About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Announcing Israel Policy Espoused By Bush, Former Israeli Prime Minister

May 20, 2011 1:12 am ET — 55 Comments

Right-wing media have launched a torrent of attacks on President Obama for saying that "[w]e 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." In fact, Obama's policy is in line with statements made by former President George W. Bush, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and others.

Obama Calls For Two-State Solution "Based On" 1967 Borders "With Mutually Agreed Swaps"

Obama Calls For "A Viable Palestine, A Secure Israel" "Based On The 1967 Lines With Mutually Agreed Swaps." From Obama's May 19 speech on the Middle East and North Africa:

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, 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. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. 

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. 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. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. [Remarks by Obama on the Middle East and North Africa, 5/19/11]

Obama's Statement Is In Line With Comments By Bush, Olmert, And The U.S. House Of Representatives

In 2008, Then-Israeli Prime Minister Edud Olmert Stated That Israelis Must "Return To The Core Of The Territory That Is The State of Israel Prior To 1967." On the anniversary of the death of Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by an Orthodox Jew opposing the Oslo Accords, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated: "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then." From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers.

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.

[...]

Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision." [Haaretz11/11/08]

In 2005, Bush Stated: "Any Final Status Agreement Must Be Reached Between The Two Parties, And Changes To The 1949 Armistice Lines Must Be Mutually Agreed To." From Bush's statement during a May 26, 2005, press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas:

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

The imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the roadmap. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life. [Press Conference with Presidents Bush and Abbas, 5/26/05]

  • "1949 Armistice Line" Is Another Way Of Referring To Pre-1967 Borders. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines." [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 5/19/11]

In 2004, U.S. House Approved A Return To Borders That Reflect "Mutually Agreed Changes" To "The Armistice Lines Of 1949." House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by then-Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) and approved by the U.S. House in 2004, stated:

Whereas the United States is hopeful that a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved;

Whereas the United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well-being as a Jewish state;

Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has proposed an initiative intended to enhance the security of Israel and further the cause of peace in the Middle East;

Whereas President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in a dialogue with respect to this initiative;

Whereas President Bush, as part of that dialogue, expressed the support of the United States for Prime Minister Sharon's initiative in a letter dated April 14, 2004;

Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. [H. Con. Res. 460, 6/23/04]

Nevertheless, Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Supposedly Forcing "The Destruction Of Israel"

Limbaugh: Obama Urged Israel To "Destroy Itself" And "Submit Its People To Potential Genocide." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Obama's speech: "What kind of president urges a country to destroy itself and submit its people to potential genocide?" [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show5/19/11, via Media Matters]

CNN's Dana Loesch: Obama "Sided With Terrorists." During her KFTK radio show, CNN contributor Dana Loesch claimed that in his Middle East speech Obama "sided with terrorists" and "people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to exist." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Beck: Obama's Policy On Israel Ends With "The Destruction Of Israel" And "The Western Way Of Life." Discussing Obama's speech, Beck said:

BECK: Let me tell you how this ends. It ends with the destruction of Israel. It ends with the end of the Western way of life. It is the keystone of the West. You do this, it inflames the Middle East, and I got news for you -- Bill Kristol make fun of me all you want -- a caliphate is established. [Fox News, Glenn Beck5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Geller: Obama's Middle East Policy Is "Obama's Final Solution." In a May 19 post to her Atlas Shrugs blog on President Obama's Middle East speech, Pamela Geller wrote that Obama was dooming Israel to "Auschwitz borders" and "Obama's final solution." From Atlas Shrugs:

The "Made in the USA" President proved today, yet again, how carefully he listened and committed to the  Islamic Jew-hatred taught to him in his quranic classes while growing up Muslim in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. His call to return to the '67 borders, a return to Auschwitz borders, is a call to jihad. It will incite and inflame the Muslim street.

Obama's foreign policy mimics that of the suicide bomber.

The idea that Israel must take the gas pipe, be reduced to tiny size by this tiny man, while the Muslims have given nothing, negotiated nothing, but instead, waged war and consolidated power between Fatah and Hamas (whose charter calls for the annihilation of Israel), is Obama's final solution.

I pray Netanyahu tells him to kish meir en tuchas. [Atlas Shrugs, 5/19/11]

Krauthammer Claims Obama Is "Tearing Up Bush-Era Agreements." During the May 19 edition of Special Report, Fox News' Bret Baier hosted conservative writer and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer to discuss Obama's speech on the Middle East. During the segment, Krauthammer falsely claimed that Obama is "tearing up Bush-era agreements" and "mak[ing] the biggest concession of the entire Arab-Israeli negotiations in 50 years." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Hannity: Obama Has Thrown Israel Under "A Bus Full Of Suicide Bombers." During the May 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated that Obama has thrown Israel under "a bus full of suicide bombers." He added, "I wonder if the members of the Nobel Committee over in Oslo are scratching their heads tonight wondering why one of their Peace Prize recipients is abandoning a key democratic ally." [Fox News, Sean Hannity5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Morris: If Israel's Security "Is An Important Factor In Your Life, You Have No Business Supporting Barack Obama." From the May 19 edition of Fox News' On the Record:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): Now let me ask a collateral issue that is of less importance than the security of any nation or of our allies or anything but the collateral issue, and that's the political impact here in the United States. You know, we have an enormous population here in this country, especially in Florida where you are -- who are -- who spend an awful lot of time thinking about Israel. What does this do to him politically?

