Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

[bigrebnc1775]

exactly, see post 69, I knew I would get you here sooner or later.

Now, Ed, its time for you to either, say yea, I see, you're right or, he should have just played the down-low on any mention of 1967 borders most especially when he made it appear he was speaking of June 4th.....

or, backwater and obfuscate some more.

Idiots never admit when they are wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

In 2004 “we” sent Israel a letter, signed by then-President Bush and approved by Congress. It said America would never ask Israel to go back to the 1967 borders.

Obama Breaks US Promise to Israel in Middle East Speech « High Desert Referendum

Exchange of letters Sharon-Bush 14-Apr-2004

So I take it that Yes that is the promise made in 2004.

Just one question, why does the year 1967 not appear in the letter from Bush??????

I will also point out that 1967 does not appear in the congressional resolution either!!!

Read The Bill: H. Con. Res. 460 [108th] - GovTrack.us

exactly, see post 69, I knew I would get you here sooner or later.

Now, Ed, its time for you to either, say yea, I see, you're right or, he should have just played the down-low on any mention of 1967 borders most especially when he made it appear he was speaking of June 4th.....

or, backwater and obfuscate some more.

Talk about obfuscation!!!!
How exactly does post 69 explain why 1967 does not appear in the alleged promise 0f 2004???????

Here is what was promised as stated in the house resolution that you refer to in post 69:

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

What's that, a promise not to "return to the armistice lines of 1949"!!!!!
Of course in CON$ervative fuzzy math 1949 IS 1967.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Exchange of letters Sharon-Bush 14-Apr-2004

So I take it that Yes that is the promise made in 2004.

Just one question, why does the year 1967 not appear in the letter from Bush??????

I will also point out that 1967 does not appear in the congressional resolution either!!!

Read The Bill: H. Con. Res. 460 [108th] - GovTrack.us

exactly, see post 69, I knew I would get you here sooner or later.

Now, Ed, its time for you to either, say yea, I see, you're right or, he should have just played the down-low on any mention of 1967 borders most especially when he made it appear he was speaking of June 4th.....

or, backwater and obfuscate some more.

Talk about obfuscation!!!!
How exactly does post 69 explain why 1967 does not appear in the alleged promise 0f 2004???????

Here is what was promised as stated in the house resolution that you refer to in post 69:

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

What's that, a promise not to "return to the armistice lines of 1949"!!!!!
Of course in CON$ervative fuzzy math 1949 IS 1967.

 

[Trajan]

Exchange of letters Sharon-Bush 14-Apr-2004

So I take it that Yes that is the promise made in 2004.

Just one question, why does the year 1967 not appear in the letter from Bush??????

I will also point out that 1967 does not appear in the congressional resolution either!!!

Read The Bill: H. Con. Res. 460 [108th] - GovTrack.us

exactly, see post 69, I knew I would get you here sooner or later.

Now, Ed, its time for you to either, say yea, I see, you're right or, he should have just played the down-low on any mention of 1967 borders most especially when he made it appear he was speaking of June 4th.....

or, backwater and obfuscate some more.

Talk about obfuscation!!!!
How exactly does post 69 explain why 1967 does not appear in the alleged promise 0f 2004???????

Here is what was promised as stated in the house resolution that you refer to in post 69:

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

What's that, a promise not to "return to the armistice lines of 1949"!!!!!
Of course in CON$ervative fuzzy math 1949 IS 1967.

That is that the 1967 boundary should be the first consideration for negotiations.


I highlighted that in post 69, the start of our exchanges, because, he should never have mentioned 1967, (especially now, after Abbas hooking up with hamas) that is the point of this whole thread, remember? My point, is and has been the way he did it, left it to appear he was speaking to pre not post, it had to be pre and I explained why, now that just about everyone agrees that that is the case, you should too, the rest is just filler, my allusion to 2004 was exactly to buttress that point, the 1967 border talk fades depending on negotiations behind scenes ala between sharon and bush or as it should have here, ala events abbas and hamas.

