Opinion

Opinion

Obama denies reality in Israel

May 25, 2011

Advertisement

With friends like President Obama, who needs enemies? If you’re Israel, you already have quite enough of those.

On May 14, 2011, the State of Israel observed the 63rd anniversary of its independence. But if the proposals made by President Obama in his State Department speech are implemented, that observance could be its last.

It is difficult to say if the president is self-deluded, if he drinks State Department Arabist Kool-Aid or if he’s just a fool. It doesn’t matter. The results are the same.

Why does anyone continue to believe that the unsuccessful “Land for Peace” formula can magically persuade Arab states and terrorist groups to lay down their arms and change their minds about a goal they have taught in their schools, preached in their mosques and reinforced in their media since 1948?

The president’s peace formulation is as likely to succeed as Harold Camping’s doomsday prophecy.

This is the reality, expressed by Hamas’ former minister of “culture,” Atallah Abu Al-Subh, and broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV: “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the earth.” Would 1967 borders change his mind?

Here’s another excerpt from Al-Subh’s April 8 sermon: “Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him.” That would be 144 virgins and double the fig ration.

He continued: “Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world.” And “The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth.”

This kind of “peace” means no Jews with all Israel occupied and dominated by legions of Muslims who will impose Sharia law to the detriment of women and anyone who believes in a different God and different laws and rules.

The apologists for such rhetoric, which is legion, turn blind eyes and deaf ears to the intent and objectives of Hamas, which is increasingly considered mainstream in the Arab world. Arab and Palestinian diplomats say one thing for Western consumption and the opposite when communicating with their own.

In his bold rebuke of President Obama in the Oval Office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a history lesson. Ignorance of history threatens not only Israel, but also American interests and ultimately America itself. That’s because Arab intentions to dominate do not end in the Middle East. “Peace based on illusions,” said Netanyahu, “will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality.”

Once again, the prime minister noted that Israel’s 1967 borders would be indefensible. All of the talk by this and previous administrations of “unshakable” support for Israel is meaningless if enemy tanks, missiles and especially nuclear weapons are used against this tiny nation. What would America do? Bomb Iran? Invade Egypt? Strafe Syria? The State Department would likely wring its hands and blame Israel for its own destruction, saying it should have compromised sooner.

The ludicrously named “Arab Spring” is more like an Arab winter that will never end as long as radical Islam is the established religion. Very little good is likely to come out of the uprisings from Egypt to Syria and beyond because there is no foundation in the region for political pluralism, religious tolerance and equality for women. Such things are not part of their political and religious DNA. So why is the U.S. sending billions more in borrowed money to Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood candidate might win the upcoming election?

It is only when the State Department and the White House begin to understand reality that Israel’s — and America’s — interests will be served.

The public seems to understand that better than politicians and diplomats. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 78 percent of U.S. voters believe peace between Israel and the Arab world is unlikely. Thousands of years of history and common sense confirm this.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. His email address is tmseditors@tribune.com

Comments

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

"This is the reality, expressed by Hamas’ former minister of “culture,” Atallah Abu Al-Subh, and broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV: “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the earth.”"

That's right out of 'Mein Kampf', by Adolf Hitler. Pretty much word for word, except that 'Mein Kampf' was written in German. Am I the only one to notice this?

“The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth.”

Well then, why is it that one of the integral portions of a Jewish Shabbot sevice is constant prayers for peace? In fact, a common greeting between Jews at a sevice is "Shabbot shalom", which means: "Peace on the Sabbath."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

You can find similar language from Israeli leaders about Muslims/Arabs. Should that be used as justification for permanent war against Israel?