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): Well, it's a question of the values of each pro-Israeli voter, whether they're Jewish or not. If the maintenance of the security of the state of Israel is an important factor in your life, you have no business supporting Barack Obama. It's that simple. Until now, Obama has pressured Israel on settlements, pressured them into negotiations. And those have all been within the range, kind of the pro-Palestinian range, but within the range of acceptable past U.S. policy. But now, he has literally embraced the language of the Palestinians. [Fox News, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren5/19/11, via Media Matters]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bootyprof (May 20, 2011 1:23 am ET)
      6 3
      Thank you for your diligence and clarity on this issue MMFA.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by AmericanRepublic1776 (May 20, 2011 2:40 am ET)
          2
        The only clarity that has come from this is the clarity of Obama has no idea how to conduct foreign affairs. Next thing you know, he will be wanting to give parts of the United States back to Mexico. If that is his belief that everyone should get back there sovereign property. So all non-bloodlined Native Americans will have to move out of the United States of America, so we can turn it all back over to those who were here first.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RMcCombs (May 20, 2011 8:05 pm ET)
        5 2
        There was no due diligence completed regarding this issue. In fact, this "opinion piece" is in error. Go research the facts yourself!

        Un-be-lievable!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 1:39 pm ET)
          2 1
          No it isnt. You are an idiot. The facts are clear. Obama is just stating what has been the international consensus and both Bush AND Olmert.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by leatherhelmet (May 21, 2011 8:00 pm ET)
            1 3
            Wrong. Read it again. Bush's position is not the same as Obama's.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anyfreedomleft (May 22, 2011 12:03 pm ET)
              2  
              Then I guess Charles Krauthammer is a radical, commie-loving liberal, since he says that Obama's taking Bush's stance ...
              Report Abuse
            • Author by docb (May 22, 2011 3:39 pm ET)
                 
              You read it again, helmet. ....and it is what has been said behind closed doors...No one but Our President had the guts to tell the truth out loud! bibi knows this is the truth and acted like a churlish child..revenge came at aipac...and will come because the World..forget the US corporate owned media... now finds bibi exactly as he was when he FAILED the first time!

              GUTLESS < ARROGANT< AND FAT intractable non-elected toady for the zionists!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (May 22, 2011 3:58 pm ET)
                 
              unlike you leatherhead I dont HAVE to read things over and over then tune into Rush to find out what it means. It IS the same as Bushs position. This has been explained several times. You just repeating nonsense over and over wont change it from idiocy to pearls of wisdom. Restating a premise without any attempt to explain the logic or facts involved adds no validity to the original premise
              Report Abuse
      • Author by docb (May 22, 2011 4:22 pm ET)
           
        Look at who these people are--- nobodies to anyone outside the Murdoch empire...and the lying liars! Once again 'House ' is the only thing of worth in the whole gaggle!

        I am grateful for MM for watching/listening to this absurd compilation of garbage that is right wing media!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Virgil_Kane (May 20, 2011 11:11 am ET)
      3 1
      To see Palestinian loss of land click here.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (May 20, 2011 6:13 pm ET)
        5 4
        >>To see Palestinian loss of land click here.

        The Palestinians have certainly lost most of their land since 48, but I wonder if that map doesn't overstate the case?

        Anyway, the whole situation drives me half crazy. The Israelis continue to illegally seize land, as they have for decades, and now they claim they can't return to the 67 borders because they have seized too much land and too much of their population lies outside the 67 borders--and no one in the media doesn't guffaw at the extreme cynicism of this statement.

        Of course, the violence must be blamed on the Palestinian militants, as if any people wouldn't become militant when their lives have been reduced to noting as Israel has done. (Just look at those bad militant American Indians.)

        A bi-state solution is the only solution, something Israel dreads, but something Israel has only itself to blame.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GBroxUsux (May 20, 2011 11:16 am ET)
      1 2
      Faulty reasoning here; Obama's opening offer is to make Israel concede territory without any negotiation on what is conceded. Pretty hostile gesture on his part. No US president has ever taken such a position, mostly because it's assuring the destruction of the state of Israel.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by michael-graves (May 20, 2011 11:26 am ET)
         
      Of course you left out an important detail... which you seem to do a LOT. The following is Bush's final thought on the subject, which Obama has COMPLETELY contradicted.

      “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, 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, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

      So as anyone that is fair-minded can see, Obama has taken sides with Palestine and undone over 60 years of pro-Israel support.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by yeller46 (May 20, 2011 11:36 am ET)
        2
      I agree. I think it is terrible that some Americans elected a
      President who cares nothing about Israel. We must vote him out
      in 2012.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Always Right (May 20, 2011 12:00 pm ET)
      4 8
      Prominent amercian has a vile, racist attack on our president yet there's no mention of it anywhere on Media Matters. I wonder why?

      (ref Cornel West interview)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Vesus (May 20, 2011 12:44 pm ET)
        4 2
        Probably because Cornel West isn't a conservative.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Vesus (May 20, 2011 12:44 pm ET)
          5 1
          Or a member of the media.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by docb (May 22, 2011 3:49 pm ET)
             
          Cornel West is a throwback to the way politics was conducted by many in the 1950's before MLK but during the time that the US was not hearing the angst of the AAF community ! He still feels the sting of not being really heard or seen and may even be a bit jealous of the obstacles our President has conquered without becoming bitter and angry.

          Even Mr. Sharpton is more confident and composed of late---All good...perhaps Mr. West will feel better now that he has spewed out his envy!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (May 20, 2011 1:57 pm ET)
        1 2
        An what was this "vile, racist attack on our president"? (Wow, you suddenly care about Obama?)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (May 21, 2011 10:16 pm ET)
        1  
        He is as prominent as you are?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by whydoineedanaccount (May 20, 2011 1:44 pm ET)
      2  
      Obama mentioned the 1967 lines. Nothing "pre" in there. Stop spreading misinformation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by michael-graves (May 20, 2011 2:26 pm ET)
      1 1
      No mention of Bush's 2004 letter that Obama completely contradicted. Media Matters lies once again.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cjj (May 20, 2011 4:38 pm ET)
      1  
      For those who care to find out, here is Bush's June 2002 speech on the same issue. (If you can't read, you have the option to listen.)

      George W. Bush Rose Garden Speech on Israel-Palestine Two-State Solution
      Report Abuse
    • Author by airpower (May 20, 2011 5:01 pm ET)
      1  
      So the defense of this is that it's basically the same idea we've had? If it was the same idea, why is Netanyahu up in arms all of a sudden after being at the table for a long time?

      He's right on one thing and that's that, "Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality." The 6-day war, which altered the boarders, was a response to BEING ATTACKED. The Muslim powers in the region are not going to be happy unless Israel is gone, "wiped off the map" as many have said. Giving them concessions now is not going to help our case at all. It shows we are a pushover.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RMcCombs (May 20, 2011 8:03 pm ET)
      5 6
      Wow...and to think most of you graduated from high school. Has anyone here at MediaMatters taken the time to review the real history of the region? It amazes me how many people have fallen for the false propaganda about Palestine.

      People - read authentic history books where you will find the true facts!!! There is not a Palestinian Nation based on similar ethnicity, culture, religion or language. The word Palestinian didn't even include Arabs until after 1948 - it was reserved for Jews. For goodness sakes - get some brains! Stop listening to the lies on this website and others. You are being led like sheep to the slaughter.

      This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. You have been scammed! The question you should be asking is why MediaMatters and others are lying to you? Step back from your passion over politics and READ! LEARN! STUDY!

      It's time for Americans - yes, even Liberals - to start searching for the truth. It will shock you.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (May 20, 2011 9:52 pm ET)
        2 3
        >>Wow...and to think most of you graduated from high school.

        Do you care to point out specifically where we are wrong, or do you just want to throw out talking points you got off some website? There most certainly is a Palestinian identity, which is what counts here. Oh, and since you are accusing us of ignorance, then the UN passed the general resolution defining the Israeli state, what did two of its ad hoc committees determine about this very resolution?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 2:55 am ET)
          5 4
          Have you read the resolutions in their entirety? Have you researched who was involved? Have you reviewed the legal discourses on this very subject and the ad hoc committees determinations? What happened to the international zone around Jerusalem that they are now talking about splitting in two?

          The Resolutions do NOT guarantee a Right of Return or the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor do they specifically discuss only Arab refugees. As such, it clearly indicates that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab.

          FACTS:

          - Palestine was equated with Jews BEFORE being identified with Arab refugees
          -There are refugees, but they are from several nations and consisted of both Jews and Arabs.
          -The notion that Arab refugees are of Palestinian origin is easily discredited by both Arab and Jewish history.
          -That Arab Palestinians do not have a right to the land, anymore than you or I do.
          -That Palestinian religious/political leaders will not allow peace with Jews or Christians is without doubt. Just listen to their recent speeches.

          Instead of me spoon feeding pages of facts take off your blinders and read everything.

          By the way, how old is this Arab Palestinian identity you refer to? 100 years? 1000 years? or could it be just 23 years? Funny, how it wasn't really there until PLO Leader Arafat made it up. Were you aware that Arafat was an Egyptian that was never really a refugee? Ahhh...the lies.

          It amazes me how you guys tear someone up that has the audacity to ask YOU to RESEARCH the facts instead of wasting time arguing about facts you know little to nothing about. That tells me one thing - you are afraid of the truth.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 1:37 pm ET)
            1 4
            What amazes me is how stupid you are and how you spew the brainwashing of the true moron. There were Semites in the area BEFORE Abraham even got there. Abraham really being pretty much the first Jew. I have read several books on this subject written by Jews. The bottom line is Israel is occupying ARAB territory. It is that simple. They are violating the fourth geneva convention with every settlement they build. That cannot be rationally disputed. AHHH the stupid. If a country can just TAKE land by military force then why did we eject Saddam from Kuwait? Is it just ok when our friends do it?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by sambo (May 21, 2011 5:45 am ET)
        3 3
        [bRMcCombs
        I'm sure that you remember taking history in school,only to discover later that some of the events were highly exaggerated,or not even true to start with
        [/b]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 10:27 am ET)
          4 4
          Wow! That's all you can say? And that is how you go about life making your decisions?

          I'm well beyond the history in high school or college. It's amazing how much you can learn if you go back and read original documents that haven't been altered by liberals over the last 30 years. AMAZING!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by $RedistributionDoesNotWork (May 21, 2011 12:34 pm ET)
            4 4
            RMC: Arguing with or providing facts to these clowns at Mediamatters is an excercise in futility. You cannot win here. They are all paid hacks with an endless money supply from Soros and company. Evertime one provides facts which destroy the suppositions made by Mediamatters, it will come back with a biased defense of its position. Mediamatters lost its credibility ages ago. It speaks solely for the benefit of its wildly socialist base; don't waste your time.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jonimacaroni1 (May 21, 2011 1:09 pm ET)
              3 4
              Apparently you wouldn't know what's a fact if it hit you upside the head.

              There hasn't been a single time that some rightwinger has provided facts to destroy any suppositions by Media Matters.

              In addition, Media Matters doesn't make 'suppositions'. They simply discuss disinformation by providing transcripts and videos, in context. They deal only with facts.

              Lastly, Media Matters got a relatively small amount of money from Soros just last year. They've been around for many years, surviving and thriving without his money, and so your depictions are contrary to the known facts. As such, you can't even begin to lecture Media Matters about their abuse of the facts.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 4:40 pm ET)
                3 2
                Have you read Mr. Soros' books or listened to his comments? Do you understand his disgust for our country, religion, personal freedom and humans in general? Or, are you one of the gullible sheep that believes his ridiculous lies when he tries to placate us ignorant masses? Do you understand he enjoys paying "God" with people's lives?

                I would NEVER take a job with a company that receives any type of benefit from Mr. Soros. NEVER! Somethings are more important than jobs and money - specifically, my soul.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 5:14 pm ET)
                  1 3
                  What I understand is you are so brainwashed you are an embarassment to our entire species. You were TOLD to hate Soros and as a loyal member of the Limborg hivemind you always believe and spew what you are TOLD to think. The inanity and ignorance in your post is purely pathetic
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 5:38 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    Ummmm...unlike you, I made my decision based on reading his books. Did you? That was enough to make my skin crawl. I don't need someone telling me what to think or believe, as you so obviously do. I don't listen to either side - I read!!! I study. I think - independently of the meida. Oops, I know that is outrageous and possibly illegal in the liberal world.

                    Read his books. Listen to his interviews. The man is a psychopath. It shouldn't take anyone with minimal intelligence to realize the guy is a freak.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 11:45 pm ET)
                      1 2
                      You are a LIAR. You dont know ANYTHING. That is anything Rush didnt TELL you to think. You certainly dont know anything about liberals or liberal world. You are too stupid to begin to understand complex beings such as us. Actually mudpuddles must be a strain for you to understand.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by leatherhelmet (May 21, 2011 8:09 pm ET)
                  2
                LMAO. This has got to parody at its finest.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by kabniel (May 22, 2011 2:49 pm ET)
                    1
                  I am sure factual reality always seems like a parody to you. Your delusional fantasies do not define reality. Come visit our planet someday.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 1:45 pm ET)
              1 2
              Redistribution

              Pretending you have a brain is useless. When you post it becomes obvious you are too stupid to even know what a fact is. Do yourself a favor and stop embarassing yourself by displaying your abject stupidity
              Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 1:33 pm ET)
            1 1
            Yes we understand you are well into the revisionist NONSENSE fed you by the likes of Glenda the wonderwhiner. The thing is we prefer factual reality to your delusional fantasies
            Report Abuse
      • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 1:44 pm ET)
        2 3
        You are an IDIOT. You are far too stupid to be telling us to learn. The word Palestine was used by HERODITUS. In those days they referred to the sons of Abraham to differentiate them from the other Semites in the region. The word is thought to come from Philistia about the time they were ruled by the Philistines. Are you REALLY claiming that meant only the JEWS? You do know there were Semetic people there BEFORE there even were Jews dont you? It is time for you brainwashed morons to stop thinking your brainwashing is education
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 3:53 pm ET)
          4 2
          The term for a small section of the LAND was called Palestine by Heroditus - NOT the people. If you are going to research something - do it correctly. Palestine is derived from the word Philistines, though they were not the only inhabitants as the Hebrews were there also at that time.

          The Hebrews were a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines, an Aegean people of Indo-European stock. Neither of which were Arabs. Go figure that one out!

