Dreadlocks: not what comes to mind when one thinks of the Irish

DUBLIN, IRELAND - MAY 22: A demonstrator holds a placard protesting against the visit of President Barack Obama on May 22, 2011 in Dublin, Ireland. U.S. President Barack Obama is visiting Ireland tomorrow for one day. He will meet with distant relatives in Moneygall and speak at a rally in central Dublin after a concert in the evening. (Getty Images)

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

one of the extras from Braveheart?

Those US stealth helicopters are so old hat

While the media (and quite a few Chinese and Russians) tries to work out just what kind of futuristic helicopter the US used in which to sneak into Pakistan and back out again, the fact of the matter is, those helicopters are about to be become obsolete within the next few years.
Due to the limits imposed on helicopters by the use of their rotors, people have been looking at alternative ways in which to rebuild them in which to make them better, faster and stronger than before.
The first real contender was (is) the American V-22 Osprey which is basically a plane which can tilt its wings so it can take off vertically (in fact, it can only take off vertically), beset with numerous problems, it has taken almost 30 years for the US to get it up to working order. But work it does, and currently it is putting in sterling service in Afghanistan. In fact, now that the Americans have ironed out all the bugs, the Italians are producing their own version, the Bell/Agusta BA609.

However, the tech behind the V22 and its stable-mate is almost 30 years old, and something newer (and cheaper) was required. So companies on both sides of the Atlantic attacked the problem from different angles and have come up with interesting concepts.
First of all, let's look at the Americans. They decided to make their helicopter faster by adding a propeller to the back. So comes forward the Sikorsky X2 which last year smashed the airspeed record for a helicopter, a record, I should add, which had been in place since 1986. While still experimental, it shows promise of not only being faster than today's kites but quieter and longer ranged. Here is what it looks and flies like:

The Europeans thought along similar lines to the Americans. However, instead of adding a propeller to the back, they added two to the front and have come up with the Eurocopter X3 which offers similar capabilities, faster speeds combined with longer ranges as the X2.

Whatever the outcome of both these aircraft, the simple fact remains, the helicopter as we know it today is destined for the rubbish bin of the not so distant future. BTW, anybody else think that the X3 looks and moves a lot like Airwolf?

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Three Cheers for Terroristine

By endorsing the 1967 borders, he endorsed the outcome of the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. Every time his administration condemns a Jewish house in Jerusalem, he endorses the Jordanian conquest of the city.

Nakba Historiography

Why are the borders of the 1948 war, so much better than the borders of the Six Day War? Because the Terroristinians came closer to winning that war. Came closer to driving the Yahood into the sea and ululating over mile after mile of their corpses.

But the dream failed. Farmers armed with outdated rifles. Volunteer pilots from America and Canada. Refitted cargo ships filled with half-dead men, women and children straight from the camps. Used Czech artillery. They held off the armies of seven Terroristinian nations. Farm by farm, they stood off tanks and infantry. In Jerusalem, they fought for every house. And so the Zionist entity survived. Allah curse them. They survived.

more via sultanknish.blogspot.com

image via foxnews.com

Women REALLY DO SUCK: 'Bin Laden Called in His Location to the CIA Because He Was Being Driven Mad Cooped Up for Five Years With So Many Wives and Children'

It sounds like he really suffered. Poor bastard couldn't even get out of the house to go have a few beers with his fellow jihadis.

The joke doing the rounds in Pakistan at the moment is that Osama bin Laden was so stir crazy in his Abbottabad compound that he actually called in the SEAL team raid himself.
As Pakistani officials find out more about day-to-day life inside the compound, they are beginning to paint a picture that looks more like a bad American sit-com than the life of a terror mastermind.
Bin Laden's final five years on Earth appear to be a dreary Groundhog Day of three bickering wives, a brood of children - including infant twins - 18ft claustrophobic walls and a life of such austerity that there was hardly enough power to run lighting.
The three wives with the al Qaeda leader at the time of the raid are now turning on each other in custody, with the two older wives viciously accusing the youngest of betraying their husband.
And they say reports of the younger wife valiantly trying to protect bin Laden, earning a bullet in the leg for her trouble, are lies.
Despite the relatively large compound, the adults and children were cooped up on top of each other - and there was little hope of the situation changing.
Rehman Malik, Pakinstan's interior minister, said: 'The joke in Pakistan is that bin Laden called in his location to the CIA because he was being driven mad cooped up for five years with so many wives and children.'
And Glenn Carle, a former CIA official, added: 'Not using cell phone or internet, that's all sound professional strategy. But living behind 18ft walls with large numbers of women and kids is not.'
The three women in bin Laden's life were Khairiah Husain Sabir, 62, Siham Abdula bin Husain, 54, and 28-year-old Amal Ahmed al-Sadah.
Khaira and Siham deeply resented the arrival of Amal and have been highly critical of her role in their husband's life, according to Pakistan officials.
The Sunday Times quotes one official as saying: 'It's a well-known fact that when you have two older wives and then this young one comes along half their age, they don't like it.'
The tension between the three wives would have been palpable in Abbottabad. CIA agents referred to bin Laden as 'The Pacer' - so named because of the figure seen walking backwards and forwards in the compound in footage from spy satellites and drone cameras.

via jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com

OMG Senator Cynthia McKinney guest on Libyan TV سينتيا ماكيني

this is your flotilla ambassador?.... .... .............. ....... .... .... .............. ....... .... .... .............. ....... .... .... .............. ....... via youtube.com

Yes We Can!… Convicted Islamist Who Threatened “South Park” Creators Was Obama Campaign Worker

Yes we can.
Convicted Islamist Zachary Chesser was an Obama campaign worker.
The radical Islamist convicted this week to 25 years in prison for threatening the “South Park” cartoon creators was an Obama campaign volunteer.
The Smoking Gun reported:

The radicalized knucklehead convicted of threatening the lives of the “South Park” creators signed up as a volunteer for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, but by the time Election Day arrived he had concluded it would be a violation of Islamic law to vote in the U.S. election, according to court records.
Wannabe jihadi Zachary Chesser, 21, was sentenced earlier this year to 25 years in federal prison following his guilty plea to making the “South Park” threats as well as providing material support to terrorists (in this case the Somali guerilla group Al-Shabaab).
Chesser, pictured in the mug shot at right, has cooperated with FBI agents and helped prosecutors building a case against Jessie Curtis Morton, with whom Chesser operated the extremist Revolution Muslim web site. Morton was named last week in a felony criminal complaint charging him with threatening the lives of Matt Stone and Trey Parker over a “South Park” episode that included the Prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit.

The radical Islamic website threatened the South Park creators after they show Mohammad in a bearsuit. via gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com

Aftenposten headline: "Rich Jews Threaten Obama"

The headline has since changed, but the caches show that it was really what they had written originally.
Details at Tundra Tabloids. via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

NORWAY IS THE MOST ANTI-SEMITIC COUNTRY IN THE WEST…….

Full Text Of Obama's Speech To AIPAC

Good morning! Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. But even more, thank you for your many years friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first.  When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy – you were at my side every step of that very meaningful journey through the Holy Land.  And I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership and for your warm welcome today.
Thank you to David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the Board of Directors.  And let me say that it’s wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including Alan Solow, Howard Green and a very large delegation from Chicago.
I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today—who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel—including Eric Cantor,  Steny Hoyer, and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren.  As well as one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years, and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel—Dan Shapiro.  Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor, and I know he’ll do a terrific job.
And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today.  No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape the future.
Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.
On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years—that, even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.
A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence.  It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.
America’s commitment to Israel’s security also flows from a deeper place —and that’s the values we share.  As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers fought must be the work of every generation.  As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedom we cherish must be constantly nurtured.  And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland of the Jewish people.

Fatah Admits It Does Not Recognize Israel

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.  I’ve seen it firsthand.  When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.  When I went to Sderot, I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket.  And when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I grasped the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.
Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority.  It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.  It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies.  And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.
That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system.  This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives.  So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.
You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime.  At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world.  Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure.  So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality.  Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination, and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.
You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel.  As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”
So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew.  In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself.  When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.
And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties.  And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace.  No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction.  We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements.  And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.

OBAMA LIES!!!!!

Demographic threat
hyped up,
Israeli withdrawal
from
Judea and Samaria
unnecessary

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. That is why, on Thursday, I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims – the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israelis, and Palestinians since at least the Clinton Administration.
I know that stating these principles – on the issues of territory and security – generated some controversy over the past few days. I was not entirely surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. But as I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. And so I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.


Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder – without a peace deal – to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

I suppose Obama is talking
about the TECHNOLOGY
being ROCKETS...
which is not new TECH at all....
it is just we have not had people
like Obama in the past
50 years in the U.S.
who have been an obstacle to
protecting Jews from "TECH". 
I suppose BIG OVENS
from the Holocaust
are STATE of the ART as well? 
but hey....
What's a little mustard
and nerve gas
among friends...

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

And third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.
Just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one. Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitols around the world.

Europeans Threaten
to Recognize
Palestinian State
Unless Israel Negotiates
With Terrorist Group

These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.
Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation deal

But the march to isolate Israel internationally – and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations – will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. For us to have leverage with the Palestinians, with the Arab States, and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. So, in advance of a five day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations. But since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.
I said that 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. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
That is what I said.  Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

...the truth about Resolution 242...
...and the so called 1967 Borders...
...even "with the swaps" of *THE* territories...

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.
I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know that we can have this discussion.
Ultimately, however, it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.  And as a friend of Israel, I am committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized, while calling not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, the Arab States, and the international community to join us in that effort. Because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone.
Even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security; even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us; and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead – I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything—if the story of Israel teaches us anything—it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.
The Talmud teaches us that so long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith. And that lesson seems especially fitting today,
For so long as there are those, across the Middle East and beyond, who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.
And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security.  This is not idealism or naivete. It’s a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America. 

Sunday, May 22, 2011 Via the White House: via yidwithlid.blogspot.com

Gene Simmons Video: Obama "Has No F***ing Idea What The World Is Like"

...the bimbo interviewer is wrong. There is nothing immediate about Shariah law which is full of bureaucracy and code, something that guns are meant to protect us from...
"When you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well. I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no f***ing idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there," KISS vocalist and guitarist told CNBC.

Gene... Obama is a good guy? Inconsiderate and stubborn with a goal to imposition Jews with their murderers is a good guy?

"The most pathetic body on the face of the planet." Simmons called the U.N. a "paper tiger" that allows dictators to spread propaganda. (H/T NB) ...ok... that was more like it Gene

video via israelmatzav.blogspot.com via realclearpolitics.com

Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal on Obama's handling of Israel

the truth about Resolution 242

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal says that Israel is the 'obstacle to peace.' That's expected. But Bin Talal looks out for the interests of the Arabs - Obama is supposed to look out for the interests of the United States.

...that was the first time I ever saw FOX owe up to it's investor. via video.foxbusiness.com via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Google abandons newspaper scanning project

"We don't plan to introduce any further features or functionality to the Google News Archives and we are no longer accepting new microfilm or digital files for processing," it said in a statement. The initiative was launched in 2006 as part of Google stated mission to make all the world's information easily available. It signed up major US newspapers including The Washington Post and The New York Times, and defunct UK publications such as The London Advertiser, plus hundreds more. The project sought to circumvent tricky copyright issues dating from the pre-internet age. By posting image files rather than text files online, it was thought newspapers would not have to negotiate rights to republish freelance content from the pre-internet era, according to The Boston Phoenix, another partner in the effort. "The [scanning] process may have turned out to be harder than Google anticipated," the newspaper speculated.

image via telegraph.co.uk

reposting other people's stuff is an addiction.... 'NARF'!

Swiss freeze funds for pro-Palestinian BADIL

Legislator say BADIL supports ‘worst anti-Semitic propaganda.'

....Holland financing groups
calling for Israel boycott

...and funding Ashraf Ahmad Ghareeb,
the cartoonist who drew the anti-Semitic picture seen above

BERLIN – The Swiss government froze its funding stream for a pro-Palestinian NGO because an anti-Semitic cartoon appeared on its website, according to a report in the Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger on Wednesday. Switzerland, Holland, Sweden and Denmark, which together fund the NGO Development Center (NDC), have contributed $270,000 since 2008 to BADIL: Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. “By stopping funding to BADIL, NDC is acknowledging that NGOs sometimes misuse foreign government funding to pursue radical political agendas,” wrote Gerald Steinberg, the head of the Jerusalem-based watchdog organization NGO Monitor, in an e-mail on Saturday to The Jerusalem Post. The cartoon, which was posted in Fall 2010, shows a caricature of a Jewish man holding a blood-soaked pitchfork and keys while standing over a dead Arab child. BADIL, founded in 1998, advocates a boycott, sanctions and divestment (BDS) strategy against the Jewish state. Amjad Audeh, a BADIL spokesman, told Tages- Anzeiger that the publication of the cartoon was a “slip up.” The Swiss government has not ruled out future monies for BADIL. The four EU countries are seeking new conditions from the Bethlehembased organization in order to continue their financial support. According to Steinberg, BADIL is in the middle of a three year, $575,000 grant from the NDC. “They are a leader in the BDS movement, they published an anti-Semitic cartoon on their website and they reject multiple peace initiatives. These actions are clearly out of step with their European funders, and the funding has rightfully been frozen,” Steinberg said. He said an independent public analysis of the “antipeace and anti-human rights NGOs” that are funded by European governments is needed. “The damage done by irresponsible funding under the NDC has been very costly,” Steinberg said. BADIL said a posted text from the Australian Holocaust denier Frederick Töben on its website in 2008 was also an oversight. Theophil Pfister, a member of the Swiss People’s Party in the National parliament, submitted a legislative query about the Swiss funds being used to fund BADIL. Pfister, chairman of the Swiss-Israel parliamentary group, termed the work of BADIL as the “worst anti- Semitic propaganda.” According to an extensive 2006 Eye on the UN report, titled, “The UN-NGO Connection: Spreading the Message of Hate and Terrorism,” BADIL is listed as “advocating the end of the Jewish state” and equating “Zionism with racism.”

