HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama asks Palestinians t...

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 06:52 PM

Obama asks Palestinians to back off statehood push

Source: Politico

President Obama called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Sunday, asking him to back off a Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations.

"In his discussion with President Abbas, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to Middle East peace and his strong support for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with the objective of two states living side by side in peace and security. He also reiterated the United States' opposition to unilateral efforts at the United Nations," the White House said in a statement.

Palestinian leaders have been pushing for recognition as an observer state member at the United Nations since 2011.

Israel and the United States have both warned Palestinian leadership against the attempt -- though leaders have been circulating a draft petition that they plan to introduce at UN session later this month.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/obama-asks-palestinians-to-back-off-statehood-push-149255.html?hp=l5

62 replies, 6583 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama asks Palestinians to back off statehood push (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 OP
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #1
former9thward Nov 2012 #3
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #4
former9thward Nov 2012 #6
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #8
mallard Nov 2012 #28
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #10
former9thward Nov 2012 #13
Scootaloo Nov 2012 #16
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #20
former9thward Nov 2012 #23
Ashened Nov 2012 #39
AlexSatan Nov 2012 #55
L0oniX Nov 2012 #25
former9thward Nov 2012 #36
azurnoir Nov 2012 #49
former9thward Nov 2012 #51
azurnoir Nov 2012 #52
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #32
former9thward Nov 2012 #37
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #38
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #9
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #2
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #5
movonne Nov 2012 #7
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #11
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #21
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #35
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #12
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #15
Chef Eric Nov 2012 #17
Rhiannon12866 Nov 2012 #27
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #29
hack89 Nov 2012 #18
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #50
hack89 Nov 2012 #54
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #14
hack89 Nov 2012 #19
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #24
hack89 Nov 2012 #26
azurnoir Nov 2012 #31
hack89 Nov 2012 #34
azurnoir Nov 2012 #42
hack89 Nov 2012 #43
azurnoir Nov 2012 #44
hack89 Nov 2012 #45
azurnoir Nov 2012 #47
L0oniX Nov 2012 #22
AnOhioan Nov 2012 #30
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #53
Ash_F Nov 2012 #33
lsewpershad Nov 2012 #40
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #41
azurnoir Nov 2012 #46
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #57
azurnoir Nov 2012 #59
cpwm17 Nov 2012 #56
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #58
Occulus Nov 2012 #60
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #61
Kingofalldems Nov 2012 #62
MyNameGoesHere Nov 2012 #48

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:02 PM

1. In exchange for what?

What is the US offering to the Palestinians in exchange for getting them to drop their bid?

...Oh, nothing? As usual? Just "warnings"?

Hopefully Mr. Abbas politely told the president "no, thanks, we're good."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:15 PM

3. Maybe then Mr. Abbas will say "no thanks" to our 1/2 billion in foreign aid we give them each year.

I doubt that will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:19 PM

4. Interesting strategy.

Do you perhaps own a chain of pizza restaurants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:23 PM

6. Don't know what the restaurant remark is about.

But I guess you think the Palestinians are entitled to U.S. aid no matter what their policies are. Now that is an interesting strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:34 PM

8. No, only the Isarelis get to interfere with our elections

and get rewarded for their efforts with unconditional aid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:35 PM

28. Re: rewarded for their efforts with unconditional aid

In fact, the administration's warning is an echo of the Israeli warning.

Not only can Israel do no wrong by Washington, they apparently do call the shots on US policy. Israel loyalists will use all manner of indignation to bar open identification of that controlling profile.

What's wrong with Palestinians gaining observer status at the UN, anyway? Nothing really, but impressions of a higher moral authority for Israel come in a package where it's always their call, that they are implicitly granted first consideration, trumped with help of reactionary backers , even adjusting the record to insure images of dignity are upheld.

Palestinians will only have the right to national status when they've stopped being a nuisance to displace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:39 PM

10. Actually I don't think that.

But I think telling a government, "act against your self-interests or we take away the pittance we give you in foreign aid" would be a pretty shameful strategy for the US to pursue. Especially as it goes against our stated positions of "support" for a palestinian state, and our attempts to portray ourselves as an ally worth having in the region.