Now that you have finally figured it out, you apparently have to much invested in this thread, I have been wrong before, life goes on, so, just say; yea, he fucked up…....I’ll accept that, my dick size isn’t wrapped up in this.

 

[edthecynic]

So I take it that Yes that is the promise made in 2004.

Just one question, why does the year 1967 not appear in the letter from Bush??????

I will also point out that 1967 does not appear in the congressional resolution either!!!

Read The Bill: H. Con. Res. 460 [108th] - GovTrack.us

Talk about obfuscation!!!!
How exactly does post 69 explain why 1967 does not appear in the alleged promise 0f 2004???????

Here is what was promised as stated in the house resolution that you refer to in post 69:

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

What's that, a promise not to "return to the armistice lines of 1949"!!!!!
Of course in CON$ervative fuzzy math 1949 IS 1967.

Actually this is the 1949 armistice lines map. The demilitarized zones were not settled for decades.

 

[georgephillip]

Two-thirds of potential voters living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River in 1947 were NOT Jewish.

Had the British NOT been interested in creating "a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of Arab hostilism" in 1918 aka "stealing Arab oil" the Jewish state would never have come into existence.

The sooner it disappears the better.

 

[nraforlife]

The guys who set up the state of Israel were not terrorists.

...............................

Yeah, kinda like The Godfather never killed a NYC Police Captain, eh.

You ARE what your underlings do in YOUR name.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The guys who set up the state of Israel were not terrorists.

...............................

Yeah, kinda like The Godfather never killed a NYC Police Captain, eh.

You ARE what your underlings do in YOUR name.

More lke the CIA FBI Secert Service, homeland Security are the terrorist hit men for the government.

 

[JFK_USA]

If I were Israel... I'd go all '300' on them...

Obama and the Palestine whiners: "we want your borders and we want that land"

Israel: "Come and take them"

It's Israel's land... point blank... and unless the ones in that region want their little asses kicked in 6 days again... I'd let it be

You mean the land the palestinian people won in war that they were kicked off of? I know you'll only believe fox news but the Palestinians had that land before. It would be like feeling bad for native Americans and kicking us out of our home and switching places with them.

 

[Sallow]

yes apparently you are. you are once again a victim of your own sloppy commentary, hey, whats new?

So I guess your in the school of thought that believes the Sudanese aren't responsible for their little genocide as well.

Gotcha.

It's complicated..right?

 

[Zander]

If I were Israel... I'd go all '300' on them...

Obama and the Palestine whiners: "we want your borders and we want that land"

Israel: "Come and take them"

It's Israel's land... point blank... and unless the ones in that region want their little asses kicked in 6 days again... I'd let it be

You mean the land the palestinian people won in war that they were kicked off of? I know you'll only believe fox news but the Palestinians had that land before. It would be like feeling bad for native Americans and kicking us out of our home and switching places with them.

There is already a Palestinian homeland- It's now called Jordan.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If I were Israel... I'd go all '300' on them...

Obama and the Palestine whiners: "we want your borders and we want that land"

Israel: "Come and take them"

It's Israel's land... point blank... and unless the ones in that region want their little asses kicked in 6 days again... I'd let it be

You mean the land the palestinian people won in war that they were kicked off of? I know you'll only believe fox news but the Palestinians had that land before. It would be like feeling bad for native Americans and kicking us out of our home and switching places with them.

What war did thy win?

OH and are you talking about these people? And was this the victory you were taliing about?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k]YouTube - ‪Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911‬‏[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

this is your answer to-



you understand that this is preposterous, right? one was not carried out by Israelis, one was a response to a riot, the other an isolated list of individual actions............so,don't feel exonerated, frankly this counts for little.

Oh for petes sake! IDF surrounded 2 fucking towns and sent in militants to slaughter unarmed civilians.

I'm done here.

Is that the excuse hamas uses to fire rockets at unarmed civilians in Israel?

Um..no.

That was the result of the grab and snatch of thousands of Palestinians.

But you wouldn't know any of that.

