Kind of like Americans.

The best invention anyone could have at one of these GOP debates is an automatic fact checking machine that goes off like a siren when there is lie. When one of the candidates start spouting off these numbers they pull out of the sky or facts that Obama did this or didn’t do that,  that fact checking machine would wear itself out . That’s why these debates are so misleading. All of the candidates spout garbage off and the clueless moderators just let it pass as it were the the truth. Of course then majority of our un-educated voters believe it. That’s the sad part of these debates. Tonights was as best example as any. Sad.

What’s funny about this is that Gingrich won’t get any more jewish votes than Ron Paul. He just pandering to the christian right who are awaiting the penultimate dispensation, rapture, Armageddon. If I have the order correct.

You are right.  I caught one.  Obama didn’t ever say that Israel should return to pre-1967 borders.  He said they should return to the pre-1967 borders with the agreed adjustments that they have made through the years in various resolutions – the same thing the Bush administration had said.  Nothng different at all. 

It appeared to me that each candidate was trying to make it appear that they were the “best friend of  Bibi Netanyahu”.  Bibi stood in the White House when Obama made his remark about the “pre-1967 borders with agreed adjustments” and then Bibi went to address congress and basically took a swipe at the president.   I couldn’t understand why as a nation we would have a foreign leader addressing our congress and secondly, Bibi appeared to be trying to make trouble between the president and congress.  So again I ask “why would we allow a foreign leader to address our congress”?

Newt appeals to all of the Republican bigots, Christian and Jew alike.

Yep, the fact of the matter is that Republicans want to kill all Jewish people (less the ones who convert for rapture).  It’s an integral part of their political philosophy.

Before people respond with horror, I’m not kidding. This is true.

Wow, I’d be content if they simply behaved themselves.

What the hell are you babbling about now?  You truly are one brick short of a load and the damn thing has tipped over onto your head.

Quit with the b.s.  He added the last part after everyone said “ARE YOU NUTS”??????

If you pay attention you will catch more than one, almost everyone. All you have to do is be a little more educated than seek456 and that shouldn’t be hard at all.

And they actually did for once.

Funny, why is it that when you disagree with someone all you have to resort to the is name calling?  Sorry to say but that doesn’t win arguments. At least among adults.

So the members of both parties get suck up to get the Jewish vote.

Obama, your move… Iran is all your to bomb… anything to one-up this ceremonial race to aiding and abetting Likudnik genocide against Palestinians

What is always fascinating to me is that a little sliver of land in the middle east has caused so much  controversy over the last 60 years.  I often wonder what the state of the world would be like if the leaders of the world hadn’t decided to give the jewish people this land in 1948. I suppose its a moot point but I wonder if these leaders could have seen the future if they would have made the same decision?

sam is not an adult.   

Let me know the last time anyone won an argument on here, o.k.?  Obvious asinine comments (which he is notorious for), must be pointed out to him so he can run back to his favorite page for more asinine talking points. lol

p.s. besides, he’s getting his exercise so he doesn’t turn into the “blob”.

@ Gorgegirl, the reason Bibi addressed Congress is because he is a leader like no other, an amazing speaker, and a man who believes in taking responsibility for our own actions. He commanded more standing ovations during that address to Congress than any president in recent history. As for what Obama said regarding the 67 borders, he used the words “mutually agreed upon land swaps.” Well the Palestinians don’t mutually agree on anything concerning Israel. It is common knowlege that they refuse to meet with the Israelis to discuss this issue. Instead, they go straight to the United Nations. Obama did a lot of back peddling and damage control regarding what he meant by the 67 borders. I know. I was present at the speech he gave to AIPAC 3 days after his meeting with Netanyahu. I was also present at Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC the following day. He was amazingly brilliant.

I’m not saying that Bibi isn’t a brilliant guy.  You say the Palestinians don’t agree to anything, but some “mutually agreed land swaps” occurred with jimmy Carter and Sadat and Begin.

If I were Israel I would not feel comfortable with Gingrinch, this will open a can of worms and soon Israel vs Palestine will be a dominant topic of the presidential race.. and if that happens, Americans will get a close-up view of what’s REALLY happening in Gaza. The Palestinians will come out looking much better than Israel…. I think this will backfire like everything else Newt does. 

Only the Mizrahi / Saphardic Jews  have a valid claim to live in the
holy land – a sort of “right of return” from the “cleansing” by Titus.
That said,  Israel needs to set it’s borders, and allow equal rights for the
Palestinian people there and displaced by the Naqba. An extradition treaty to allow the return for trial of the tens of thousands of criminals taking refuge there is needed if Israel is to be viewed as a nation, not a criminal occupation. The good Israelis need to take control of their country before the criminal element destroys it.

Harry Truman lined out the term “Jewish State” when he recognized the State
of Israel. The Palestinians have equal rights there.
The Talmud is not a valid Constitution!

Running for the President of Israel isn’t gonna get many votes in Nevada. Who gives a frickin’ frack who the Palestinians are? Why not debate Roswell or the Loch Ness Monster?

You have to understand that the Israel lobby is so powerful it can decide elections. Why do you think Newt would even mention it? Of course Americans don’t care.. he’s mentioning it so Israel sees him mention it.. because they pretty much decide American foreign policy. The reason they decide American foreign policy? Money..

A very reasonable use of this space.

I created a nation tonight, and were going to kick your ass.

Newt sucks!

