heh!

Cute-but I loved the cartoon that had someone say that they wanted to America's pre 1776 borders- Kind of brings things to a more clear situation!

AWESOME...and spot on!

Our lonnnnnng national nightmare still has 18 months to go, however!

"I want...." versus "We'd like.....". Yep, got it down to every detail.

Bam! That one is going to leave a mark! :)

57% of Israelis agree with Obama - so what you conservatives think really doens't matter much. You don't have a horse in the race - you just hate muslims.

Fortunately, Obama is on the side of the Israeli people.

You folks are working against the Israelis -- all under the guise of supporting them.

While Obama is promoting what the majority of Israelis want.

You're not supporting Israel, you're just anti-Obama.

#6

Leave it to a liberal to tell everyone else what they think.

Have another swig of Kool-aid Art!

"Fortunately, Obama is on the side of the Israeli people."

After reading that sentence I have reconsidered. Make it a pitcher full of unicorn flavoured Coool- Aid Art!

"You folks are working against the Israelis -- all under the guise of supporting them."

Gosh, and here we thought all along no one would catch on. Oh well, it seemed like the perfect ruse at the time.

Guys, this horseshit statistic that our hit n' run troll Art is spouting is making the rounds of all the lefty blogs. It's taken from a meaningless and vague poll taken by an Israeli newspaper, and means no more than any other poll.

"While Obama is promoting what the majority of Israelis want."

And in the latest polls, Obama's favorables in Israel has risen to - wait for it - 12%!!! Sorry, Art - we didn't drink the Koolaid here and if I were you I would stay away from the Grape flavored, if you know what I mean.

On second thought, take a large gulp of the grape - it'll be good for you!!!!!

Art W,

They agree with obama on what exactly?

That the only lasting peace will come when there is an independent Palestine that recognizes Israel's right to exist?

That Israel must return to it's 1967 borders before negotiating anything?

That Michelle is a angry sullen jerk that hates America?

I think we can all agree on one and three.

I find it interesting that the right is just completely physically unable to be honest when it comes to Obama, and is pitifully compelled to lie about it at every turn. Let me remind you what he said...

"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."

You don't get to just put a period in his sentence anywhere you want to, and then pretend he said completely the opposite of what he actually said.

http://heebmagazine.com/the-period-comes-at-the-end-of-the-sentence/25927

"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."

Nice try, John, but exactly how would "mutually agreed swaps" result in the 1967 borders? What territory could the Palestinians "swap" in exchange for the West Bank and Gaza? Why should Israel agree to a return to the 1967 borders when those borders provided no security to them? And most importantly, why the hell should the Israelis trust the Palestinians?

You're the one not being honest about Obama. He's talking out of his ass on this subject, and you know it.

The 1967 borders were so indefensible that Israel lost the Six Day War!

Oh, wait, Israel DIDN'T lose the war.

Look, this ain't rocket science, or even 9th grade history. The '67 borders were difficult to defend. Yet Israel had done so since 1949. This is why the concept of peace based, however loosely, on the '67 borders, has been US policy for decades. Bush endorsed it, as did Clinton before him, as did GHW Bush before that.

Everyone knows, and has always known, that peace, if it ever comes, will be based on the 1967 borders. Republicans, Democrats, Likudniks, Laborites. Everyone who is serious and not a religious fanatic knows this is so.

John is correct in implying that conservatives are pretending that the word "based" means something other than what it actually means in order to rag on Obama. Their criticism on this point is just as silly as, say for instance, the "outrage" over the return of Churchill's bust to the UK. Just another excuse to imply he's "other," different, you know, Muslimish, wink wink.

Is Benjamin Netanyahu concerned for Jewish ethnic interests?

If Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned for Jewish ethnic interests, is this mainly because of his blood-kinship with the Jewish people (i.e., because Netanyahu IS a Jew), or because Israel is a democracy of sorts and Netanyahu merely wishes to defend democracy with defense of Jewish ethnic interests being simply instrumental to his larger goal of defending democracy? Or, to put it another way: if it were necessary to dispense with democracy in Israel in order to save the Jewish people would Netanyahu do this?

Isn't it the implicit criticism of this blog that Obama shows *insufficient* concern for Jewish ethnic interests as contrasted with Netanyahu?

If Jews have ethnic interests, do not other peoples have ethnic interests? If not, why not?

If other peoples have ethnic interests as Jews do, do not these other peoples have as much a right to defend their ethnic interests as Jews Jews do? If not, why not?

Answering these questions honestly, with the utmost effort to maintain intellectual consistency, will require a courage I'm sure few here possess.

Alex is here to prove, once again, that one can possess a large vocabulary and an ability to spell correctly, and yet still be a racist, anti-Semitic, white supremacist asshole. Well done, sir.

"The 1967 borders were so indefensible that Israel lost the Six Day War!