via jpost.com

image via eyeontheun.org

Why "1967 lines" was a gaffe - and why they are indefensible

The mention of 1967 was offensive not because it is a concept that is not agreed on, but rather because it was a public swipe at a negotiating partner. Bibi was sadly considering the idea... and those in Israel should probably push him out if he was seriously considering it. There seems to be much that Bibi has put out there that could potentially be used to destroy Israel and it's people.

Jackson Diehl explains it well:

The basic question is this: By saying that a division of territory between Israel and Palestine should be “based on” the “1967 lines” between Israel and the West Bank, with agreed “swaps” of land, did Obama move beyond the previous U.S. position on the subject?
The short, technical answer to this question is: no. The longer, political response is that by stating the principle, Obama gave a boost to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has tried to make Israeli acceptance of it a condition for peace talks, and a slap to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has resisted it.
That Obama would do this on the eve of Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington for a White House meeting — and apparently without warning the Israeli leader — is a gaffe that has understandably angered Netanyahu and many of his U.S. supporters.
...The idea that Obama has proposed that Israel “return to the 1967 borders,” as various GOP hopefuls are claiming, is simply untrue.
That doesn’t mean that Netanyahu doesn’t have reason to be fuming as he heads for his meeting with Obama today. For months, Washington has been privately pressing the Israeli leader to endorse the 1967-lines-principle as a way of jump-starting moribund talks with Abbas. Netanyahu has resisted, though he inched toward the position in a speech last Monday. Now Obama has publicly sprung the principle on him — even though there is next to no prospect that negotiations can be started anytime soon.
In the end this looks like another instance in which Obama’s insistence on pushing his own approach to the peace process will backfire. The president was urged by several senior advisers not to delve deeply into Israeli-Palestinian affairs in this speech, just as he was warned last year not to continue insisting on a freeze of Israel’s West Bank settlements. Apparently at the last minute, Obama chose to include the 1967-lines idea in his speech. The result has been the draining of attention from the speech’s central discussion of Arab democracy, a cheap talking point for GOP opponents — and yet another pointless quarrel with Bibi Netanyahu.

And here is a video that shows why Israelis say the 1967 lines are indefensible:

(h/t David G)

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Palestinians: Israel must accept 1967 border as basis for negotiations | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Palestinian officials said they would not resume peace negotiations unless Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepts President Obama's 1967 border guidelines.
"If Netanyahu agrees, we shall turn over a new leaf. If he doesn't then there is no point talking about a peace process. We're saying it loud and clear," Saeb Erekat was quoted as saying Sunday in Ynet.
Erekat, a member of P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party central committee and chief Palestinian negotiator, repeated similar statements to the KUNA Kuwaiti news agency and others, some rebroadcast on Israel Radio.
“Once Netanyahu says that the negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, then everything will be set,” Erekat said according to Palestinian news agency WAFA.
Erekat said that Israel showed it had rejected Obama's premise of negotiation from the 1967 borders when it approved the construction of 1,500 housing units in eastern Jerusalem a day before Netanyahu left for the United States.
Obama and Netanyahu are both set to speak this week before the United States pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On May 19, in a speech at the State Department on his Middle East policy, Obama called for peace negotiations on the basis of the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon land swaps.

via jta.org

Coptic bishop warns Germany: “You are next”

Egypt was, and is, the homeland of the Coptic peoples.The Muslims in fact are the invaders and the destroyers via sheikyermami.com

Spain: Ruling Socialist party faces prospect of "humiliating", "crushing" defeat

General view of the Puerta del Sol square in Madrid on May 21, 2011 during a protest against Spain's economic crisis and its sky-high jobless rate. Spanish youths furious over soaring unemployment kept up their week-long protest movement on the eve of local elections expected to deal the ruling Socialists a crushing defeat. (Getty Images)

Is anyone surprised?

MADRID (AFP) – A wave of nationwide protests against soaring unemployment and the economic crisis overshadowed local elections in Spain on Sunday in which the ruling Socialist Party faced the prospect of a humiliating defeat.
More...

The same thing will happen here in the US in 2012, with the socialist-in-chief bleating about another shellacking.

via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com