BTW, Hamas and Fatah have recently reconciled for the purpose of negotiating peace with Israel. And included in that reconciliation is a recognition of the right of Israel to exist, albeit within the pre-1967 borders.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

That's simply not true. Hamas has not recognized Israel's right to exist within any borders. Their charter has not changed one bit. They continue to advocate armed struggle to eliminate the Zionist entity. Your statements remind me of the times Yasser Arafat spoke to the U.N. during the day and spoke about making peace with Israel. Later that day, he would go before an Arabic speaking group and tell them the armed struggle would continue until Israel was eliminated. If you want to believe his statements made before the U.N., that's your right. But if you're asking people to trust their lives to a man making such duplicitous statements, perhaps you might understand their decision not to do that.

jafs 4 years ago

If you look into it, I am almost completely certain that Israeli leaders do not say the same things in public and in private about such matters either.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

I'm not sure as to what you are referencing. But in sheer terms of the contradiction, nothing could be further from the truth. To say one minute, we want peace and with your next breath say you will never agree to peace, it can't be a greater lie. If a person is inclined to believe the words coming from a person who engages in such rhetoric, that's their right. But to expect others to believe, well, that's just plain stupid.

jafs 4 years ago

You can find similar comments by Israelis about Palestinians if you look for them.

The borders being indefensible is a smokescreen - the proposal is that the amount of land become the same, and that security is achieved by "land swaps".

If peace is impossible, what the heck are we doing there at all?

We could:

Stop providing massive amounts of aid, military and otherwise, and let them fight it out themselves.

Provide even more weapons to one side and help them destroy the other.

I would require that both sides commit to a peaceful solution, as a condition of any aid from us, and that both sides agree to not let their extremists derail negotiations, if we're serious about peace in the region.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

"let them fight it out themselves."

"I would require that both sides commit to a peaceful solution, as a condition of any aid from us,"

Do you think that stategy would have worked only a few decades ago, when Germany was fighting against Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, England, and the U.S.S.R.?

Actually there were quite a few isolationists here in the USA that agreed with that position. But, Pearl Harbor changed their minds rather quickly on December 7, 1941.

Some people think of September 11, 2001 as our generation's December 7, 1941.

jafs 4 years ago

There are clear distinctions between WWII and the Middle East, it seems to me.

WWII is perhaps the only war I can think of in which there was a pretty clear moral situation - ie. Hitler was a bad guy, and fighting against him was a good thing to do.

The Middle East conflict is much less clear to me, on that level.

And, I am not comfortable treating the acts of a small extremist group as representative of an entire population. If you want to say we're in some sort of war with radical terrorists, fine. Anything more than that isn't warranted, in my view.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Did you listen to the speach yesterday?? Sure sounds like Isreal wants peace and will trade land to get it. Sure sounded that something like the 67 borders was a possibility from negotiation.

How do you negotiate with someone whose non-negotiable point is your destruction (Hamas)?

OK, no more aid to Isreal (if Iran stops giving aid to Hamas).

I sure would want defensible borders if I had been atatcked three times by those whose borders I was negotiating.

Where from comes your love for the Palesttinians?

jafs 4 years ago

I love everybody.

From what I heard, '67 borders are a non-starter for Israel, a non-negotiable requirement for Palestinians, and the US position.

Sounds like an impasse to me.

I'd very much like to remove all military aid to both sides

There just seems to me to be a pretty big bias in Israel's favor here, and I'm trying to nudge that a bit, towards a more even-handed view.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

JAFS

Well it seems to me there is a very big bias in favor of the Palestinians here and I insist it get corrected. History is history.

Putting your moral concerns for individuals who have been on the wrong side of history forward as a basic to ignor history is not appropriate.

It sure sounded to me like Mr N agreed to work to approach the 67 boundaries with land swaps to in part address defensible borders. It sure sounded to me like Mr. O backed off from his comments about the 67 boundaries a few days ago.

You know that in 67 Israel took land from Syria and Jordan. The former land was never part of the Palestinian world. The latter was but was in the hands of Jordan - how so??

jafs 4 years ago

I hope you're right that this will spur real negotiations and a lasting peace that both sides will accept and enjoy.

If you think that the US is biased in favor of Palestine, I think you're rather seriously mistaken, and that the bias is almost entirely in the other direction.

You can't "insist" on anything George - you're not my boss, or my commanding officer. I suggest you consider a different relationship with me.

gkerr 4 years ago

jafs, You do not want them to fight it out. Israel will fight to the death to preserve their ancient homeland. They suffered greatly to return their as a nation recognized by the rest of the World that slaughtered them by the millions in WW2. They were majority group in Jerusalem in first modern era census taken in 1844- 7120 Jews were counted vs.5760 Muslims, and 3390 Christians. They are not Johnny come lately's to the land.