He didn’t add that “last part later”.  He said it at the time.  You need to quit watching FOX.  Because what you are now saying is that FOX edited the tape to drop the full statement.  That is the Roger Ailes way of filling the republican massives with bull s h it

Even if we had such an amazing machine, these guys would be able to convince gullible viewers (and viewers with confirmation bias) that the machine was wrong and that facts are not facts.  And a few of them, like Gingrich, might be able to convince even the less gullible moderates.  Most of these guys believe in facts as little as they believe in science, and it’s not just a function of being politicians and conservatives.  This may just be the most shameless batch of Republican hopefuls yet.

I wish Fox News would stop promoting a “worldview” in which facts are not facts, evidence is not evidence, everything is a conspiracy, and reality itself is negotiable.  It’s incredibly sad to see people sucked into delusion just because a “news” channel tells them that everyone else is lying and that FNC is the only source of the truth.  It’s unbelievable that people fall for this AM talk radio crap even on tv now, especially when all the evidence to evaluate Fox’s bias, lies, and misinformation are available on the Internet and through countless other news sources.

Of course, if you’ve been fed conspiracy theorist BS for long enough, you apparently really do believe that facts aren’t facts and all other sources of news not-approved by FNC are conspiring against you.  … Which is like saying, “No, I’m not wrong!  Everyone else in the world is wrong!  All evidence to the contrary is clearly faked as part of a massive worldwide conspiracy against me!”  There’s no reasoning with that kind of brainwashing, but I hope more of these people learn to think for themselves, double-check everything, and learn to recognize the manipulative propaganda and literal brainwashing techniques being used against them.

I wish people weren’t so lazy, biased, or brainwashed that they just rely on whatever BS is spoon-fed to them from one source whose main goal is to create a perfectly loyal customer to earn them more money.  It’s hard to identify when you’re just being told what you desperately want to hear, but when your one source of  media is this corrupt, it’s hurting our democracy.  I don’t care what people believe in the end.  I don’t care whether they agree with my own views or not.  But people need to learn the difference between knowledge and belief, fact and fiction, and truth and lies.  We need an honest media and an educated, objective electorate.  Otherwise, democracy cannot function.  And I think we can all agree on one thing:  a healthy democracy is much better form of government than any of the alternatives. 

I noticed that George and Diane are not doing as good a job as previous moderators in calling out candidates like Rick Perry for not answering the question.

Governor Perry was specifically asked what his position is on granting residency to undocumented immigrants who volunteered to join the armed forces. He totally avoided the question and Diane was mum.

There are many morons in this world, and Newt Gingrich is just one of them. Such blazing statements would only earn him the votes of the bigoted pro-Israel Republican minority; whereas the majority of Republicans (who, together with the American mainstream, are already fed up with the plights brought about to them by Israel) would judge Gingrich’s utterances as an indication of his rashness and lack of statesmanship; and thus, such idiotic statements could end up being counterproductive to his Republican candidacy campaign.     

Courtesy of Aaron Goldstein at The American Spectator blog:

Consider what Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO’s Executive Committee, told a Dutch newspaper back in May 1977:The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Were you complaining when Calderon of Mexico addressed Congress and belittled us with the blessings of Obama?

Trevor, I thought we talked about your incoherent babbleing, now go take your pill and sit in the corner.

Stylin, I’d agree with that if we mounted that same siren next to Owebumbles telepromtor. But then we’d never hear a word.

There is no truth what so ever in your statement. You are the typical liberal. Making stuff up because you do not have the mental capacity to actually address real issues.

Then we can use the same fact checking machine when Obama talks.  But I’m sure that the left would say that that was racist.

I was just glad there were some verbal jabs thrown at each other by the candidates!! Also, Newt does not have the temperament to be President!!

Newt is right.  If you study the history of them they are Arabs and the description “Palestinians” just came into use for them in the 1970′s.

PS: They are NOT “Philistines” as some on the left have alluded to.

If a dead mouse was running against Obama, America and the world would be better off electing the dead mouse.

Except that we did it in 1776 and we actually pulled a country out of the deal. Our invention has been a success.

What true is that you’re demented.

“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 fact of ObaMao mentioned it at all is what floored everybody. It was reported correctley. The point is the ’67 borders are a non starter to begin with.And to to have the amateur in chief mention it at all, did ten times more damage then what Newt said last night.What Newt said was the f’n truth.What ObaMao said was to appease Israels enemy and take a huge steamer on Isreal.

Bibi schooled him on the spot. And man, did the left get pissy about it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrea-mitchell-israel-pm-lectured-obama-and-treated-him-like-a-schoolboy/

If there’s a genocide against the Palestinians, why does their population keep growing?

That’s blood libel, scumbag.

Votes decide elections. Your paranoia is endearing, though.

Or every other people.   Unless you believe in the Tower of Babel and God-drawn lines on the globe we are all invented people at one point in history or another. 

Israel is already a nation. Try again.

If you’re saying he’s wrong, perhaps you could rebut him. Why don’t you tell us who the historic leaders of the Palestinian people were. Where was their seat of government and what form did it take? What currency did they use?

Ad hominem is no substitute for facts.

Of course he is correct, but truth was never the point for the people that get their history from the likes of Norm Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

I wouldn’t mind your invention, only I would modify it so that all Politicians would be forced to wear it all the time. 

The problem is the alarms would be going off non-stop and the hard-core partisans such as yourself would grow immune to the noise of your own guys alarm.  

