Obama slaps Israel in the face

Yesterday, Obama came out in support of a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis, one which involve Israel giving up land and returning to its 1967 borders in order to establish a Palestinian state. Glenn, clearly, was not in favor of this policy from the Obama administration and made his feelings clear on radio this morning.

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt; and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  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 said.

“”The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain:  The future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair.” he continued.

“The reason Israel kept this time in the 1967 war, the reason they kept that territory was because the Palestinians and the Arabs continually used it as a staging point to launch their attacks against them.  They had massed their troops on, Egypt had six divisions or something massed on the Israeli borders.  Syria had their troops massed on the borders.  And so they were surrounded every single time, and it happened in ’48, it happened in ’56, ’73, ’81.  They got tired of it.  So they kept it this time so that it would never be used again as a staging area against them,” Pat explained.

“Why would the president of the United States find it reasonable to destabilize the only stable country in the entire region?  Why would he do that?”

  • Anonymous

    Really?
    Reading this makes me wonder if the world wouldn’t be better off if EVERYONE took their religious beliefs and put them where the sun don’t shine!
    I do NOT object to religion….ANY religion….I’m just sick of all the pain and misery caused by pitting one religion against another.
    It is a game. It is a game in which NO ONE EVER WINS!  No one will ever win! I will never convince you to change…..and vice-versa!   So….what’s the friggin’ point?

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone believe, really, that three or four men could do the physical work necessary to build a boat which would support food, water, lodging for millions of animals, birds, insects, etc?  The necessary timbers would have weighed tons and the equipment necessary to cut down and mill the trees and get them into position did not remotely exist.  And how much doodoo and peepee would all these animals have generated in several months afloat?  It would have taken hundreds of people to build and manage the ‘ark”.  Remember that the biggest dinosaurs were 120 feet long and weighed 200,000 pounds.  And for the bible to be literally true with respect to the flood, it would be necessary that the rainfall to cover mount Ararat, much less Everest, would have been at least 3500 inches a day!!  Do people who believe the flood story also realize that for it to be true, with no archeological evidence, that every living animal, bird, insect, would have to have its origins in the middle east.

    What I believe is that a self interested group of people wrote texts that were consistent with their need to survive in a very hostile physical and spiritual world and claiming that God had provided them with a homeland in perpetuity is an understandable result.  God says it’s mine..who can argue with that?  Many fundamentalist Christians seem to believe that God has reserved certain lands in the middle east for Jews particularly, but the same God forbids them entrance to heaven (where is heaven and what do folks do all day for eternity when they get there?  Curioser and curioser) and perhaps everlasting torment because they do not accept Jesus as Christ.

    Do people who believe in biblical “innerancy” really think that the universe is only a few thousand years old?  Do they realize that for this to be true, the farthest star, the edge of the universe, could be no more than, say, 15000 light years away because light from them could only have been traveling that length of time.  Yet any school child is comfortable with the statement that stars and galaxies are millions of light years away, meaning that the universe would have to be at least that old.  Does the typical young earth believer accept both statements..that stars and galaxies are may millions, billions of light years away but that the universe is only a few thousand years old?  Just curious.