Israel has nuclear weapons and will use them to destroy Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and whoever will attempt to drive them into the sea. Jews in Israel are threatened daily by Iran, Syria, and elements in Palestine and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. You do not want Armageddon. Hundreds of millions will be killed, Americans will not be spared- perhaps even you and I will suffer personally.

I'm afraid that the Left including Obama Administration is pandering to world opinion and Arab money as they have perverse goals in common, although differing reasons for attacking traditional interests of the West. When you cheer lead for war in Israel/Palestine/Judea, you are playing with fire. When you expect Israel to conciliate with powers that deny their right to exist in the Middle East as an independent Jewish state you are deluding yourself.

Remember Israel is made up of children and grand children of Jews forced into exile from Europe where they were brutally murdered in wholesale lots and refugees from Arab states in the region as well as indigenous Jews who had survived for centuries in hostile climate of occupying Arab or European powers.

Why in the world should we allow Israel to be driven from their homeland? What possible good does that do for the MidEast, for Europe, for Justice?

Jews have far more right to their homeland in Judea than we have of our homeland in America or Normans have in England and Ireland, etc.. Gkerr

jafs 4 years ago

What's your suggestion for a solution?

gkerr 4 years ago

Jafs,

The peace will have to be negotiated by Israel who will and does admit that a Palestinian state has a right to exist in Palestine with borders on Israel. Arab interests with Palestinian authority who recognize the right of Israel to exist in their ancient homeland MUST recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in their ancient homeland- this authority must speak for all Arab Nations and be ratified by those nations. Iran is the power behind the power in the Islamic middle east. They have sworn that they will destroy Israel and kill all Jews. This is not a few whacko religious nuts but the political leaders of the Iran.

Iran must not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. These weapons must be destroyed aborning in their labs and plants. We must not hinder Israel from doing that for us if we are afraid to do so. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and has not bragged about them or used them as a threat. Iran and Syria do not have them yet but are and were working on them as Iraq was working on them. Israel destroyed their development capability in Iraq and Syria, and must be allowed to destroy them in Iran. Sunni Arabs do not want Iran's Shia Persians to be the only Moslems with nuclear weapons in the middle east.

There are no easy solutions. But war is not the answer, because if Israel has to fight for its life it will fight to the death and unleash Armageddon rather than succumb to another holocaust, or to slink back to the Europe which rejected them and murdered them wholesale or the Arab states that rejected them and have murdered them wholesale. No Israel must survive as a Jewish State it is the only tenable solution to them and it is truly right, just and fair.
Gkerr

jafs 4 years ago

What are the chances of what you suggest happening, do you think?

gkerr 4 years ago

Jafs, Let me ask you if you concur that for Israel to have peace it must first be guaranteed that whoever it negotiates with will accept their right to exist. Do you agree that the ball is in the Arabs court to declare that a Jewish Democracy in Palestine/Judea has a right to exist? Do you support Israel's right to exist? With defensible borders? Gkerr

jafs 4 years ago

I can't answer that question.

It seems to me that both sides are stuck, and have been for some 60+ years in a never ending conflict, which seems horrible to me.

Israel is there, and it's not going anywhere, and the same is true of the Palestinians.

There is a lot of bad blood on both sides, and a lot of bogged down in history/differing interpretations that keeps them stuck in the conflict.

I personally think it would be a better solution for one side or the other to simply go elsewhere, but that's not going to happen.

Check my comment on the Obama-Israel thread for my latest and perhaps best idea going forward - I'd be interested in your take on it.

jafs 4 years ago

I mean the Israel interest thread, I think.

Bossa_Nova 4 years ago

ladies and gentlemen, this may come to a surprise to most of you but please be aware that after the oil in the middle east is all gone and western interests migrate elsewhere, nobody will give a sh!t about what goes on in the middle east. all the funding will go away and everyone in the region will fight it out with sticks and stones and whatever else they can find to bash the other guy with.

if i was an israeli, for the sake of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, i would do my best to start making friends with my arab neighbors asap instead of later when international support disappears. in order for israel to survive in the future, being on good terms with the arabs is going to be necessary. lets be realistic, the arabs aren't going to just pick up and leave. you guys are there together, you gotta make it work.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

Actually, at a personal level, there were quite a few friendships between individual Israelis and Palistinians across the demarcation line. The problem is that today, the separation barrier has separated them for almost an entire generation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

What a surprise. Cal celebrates the neocon/right-wing Israeli paranoid/narcissistic party line.