Things would be exactly as they are now where the D’s ignore the lies from their own party and the R’s respond likewise.  Meanwhile the shrill voices screaming “The other side lies” would just get louder and louder to be heard over the alarms.

If you really want to solve the issue you don’t need a fictional invention. 

If people actually took the politicians they support to task for lying rather than going after the side they are opposed to, I think things would change. 

Of course- that will never happen.  Calling a guy you hate a liar is much more fun that calling the guy you support a liar. 

I recall another invented people. I call them Americans.
He may be technically correct but what does it do to solve problems. What is presidential about that kind of careless stupidity? Is he implying they have no rights as a people? Is he proposing we ignore their claims and grievances, their desire  to be a free state of their own?

You should probably look up what a bigot is.  FYI – You fit the definition perfectly. 

From now on after these comments Newt made. The terrorist will no longer be yelling “Alluh Akbar!!!”
They will be yelling “Newt made me do this!!!”
What f’n joke the libs are.

Newt had previously said that the “Palestinians” were an “invented people” (not that individual “Palestinians” were invented but that there has never in history been a distinct culture or group known as “Palestinians”). The big criticism there was that he was telling the truth but maybe he shouldn’t have. So now politicians have to be eternally politically correct?

Was he offering it as a solution to a problem? No. It’s a fact, and he stated it. There’s nothing wrong with that.

“Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community,” Gingrich said. “And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940′s, and I think it’s tragic.”

Is there anything there that isn’t true? Now let’s have a look at the Palestinian response, from Saeb Erekat:

“The most racist remark I have ever seen,” said Saeb Erekat, a top negotiator for a new Palestinian state and a close advisor to President Mahmoud Abbas. “This is the lowest point of thinking anyone can reach. Such thinking should be an alarm and concern for the world.”

Is there anything there that is true?

One of the main Palestinian grievances is that Israel exists. I think we should ignore that one.

So nobody was living in the current territory now known as Israel in 1945. The land had been vacant for several thousand years. Thus, no provision for any prior tenents needs to be considered. Is that you position, patriot?

So the people that we call palistinians arrived on the scene in 1970?

Its like the 99% ers are a made up people.
Maybe they’ll get there own state.How about Alcatraz?

No, the people we call Palestinians used to be Jordanians and Egyptians.

Prior tenants are fully accommodated in Israel, except for the ones that decided they’d get out of the way so it could be destroyed. You’re aware that Israel is 20% Arab, yes?

I don’t give a damn about either one.

The Israelis were in that area 1,000 years before Arabs.

Regardless of their nationality, were there people living in the area that we now call Israel when the current residents arrived? If so, shouldn’t those people be settled somewhere?

I guess I am just wondering what was supposed to happen to the people living in the area, in 1945, before Israel was established? What would be your idea on that?

How come no one ever ask Egypt or Jordan to take care of these people?

The UN gives the Jews a pile of sand.They grow oranges the size of basketballs and prosper and all of a sudden its up to the jews to take care of Arabs.The Pals were welcome to stay in Israel minus suicide vest.How’d that work out?

I like that Gingrich does not intend to ask permission to tell the truth.

Do you not understand what “mutually agreed swaps” means? It has been a cornerstone of the peace process – and express U.S. policy – since the Oslo negotiations of the early 1990s. If Obama’s throwing Israel “under the bus,” so was Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Peres, Sharon and (Ehud) Barak, among others.

Prior tenents were fully accomodated? Not quite.

I didn’t realize you have to become a state to exist as a people. Who should break it to the Basques, Kurds, and Roma that according to Pablo they actually don’t exist?

No, you don’t have to, but that’s how we did it. I don’t see where I said or even implied that you have to do it that way. Do you?

A long time ago, before Israel became a state, the entire region was called Palestine (a name given to it by Romans before Jesus was alive and Israel was a predominately Jewish state). Before World War I, Palestine and Jordan were one. In 1921, they were divided along the Jordan river. Now some “Palestinians” became “Jordanians”. Why? Because the British said so.

If this is legitimate, if Jordan is distinct from Palestine because the British said so, then why can’t Israel be legitimate as well? The purpose of separating Trans-Jordan was that the Jewish National Home (proto-Israel) would not exist there, but would exist in Palestine.

If this 1921 partition is not legitimate, then Palestinians have a “right to return” to Jordan. Good luck getting the Jordanians to legitimize and legalize the so-called “Palestinian refugees” who have been in that country for decades.

It isn’t the “mutually agreed swaps” that grates, it’s the basis of the 1967 borders.

Lots of them are settled…in Israel. Others are settled in Gaza. Still others are settled in the West Bank. 

I stand behind my statement. Do you have an argument rebutting it?

They were supposed to become Israelis. They did.

The idea of re-establishing a Jewish state in Palestine predates its actual founding. Read about the Palestinian Mandate http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.

The Israelis bear as much to blame as the Palestinians. For years during the 1990s and 2000s, the Palestinians negotiated with the Israelis while the Israelis continued massive settlements like Har Homa. After about 15 years of allowing the Israelis to say one thing while doing another, the Palestinians finally conditioned further talks on the cessation of settlement activity changing facts on the ground. The Israelis refused, and little in the way of negotiations has taken place since. This by no means lets the Palestinians off the hook for their many failures, but it is simply non-factual to claim the Palestinians simply ran to the UN to solve their problems.