Oh, wait, Israel DIDN'T lose the war."

Very good, Bruce. You have here demonstrated the ability to think beyond the inanities of talking points. At least here, though conspicuously not elsewhere.

For instance, you have stated in the past your belief that WWII was fought by America to end the practice of "racism" in the West - a bland regurgitation of, yes, a talking point as relates to the myth of the "good war" if ever there was one. One problem, if America was committed to ending "racism" during WWII then why were her armed forces racially segregated during WWII?

"racist, anti-Semitic, white supremacist asshole."

Are you a proponent of Jewish supremacy, Bruce old boy? If you would grant Jews what you would deny European-derived people - an ethnic homeland in which their ancestral line might endure unto the generations - then you most certainly are. That, in addition to being a morally bankrupt hypocrite who has no other recourse than to smear his interlocutor. Quite pathetic, really.

I don't usually engage with white supremacist assholes, just point at them and laugh when I see them, but on this one occasion, I'll make an exception.

I don't believe I ever said America fought WW2 to "end racism." I said we fought to defeat the Nazis. There is a difference, and if what I've written in the past has been interpreted to mean the former, either I wrote poorly, or have been misunderstood or distorted.

While we talk about whether or not I am a "proponent of Jewish supremacy" you might want to check with some of the authors and commenters here, who have in the past called ME an anti-Semite because I think Palestinians are human beings who have rights too.

And what's with the "Bruce old boy" thingie? What are you, the British High Commissioner for East Bumfuckistan?

But what the hell am I doing? Why am I discussing anything with someone who refers to black people as "negroes?"

"The 1967 borders were so indefensible that Israel lost the Six Day War!"

That's right. And when you want to fight a war with 1967 technology against Syria, Jordan and Egypt just let me know. The technology of war has progressed a pace and those borders today would be exceptionally hard to defend. Also having gotten their asses handed to them in 1967, those same aggressors will be a little more cautious in how they attack.

It appears that since leftists never learn from history they assume that the rest of the world doesn't either. Sorry to have to break the news but the rest of the world remembers and learns. My might want to try it yourself sometime.

Bruce my boy, dispense with your smears.

Now, answer me this question (yes, answer it!): Do European-derived people have the same right to an ethnic homeland as Jews and Palestinians do? If not, why not?

How can someone like Alex with a broad vocabulary be so narrow minded. I suggest you go to the UN and see if they will give you a all white asshole country, maybe somewhere in the middle of Africa that would be fitting.

John, it is precisely your own "narrow minded[ness]" which prevents you from answering this question: Do European-derived people have the same right to an ethnic homeland as Jews and Palestinians do? If not, why not?

If you do not believe European-derived people have a right to an ethnic homeland - a right which you would grant Jews - then you can tell me why you think that. Can't you? Unless thinking through your beliefs is not important to you and you simply *do as you are told*.

The same goes for you, Bruce.

Are you so stupid, Alex, as to think that "European-derived peoples" DO NOT possess an "ethnic homeland?"

I believe there are several. For example "France." Or "Russia." Or "Poland." Or, and I'm sure this is your favorite, "Germany." Or "Norway."

God, what a stupid question.

"Are you so stupid, Alex,"

All modesty aside, Bruce, I am quite probably the most intelligent man to have commented on this blog at any point during its existence.

"as to think that 'European-derived peoples' DO NOT possess an 'ethnic homeland?'"

Your thinking - and not just concerning the above - is too hidebound to this present day. But obviously, there was a time before now and there will be times to come. What of those times to come? The European peoples are being systematically dispossessed of their ancestral lands. To flesh out the point: it is customary to see predictions of just when the European peoples will be rendered minorities on their native soil...and it won't stop there. There is to be no upper limit, you see, as to the planned race-replacement of the European peoples. Drown in the bottomless seas of the Third World. They are being replaced by alien peoples. Third World peoples with high birth rates and of a much younger average age as contrasted with the woefully low European birth rates which come from on average aging European peoples. They are being replaced, it is simple mechanics. If this trend is not stopped cold (and reversed!) the European peoples will cease to exist. Let the scales fall from thine eyes, it is genocide. This cannot, under any circumstance whatever, be allowed to pass.

European-Americans are to share their fate, unless something is done.

"I believe there are several. For example 'France.' Or 'Russia.' Or 'Poland.' Or, and I'm sure this is your favorite, 'Germany.' Or 'Norway.'"

You have above implicitly conceded the right of European-derived people to an ethnic homeland(s). Congratulations, you are a moral man. Yet it is a start, only. In the fullness of time you will come to see all the ways, great and small, that you are irrevocably tied to your people (just as Netanyahu is tied to his) and KNOW that our people must live.

Welcome to the light.

Bruce Henry said-

"The 1967 borders were so indefensible that Israel lost the Six Day War!