Olympics 4 years ago

Anti-semites for proposing a 1967 border peace plan. That's a low bar.

wildwildwest 4 years ago

What has been in motion since biblical days will not be rectified by some sort of negotiations or boundry lines. When peace does come to Israel, look up for your redemption draweth nigh. Here we sit amongst the most intelligent people in the world, (supposedly) and our eyes are blinded. The time of peace for Israel is totally in the hand of G-d and cannot be manipulated nor changed by simple man. Obama does not have the formula to outperform the very G-d that has set this plan in motion, however he does have the deception necessary to promote his proIslamic agenda on the rest of the world. As he preaches peace to the mideast, his actions and his words show that he is in no way interested in the real peace of Israel. When that peace does come, prepare yourselves for the next 7 years. And after that, look to the Mount of Olives for the real peace that the world is seeking. When will we ever get it through our heads that Christ is the only one that will ever establish the eternal peace in this world that man has falsely claimed to want for all these years. To not believe this is calling G-d a liar. He has outlined our future in His Word, and that will never change. A man would be a fool not to pray for peace in Israel, but a bigger fool not to pray that the hearts of all men would be touched by the Spirit of the living G-d, and changed. This change would lead all men to the understanding of future events and time tables that are in motion. However we still cannot side step nor prevent events that will surely come, according to His Word. May the very Spirit of the Living G-d change your heart as you read this comment. Amen.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

It's superstitious claptrap like this that is the true hindrance to peace.

Sadly, fundy Christians in this country see the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as part of a biblical prophesy, and for that prophesy to be fulfilled, the conflict must continue.

And Cal buys into that idiocy 100%.

beatrice 4 years ago

Like you can prove there is a god.

Interesting pattern of repeating a phrase to close out an argument. There used to be someone on here by the name of barrypenders (a dual name not unlike "deaconblue") who did the exact same thing, but he was disappeareded. Remember him, or did you arrive after he was gone?

JustNoticed 4 years ago

"G-d"? What is that ridiculous affectation?

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

I'd like to take a snapshot in history, 1973. Following Israel's smashing victory in 1967, the U.S. and the Soviet Union tried to ratchet down the tension in the region. Egypt, a client state of the Soviet's and Israel, a client state of the U.S. were receiving massive amounts of military aid from their respective supporters. It was agreed that military aid would be slowed. But in 1973, the Arabs attacked. The surprise attack was very successful at first, they caught the Israelis off guard. The Arabs had far superior numbers. The Israelis lacked conventional weapons due to the policies of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. What they did have though was nuclear weapons. Desperate calls were made between Israel and Washington. Israel let it be known that without conventional weapons, and faced with a defeat that would lead to total annihilation, Israel would save itself by the use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. decided to give Israel conventional weapons rather than risk the use of nuclear weapons. I mention this because many posters say things like we should simply stop all aid, especially military aid to Israel. But what would happen if we did that. israel's problems in that region are not now nor have they ever been limited to just the Palestinians. Their conflicts have been regional in nature. Should the U.S. stop all aid to Israel, the Arab side would likely become emboldened to again eliminate Israel. And with an overwhelming advantage in conventional means of war, they might well succeed as long as the conflict is limited to the use of conventional weapons. However, if faced with that situation, what might Israel do with it's estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Having had those weapons for forty years, they have shown the proper restrain of a nuclear power. If however, they are faced with total annihilation, they may resort to extreme measures.
As our leaders calculate what might happen in certain situations, they need to take into account not just what will happen, they need to think about what might happen. They might make one decision if they feel the likelihood of a nuclear conflict was as little as 1% but might make a very different decision if it were determined that the likelihood was, say 10%.
Humans have a long history of blundering their way into wars, wars that could have been avoided in hindsight. Simply cutting off aid might induce Israel to negotiate peace, or it might embolden it's adversaries to wage war. No one can say with any degree of certainty which will happen.

jafs 4 years ago

I would tie any and all aid to either side (and, I'd actually like to see us offer humanitarian aid to both sides, rather than military aid) to a serious commitment to peace, and to restraining the more radical and extreme elements on each side.