Second, Obama did not backpeddle on the substance if what he said about land swaps because he can’t. To do so would be to effectively renounce one of the main aims of negoiations for the past two decades. Moreover, to renounce land swaps is to effectively endorse the 1967 borders – which is exactly what the Lukudniks claim they won’t tolerate.

Foreign dignitaries have addressed Congress since 1824 when Gen. Lafayette did so.

http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/foreignleaders.aspx

I am a Republican and I have yet to kill one Jew. Is there a quota? The fact of the matter is that most Republicans have killed one fewer person than Teddy Kennedy did.

Why does it matter what you call them. A group of people were substantially displaced by the arrival of the modern Jewish nation. Its obvious that the displaced people must be provided for. Even most Jews believe that.

So in other words, you have no solution to the current mess other than, what, bombing the Iranians?

Yes, and the Indians of the black hills became Americans.

Then I don’t see the point of arguing whether Americans were successful in their political independence effort.  How is that relevant to whether the Americans are “invented” as a people?

“It isn’t the “mutually agreed swaps” that grates, it’s the basis of the
1967 borders.”

If the 1967 borders are not supposed to be the starting point for negotiations, then please enlighten us:  What do YOU think should be the basis for negotiations?

Yes, as were ideas to create a Jewish state in what was then Uganda. The point is that the modern State of Israel is the end product of a lot of academic thinking and debate and political tinkering that eventually became known as Zionism. If that isn’t the “invention” of a national movement, I don’t know what is.

Every single time Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians, the Palestinian’s response has been some type of warfare or attack. Yet Netanyahu has continually extended the olive branch for Peace talks of late, and the Palestinians refuse. I would suggest you check your facts on this topic. I have checked mine. I lobbied Congress in March, stood before my congressman, and discussed the topic of direct peace talks between the two rather rather than the UN’s involvement.
As for the backpeddling, the speech that I listened to, in the same room with Obama, he backpeddled about what he meant in his speech. His focus to us was to make sure we understood that the 1967 lines were just a starting place for negotiations. The original speech was poorly written if so many people could not understand his intentions completely.As to gorgegirl’s response, please show me where Bibi threw egg in Obama’s face. I read that speech line for line, and I’m not sure what you are referring to. I’m guessing by the number of standing ovations he received, either Congress was happy about his disrespect to Obama, or they didn’t see it that way either.

Perhaps you missed this the first time I said it: “Our invention has been a success”

Recognition of the State of Israel. You know, reality as we know it.

Except that the “Palestinian people” who are Arabs, have the entire Middle East already, excepting the tiny sliver that is Israel. Again, the Palestinian Territories were part of Jordan and Egypt until just a short time ago.

What “special requirements” are you talking about?

The irony of what Newt said is that his logic applies equally to the Israelis.  Prior to 1948, there simply was no State of Israel.  To the extent that Israelis look to Biblical times for inspiration and claims, fine – that is part of how they have “invented” their national identity.  But the Palestinians also have historical claims to the land, and that forms part of their identity.  (Unless the Israelis have some special entitlement to an identity that should be denied to the Palestinians.)

The people who now call themselves Israelis were historically part of many communities in the Middle East, Europe and North America.  And even more so than the Palestinians, who have lived on the land they claim as their homeland, those who were to become the future Israelis had plenty of places to go – at one point early Zionists even considered establishing a Jewish state in Uganda.  But of course, what matters is that, like the Palestinians, they choose to be in Palestine/Israel.

The Jews were displaced from across the Middle East, and settled in Israel where their people welcomed them. Why don’t the Arab nations welcome the Palestinians?

Me, I’d suggest that any Arab who was born in Israel and left in 1948 and wants to come back should be allowed to do so.

There. Right of return settled.

The Palestinian people have an identity and culture that has evolved quite distinct from the Egyptians, the Lebanese and the Syrians, just as modern-day Israelis have become distinct from their American and European parents.

Let’s also not forget that prior to 1776, most “Americans” had no intention of separating from England – indeed, they could not fathom it.  But at some point, the American experience called for separation from England and a new people was formed.

To argue that Palestinians have no identity because they once more closely identified with other Arab countries is like saying Americans are not separate from the English or any other European countries because they have a relatively similar racial heritage and once politically identified with them.  Both contentions are equally absurd.

That’s like saying that a black person is nothing more than a black person, regardless of whether he calls himself “American” or “Nigerian.”  That’s racist when applied to blacks, and it is equally racist when applied to Arabs.

So then why don’t the Israelis simply annex the West Bank and get it over with?

Says a parasitic organism with an avatar of a depraved sexual predator and just as parasitic an organism

I repeat , careless stupidity and unpresidential. An example of the kind of arrogance that people have claimed about him. And he supposedly is big into history?”We have sustained the war” as if there was and is no legitimate challenge to Jewish claims on the land, and no question of rights for the Palestinians. It’s profoundly historically ignorant.
Yes, Palestinian, is an invented term , just as American is, but it is at this time an established and recognized term as are the claims grievances and rights of the people who recognize themselves as such. Although he did not say it explicitly the indication is that they are not really a people, and therefore have no claim. No wonder they called it racist.

Every time I read about the history of Israel and the region I’m reminded of the American Indians. Jews, Zionists, decided they wanted a land they hadn’t occupied in centuries and really had no claim over other than their feelings about an ancient heritage. They began to settle there to escape persecution in Europe and Russia and as the settlements grew and it became obvious they wanted more the people who had lived there for centuries became concerned and wanted some reasonable limits.
The British actually established immigration limits but many Jews ignored that and moved there illegally. Jews as illegal Immigrants. Funny huh?
Much like our relationship with native Americans , the Jews took the land and established their nation by force, displacing the native population and basically ignoring their rights and heritage.
For him to say “They’re Arabs, they had a chance to go many places” is like saying
“They’re Indians. They have no nation or central government , they have no real right to the lands they’ve lived on for generations and generations. They can go someplace else. Why would they want to fight about it?”
It’s callous and ludicrous.
Palestine is recognized and so are the Palestinians. They have every right to equal consideration and to establish their own state and nation. That’s the problem with our founding principles. Living up to them means we try and apply them in dealing with others.
It’s one thing for some pseudo intellectual to spout his own pet theory, it’s quite another for a presidential candidate to be so careless, and then defend it.  

The moderators went way too easy on Gingrich in the debate.  The next time around, they should cut right to the chase:

“Mr. Gingrich, since you believe the Palestinians are an ‘invented’ people, who do you think invented them?  Are you prepared, right here, to name names in this international conspiracy?”

“Mr. Gingrich, if the Palestinians are ‘invented,’ and thus are not real, with whom do you believe the Israelis have been negotiating for the past two decades?  And why has Israel been negotiating with them?”

“Mr. Gingrich, if there are no other legitimate peoples living in the area of the former Palestinian Mandate, what has prevented Israel from simply annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip and their inhabitants as a matter of right?”

Perhaps the original Israelites were Arabs?

Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel, said that if Mr. Gingrich believed that Palestinians did not have a right to an independent state, “as implied in his language, then he’s not pro-Israel at all.”“Because the government of Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu supports a two-state solution,” Mr. Indyk said. “The people of Israel — an overwhelming majority of them — support a two-state solution, in which there would be an independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure state of Israel.”
PA prime minister Salam Fayyad reportedly called Gingrich’s original remarks “extremely trivial, demeaning and ridiculous,” adding, “Even the most extremist settlers of Israel wouldn’t talk in such a ridiculous way.”

Poopyhead!

Hell of an argument you’ve got there, freak.

“Perhaps you missed this the first time I said it: “Our invention has
been a success”

That means you agree that both Americans and the Palestinians and invented – in which case the whole debate about whether the Palestinians are invented is moot.

I’ll bet you $10,000 of Mitt’s money that’s not how Gingrich sees it.

“Recognition of the State of Israel. You know, reality as we know it.”

The Palestinian Authority already recognizes the State of Israel.  Indeed, such recognition would be an inherent part of any agreement with Israel.

But that begs the question: WHERE is the State of Palestine that is supposed to recognize the State of Israel?  That brings us right back to the question you’re trying to avoid: it will be in an area based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps.

Sorry, Pablo. There’s simply no getting around that.

So the people who have lived in that area for generations should just up and relocate to someplace else and surrender the land of their heritage to the Zionists because they’re technically Arabs. They should just go someplace else and be content?

There you go with the racism again: The Palestinians look similar to those other brown people, so we should just lump them in with them.

By that argument, Americans should go to Canada and Europe where there are similar white people, so that the native Americans can have their land back.

By “special requirements,” I mean that the Palestinians are supposedly not entitled to a national identity because they’re Arabs – as if that is supposed to carry any import – while Jews have a right to be Israelis merely because that’s what they believe they are, regardless of their racial background.

interesting

I’ll never pretend that I am smart enough to have a solution.I know giving Arafat the Nobel Peace prize was not a solution but yet another fantastic,fairy tale farce.Using truth as a baseline for both sides would be a start.

And the real question, that Romney hinted at with Gingrich, is whether the man is crazy.

There we go with the racism mindset again.  Some Palestinians engage in violence, and therefore all similar-looking people are violent terrorists.

There is no question that the Palestinians are deeply divided on how to deal with the occupation: violent rebellion or negotiation?

Israel has a critical role to play in this. The Palestinian Authority can’t do anything without Israel’s consent, because Israel holds the purse strings and can shut down the PA anytime they want (as they have on various occasions).  So the PA, which is negotiating with Israel, already starts from a sharp disadvantage in the eyes of the Palestinian public.  Israel compounds this by building settlements on the very land that is the purported subject of the negotiations, and the PA in the past has just been expected to accept this and undertake endless negotiations about negotiations.  No wonder Hamas has gained credibility at the expense of the PA.  No one wants to join the PA and be seen as an Israeli stooge, so for the most part it is filled with untrained, corrupt officials.

If Israel wanted to sabotage the PA and undercut the peace process, they picked a very effective way to do it – and the best part is, it leads to violent Palestinian reaction which can be conveniently blamed on the Palestinians themselves (i.e. the Palestinians are just a bunch of terrorists who don’t deserve a state).

“please show me where Bibi threw egg in Obama’s face”

He did so by claiming that a peace deal based on the 1967 borders with mutual land swaps was somehow “throwing Israel under the bus.”  What nonsense.  If Ariel Sharon were around, he’d slap him upside his head for being such a twit.  Obama was simply stating what had been the foundation of peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians since Oslo.  All of the parties know that – and so does Netanyahu.  That kind of sliminess is one of the reasons a lot of Israelis themselves can’t stand ol’ “Bibi.”

