Posted on 01/28/2013 7:30:29 AM PST by Nachum
TEL AVIV – Now that he has secured his second term, President Barack Obama has already secretly pledged to the Palestinians he will press Israel into a new round of so-called land-for-peace negotiations, a top Palestinian Authority negotiator told KleinOnline.
The negotiator said top members of the Obama administration told the Palestinians the U.S. president will renew talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state in the so-called 1967 borders – meaning in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and, notably, eastern Jerusalem.
The negotiator further revealed when it comes to dividing Jerusalem, Obama wants to rehash what is known as the Clinton parameters.
That formula, pushed by Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks in 2000, called for Jewish areas of Jerusalem to remain Israeli while the Palestinians will get sovereignty over neighborhoods that are largely Arab.
KleinOnline previously reported how Palestinians are building illegally in Jewish-owned areas of Jerusalem, changing facts on the ground and resulting in Arab majorities on certain neighborhoods.
This is not the first time the Palestinians are claiming Obama will push for new talks during a second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
Full title: OBAMA SECRETLY PLEDGES TO DIVIDE JERUSALEM. Will press Israel into new so-called land-for-peace talks
No problems. The Israelis will tell Obama what he can do with his pledge...
The Israelis will tell Obama what he can do with his pledge...
I think Jehovah trumps Obama and God is not pleased.
Exactly.
FOBO?
when you win a war and take land back, you get to keep the land.
afaik the israelis didn’t start the 67 war either.
The 1967 war was started by the Israelis but they claimed that it was a pre-emptive strike against an anticipated Egyptian attack.
The Israelis “started” the 1967 war in the same sense that you could say that they will have started a war with Iran if they attack its nuclear facilities. Egypt’s president Nassar maintained a steady drumbeat of threats to drive Israel into the sea, and then he followed up with illegally closing the Suez Canal, taking away one of Israel’s main shipping channels, in an effort to weaken the Jewish state.
Perhaps. But then would happen if Obama started withdrawing US aid to Israel as "punishment"? No more money, no more spare parts for military equipment, no more sharing of intelligence. It would be an embargo, without actually using the word.
And what would happen if Obama encouraged other nations to do the same, all in the interest of "peace"?
Israel is a small nation. It needs big friends.
To all those conservatives who just couldn't vote for Romney because of ________ (fill in the blank), here's another example of the old saying "elections have consequences."
I am not disputing you. There was clearly an ongoing conflict and threat from the Egyptians before the 1967 war. Indeed, as I pointed out, this was the rationale given by the Israelis for their attack. But the credibility for one’s argument is lost if the fact that in 1967 it was the Israelis who attacked the Egyptians is denied and the 1967 war is presented as an attack by the Egyptians. Rather, acknowledge that this time it was the Israelis who attacked but argue that their attack was a justifiable pre-emptive strike as they claimed.
Allow me to anticipate Bibi’s response:
“Israel is less concerned with what America may not provide, than we are with the demands they seek to impose.”
Bibi does this after muttering his brief, initial response, under his breath.....
You may want to invest in a little research, before coming here and posting ludicrous “Israel was the aggressor” memes.
No, I won't do it for you.
Egypt blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, its only port in the south and through which flowed all of its trade south and east. Further, Nasser kicked the UN peacekeeping troops out of the Sinai, which had been the only thing that made the Israelis agree to give back Sinai after the 1956 war. Finally, Egypt moved several divisions of troops into Sinai. Any ONE of these things taken separately would have been an act of war. All three, especially when combined with Nasser’s threats to “push the Jews into the sea” and its sudden alliance with Syria presented a mortal threat to Israel’s very existence. The first act of war was on the part of Egypt. Israel committed the second - defensive - act by pre-empting an attack that every thinking person on the planet knew was coming.
Bottom line: Egypt started that war.
You’re an idiot. You think Israel should have waiting until Egypt and the rest actually fired the shots before doing what was necessary to defend and win that war. Face it, you’re just pissed Israel won.
Israel already gave back the damn sinai penensula....
Wasn’t that enough?
The 1967 war was started by the Israelis
It looks like a review of history is in order here.
And where did I state that “Israel was the aggressor”? I twice acknowledged that there was a conflict and threat from Egypt before the war. The 1967 war was a part of a wider conflict but the war itself was a specific set of actions that started with the pre-emptive strike by the Israelis against the Egyptians and ended with the armistice. Even the Israelis acknowledge that they struck first. This has nothing to do with the question of wether or not they were justified in so acting. It is just historically inaccurate to state that in 1967 it was the Egyptians who actually attacked first.
Potential timeline bump....
US Returns to Pressuring Israel on 2-State ‘Solution’
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164595#.UQUml_Ja5fx
Door Closing on Peace, Warns Jordan’s King
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164575#.UQUsb_Ja5fw
Kerry: Door for ‘Two-State Solution’ May be Closing
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164557#.UQUsnvJa5fw
.
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.