Posted on 05/22/2011 6:45:44 PM PDT by Nachum
Contrary to what NBC's David Gregory said Friday, U.S. News & World Report editor Mort Zuckerman believes that in the wake of President Obama's Mideast speech, "The Israelis do not feel they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the state of Israel." Such was said during a heated debate about the subject on PBS's "McLaughlin Group" (Snip) Mclaughlin: You know what that's called? That's called betrayal. Zuckerman: Yes, that’s exactly what they feel. The Israelis do not feel they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger, Israel. Americans don’t feel like the US government is behind them either!
When you think of all the issues in which the majority of Americans disagree with Obama - it’s amazing this guy has a chance of re-election.
Our government might not be behind them. But may of us are!
The administration of Hussein Obama is the enemy of liberty-loving people everywhere.
Meaning Democrats and Liberals. Americans have always been backing Israel.
Americans are...
our current muslim president (or at the very least, muslim biased) isn’t
It’s that magic 50% that all important elections come down to these days. Obama will take slightly more than 50% of the vote in 2012 because the fix is in and the American people are out.
Correct. What part of that do they not understand?
Correction, Mort. America's president may not be behind the state of Israel. But Americans are.
A precursor to a “NEW WORLD ORDER.”
The Los Angeles Times(?) must have quite a video at that PLO / Rashid Khalidi party that they never released to the public.
Yeah, what ever happened to 'the public's right to know'? Or is that only when there's something to know about a conservative? The MSM nails their own coffin...
Have faith in us Israel, we will throw this bum out in 2012.
By Freeper South40:
“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”
— President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”
— Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988
Starting with President Lyndon Johnson, right after the Six-Day War, U.S. presidents often have shown great sympathy for Israel’s contention that the pre-1967 dividing line did not provide security.
“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli’s security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.”
— President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001
In his waning weeks in office, Clinton laid out what are now known as the “Clinton parameters,” an attempt to sketch out a negotiating solution to create two states. His description of the parameters is very detailed, but he shied away from mentioning the 1967 lines even as he spoke of “territorial swaps.”
“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”
— President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002
Bush slipped in a mention of 1967 in his famous Rose Garden speech that called for the ouster of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. One could argue that the reference to Resolution 242 was a de facto mention of the 1967 lines. At the time, the Arab League was promoting a peace initiative based on the idea of Israel returning to the 1967 boundaries, and this reference was seen as a nod to that concept. But most experts did not view his reference to “1967” as a change.
“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.”
— Bush, letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 14, 2004
You can blame Political Correctness as well as the American Idol-ization of the U.S.
As long as Barack Obama remains half-black and "cool", he will be extremely difficult to beat.
And civilized people of the world are going to just stand by and watch this tragedy and do nothing?
No more evil person walks this earth than this president. Pure evil seems to somehow anesthetize public thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.