Otherwise, we're simply enabling the current conflict to continue, with no end in sight.

Of course, this would probably only work if we could get the large nations supplying Palestinians with military aid to play by the same rules.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

Because we cannot control the policies of other nations, a stoppage of U.S. aid only would upset the balance of power in the region. The result might be peace. Or it might be nuclear holocaust. I'd hate to have history judge me if my decisions are the ones that led to nuclear war.

Bossa_Nova 4 years ago

i agree with your comment mate, the only difference however between 1973 and 2011 is that israel isn't the only one in the region now with nukes and prepared to lob them at their neighbor.

jafs 4 years ago

Oh, and of course, what stops Israel from supplying itself with conventional weapons, if it can do so with nuclear ones?

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Think about you comment. Nukes in the tens would annihilate living things in the region. Tanks in the hundreds would just yield scrap material

jafs 4 years ago

That doesn't really mean anything to me.

If they can supply themselves with nuclear weapons, they could also/instead supply themselves with conventional weapons if they choose to do so.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

JAFS - the scope. Ten bombs vs hundreds of tanks, trucks, planes, ships, and more

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

"The Sampson Option" says it all.

A clip: In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence. Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under."

deec 4 years ago

They're going to take our ball and go home?

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

If faced with total annihilation, yes. Wasn't that the policies of both great nuclear powers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.? It was called mutual assured destruction. Or MAD for short. And it worked. Neither side dared start a conflict, knowing that to start one would end in your own annihilation. As long as those making the decisions aren't suicidal, it should work. Does either side here use suicide as a tactic in this conflict?

jafs 4 years ago

There is no defense against suicidal people with nuclear weapons - it's a very unfortunate fact of our time that we have to deal with.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

Right, there is no defense against a person who is suicidal. But if one side consistently uses suicide as a part of it's tactics, would it not be best to keep arms away from that person or group?

jafs 4 years ago

If you can, sure.

But, as you pointed out above, we have limited power in the world.

deec 4 years ago

So to restore the balance of MAD, perhaps we should supply Palestine with an equal number of nukes as Israel possesses. Equilibrium restored.

jhawkinsf 4 years ago

As was noted above, it won't work if those weapons are in the hands of suicidal people. One side in this conflict has a 40 year history with nuclear weapons. They have shown the restraint necessary of a nuclear power. The other side has shown that they are willing to use suicide as a tactic in this conflict. Rather that equilibrium, your suggestion will result in annihilation.

wildwildwest 4 years ago

You don't have to be just another bozo on the bus. You could be the just another person like myself that was going through life with no direction and no understanding of just who Christ is. But by the Spirit of the Living G-d my life was changed. His Word brings Wisdom to the dumb and sight to the blind. Once again, may the very Spirit of the Living G-d touch your life, and may the blindness of your eyes be lifted, and may the eyes of your understanding be opened. I challenge you to find out the truth of this situation for yourself, as opposed to just name calling, and exhibits of lack of understanding. It's easy to argue and debate, but it's easier to believe and rejoice. Long live Israel, and remember that blessed is the nation that blesses Israel and cursed is the nation that curses Israel. Here's a little unknown fact. One year ago to the very day, Japan proclaimed to support Hammas. One year later the giant earthquake hit that country, along with the Tsunami. I rest my case.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

We're all bozos on this bus, WWW.

But after reading that bit of claptrap, I'd say I'm a real amateur bozo compared to you.

Darrell Lea 4 years ago

Who is this G-d that you speak of?

You mention the disaster in Japan as some sort of cause and effect phenomenon. If your G-d works in such mysterious ways, what say ye about the fate of your neighbors in Joplin?

Olympics 4 years ago

Alabaman's didn't pray hard enough. G-------------D was angry. Tornado. I rest my case.

Olympics 4 years ago

Alabaman's didn't pray hard enough. G-------------D was angry. Tornado. I rest my case.

beatrice 4 years ago

Are you leaving the "O" out of "Living G-d" because of Oprah finishing her show?

Why would god have to wait one year "to the very day(!)" to exact his revenge? Why didn't he just wipe out Hamas if they are the ones he is upset with? Since the tsunami killed people in countries other than Japan, does god not care about collateral damage? Since the tsunami destroyed a lot of boats, does god hate fishermen too?

Darrell Lea 4 years ago

Out of curiosity, is "god" one of those bad words that gets your post pulled down by the administrators here? Does that explain the trick spelling?

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

If you are talking about the spelling "G-d", the answer is no. That is not a trick spelling meaning the word "HaShem", which is a Hebrew phrase meaning "The Name", which is one of the names used for G-d. It implies great respect.

That spelling is used by Orthodox and Ultraorthodox Jews, and perhaps also Reconstructionist Jews and Conservative Jews, who believe that the complete spelling of the word "G-d" should never be used while addressing or referring to G-d either in print or in a certain way which is far to lengthy to go into here.

Reform Jews, who are in the majority here in the United States, do not consider that to be terribly important. A lot of things that many people seem to think about Jews simply do not apply to anyone who is an adherent to the Reform Jewish movement. For instance, we do not mourn the loss of the Temple in Jerusalem, it is gone and we accept that. We have our Sacred Texts, and that is all we need. Likewise, we don't really care all that much about having political control over Israel as long as we are able to go visit and study there. But, our big problem is that if it becomes under Islamic control, we very might not be able to.

As an aside, the Ultra Orthodox Jewish movement believes that the creation of the modern state of Isreal is anathema, that is, it is a terrible thing. They believe that Israel should never be reestablished until the Messiah comes, and at that time nothing will stop it, although they very well might agree that it will be a spiritual recreation and not a physical one, and that all will share in the correction of the earth's problems.

When addressing G-d while alone and in a very personal way, The Name usually used is Adonai.

And, there are many other names used for "G-d", a few examples are El Elohim, Yhwh, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Shaddai, Ẓeba'ot. R. Jose, and Shalom.

jafs 4 years ago

Yes.

That's an interesting phenomenon, the Orthodox opposition to the formation of Israel.

It certainly shows that one doesn't have to be anti-Semitic to criticize Israel.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

I have an aunt that spent quite a lot of time in Russia teaching English as a foreign language shortly after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

A question she heard many times was: "Why do Americans hate us so much?"

To which she always replied, "No, Americans do not hate the Russian people. What we hate is the government."

jafs 4 years ago

Yep.

And, I'm sure it works the other way too, when people hate America.

beatrice 4 years ago

"President Dumbo" -- great argument there rc.

beatrice 4 years ago

I guess if you can't support an argument without name-calling, then you just can't.

Brian Hall 4 years ago

I'm wondering why the President is getting blamed for the unemployment, welfare and food stamps when all of that is NOT his job but rather the states. Getting people to move to a state to boost housing, creating jobs to get people off of unemployment and welfare is the state's job and last I knew, at least in Kansas, it was being run by Republicans. Even when a Democrat was governor, it was run by Republicans.

beatrice 4 years ago

Us "lib-dems" recognize that little of this would be different no matter who was in office, or are you suggesting that the issues in the Middle East are Obama's fault? Same with the economic issues, despite knowing everything that led to the market crash just before Obama took office -- still his fault. Got it. Personally, I believe that the unemployment rate would like be even higher were it not for the actions taken by this administration. You don't. Okay.

But do you really believe McCain would have changed all this? Really? He sure hasn't done much for Arizona.

gkerr 4 years ago

RockcHalk1977,

Don't you mean 14 trillion? It's actually more like 35 trillion with present entitlement legislation and committed indebtedness from present legislation and accounts going forward. Gkerr

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Actually I defend Mr. O. In a very public speech he said a few things that moved us closer to the Palestinian position. Underlings then denied in part what he seemed to say. Much love was exchanged with Israel. The changes was noted by the Palestinians. What might they do with it. It is an honest attempt to move away from deadlock.

jafs 4 years ago

Yes, it is a good idea to spur real negotiations that move the process forward towards a solution.

Let's hope that it does just that.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Oh, I saw it but that was the Israeli position. What I heard him say was that the final lines are to be determined by negotiation and that Israel would not claim all the settlements. He made vary clear he wanted defensible lines.

