Michael Dinowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > He's ignored all of Bush's commitments to Israel so why would he keep to > "current realities" or anything else. >
And what good have Bush's "commitments" done? Notta. Again, this comes down to a few simple things: (1.) Israel exists SOLELY due to US sponsorship, thus the US has a say and a right to some of the chips. (2.) This issue has has been a pain in everyone's ass for decades and the fact that people can't even ride a damn bus in Israel with fear of being blown to bits by rat poison-soaked bolts is asinine and every President should be honor-bound to try to fix it. (3.) A peace deal is going to be 1967 borders + swaps with international recognition of both Israel and Palestine. That's a fact. So why continue the same failed charade that been going on for 30 years? And if anybody thinks the Palestinians are getting a pass, then might want to read about their reaction. Hint: it's not too great. Thus, in my opinion, it was the perfect speech: (1.) Honest about the facts. (2.) No side is happy about it. Perfect! (3.) Provocative. This will hopefully generate talks in Obama's second term. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:338249 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