Oh, wait, Israel DIDN'T lose the war."

The Isreali's won in 1967 because they started the shooting war because the 1967 boundaries were indefensible. They knew that diplomatically that launching the preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force would paint them as the aggressor. Which, despite Egypt committing the first overt act of war by blockading of the Red Sea ports, has been done by the anti-Isreal left ever since. If they had waited to defend the 1967 borders, we would likely not be having this discussion as the Israelis would be dead.

If you take the time to actually know WTF you are talking about, you will quickly see that the results of the 6 day war are the refutation, not the proof of your hypothesis that the 1967 borders are defensible.

I just love strategic planning liberals deciding what Israel should do in defending their homeland. Throw in a Nazi and the circle of fools is complete.

"Do European-derived people have the same right to an ethnic homeland as Jews and Palestinians do? If not, why not?"

Sure. What ethnicity are the Palestinians? Mostly Jordanian/Syrian right? Well, there's a homeland.

Thanks for clearing up how smart you are Alex, but here's a hint real smart people don't have to tell other's how smart they.

As George Bush taught us, Brian, a preemptive attack can be considered a defensive move. And I don't speak for the "anti-Israel left" but only for myself.

And, again, no one, least of all President Obama, is suggesting that the situation revert to the EXACT configuration of the 1967 borders. Nice try attempting to make the argument that anyone is, though.

Obama merely iterated what has been US policy, and conventional wisdom, for decades. The Republican reaction has been as laughably over-the-top as it was when John Kerry famously botched his punchline back in the day.

Alex, with your delusions of adequacy, I guess you want us to believe that the "planned rape-replacement" of the European peoples is being planned by...wait for it...the Elders of Zion?

News flash, Alex, the most intelligent person ever to comment on Wizbang: Most European countries are democracies, and in control of their immigration policies. If they wish to restrict them, they may do so. If they wish to define what it is to be French, or German, or Norwegian, differently than you define it, they are free to do that, too. Your pathetic clinging to your own outmoded notions of "heritage", and your unembarrassed paranoiac shrieks of "genocideZOMG!!!" is what is hilarious. I do give you credit, though - you're no hypocrite. You are a SINCERE racist asshole.

(popping popcorn)

This is fun to watch.

All modesty aside, Bruce, I am quite probably the most intelligent man to have commented on this blog at any point during its existence

Comedy gold!

Nice try, John, but exactly how would "mutually agreed swaps" result in the 1967 borders?

Uh, they wouldn't. And you demonstrate exactly my point. Since you obviously understand that Obama did NOT call for a return the 1967 borders, then it's dishonest to claim otherwise. Perhaps you can help convince your fellow distortionists of that.

Alex said:

All modesty aside, Bruce, I am quite probably the most intelligent man to have commented on this blog at any point during its existence

Allow me to help you retire with that title unchallenged.

Emphasis on the "retire."

J.

Alex is officially the smartest commenter to be banned today.

And he was the smartest commenter to be banned on the previous day he was banned.

Should he return once more, he will complete the hat trick.

Olaf The Troll God's Hammer is back on its place of honor, having been called upon to do its duty once again.

BLOOD FOR ODIN!!!!!

J.

ALL HAIL OLAF AND HIS MIGHTY BANHAMMER!

Thanks, JT.

(If this were real life, Olaf would now be dragging Alex's lifeless body around the arena from the back of his chariot whilst emitting blood-curdling cries of triumph.)

Obama made his typical "throw under the bus move" with the PM by declaring Obama's committment to having Israel return the the 1967 borders. Putting the PM in an embarrassing position. So the PM responded by sternly lecturing the clueless Obama during the pressor.

But Brucy and his buddies don't think Obama meant what he said. The truly delusional left. 2012, here we come. ww

We'll see who's delusional on November 3, 2012, Wet Willie.

And I think the President meant exactly what he said. All of it, not just the one part of the sentence you guys are wetting your beds about.

Bruce:

"And, again, no one, least of all President Obama, is suggesting that the situation revert to the EXACT configuration of the 1967 borders. Nice try attempting to make the argument that anyone is, though."

True, Hamas has stated they want the 1948 borders and Obama both in the Cairo II speech and at AIPAC called for a contiguous Palestinian state (hint that would require splitting Israel in half) and the 1967 borders are unacceptable to Israel, no one involved is saying the 1967 borders.

Now explain how that has anything to do what so ever with your contention that the 1967 borders are defensible.

As a bonus question: Provide any evidence to suggest that the Palestinian side is willing to give up on the stated goal of freeing Palestine from the river to the sea. And when you fail, ponder whether the Israelis really can expect real negotiations on the land swaps Obama is counting on.

Different questions, Brian, than the one we were discussing - whether Obama was calling for a return to the exact, original, 1967 borders. He wasn't. As, I think, you agree, no?