I though Mr O did the same (defensible lines) when I heard him speak.

wildwildwest 4 years ago

In Reverence to our Creator. The Priests could not speak the name of G-d, and if His name were written, the very pen that was used was destroyed. His name is Yahweh, in Hebrew the meaning of His name is "Continuous Unfinished Action". Therefore He is involved in every action, every event, and every thing that happens. He is involved in your life today, you just don't know it !!. Why do I omit the " o " when referencing Him. Reverence !!! About Joplin, " This country is heading down a dead end road by declaring G-d to be what we want Him to be. As leaders in this country stand up and declare solidarity with all quote unquote religions, and as G-d fearing people stand by and allow this to go on, then this country is liable for it's actions and it's stance as a Christian nation that is responsible to bring the Gospel to the world. None of us are above His judgement and we need to heed the signs as He is trying to get our attention. Some of us would rather turn a blind eye and blame "Mother Nature" for the horrible events that happen relating to the weather. Were Chistians killed along with the non Christians in Joplin, yes they were. Does G-d have favorites, only Israel and 2 other guys. Judgement begins in the House of the Lord. Give me 5 good men that will stand in leadership and declare the truth of G-d to the world and I will give you a nation that is bound for blessings. Israel will never be defeated, I don't care how many nuclear warheads the other guys have, I don't care how many 200 million man armies march against her, she will always exist. Some how or the other we just keep leaving G-d out of the equation. Do your research. May I suggest billcloud .org

beatrice 4 years ago

Weren't you going on a trip this past Saturday?

beatrice 4 years ago

Yep, I missed that little tidbit. However, I don't believe in sky gods equally. Either way you slice it, suggestions that tsunamis and other severe weather patterns are just god's form of retribution are completely ridiculous. If I am wrong, may god strike me dow

jafs 4 years ago

Uh oh,

Beatrice, are you still there?????

:-)

Corey Williams 4 years ago

You'll leave the 'o' out of god, but yet you still put yahweh in there? Pick and choose?

And yes, of course, god's judgement was responsible for the joplin tornados. Yes, it's nice to believe in a god that doles out death and destruction from on high. But if that were true, you'd think her aim would be a lot better.

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Exactly what is being served by wandering into the thicket of religion??

oldbaldguy 4 years ago

i spent some time in the middle east. most folks one on one are decent, friendly and curious about the world. unfortunately their leaders are all aholes and have misled their people for generations. throw in islamic fanatics and the obsession with wiping out israel will never go away. most of the arab world believe that the arab palistinians are pains in the butt and would rather they just go away. however, the arab street is by and large not friendly to israel whether there is a palistine or not. that will never change. other than an armed truce till further notice, i see no solution. whatever israel offers will not be accepted by the arabs or the persians. a real peace would require the military destruction of one or the other.

jafs 4 years ago

Nicely odd last sentence there - real peace requiring destruction.

I bet that even if one side "won" there, it wouldn't end the conflicts that would spread out from the region.

Perhaps the logical conclusion to your premise would be that one group wiping out all of the others on earth is the only way to a real peace. Seems odd, doesn't it, to think that?

Ron Holzwarth 4 years ago

That might seem odd, but it appears that history demonstrates that you are correct.

oldbaldguy 4 years ago

normally lasting peace is imposed by decisive military defeat. when that does not happen you have a festering problem. WWI Armistice did not end the problem with Germany, it took another war, decisive military defeat ended the German problem. i am not advocating worldwide destruction, just stating what i believe has been historical fact.

Armored_One 4 years ago

For the life of me I cannot remember where I read this, but it's deathly appropriate, given the above statements...

Graveyards rarely break peace treaties.

notaubermime 4 years ago

It is all fine and dandy to discuss genocide and/or the destruction of a culture when it isn't you that is being targeted. Such pronouncements would likely sound different if it involved a matter closer to home.

What are the odds that the people of Northern Ireland are thankful that their leaders did not resign themselves to such a grim conclusion?

jafs 4 years ago

Northern Ireland is an interesting comparison.

If there are any ideas that could be gleaned from how they solved their lengthy conflict that could be applied towards the Middle East, that would be a very good thing.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.