The restaurant remark is because your argument is no different than the position held by the CEO of Papa Johns pizza, John Schnatter. Maybe you've missed the threads all over DU about this guy. Basically America did not give him the government he wanted on Tuesday, so he's responding by punishing his workforce with layoffs and reduced hours.

Anyway. You asked a question, and amazingly, it was answered long before you asked it;
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is willing to give up hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid if that is what is necessary to forge a reconciliation deal with Hamas, the Associated Press quoted his adviser as saying on Monday.

Azzam Ahmed stated that "the Palestinians need American money, but if they use it as a way of pressuring us, we are ready to relinquish that aid."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=214180&R=R1

Apparently five hundred million dollars a year isn't seen as being worth abasing themselves for the amusement of a US president. Especially since we give six times that much money to Israel in military aid alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:59 PM

13. I would have no problem cutting off aid to ALL players in the Mideast.

I don't think Israel would have a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:19 PM

16. I rather doubt your sincerity on that.

At any rate. The Palestinians aren't likely to back off on this, and there's no conceivable reason they should; much less at the behest of a nation that has lost any sort of credibility in the "process."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:44 PM

20. BS n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:02 PM

23. You always have such insightful posts.

Keep it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:33 PM

39. US Policymakers don't really seem to care WHAT $ is used for

after it is paid out. But there are a lot of people in that area who do a lot of bad things with our aid money. It would be better spent on the poor in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashened (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:48 PM

55. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:04 PM

25. Try over 4 billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:08 AM

36. The PLA has averaged 600 million a year.

From FY2008 to the present, annual U.S. bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip has
averaged nearly $600 million, including annual averages of approximately $200 million in direct
budgetary assistance and $100 million in non-lethal security assistance for the PA in the West
Bank. Additionally, the United States is the largest single-state donor to the U.N. Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:26 PM

49. Congress with held Palestinian aid last year as punishment for the UN bid then at least until Israel

requested that Congress restore at least the security portion of that aid, because Israel is a bit dependent on PA security in the Area A of the West Bank?

and more from your PDF

Because of congressional concerns that, among other things, funds might be diverted to
Palestinian terrorist groups, U.S. aid is subject to a host of vetting and oversight requirements and
legislative restrictions. U.S. assistance to the Palestinians is given alongside assistance from other
international donors, and U.S. policymakers routinely call for greater or more timely assistance
from Arab governments in line with pledges those governments make. Even if the immediate
objectives of U.S. assistance programs for the Palestinians are met, lack of progress toward a
politically legitimate and peaceful two-state solution could undermine the utility of U.S. aid in
helping the Palestinians become more cohesive, stable, and self-reliant over the long term.

tell us how much vetting and oversight does Israel get for the 3-4 billion it receives from us annually?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:48 PM

51. In interest of accuracy the President wit held that aid.

tell us how much vetting and oversight does Israel get for the 3-4 billion it receives from us annually? All foreign aid has oversight from the State Department. What exactly that is for Israel I don't know since I don't work there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:58 PM

52. Congress holds the purse strings and Congress made the decision

it was State that allowed the security funds to be released at Israels request

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:20 PM

32. Spoken like a true lord of the manor.

The help need to understand we're paying them to be obedient and put away all these ideas about rights and land and freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:11 AM

37. So they are entitled to the money no matter what.

How much are they entitled to? The amount we are giving them or more? Why not more? What nations are not entitled to U.S. aid, if any, and why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #37)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:00 PM

38. Your questions are irrelevant.

They have the right to self-determination. The USG unfortunately can attempt to deny that right by carrot or stick, but that doesn't put the USG in the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:34 PM

9. More arms sales to Israel. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:08 PM

2. Ugh, still carrying water for Bibi.

I/P has been one area where Obama has been a profound disappointment. But, Romney would have been much, much, much worse.

Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:22 PM

5. This is NOT one of the reasons I supported Obama's re-election

along with Gitmo, Monsanto, Manning, State MM laws, et. al.

Ok Mr. President. You won in a landslide and you've got more political
capital than the last 4 presidents combined.

Please use it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:30 PM

7. I know he should have capital but will the tea baggers thwart Obama

just like they have been doing..How does he use his capital???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to movonne (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:39 PM

11. TeaBaggers in the House have no power over Obama's position on Palestine

And seriously, how can there ever be a "two-state solution" to
Israel/Palestine mess (most sane people's best guess as to how to best
resolve said mess) ... if only ONE of them is allowed statehood in the
first place?