          Let's make this even clearer...Semite originates from the name - Shem. Son of Noah. Let me see....Abraham is a descendent of Noah. Abraham is the father of Israel...2 + 2 = 4. Even your Arab friends understand that Semites included the original ancestors of today's Jews. That's why Arabs call themselves "Anti-Semites."

          It also included other various ancient peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs. Note Arabs are a small percentage of those equated with the term Semite. (Funny thing...Canaanites were the descendents of Ham...son of Noah).

          By the way, if you took the time to read my comment, you would see I was discussing the term "Palestinian" as used to mean a specific group of people. The term was not coined as a political territory name until 1920 and at first it was equated with Jews - until 1948 when the state of Israel was created. Then, some Arab Refugees claimed the name.

          I give up...your liberal blinders are so tight your brain has lost oxygen.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 5:23 pm ET)
            2 3
            You should give up your stupidity is embarassing. Yes it was used to describe the land. OUR Land is called America, so what are WE called again? Are you really so stupid you need that pointed out to you? In 1917 the Balfour document talks about using Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people. It called the land PALESTINE, exactly WHAT would that make the people who lived there?

            I know more about ancient history than you will in your entire life and you have NO way of knowing the Canaanites were descendents of Ham, that is pure speculation. They are both from either the Akkadian or Amorite peoples. When you get real geneological documents that talk about Ham, get back to me, I wont hold my breath.

            None of what you said changes my point. Abraham was by any reasonable reading of it the first JEW. The Jews in ancient times were CALLED the sons of Abraham but when he first CAME to the area there were already semites there. I SAID in my post the word Palestine or term palistinian came from Philistine and I know as well as anyone else where they came from.

            Do give up. Your stupidity is such that I would have to hold my breath for DAYS to approach your level of stupid
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 6:06 pm ET)
              4 3
              You are obviously very young and very naive. On top of that, you are very childish and rude. By the way, you do NOT have more historical knowledge of the Middle East than I do, so pull your big person panties back up and act like an adult. If people have more facts than you, don't mock them. That is very, very immature.

              However, as stupid as you may call me (which makes me laugh) - your own comments above show your lack of overall knowledge of the Middle East. You are a tool.

              You fail to take into account those ancestors of Abraham and their descendents that were not part of Israel, that had already settled in the land. You fail to understand that very few of the Semites were of Arab descent. Palestine was not an Arab land. It was made up of many cultures. The Philistines were NOT Arabs. The Canaanites were NOT Arabs, etc. Even more interesting is the findings that Assyrians, Canaanites and other inhabitants of the region were descendents of the Hebrews - via archeological findings and historical documents from numerous cultures. It appears that the ancient Hebrews played a very large part in the area for thousands of years - prior to the Arab migration in the 3rd millennium.

              As for the Shem and Hem issue - you can believe what you want or you can choose to understand ancient languages/cultures and how closely they parallel historical documents (non-Jewish) regarding Noah and his descendents. How names of early cultures/towns took on the names of the sons and grandsons of Noah. Amazing how ancient documents provide us with the truth that liberal and Pro-Palestinians don't want anyone to know.

              And why in the world does a group of Arab refugees have any more right to that land than the Jews? Why does any country truly have the right to their land? Jordanians are not full-blooded Jordanian. Egyptians are not full-blooded Egyptian. Americans are not full-blooded American. Cultures mix, wars change borders, etc. It is a fact of life. Why is Israel held to higher standard than the rest of the world? What time line to we go back to? 1967? 1920? 1850? 2000 BC?

              This is a Muslim political game and an attempt to wipe out the Jewish Nation.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 7:37 pm ET)
                2 3
                I am in my fifties and blessed not to be as brainwashed and ignorant as YOU. I definitly know more about ancient history than you ever will. Go to your proctologist and get a much needed cranial rectal extraction.

                Oh am I rude? Not like your passive aggressive condescension? You have been nothing but obnoxious so dont pretend you deserve to be treated civilly

                did you say this?

                RESEARCH the facts instead of wasting time arguing about facts you know little to nothing about. That tells me one thing - you are afraid of the truth

                this?

                Or, are you one of the gullible sheep that believes his ridiculous lies when he tries to placate us ignorant masses?

                this?

                I give up...your liberal blinders are so tight your brain has lost oxygen

                So stop being a jerk insulting us then snivelling like a punk that we dont treat YOU with respect

                paragraph two, no they dont, its that simple. I am sorry you just dont know what you are talking about.

                You fail to take into account those ancestors of Abraham and their descendents that were not part of Israel, that had already settled
                in the land


                Flat out wrong. Were this true why did he sent his son Isaac to Haran to marry into his people? Why did he not WANT his son to marry a local of as you say their descendents if they were there?


                You fail to understand that very few of the Semites were of Arab descent. Palestine was not an Arab land. It was made up of many cultures. The Philistines were NOT Arabs. The Canaanites were NOT Arabs,


                I dont fail to understand anything. Either you are an idiot or so brainwashed you can no longer think. You keep using the term Arab, at this time that had no meaning. Canaanites WERE Semetic and they were not jews. Canaanite WAS a Semetic language. Samaratins WERE Semetic. You have no point. The philistines were not Semites but most of the rest of the inhabatants WERE.

                Then you switch to saying Hebrews. You are mixing the whole thing up. Yes Semitic peoples not necessarily Hebrews were important in the area for millenia. No question. Hammurabi for instance was an Amorite. Terah, Abrahams father was an Amorite. Which were from Amorite and which Akkadian descent is just impossible to tell at this point. There were no real Jews before Abraham and nothing you could call Arabs either.

                Amazing you are so stupid and gullible and easily led around by the nose. Yes, I know all about the ancient names in the biblical lineage also being cities in the area of mesopotamia. Is that the chicken or the egg. I also know that the birth record of Moses is EXACTLY the same as that for Sargon the great. Is that a coincidence or was it 'borrowed'? The same with the names of the cities. Which came from which? We dont know. The fact is you cannot PROVE that Ham was not a fictional character. You have NO source documents to prove what you WISH were fact. It is supposition. I think it is most likely correct but it cannot be proven or shown conclusively. You can beleive what you are TOLD. It seems that is what you usually do.

                You have no capacity for logic whatsoever. Israel is not held to a HIGHER standard if they were we would have invaded and MADE them give the land they TOOK back just like we did when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

                They have the RIGHT of occupancy. They were THERE. The same mandate that created Isreal gave the land to the Arab population that Israel took by invasion in the six day war. They CANNOT, according to the fourth geneva convention settle occupied land.

                When you ask what gives them the right that is the point I have been trying to make. Even IF you accept the claim Israel has of ancient occupancy the Palestinians have the SAME claim. Their anscestors were there when Abraham first showed up.

                We go back to 1967 since a bright line was drawn after the Second world war when we no longer allowed countries to take land by force. In ancient times that is what was done. After WW2 it has no longer been allowed. If it were why did we kick Saddam out of Kuwait?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by leatherhelmet (May 21, 2011 8:27 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  Kicking Saddam out of Kuwait had nothing to do with some kind of bizzare love of keeping borders where they are after world war II.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 10:36 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Yes it was to STOP him from TAKING Kuwait the way Israel took the occupied territories. Sorry you are so uninformed you didnt know that
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by RMcCombs (May 21, 2011 10:09 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  Thank you for making my point...again! Invasion? How did that 6-Day War start? Hmmm?

                  I'm not going to debate with someone so immature and sadly lacking in facts. You know just enough to be dangerous to yourself and others. What is that saying about arguing with a fool?

                  However, I will point you towards some facts you might want to read up on:

                  1. What role did Egypt, Russia, Syria, Iran and Jordan have in provoking the strike? What part did their amassing of an army on Israel's borders, lying, blocking shipping, etc. have to do with the strike?

                  2. Myths. Fact or not? You may be surprised to find the truth on this subject. There are reams and reams of documents on this very subject.

                  3. Why did the UN set up such an untenable situation for Israel? Was it a knee-jerk reaction by leaders dealing with pressure from oil producing Arab Nations? Was it just a way to stop an escalation of war? Or both? Read the resolutions!

                  4. Did Palestine agree to all the resolutions? If not, are they valid?

                  5. Who has demonstrated the most initial aggression? Hint: One nation well exceeds the other...

                  6. Do all experts agree Israel violated the Geneva Conventions? If not, why not? Has Palestine violated the Geneva conventions - or have you even looked at that subject?

                  7. Since Arabs did not migrate to the area until the 3rd millennium, did they supersede the Hebrews? Is it possible they are actually of the same blood? DNA evidence has been documented...

                  8. How many of the Palestinian Arabs are actually from that area? The answer may surprise you.

                  9. Did the Convention's review of Israel's possible violations include full evidence and deep debate? I think that is an answer you need to find out for yourself. I hope you are as shocked by the outcome as most people should be.

                  10. What do you expect Israel to do when they are given an extremely small sliver of land by Britain, surrounded by very violent groups of militants with the religious goal of annihilating them (and Christians)?

                  11. What if these same militant groups are evil enough to use their own people/children as human shields; so, if you shoot back you become hated by the rest of the world for hurting civilians? And, why do we ignore Palestine's aggression?

                  12. Most importantly...What if your attempts to protect your family (walls, retaliation, useless negotiations) are espoused by ignorant Americans, brainwashed by Socialists/Marxists, as evil actions against those poor, little, venomous aggressors? I wonder how you would feel?

                  And you have the audacity to call me "stupid."
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by kabniel (May 21, 2011 11:43 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Ah yes. The six days war started when Israel invaded Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied territories. You didnt have a point you just didnt know what you were talking about. Now you can make the argument that they did it for defensive reasons if you like. There is a lot to say on both sides but there is NO DISPUTE that Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan and the Occupied Territories. GOD but you are stupid. You should have stopped arguing long ago. You flat out have no idea what you are talking about.

                    The first four are arguable. Egypt was conducting military exercises that were provocative. Syria had shelled Israel in retaliation for an incursion to what we now call the Sabra farms region and attacking them. There has been provocation going both ways for decades. Read Fateful Triangle to get a more balanced view of what was going on. It is not as simplistic as you are portraying it. What is NOT IN DISPUTE is that Israel INVADED Egypt and the Occupied territories. That is without any question what happened.

                    5 Israel. Not even close. Egypt started the war in 73 When Israel started building a settlement in the Siani. Invading the occupied territories. Israel invaded Lebanon in 82 when there hadn tbeen a cross border incident in more than a year. Israel invaded in 67. We could go on and on about this in retaliation for that in retaliation on and on. Do you know what the FIRST airline hijacking in the middle east was? Israel downed a civilian plane to take more than one hundred hostages, according to then Prime Minister Sharrets own admission to get hostages to trade for a Mossad team that had been caught red handed in Damascus comitting sabotage. Israel has enemies and security problems but they HAVE been provocative and are far from blameless in this issue and it is indisputable that they invaded in 67. I am sorry you are so uninformed that you make such a fool out of yourself

                    6 The fourth Geneva convention says directly that an occupier cannot build settlements on occupied territory. The International court of Justice ruled explicitly that it does. THIS is what it says

                    "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

                    Is there any WAY you can claim Israel is NOT transferring part of its population into the territory it occupies?

                    6 Sure they have. Many. I dont know how many times I have said there are no white hats in this issue. I criticize the Palestinians all the time. I am not as blinded by brainwashing as you. I see both sides. The thing here is the TOPIC Is about whether Obama is out of bounds for proposing what has been the international consensus for decades and that previous presidents have also proposed. The problem is also Israel occupying ARAB territory not the other way around.

                    7 There WERE no ARABS third millenium BC. They didnt exist. You keep trying to blur the distinction as if they were not cousins. Both Semites. You are pretending that the Jews are the descendents of the Canaanites and Samaratans who were there when they GOT there. Instead of the Palestinians being the descendents of those people. While murky the facts are these. There were NO JEWS before Abraham. The Semites in the area were NOT considered by Abraham nor Isaac to be family they BOTH sent their sons back to Haran to find wives. You cannot disprove the Palestinian claims that THEY are the descendents of the previous Semites in the Area. The Canaanites WERE Semites. There was at the time of Abraham no such THING as an Arab. The first use of the word to my understanding came from the Assyrians somewhere around 1000 BC

                    What I am saying is not that that means only THEY have right to the land. What I am saying is they have just as valid a claim as the Isrealis and Israel cannot claim THEIR land. The 67 borders seems a fair solution

                    8 I wouldnt be suprised to find out you are brainwashed on this issue also. I DO know that Balfour himself in correspondence said

                    "The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.

                    The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right


                    So in 1919 there were about 700,000 of them The US population in 1919 was about a THIRD of what it is today. So lets not even hear what someone TOLD you to think about that one.

                    10 What do you expect me to answer when you post such an ignorant strawman loaded question with a questionable premise? Does the Arab world want to annihilate all Christians and Jews? Are you really such a bigot that is your ignorant take on this? Grow up. When Israel made peace with Egypt it kept. Same with Jordan. The Arab world is not made up of a bunch of nihlistic murderous beasts and if you are so ignorant that is what you think then I am talking to a child. In 1919 Some Arab leaders were calling for their people to welcome their brothers. Isreal made a lot of enemies with their indiscriminate violence and terrorism in the 40's, like the bombings of the King David Hotel, the Semiramis Hotel, the Cairo to Haifa railroad more than once, the sinking of the SS Patria, The murders of Folke Burnadotte and Lorde Moyne. Israel is no stranger to terrorism. To get THEIR homeland

                    Really the Human shield nonsense again? You are pitifully brainwashed. They LIVE there. This bit of propaganda is so stupid you should be ashamed to regurgitate it. It is an EXCUSE for Israeli indiscriminate use of violence in the occupied territories. An abuse so widespread it started a refusenic movement among the IDF. Soldiers who say they will serve anywhere EXCEPT the occupied territories. Israeli journalist for Ha'aretz said when she recieved the Anna Lindh award that she found from her sources that the IDF was intentionally targetting children during the second infitada. This from an interview of a sniper BY Hass
                    Sniper: “They forbid us to shoot at children”.
                    Journalist: “How do they say this?”
                    Sniper: “You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger”.
                    Journalist: “That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?”
                    Sniper: “Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child anymore, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that”.
                    Journalist: “Thirteen is bar mitzvah age”.
                    Sniper: “Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us”.
                    Journalist: “Under international law, a child is defined as someone up to the age of 18.”
                    Sniper: “Up until 18 is a child?”
                    Journalist: “So, according to the IDF, it is 12?”
                    Sniper: “According to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I don’t know if this is what the IDF says to the media.”

                    Amira Hass’ interview with an IDF sharpshooter, explaining why so many Palestinian children were killed in the first weeks of the intifada, when the IDF was largely confronted by stonethrowers. Published in Ha’aretz, Don’t shoot till you can see they’re over the age of 12, 20 November 2000


                    Sniper: “They forbid us to shoot at children”.
                    Journalist: “How do they say this?”
                    Sniper: “You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger”.
                    Journalist: “That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?”
                    Sniper: “Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child anymore, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that”.
                    Journalist: “Thirteen is bar mitzvah age”.
                    Sniper: “Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us”.
                    Journalist: “Under international law, a child is defined as someone up to the age of 18.”
                    Sniper: “Up until 18 is a child?”
                    Journalist: “So, according to the IDF, it is 12?”
                    Sniper: “According to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I don’t know if this is what the IDF says to the media.”

                    Amira Hass’ interview with an IDF sharpshooter, explaining why so many Palestinian children were killed in the first weeks of the intifada, when the IDF was largely confronted by stonethrowers. Published in Ha’aretz, Don’t shoot till you can see they’re over the age of 12, 20 November 2000


                    This is the same kind of propaganda they used during Vietnam. They dont have the same sense of morality as us. IT is the dehumanization propaganda as old as the world. Morons still fall for it.

                    What if as the Israelis took YOUR land, bulldozed YOUR house with an American right in front of it who got bulldozed too like Rachel Carrie. Bombed your house, bulldozed YOUR orchard and shot a missile into your apartment building. Like when Sharon had one shot into an apartment building killing nineteen people including seven children to get ONE GUY they accused of being a bombmaker? Sharon called that a great victory. Or when they shot a missile into a crowd leaving the Mosque to kill on BLIND PARAPALEGIC Cleric. They got him and seven other guys. What if one of those other guys was YOUR SON and pathetic, soulless, brainwashed, retarded morons like YOU made applogies for the killing of YOUR son?


                    Audacity? I call you stupid because you ARE stupid. Brainwashed too but mostly stupid
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by kabniel (May 22, 2011 1:00 am ET)
                      1  
                      By the way a huge majority of ISRAELIS support the two state solution

                      http://www.haaretz.com/news/poll-most-palestinians-israelis-want-two-state-solution-1.274607

                      The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are willing to live alongside each other peacefully in separate states, according to an independent poll released on Wednesday.

                      Results of the poll, commissioned by the grass-roots OneVoice Movement, indicate that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis are willing to accept a two-state solution.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Boswell (May 22, 2011 2:13 pm ET)
                        1  
                        well you sure did help crumbly brains buy a bottle of Thunderbird to slurp while sleeping in a cardboard box behind it's local library...
                        Report Abuse
      • Author by lolwat (May 21, 2011 1:44 pm ET)
           
        Hi there, I created an account just because I'm shocked by your level of ignorance and I was hoping for you to elaborate on your points.

        >>>People - read authentic history books where you will find the true facts!!! There is not a Palestinian Nation based on similar ethnicity, culture, religion or language. The word Palestinian didn't even include Arabs until after 1948 - it was reserved for Jews.

        "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture (Dowty, 2008)."

        But, to me, it doesn't matter what religion/ethnicity they are.

        FACT: People living in the land currently occupied by modern-day Israel prior to its formation in 1948 have been displaced.
        FACT: These displaced people desire a sovereign homeland.

        As this article has shown, a Republican president and congress have agreed that there needs to a sovereign country for these Palestinians, and recommended the same borderlines suggested by President Obama, in the past decade. Unfortunately, since members of the conservative media are positioning for the upcoming election, everything President Obama does is wrong - no exceptions.

        This will not mean the destruction of Israel, just as Israel wasn't destroyed when they were tested before they took this new territory in 1967.

        You insult people here and tell them to look at the facts, but you provide no evidence yourself. What is your objection to these refugees (whether they be Jews, Muslims, Christian, or whatever else notwithstanding) being given a land of their own and at least some semblance of control over their own destiny?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (May 21, 2011 10:21 pm ET)
           
        Why does anyone have to care about Israel or Palestine?
        It is time for you, whatever political persuasion you are from, to take it easy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by docb (May 22, 2011 3:59 pm ET)
          1
        Try some facts, mccombs....It also helps to have traveled there...the 'Wall' - ten feet higher than the Berlin wall, the water fouled or non existent, the stories rewritten, the history revised, the trash piled up by the settlers in front of the Palestinian entrances, the shelled schools, bombed out hospitals, homes destroyed, the goods molding in quarantine enforced by the Israel gov't!

        These numbers will really shock such a sheltered intellect as yours:

        http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
        Report Abuse
      • Author by docb (May 22, 2011 3:59 pm ET)
          1
        Try some facts, mccombs....It also helps to have traveled there...the 'Wall' - ten feet higher than the Berlin wall, the water fouled or non existent, the stories rewritten, the history revised, the trash piled up by the settlers in front of the Palestinian entrances, the shelled schools, bombed out hospitals, homes destroyed, the goods molding in quarantine enforced by the Israel gov't!

        These numbers will really shock such a sheltered intellect as yours:

        http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
        Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.