I admit that it is very cool that he raised the issue. But no, he is incorrect, and racist since he presumes that all Arabs are a like.

Am interesting link claiming that according to the BIble, the Palestinians were a nation there before the Hebrews were.
 http://www.theprovocation.net/2011/12/newt-gingrich-needs-biblical-history.html

All 1.7% of the population.  Boy that really will swing any election.

Study history before you comment.

He was there?

As for the jackasses who say President Obama is an anti-semite what do you make of this?  http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/12/06/3090603/expat-ad-campaign-flare-up-obscures-bigger-challenge-luring-home-israeli-expats

How does one question moot the other? That makes no sense whatsoever.

There isn’t a State of Palestine, so it isn’t anywhere. If it is to exist, it will exist within the borders its potential founders negotiate with their neighbors. As for the Palestinians, if they accepted Israel’s legitimacy, they’d be teaching that to their children. They aren’t.

Who said that? No one threw the Arabs out of Israel. It’s still 20% Arab, and Arabs are Members of the Knesset.

BTW, what are the historic Arab landmarks in Israel? Where are the vacated Arab communities?

Ah, so noting that Arabs are Arabs is racism.

Idiot.

Do you really not know that Republicans support Israel as a matter of Biblical prophecy, and the plan is to get all Jews to return to Israel for Armageddon?

What’s your point?

How about Obimbo take care of business here and keep his inept nose out of Israels business!

Careless and stupid facts. Can’t have that. Better to pretend that lies are truth. That way no one gets offended.

I guess you won’t be voting for him. Neither will I. He’s still right.

Why doesn’t Jordan take it back?

I notice you’re not answering my question.

How does the Palestinian question solve any of our immediate, and more critical problems at home?
In my opinion we should let Israel solve their own border disputes. If the Jewish voters in this country take exception to that, then let them go back to the homeland and do something about it.

We have enough problems without worrying about whether or not Palestine is legit or not.Perhaps Ron Paul is someone we should take more seriously.

OK, cool. Yes, it is an extremely tough issue. There are many Palestinians who would love to live peaceably in a two state solution. Same with Israel, most people would be OK with any reasonable two state proposal. But they need to feel safe, and the less safe they feel, the bigger buffer they need, etc.

Of course if the “Palestinian” side, and Islamics in general, do not accept Israel’s right to exist, and stop bombing it, and stuff, there is not a possibility of any solution.

From Wikipedia :

“Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 on a 395-28 House vote.[66] Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee”. [67] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented “intentional or … reckless” disregard of House rules.[68] Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated[69]and left that issue up to the IRS.[70] In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the “Renewing American Civilization” courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[71][72]”

So actually, the guy is too dishonest to qualify for Republican, let alone presidential, candidacy. 

The Palestinians may be an “invented” people….but Israel is an “invented” country.

The country was created by a U.N. declaration.

Newt is right. That is why the Palestinian apologists go ballistic, literally.

This whole mess in the middle east is so tiresome.  

Let’s face it….this whole crisis exists because the UN decided to partition it off in 1947. I have nothing against Jewish people….but the creation of Israel was a recipe for disaster from the very beginning. 

As long as there is a state that has been literally plopped down in the region by outside forces, there will never be peace there.  

Would any Americans like it if the UN just decided to create a new country right in the middle of the US?

You have NO CLUE about the history of the middle east.  All the UN was doing was giving back the land that was taken from them.

PS:  We have one; it is called the “Indian Nation”…..You know, if you go there forget about Work Comp laws, justice, or being able to protect yourself.

You have no clue about history.  Israel was given it’s lands back that they were kicked out of.

By who?  The area was taken over by the Ottoman empire in the 1500s….so nobody alive in 1948 had any direct connection to that.

Lots of countries have been conquered throughout history…why make an exception for one?

So you hold Newt responsible for a filing his staff made?  He already paid the penalty for having bad staffers.  God Bless Newt Gingrich.  He will be the next President.

Gingrich’s ethics case isn’t really the beginning of the story.
Back in 1988, as a minority-party backbencher, Gingrich filed ethics charges against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright.
His muscular rhetoric sounds familiar: “Having Jim Wright third in line to be president, and having the power of the speakership in Jim Wright’s hands, is very, very dangerous to the processes we’re used to in this country.”
Just as in Gingrich’s own case, the original allegations didn’t stick against Wright. But the ethics committee found other problems.
But unlike Gingrich, Wright chose to resign before the committee reached a final verdict.
“And that really, for the first time, kind of politicized the ethics process,” says Larry Evans, a government professor at the College of William and Mary in Virginia who has chronicled the Republican rise to power.
Evans says that Gingrich’s takedown of Wright was a turning point in promoting the acid partisanship that afflicts Capitol Hill. “Part of the edge of the polarization at the leadership level in the ’90s was because of Gingrich and the tactics that he used back in the late 1980s,” Evans says.
And by now, these tactics are an everyday part of the House of Representatives.

So, since the US gained much of Arizona, California as the result of wars with Mexico, should the UN now be allowed to come in and  create a new country within our borders simply because many Mexicans are now migrating back to the area?

By all of that was handled internally by the two parties involved (the US govt. and the native americans)…..not by the UN or some outside force creating it.