The remark about the 1967 borders being so indefensible that Israel didn't lose the Six Day war was meant to be somewhat facetious, you humorless schmuck. But, your sour puss aside, that's the reason for the "agreed upon land swaps" that Obama (and Bush and Clinton and Bush) has called for for some time now.

As to the question of contiguity, that term is referring to the West Bank. And yes, sometimes the shorthand version is used, "a contiguous Palestinian state." But no one is seriously suggesting a land corridor, cutting Israel in two, between the West Bank and Gaza. That's entirely a figment of some people's paranoid imaginations.

On the other hand, many Israelis expect the Palestinians to be content with a "state" swiss-cheesed with Israeli "settlements" and broken into dozens of pieces by "security corridors," walls, fences, and checkpoints manned by the IDF.

As to your last paragraph, those are tough questions. Although many Palestinians want a two-state solution many others are so embittered and fanatical they will continue their struggle forever. So what should Israel do? Continue to maintain the status quo until the demographic reality of the situation causes a disaster? Or negotiate with whoever appears to be a willing partner?

On the other hand, many Israelis expect the Palestinians to be content with a "state" swiss-cheesed with Israeli "settlements" and broken into dozens of pieces by "security corridors," walls, fences, and checkpoints manned by the IDF.

Yeah, but if the Palis would stop sending in suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians and instead showed that they were serious about settling down and living peaceful lives, there wouldn't be any need for IDF-manned security corridors and checkpoints.

Obama made his typical "throw under the bus move" with the PM by declaring Obama's committment to having Israel return the the 1967 borders.

Once again WildWillie makes his commitment to dishonesty clear. It's one thing to try to spin Obama's comment to something that it wasn't. But after it's been pointed out to you (as I did in #13), repeating the lie is just... well, something indescribably disgusting.

So Bruce, why do you ignore the 500 pound gorilla sitting on your argument? Even if we grant for the sake of argument that Obama did believe that he was proposing a fair deal for the Israelis, similar to the last 4 administrations, why does anyone believe that the Palestinians are willing to accept the two state solution? What evidence can you bring forward to suggest for one moment that anyone in the Palestinian leadership can be considered a trustworthy negotiating partner for the Israelis to bargain with?

I get your point, Brian. But what choice do the Israelis have?

They can either negotiate with the Palestinian leadership in place now or wait for even more radical leadership to emerge. Because as the Palestinians' predicament grows more and more desperate that is what will happen.

And the longer the status quo remains in place the closer the time comes to a demographic nightmare for Israel. There will very soon be a time when Israel exercises sovereignty over more voteless, voiceless Palestinians than it does Jews. How will it tell itself then, and how will we tell ourselves, that it is "the only democracy in a sea of tyrannies?"

You should read the article john linked to in #13, Brian. The one from the unfortunately named "heeb" magazine.

Bruce Almighty-

" Everyone knows and has known, that peace, if it does come, will be based on the '67' borders. Republicans, Democrats, Likudniks,Laborites. Everyone who is serious and not a religious fanatic knows this is so."

Unfortunately your rosie scenario does not take into account that the ones blocking the peace are 'religious fanatics'. So until you can convince Allah to call off his dogs, it does not matter which political party runs the show!!

Alexander not great-

"All modesty aside, I am quite probably the most intelligent Man to have commented on this blog during its existence."

I see you are just smart enough to stay out of the neg vote tally too, or? Ok, maybe not that smart.

That and .50 cents will get you a stick of gum.

very funny guys

Hey 914:

What brand of religious fanatic assassinated Rabin? Was it a Muslim?

When all the secular Palestinian opposition to the occupation has been killed or marginalized, or has given up, you get Islamist opposition.

Not all the religious fanatics are Muslims, genius. Many of the so-called "settlers" and their leaders are ultra-orthodox superpatriots who only make matters worse.

I don't condone or excuse suicide bombers. But don't try to pretend fanaticism only exists on one side. If you think it does you need to broaden your news intake to include some other sources.

Bruce-

"Not all the religious fanatics are Muslims, genius."

Yet all the muslims that oppose Isreal's existence are religious fanatics, genius

And many of the ultra-orthodox Jewish "settlers" that oppose a two-state solution are religious fanatics as well, 914.

I consider blowing oneself to pieces fanatical. It rises to and surpasses the level of doing physical life threatening harm to others.

Zealots, fanatics. There is a difference.

Tomayto tomawto, dude. But, fair enough.

The "zealotry" of the ultra-orthodox settlers and their leaders is nearly as unhelpful as the "fanaticism" of the Palestinian suicide bombers. Both can be cited by the opposite side as a reason why the other side can't be trusted to negotiate in good faith.

Small difference, settlers don't seem to launch rockets or blow themselves up killing civilians on buses and in night clubs.