I'm ashamed of our nation for resisting Palestinian statehood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to movonne (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:46 PM

21. Need. New. Excuses. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:37 AM

35. He is using his political capital. He's using it to bolster his policy of supporting Israel

You may be mistakenly projecting your views onto President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:49 PM

12. There is NO alternative to creating a Palestinian state as soon as possible.

It isn't reasonable by any measure to expect ordinary Palestinians to accept anything short of that. None of them want to be part of Jordan, and none but a few collaborators will be content with the choice of statelessness or exile that the status quo imposes.

If the Israeli government continues to oppose Palestinian statehood, it forfeits ANY right to claim to want peace. Wanting to "win" is the opposite of wanting peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:05 PM

15. The Palestinian strategy must shift to the one-state solution.

Demographics will be the undoing of Zionism as certainly as they undid Mitt Romney.

At some point, the number of Arabs living in Israel and the occupied territories will outnumber Jews. And that will be the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:32 PM

17. Perhaps the Palestinians have always favored a one-state "solution."

That would explain why Arafat rejected the Clinton Administration's plan for Palestinian statehood back in 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chef Eric (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:23 PM

27. Arafat rejected Clinton's proposals because he knew he didn't have the support.

And Barak walked away because he was told to wait for a Bush administration. However, Bush* was the only president of either party who failed to address this insurmountable issue as long as it has existed. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. They've proved that they can't solve it alone. I'd fully support Obama's efforts on this, since he's another brilliant man with the temperament to deal with tough issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chef Eric (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:47 PM

29. The "peace process" was entirely unfair

In 1982, Martin Indyk began working as a deputy research director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington.

In the mid-1980s Dennis Ross co-founded with Martin Indyk the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy ("WINEP"). His first WINEP paper called for appointment of a "non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy" who would "not feel guilty about our relationship with Israel."

Bill Clinton thought Dennis Ross' and Martin Indyk's backgrounds and philosophies made them perfect candidates to be his negotiators for the Israel/Palestine conflict.

During the "peace process" Israel made the greatest expansion of "settlements" in its history.

Immediately after he was President, Bill Clinton went down to South Florida to give a profitable speech blaming the Palestinians for the 2000 Camp David Summit failure.

Here's more "peace process" information. What the Palestinians were "offered" was much less than statehood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:41 PM

18. Creating a state destined to fail almost immediately serves no one in the long run

Hamas is presently waging war not only with Israel but with the PA. And there is still the issue of full RoR. Do you even think Hamas would accept statehood without it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:29 PM

50. The war is equally both sides' fault. You can't blame it all on the Palestinians

At the very least, Israeli leaders CAN'T expect the Palestinians to stop doing anything BEFORE there's a permanent moratorium on settlement expansion. You can't expect one side to stop fighting while the other side keeps incurring on its territory.

Both sides have to change...but the Israeli side has to change first, because it has almost all of the power in this situation.

As to RoR, I think Hamas is capable of compromising(there has to be at least RoR for the surviving exiles of 1948, obviously), but they have to be allowed to do it DURING the peace talks, not as a precondition. They can't be seen as giving up the store BEFORE the talks even start. And Israel(as well as Palestine)has to be willing to have peace simply be the end of war and the start of a reconciliation process...they can't insist on spinning it as "we won and they lost".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #50)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:40 PM

54. You have it backwards

Hamas and the PA have to change first because they are the weaker - the results of decades of waging a losing war.

Hamas needs to stop the rockets. They need to demonstrate that they actually have control of the militants in Gaza. Then there can be talks.

But lets remember what happened when Israeli left Gaza - instead of using it as a moment to choose peace, rockets were flying within the hour. Why do you think Hamas even wants peace talks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:04 PM

14. The two-state solution is dead

You can't get there from here. Israel, with the support of the US, has made sure the two-state solution can never happen.

The only real solution left is a one-state solution. The status quo is unacceptable. It's already one state, with the Palestinians being illegally denied their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:42 PM

19. There will never be a one state solution

Hamas would never accept it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:02 PM

24. With the extreme imbalance of power

and the terrible treatment of the Palestinians by Israel and the pre-Israel Zionists, it is understandable why many Palestinians would have major problems with Israel's legitimacy. We would if we were put in the Palestinians' place.