The truth behind Newt Gingrich’s “ethics violations”:

Back in 1988, as a minority-party member Gingrich filed ethics charges against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright. Just as in Gingrich’s own case, the original allegations didn’t stick against Wright. But the ethics committee found other problems with Wright’s activity while in the House. But unlike Gingrich, Wright chose to resign before the committee reached a final verdict.”And that really, for the first time, kind of politicized the ethics process,” says Larry Evans, a government professor at the College of William and Mary in Virginia who has chronicled the Republicans rise to power.Evans says that Gingrich’s takedown of Wright, in itself payback for Democratic attacks on the GOP, may have been a turning point in promoting the acid partisanship that afflicts Capitol Hill. “Part of the edge of the polarization at the leadership level in the ’90s was because of Gingrich and the tactics that he used back in the late 1980s,” Evans says. And by now, these tactics are an everyday part of the House of Representatives.

Could they install the same machine at each of Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign speeches?

Not saying Israelis should have no rights…..but can’t we at least acknowledge that Israel was created by a tragically flawed process?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Newt is my friend

The question is: On what basis will the boundaries of a Palestinian state be drawn?

Your “answer” is merely that the borders will be where the parties negotiate them to be. That states the obvious while failing to address the question asked, namely on what basis will such negotiations be premised? Please answer the question instead of dancing around it with empty tautologies.

As to Palestinian denial of an Israeli state in many quarters, that is a real problem. But many Israelis use that as an excuse to do nothing, while ignoring the widespread denial of Palestine in the own schools. Indeed, supporters of Israel flagrantly and proudly proclaim there is no Palestine (Santorum) or even any Palestinians (Gingrich). Before blaming the Palestinians. Sounds like there are enough intemperate idiots to go around on both sides.

Noting that Palestinians are Arabs isn’t racism, and if you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see that’s pretty obvious.

What IS racist is the contention that the fact that Palestinians are Arabd somehow diminishes their rights as a Palestinian people, or to their homeland.

And by the way, resorting to ad hominem attacks like “idiot” just shows you’re losing this argument on substance.

Good day.

Pablo,
If your point is that the Jews tried to accomodate the existing “Palestinian” people when they formed their country, I would agree with you on that. But that was a bridge too far.

Here is the real problem the republicans have, if Mitt wins, if he pulls away, then there may be a third party. If Newt wins, then everybody might be able to get behind him. Problem is, Newt is a loose cannon, and is now forever linked, world-wide with intellectual reactism on the extreme right.

Ronnie Jingo might want to get his third party game on because if Newt wins, its possible that Obama wins by twenty points and gets those filibuster proof majorities he needs to get anything done. Paul could score big if Newt totally falls apart, as he might because he is prone to saying wackie things. Paul could step up big, at that point.

Even if one were to assume that to be true (despite it being ridiculous), where the part where Republicans want to kill them?

Every country in the Middle East was created by a tragically flawed process. Israel is the only one that got a UN vote.

The premise of nutjob Christianity is that the Jews will return to Israel to be killed in Armageddon. That’s why Republicans are blind supporters of Israel. They want Armageddon. They build their entire lives on this premise. This should not be news to you.

Pablo.. really there is no Palestine?  I can look at it on the map.  The UN recognizes it, they even have a flag.  And in 1993, the Israeli government officially recognized the PLO as the official representatives of Palestine.  

Palestinians have existed for hundreds of years and even assisted the Allies in WWI against the Ottomans. 

Yeah, the West has been telling the Middle East what to do and where to live and who was in charge for a century. 

You’d think they’d just get used to it.

Such a brilliant intellectual Republicultist gem.

The Republican Party invented Newt Gingrich. 

What I wish someone could explain just once is what the Palestinians need with more land. I don’t understand. Are they building more hospitals to help the wounded (both Israeli’s and Palestinian’s) the way Israel does? Are they increasing their higher education population like Israel’s universities which increase each year in number? Are they spitting out Nobel Prize winners at the rate Israel is? Are they increasing the size of their labs that develop life saving medical equipment such as the bandage that saved Gabbi Gifford? Or maybe they want to work on neurodegenerative diseases such as a cure for ALS like Israel, who is well on their way to finding a treatment. Or maybe cardiac tissue develpment or even cancer vaccines like the Israeli’s are currently working on. Do they need more room to discuss all their humanitarian aid, such as sending in the first floating hospital to Haiti after their earthquake, or aid to the countries such as Zaire, Cambodia, Mexico, Rwanda,  Romania, Sri Lanka just to name a few, when they each suffered devastating tsunamis, earthquakes or other disasters? 
What do the Palestinians plan to do with more land? What contributions have they made to the world that they need to expand on other than the invention of airline hijackings, long lines at airports, and suicide bombings? Just to be fair, I googled this. I wanted to make sure to credit the Palestinian’s where credit was due. Nothing is found. Search for yourself.

When they have something to offer the world that doesn’t involve terrorism, killing and hatred, maybe then they will need more land.

I know the history apparently you don’t know what a hypothetical comment is.

I don’t care what the idea of re-establishing a Jewish state is or was. There are many ethic groups that want their own state. The Kurds being just one. 

Yes Southern and what contributions have Native Americans made to better the world. Or for that matter how about the aborigines of Austrailia? I think we should take all of their land because the have not contributed to the betterment of the world the way you think they should. The Spanish thought the Aztecs and Incas were useless as well and killed them all. Hell I think we should put you on a committee and leave it up to you and your morally and intellectually superior thinking, to determine who is useful and who is useless. Then you can lead an army into these various lands and take it from them.

