be born in the US and be a Muslim, so that part of your argument is flawed. And by us, i am referring to Israel, the only place on earth I am accepted as Jew. In the UK and most other countries, we are merely tolerated. Unfortunately, if Obama gets his way, I will have to be happy with toleration as there will be no country left where I am accepted as a Jew.
For the record, I am all for concessions and giving back the majority of the West Bank in order for an independent Palestinian state to be created. However, in terms of giving back the Golan and East Jerusalem, I am 100% against this and I don't think any Israeli PM could get this idea past the Israeli public, whether the world wants it or not, unless they can convince people that suicide is a good idea.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:35
He said 'lines' not 'borders'. Important difference. 'Lines' are simply ceasefire lines, not borders. And he mentioned land swaps.
"Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"
He also said a solution cannot be imposed so the mention of '67 lines' is meaningless since Israel will not concede them
He did not mention Jerusalem (beyond noting it as an issue to be confronted). Jerusalem is of course indivisible and must stay in Israel's hands though East Jerusalem could be under the control of a peace-committed PA.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:36
I wan't connecting the two. I was merely pointing out that the claim he is Muslim (strange for a church-goer, wouldn't you say?) is on a par with the claim he was born outside the US - IOW, a conspiracy theory spread and believed by Bible-bashers in the deep south.
Are you not accepted "as-a-Jew" in the UK? Which UK do you live in? So until you go live in Israel, "us" you ain't.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:38
Thank you, Jonathan (you don't here me saying that every day). At least someone was paying attention to what was actually said, not what they feared was said.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:42
Sorry, I was in so much shock at agreeing with Jonathan, that I wrote "here" rather than "hear". Hear, hear.
(moderator: why is there no pre-submit review function?)
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:52
I think it is perfectly acceptable to have dual loyalties, so I stand by my earlier comment of US.
Church goer or not, Obama is classed under Islam as a Muslim, and I think it is fair to say that he will have some sort of loyalty towards them because of this, and if he was to support Israel, it would conflict with this loyalty.
Thank you Jonathan for you input, but its not important whether he said lines or borders, the fact that he mentioned a retreat based on this shows that he views our territorial gain in the defensive war of 67'as being illegitimate and that is what worries me.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:55
"Lines" versus "borders" is important, see:
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:57
There's a huge difference between lines and borders. Borders are agreed, lines are not. It's like the difference between, say, Robert and Richard.
Obama rejected Islam, is a regular church-goer, so as far as Islam is concerned, he's an apostate. And if you know your history, you'd know that would make him liable for capital punishment.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:58
Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, but take a look at this, R
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:07
transcript of speech
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:38
I love how you Brits have bought into Obamas nonsense "lines" "borders" they mean the same. One is the 1949 Armistices Lines which is the same thing as the 1967 Borders but don't take it from me this is what the Israeli Ambassador to the US had to say.
"While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,” Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. “The prime minister will raise the issue with the president. As the president said, the United States and Israel are great friends, and friends have to be able to talk frankly to one another.”
Don't kid yourselves He wants us back to 1967 Borders and he failed to deal with the greatest problem IMHO the return of refugees to the Palestinian State not Israel.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:44
Seems Oren is a bit unclear -- wittingly or unwittingly - of what the President actually said on borders/lines.
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.
Based on. Mutually agreed. Secure and Recognised. What's not to like?
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:56
Joe, i'd like to think your right but i have my doubts. Whether or not I interpreted what Obama said incorrectly, i still don't trust him and I can't wait until hes out of office.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:00
You wouldn't be so pleased, R, if he lost - and Ron Paul was elected. Obama is possibly the best friend Israel has had in the White House, inasmuch as he recognises that for it to continue to be a Jewish and democratic state it has to relinquish the nightmare of the occupation and other Messianic dreams.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:15
Dummy Millis all Obama did was conflate 1967 borders with 1949 armistice lines and came up with a new term (which means the same) 1967 Lines. Oh boy even the Israeli Ambassador gets a ticking off from the omnipotent Millis. Millis you don't get what most of Israel does.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:24
Most of Israel? No only the far right anti-peace anti-Zionist ichud leumani and one or two usual ultra nationalist Likudniks. You are on the wrong side of history. Again.
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 15:40
You bang on ad nauseum about the need for israel to maintain it's democratic status by returning to the 48 armistice lines (67 is the same thing )
All very good in theory but not of the slightest interest to the Palestinians and their supporters
The fact remains that the Arabs / Palestinians see an imposed and unwanted two state solution as a mere stepping stone in the ultimate goal of eradicating israel and replacing it with an Islamic waqf
Don't take my word for it . Just read the manifestos and charters of the Palestinians and their support networks
You are on a different planet if you fail to take the "from the river to the sea " mantra
While you are celebrating israels enhanced democratic status from your north London bunker , israel will be dealing with the aftermath of all out asymmetrical warfare on all it's borders
You need to get your priorities in order because to most rational people , your cart before the horse syndrome is not just problematic but creates an absolute existential threat to israel.
You must be logged in to post a comment.