We've Got Your Back Mr President

[Zarthustra]

We've Got Your Back Mr President - Petition for Peace from BT Shalom

Dear President Obama,

Please know that I share your sense of urgency to bring peace to the Middle East.

Therefore, I pledge:

to back your committed and persistent leadership in support of a negotiated two-state solution

to work within my communities to build the political will that will enable you to take decisive and bold steps -- and to urge Congress to support you in this endeavor

to make it known that an American President who dedicates himself to establishing a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace acts in the best interests of Israelis, Palestinians, the United States and our allies

to support you in staying the course through difficult times and to celebrate your successes

In Hebrew, the words for wind and for spirit are one and the same -- ruach. As you work for peace, I promise that the ruach of the American Jewish people and our friends in the pro-Israel community will be at your back.

We Support Peace - http://ga3.org/campaign/weve_got_your_back_pledge

[Andrew]

Is this a joke?

If we really want peace in the middle east - let the shackled warrior loose. Let the ishmaelites learn that they are defeated and if they start any more wars they will lose everything.

The kenyan born muslim is actually going to start world war three. By insisting on the two stage solution he is actually giving the ishmaelites the idea that they can destroy Israel. (which they never will)

BTW the jury is still out for me whether he is the antichrist or not.

[diadem4Him]

My, but for a supposed Canadian, that's a rather unusual pledge! (not to mention delusional to the extreme) I believe it is time to contact the administrator about the deceptions of this poster.

[Zarthustra]

How can saying you support peace and a negotiated settlement in Israel be grounds for being removed from this site?

Is it fair to say that you do not support these goals? Further, that you think that just the mention of support for these goals is grounds for complaining to the site administrator about conduct? That is one way of ensuring that you do not hear the other side of the discussion on the website...

[diadem4Him]

For someone who is not an American to pledge such support to one holding the presidential office of another country is questionable, possibly even bordering on treasonous to your "own" country, especially should Canada decide to stand for truth instead of the spector you call US president. Unless of course, you are not being honest concerning your country of origin, which is highly suspect. As to hearing the "other side" of the argument, we've been hearing it for more than 60 years now, it doesn't hold water just like your supposed loyalties to Israel and Canada. Hearing the other side in this case is a empty ploy to indoctrinate the unsuspecting into the twisted revisions of history you promote and deceive with. AS to the truth, there is nothing else to discuss; the Land Belongs to Israel.

[Zarthustra]

Being an outsider to the conflict and being an atheist I have a considerable amount of trouble with statements of absolute truth or absolute right to justify positions. Once you cannot use either of those justifications and you have to be objective when viewing the conflict it is apparent that neither the Israelis or the Palestinians has been particularly honest or acted in a manner that makes them deserving of the land. How can a conflict have two victims?

My issue is that if you wait, you will lose any suggestion that you have a “position of strength” when negotiating and you may be forced to accept a deal with the Palestinians that is not as attractive as what you can get now. In other words, it looks like it is only downhill from here from where I am standing, especially since the Palestinians can wait a generation, and when they outnumber Jews they could be in a much stronger position when negotiating.

I view this as you're best chance to reach a fair and honest resolution of the conflict.

Also, treason? Seriously? Does that mean that any American who supports Netanyahu is committing treason? (lol)

[skimble]

"If you wait, you will not be in a position of strength, and maybe forced to accept a deal that is not as attractive"

This is what I thought, a long time ago, to be an argument in support of Peace Now. It is better to reach a peace deal, the thinking went (mine included), then wait and get a deal that is worse.

I do not think like this anymore, because there can't be a deal at all if Israel is not in a position of strength. If there is any hint of that, then instead of peace talks there would be an attempt to liberate Palestine by force.

When you are saying: "It is only downhill from where I am standing" it means that you foresee the shift of power against Israel. If this is true then the result will be war. But is it true? What arguments would support the view that the balance is shifting not in Israel's favor?

[Zarthustra]

I'm thinking about the "demographic threat" when I make these types of statements — the scenario in which Arabs, due to their higher birth rates, outnumber Jews in the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Once the demographic balance tilts against Israeli Jews, Olmert has warned, Jews will find themselves in a quandary in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. When that happens, Israel will be confronted by a battle it cannot win: Palestinians will abandon their demand for a separate, independent state in the West Bank and Gaza and instead will demand one-person, one-vote in a single state — a demand that will likely become irresistible within the international community, as happened with South Africa.

[Andrew]

Thats actually a myth. The actual birth rates show that there are more Jews being born than arabs presently.

[wharold]

Oh yeah. Olmert is famous for saying no such thing could ever come about in a debate he lost to Kahane. Olmert and common sense were never good friends. Kahane understood which is why he was murdered by a ?alestinian; the same group that perpetrated the 1993 WTC bombing.

The only method workable to this conflict is to recognize it is a conflict and proceed from there. That means defeating ?alestinianism and thus sending a serious blow to the !slamic ideology of supremacy.

Methinks Zarathustra relishes the "demographic threat" to Israel. I think that if no Jews are allowed to live in any Arab state, reciprocity should be the order of the day. South Africa had nothing on the treatment of minorities compared to the Arab states.

Israel = South Africa? Only if you think Jews have no connection to Jerusalem whatsoever. And if you think that, then please explain the French claiming France, the Germans Germany and the Brits Briton?

Andrew's correct. Jews have a higher birth rate but it's among religious Jews; the very ones Leftards in Israel and beyond are at war against: NO NATURAL GROWTH IN THE [RE]SETTLEMENTS, or so the demand statement goes.

Imagine that. The world has arrived at a place where Jews are told not to have any more babies if they live in certain parts of historic Israel and why? Well, the Muzzlems will get mad. And when are they not "mad?" When are they not insane?

[Andrew]

The lies fakestinians tell are endless.

Israel is an apartheid state - wrong. Arabs have more civil rights than in every other arab/muslim country.

Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land- wrong. There has never been a palestinian state. The west bank used to belong to jordan who lost it in a war with Israel. And acccording to international law ie the league of nations it was supposed to be part of a Jewish state.

There was never a Jewish temple on the temple mount - wrong. There were two of them at different times on the temple mount.

Israel is ethnically cleansing arabs - wrong. Funny how a country that is ethnically cleansing a minority is at the same time at risk of "demographic threat". Go figure.

What a wicked web we weave when we first began to deceive.

[skimble]

The demographic balance is important when the people in question live in the same country. The shift in favor of Muslims over Christians in Lebanon precipitated the civil war in the 1970s.

|When people are not in the same country, there is no balance. The English speaking Americans and Canadians are a minority in the Western Hemisphere. This does not mean they have to learn Spanish, because both Canada and the US are independent countries and not provinces of the Western Hemisphere. In the same way, Israel is an independent country and trying to present it as something else runs into the same obstacle as if someone would pretend that the US or Canada are provinces of something else. This obstacle is sovereignty and independence which every independent country has the right to defend by force if needed.

As for ruling by force over a population larger than the population of the country that rules, this happened in Europe and Japan which were ruled by the allies for a few years after World War II.

In short, Israel's occupation of the West Bank is not a permanent feature. It depends on whether the Palestinians would leave Israel alone and let it live in peace. If they would not, Israel will stay there as long as needed. If there would be serious attacks against Israel from the West Bank, for example after a Hamas takeover there, then Israel would take whatever action needed to remove the threat.

The comparison between Israel and South Africa assumes that Palestine to the west of Jordan is one country. This is the point of view of Hamas. Israel's point of view is that Israel is ready for peace with the Palestinians if they really want peace, as opposed to getting a chance to prepare for liberation of Palestine.

Let us suppose Israel would be isolated and the international community would take the Hamas view and demand a single state in all of Palestine. What would happen then?

It would be going back right to 1947. Israel would then need to reestablish its independence and sovereignty in such a way that it would be clearly understood, as in 1948-1949. It would not be friendly to Palestinians to drag them into such a situation, because in this situation there would be no chance at all to care about their civil and human rights. In that kind of situation Israel would only be concerned with self defense and all the rest would have to jump out of the way.

There is a small minority in Israel that would welcome this situation. The large majority though wants peace.

So demanding from any independent country, Israel included, to stop being independent is actually kind of a declaration of war. This is when words end and action begins.

[diadem4Him]

The fact that you pick and choose the truths that you will allow have absolutely no bearing in the matter. That is not objectivity, but picking and choosing your terms. I have no mandate to comply to your chosen terms. If you believe so strongly in the annihilation of Israel, then convince your own leader. The one here has enough just trying to bamboozle his own. Like in this example; while many American Jews may still believe that the problems are from inexperience or lack of real education and offer him the benefit of the doubt, that darned truth keeps getting in the way:

the Pioneer speaking to Obam's questionable foreign policy:

Even members of his own party are wary. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently appeared before the US House Appropriations Committee to deliver the Obama line on Israel, it was Democrat Nita Lowey (along with Republican Mark Kirk) who replied that if the Administration was going to tie Israel’s hands, the House would counter by “restricting aid to the Palestinian Authority”.

Missing in the debate thus far has been concern for the developing ‘Hindu Holocaust’ in South Asia. In several policy pronouncements numerous speeches about the situation in South Asia, Mr Obama never once mentioned the human rights disaster that is rapidly bringing an end to the remaining Pakistani Hindu community. Nor has protecting 13,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus ever figured in his grand design for South Asia.

While President Obama speaks of the need for international support and regional cooperation, he never once suggested that international aid be sent to care for the thousands of Pakistani Hindus who have been streaming into Indian Punjab. He has never challenged human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to investigate regularly-reported atrocities against Bangladeshi Hindus and the ensuing refugee nightmare; nor has he ever suggested that Bangladesh’s Vested Property Act is a racist law that is incompatible with his vision of peace in South Asia.
http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/Strange.html

Without even looking at past histories on this issue, anyone with eyes can see that between Kashmir, Pakistan and Darfur, not to mention the horrors of the Muslim world, Muslims are still at their 1400 year crusade of death to all who refuse their domination. To give them more land and more people to oppress is sheer idiocy, and possibly even murderous.

As to treason, my country has always stood with Israel. It is this spector that you pledge allegiance to that is exhibiting treasonous behavior.