Well that was a perfect answer to my question…How many of the people you named are admitted terrorists? How many of the above have by laws that clearly call for the hatred of Jews? I don’t care what the above do for the world as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. And I appreciate that you think my thinking is superior, as I have taken it all the way to the walls of Congress and lobbied it there. Put your money where your mouth is. Either answer the question of don’t, but please don’t compare the innocence of the people of these countries to the hatred of the Palestinians.

lol So the Native Americans were innocent? Well maybe you should look at that from a settlers perspective in about 1740. You know when they were scalping white people and cutting their balls off and putting them in their mouths. Or when they were taking little kids out and bashing their skulls against trees. Or burning them alive after one of their raids. The white man in 1740 felt the native americans were terrorist the same way the people of Israel feel that Palestinians are and probably more so. But were the white men right? Who decided to move into land that wasn’t theirs? Then the savagery started. Thats when the lines on who is right and who is wrong became blurred. My point is you feel the Palestinian people are worthless and don’t deserve this land, because you’ve determined that Jews are apparently superior . BY your definition people who aren’t curing disease and opening hospitals aren’t worthy of any land.  Why don’t we stay in Iraq then. Hell they haven’t accomplished much in the ways of science and philosophy in the last one thousand years. Lets just keep that land because we would do much more with it and make it more productive?

No I think Israel should keep the land because it belongs to them! And you are wrong, by my definition, people who are admitted terrorists, people who break into homes in the middle of the night to execute a family because of their religious beliefs, people who teach math to their children math by saying “if you have 3 Jews and you kill 2, how many are left,” people who strap bombs to their children and send them into a crowded market place full of innocent people who are contributing nothing but terror to society are not worthy of more land. Not ANY land, MORE land that does not belong to them. Did I make that clear enough for you? You have put a million words in my mouth and have yet to answer the question.

You should get a new friend.

‘Palestinianism’ in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffer from a deep social cleavage created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, sociological and familial allegiances.
What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood.

 Should keep what land that belongs to them? The west bank ? Who gave them the West Bank? THe Golan Heights? No ONE! They took it and haven’t given it back. Look up what was “given” to Israel in 1947 and what Israel runs now. And once again you speak as if all Palestinians are evil terrorist robots. That type of thinking almost lead to the extermination of Native americans throughout North and South America. See because you know what happened  when some indians came and raided a settlement and killed and mutilated some white people? The white people then went out and killed many more indians wether they were involved or not. Don’t try and simplify a very complicated situation my dear. If you were a child born in the occupied territories I highly doubt you would be sympathetic to the Jews and their right to land that has been in dispute between various ethic and religious groups for 3,000 years.

OK whatever you say, afterall you are inside guy with the inside story.

No need to apologize Im just asking you to think about things from a different perspective. No harm done:)

You should get a new life

What % was it before the Jewish settlements started? Much more than 20%? You know how many were driven out after the war started in 48?

I’m not familiar with the area but I wonder what landmarks or vacated communities have to do with it. The native people have been there before the Hebrews of the Bible and for centuries after they were gone. The Jews have no claim on the land that they didn’t take by force and with the support of other nations. Nothing gives them any more claim to the lands there.

And perhaps their heritage of living there for centuries long before any Jewish nationhood.

If you think the hatred of the nation of Israel is completely without cause you need to do some more research.
Do you think American Indians hated the white man with cause?

No one but you is arguing the lack of relevance. What is undeniable is, we have invented our own culture.

I think his points are arguable and intentionally  historically ignorant.

He’s pretending that Israel has some legitimate claim on that land that the native people do not. I don’t call that a fact or calling him out pretending lies are truth.
He said Palestinian did not become a common term until the 70s as if that diminishes their rights as a people or their historic claim on the land. I call bullshit.
Israel is a a fairly recently invented nation made up of Jewish settlers. 

I love the “all Republicans want to kill all Jewish people” line…These generalizations are soooo effective.

As a Conservative Republican, I will vouch for all the non-Jewish haters, that we don’t want to see them dead, killed, or otherwise maligned.

Save the generalizations for something you actually have a handle on, KT. 

All the jews will not return to Israel…Probably about half of would be Christians do not believe in the Rapture prophesy or Armageddon. 

I support Israel as a Sovereign Country, a Democracy. The only one in the region…Israel is the Standard for the Middle East… As America is the Standard of freedom and democracy for the rest of the world.

It’s your religion, not mine.

One of the reasons Palestinians hate the Jews so much is because while the Palestinians are committing acts of violence and hate towards the Jews, it’s the same the other way around. The Israeli military will come into a predominately Palestinian neighborhood (this is in the Gaza Strip) and bulldoze any houses and buildings that they deem to be “smuggling arms or drugs”, while most of these innocent families have no association with smugglers. They can’t do anything about it because the Israeli’s guard the bulldozers with tanks and shoot anyone who comes near them. Maybe if Israel stopped using violence, Palestine might follow suit.

You have it wrong. The Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire assisted the Allies in WWI against the Ottomans. There were no defined territories at the time of Arab states, save Egypt, which existed for centuries before.

agree. It’s too bad the rest of the “I believe Fox News is News” commentors feel the same.

Sorry, but I’m not a hard core partison. I’m actually an independent. Just calling them like I see them and me and 99% of everyone else does that doesn’t believe Fox News is news.