 

[Sallow]

If I were Israel... I'd go all '300' on them...

Obama and the Palestine whiners: "we want your borders and we want that land"

Israel: "Come and take them"

It's Israel's land... point blank... and unless the ones in that region want their little asses kicked in 6 days again... I'd let it be

You mean the land the palestinian people won in war that they were kicked off of? I know you'll only believe fox news but the Palestinians had that land before. It would be like feeling bad for native Americans and kicking us out of our home and switching places with them.

What war did thy win?

OH and are you talking about these people? And was this the victory you were taliing about?

Naw..maybe these people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I]YouTube - ‪Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11‬‏[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Obama just reference June 4, 1967 as the basis for discussion, which was the day before the start of the Six Days War.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to boedicca again.

I am watching too....heard same....my my.

Here is a perfect example of how CON$ are so completely filled with hate for Obama that they "hear" only what they want to hear and not what was actually said.
Thank you.

Obama again repeated that "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."

And just so worthless lying CON$ couldn't misrepresent what he said AGAIN, he went on to explain what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

Transcript & Video: Obama AIPAC Speech May 22, 2011 at Ironic Surrealism

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You mean the land the palestinian people won in war that they were kicked off of? I know you'll only believe fox news but the Palestinians had that land before. It would be like feeling bad for native Americans and kicking us out of our home and switching places with them.

What war did thy win?

OH and are you talking about these people? And was this the victory you were taliing about?

Naw..maybe these people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I]YouTube - ‪Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11‬‏[/ame]

Are you sure it wasn't these people doing a victory dance?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k]YouTube - ‪Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911‬‏[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama just reference June 4, 1967 as the basis for discussion, which was the day before the start of the Six Days War.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to boedicca again.

I am watching too....heard same....my my.

Here is a perfect example of how CON$ are so completely filled with hate for Obama that they "hear" only what they want to hear and not what was actually said.
Thank you.

Obama again repeated that "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."

And just so worthless lying CON$ couldn't misrepresent what he said AGAIN, he went on to explain what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

Transcript & Video: Obama AIPAC Speech May 22, 2011 at Ironic Surrealism

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

I hate anyone who shows they hate America.

 

[iggy pop]

Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said the 1967 border should be used as a basis. Read this from CNN.


Quote:
"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," Obama continued.
The key it "mutually agreed swaps." The far right wants everyone to believe he is throwing his support to the Palestinians. That is totally untrue. He is actually stating something that every President in recnet history has believed. That is that the 1967 boundary should be the first consideration for negotiations.

But I am certain the far right will call this a huge concession, when it is not. He is just the first President to have the fortitude to say it.

Yet he was turned down flat by Israel.

 

[iggy pop]

Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said the 1967 border should be used as a basis. Read this from CNN.


Quote:
"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," Obama continued.
The key it "mutually agreed swaps." The far right wants everyone to believe he is throwing his support to the Palestinians. That is totally untrue. He is actually stating something that every President in recnet history has believed. That is that the 1967 boundary should be the first consideration for negotiations.

But I am certain the far right will call this a huge concession, when it is not. He is just the first President to have the fortitude to say it.

Now what makes you and the pea brained obie doodle think the palestinians are going to "mutually agree" with anything? DUmmie.

Obama better just STFU before he starts yet another war.

 

[GHook93]

What is happening is the leftist (esp the leftist American Jews) are trying to rationalize their devotion to the Democrats and their devotion to Obama. This is how they do it!

Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He said the 1967 border should be used as a basis. Read this from CNN.


Quote:
"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," Obama continued.
The key it "mutually agreed swaps." The far right wants everyone to believe he is throwing his support to the Palestinians. That is totally untrue. He is actually stating something that every President in recnet history has believed. That is that the 1967 boundary should be the first consideration for negotiations.

But I am certain the far right will call this a huge concession, when it is not. He is just the first President to have the fortitude to say it.

Now what makes you and the pea brained obie doodle think the palestinians are going to "mutually agree" with anything? DUmmie.