This is an Israeli-caused problem and only Israel can set things right. Many Palestinians already support a one-state solution. The major obstacle is Israel. Israel has already systematically destroyed any chance for a two-state solution. That's not the Palestinians' fault. The status quo is unacceptable to any fair minded person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

26. The war has to stop first

Hamas has to stop firing rockets. They have to recognize that the Jewish people have a right to live in Palestine. They have to promise to support a secular multicultural society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:47 PM

31. at the moment Hamas is not a player in this period

next excuse ..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:32 AM

34. So Hamas does not control Gaza?

the place where all the rockets are coming from? And you really think the PA can negotiate anything against the will of Hamas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:43 PM

42. yes it does however the Palestinians are going to the UN about the West Bank

where the PA and PLO have power and Hamas has none in fact the PA is known to jail Hamas members sometimes at Israel's behest as there is security cooperation between the Israel and PA security, the West Bank is the area also called Judea and Samara if that name clarifies for you, Gaza and its government are separate at the moment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:49 PM

43. So if there are presently two independent Palestinian territories and governments

then the possibility of a single state solution is even more unlikely - unless "single state solution" actually refers to the Palestinians alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:37 PM

44. there is only one semi-independent Palestinian entity and that is Gaza it is semi

because with the exception of one lone land crossing Israel has control over all other land borders and total control over Gaza's air and water ways which are of course closed, in the West Bank there is a mere 17% of land supposedly under complete PA control known as Area A albeit Israeli security/military enters as it deems fit

as it is single state at this point would refer to Israel proper and the West Bank including East Jerusalem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:42 PM

45. So Gaza is a problem to be solved separately?

Interesting concept - piecemeal integration of the Palestinians into Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:16 PM

47. at the moment that is sadly the state of things and as to your piecemeal statement that has been

has been also been the state of things since 2005 when Israel withdrew its civilians from Gaza and then proceeded to shut Gaza off from the rest of the world and when Mubarak was in power in Egypt it gladly cooperated keeping the one land crossing at Rafah closed since his ouster things have changed a bit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:01 PM

22. I voted for him but I'm not with Obama on this one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:44 PM

30. Is anyone really surprised??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnOhioan (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:08 PM

53. I'm not.


If our government was serious about a two state solution they would have made the two groups move on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:24 PM

33. OK, how about instead they get the right to vote reps into the Knesset based on their population?

You know, because freedom and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:54 PM

40. WHY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lsewpershad (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:13 PM

41. I guess he wants to follow the Democratic Party Platform when it comes to Israel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:50 PM

46. so the Democratic party platform favors occupation is that it? or more accurately

favors occupation under the guise of negotiations, which have been in play for nearly 20 years and the results of which have been a tripling of the number of Israeli civilians 'settling' (colonizing some would say) the West Bank? So are we to assume then that you are stating that Palestine or the West Bank being made an observer state eliminates the possibility of further negotiations, that Israel will just have to leave the West Bank or is it that this UN move if/when passed will give the Palestinians the right to take Israel to the ICC/ICJ over the settlement enterprise that has seen 350,000 Israeli civilians
(the number is well over 500,000 if you count East Jerusalem) allowed to transfer to the West Bank under Israel's military rule there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #46)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:32 AM

57. The Democratic Platform calls for "an unshakable commitment to Israel's security."

A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would be a treat to Israel's security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #57)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:36 PM

59. yes I'm sure those West Bank Palestinians would be rolling their tanks across the border ina flash

oh wait ............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 02:09 AM

56. Many Democratic Party members favor human rights

apparently, not all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:33 AM

58. And many Democratic Party members favor supporting Israel's security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:44 PM

60. And one DUer used to have a painting of a blue dog in his sig line.

Some of us have memories, Freddie. You were once a traitor to the Democratic Party's cause, and some of us remember it very clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #60)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:14 PM

61. Traitor to the Democratic cause? By supporting Democratic members of Congress?

Are you happy that there are much fewer Blue Dogs in the House? You can bet that John Boehner is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #60)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 03:15 PM

62. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:17 PM

48. Of course he did.

Same as it always was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread