KFC,

Apparently Obama and Clinton leaned out too far.

Netanyahu was "warmly received" by Congress:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received a warmer public reception from Congress than from the Obama administration, with a top Democrat and Republican joining Tuesday to welcome a leader who has agreed to disagree with the White House over Israeli housing expansion on disputed ground.

"We in Congress stand by Israel," the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, assured Netanyahu at an all-smiles appearance before the cameras. "In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171638

This is not the usual polite acknowledgement of a friendship. This was in opposition to the administration's behaviour. And I have much respect for Nancy Pelosi for doing this!

Here's what I think happened.

Neither Obama nor Clinton really understand the Middle-East. They don't understand foreign policy much either. (Heck I even read a German commentary by a very left-wing author on a major news site that criticised Obama's foreign policy and listed all the mistakes!) It was perhaps not obvious but Obama's predecessors understood these things much better, both Bush and Mr Clinton did.

Despite what I said before about Mrs Clinton (I can be wrong, you know), it now seems to me that Obama and (Mrs) Clinton both are stuck in a mindset that allowed that simply didn't allow them to see anything wrong with demanding lots from Israel and nothing from the PLO or with deciding in advance, before any discussions between the actual parties, that "East-Jerusalem" (and all the holy cites) are "Arab". They just couldn't fathom that Jews would not accept as normal and a given that these things can simply be done to Israel.

And, apparently, neither do America's representatives in Congress see things that way, neither Democrats nor Republicans.

Again, I don't think Obama and Clinton see themselves as anti-Israel. They merely live in a world where one doesn't ask non-Jews for things that one asks Jews for and in a world where the opinions of Jews are not taken seriously when one decides whether they or somebody else own their holy city. So they probably never saw anything wrong with deciding that East-Jerusalem is "Arab", because in that world, it simply doesn't occur to people that Jews matter.

Israel has offered peace to the Arabs again and again and under any terms and the answer was always NO. Even now the entire episode was about getting the Arabs to talk while the Israelis were ready and willing. And "land for peace" also suggests that it is the Arabs that peace must be bought from, not the Israelis.

But Obama doesn't understand that. He is stuck in a his little world and will continue to screw up US foreign policy. His only foreign policy success I can see is US help in evacuating the last 200 Jews from Yemen because their houses were firebombed on a daily basis (they are obviously not now UN-supported refugees and neither are any of the other Jews that fled Arab countries, TWICE as many as "Palestinian" refugees).

And the same is true about Mrs Clinton. I was wrong.

(I still think that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Mr Clinton's foreign policy. He clearly at least understood what was going on and who all those people were he was meeting. I thought his wife was equally educated. I was wrong.)

lula posts:

I understood this after reading a book review written by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski.  You should check out Naeim Giladi's book, Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews (Tempe Arizona: Dandelion Books. LLC. 2nd expanded edition, 2003.

It was the the author's statement that: "Jews killed Jews to create the state of Isreal", that caught my eye and attention.

Giladi interviewed Ben-Gurion and asked him why since Isreal is a democracy with a parliament, it did not have a constitution. Ben Gurion answered, "Look boy, if we have a constitution, we have to write it in the border of our country. And this is not our border, my dear."  To which Giladi asked, "then where is the border?" Ben-Gurion answered, "Wherever the Sahal (Isreal army) will come, this is the border."

And I am assuming that since such an accusation exists, you will use this as a "fact", right?

A surprising statement considering that Israel was under constant attacks, didn't have safe borders (or even borders) and would indeed have the borders wherever the army would go.

What's your point?

Is this some sort of pretext to accuse Israel of "imperialism" again, despite the fact that Israel (and Ben Gurion) have constantly offered peace at current borders, regardless of what those borders were?

I think it is rather typical that you would blame Israel for a situation forced on Israel by others. It wasn't Israel's fault that it didn't have defined borders. Israel accepted the partition plan, despite the fact that it made Jerusalem an international city. (And I think we both know how well the UN would have defended Jews' rights to live and worship in the "international city", right?)

Technicality time:  Since the state purpose of Hamas and others is the complete irradication of all Jews in the Middle East, then all places containing people are military targets.

Now that being said, why do we not hear from the Rachel Corries about how they support genocide on this scale?  Their silence is their deafening hypocrisy.

Ah, pish-tosh! Those are freedom fighters!

There are two answers.

1. Who cares? We can still support them.

2. They don't support genocide. They only say they do. So we can still support them.

Well, the rest of the world is just starting to learn what many Americans have known for over 2 years.  most US presidents come into the job naive on foreign affairs.  But they surround themselves with knowledgable people and learn on the job.  Obama has failed both ways - in surrounding himself with knowledgable people, and learning.

Clinton is another matter.  She could not care less about foreign affairs (it was just the highest ranking job Obama could give her).  It is clear to all but the most blinded liberals that she has been marginalized, and I am sure she is fuming (not that the marginalization was a bad idea considering her ineptness).  I suspect she will resign next year.  For 2 reasons: 1 - to distance herself from the failures of the Obama administration, and 2 - to start her campaign for 12.

DAMN!  You always impress me! (BTW, my reference to Clinton above is Ms, not Mr.)

Pish-tosh?   It does not matter if they are freedom fighters or not, they are global warming sources that the goal is to erradicate.  After that, all else is secondary.

Neither of which removes the stain and stigma of the statement and reality.  They support genocide.

Everyone keeps speaking ill of Leauki obssession over Hillary and wondering why?

During the primaries of this most recent race guess which candidate was the ONLY candidate to put a full page ad in Hebrew in Israel?

Yes, Hillary was the ONLY one.  She said in this ad that if she was elected she would do whatever it takes to make sure that Iran would NEVER obtain Nuclear weapons. 

When I read this, it was funny because it was just after a debate of the candidates when both Obama and Hillary said that they would negotiate and essentially military force is out of the question.

If you know Leauki, he loves Israel as do I.  I would have voted for her if I didn't know that she lies a lot.  Most people from the States don't realize how popular the Clintons are aboard and how unpopular Bush was aboard for the most part.  I don't support either political party for various reasons.

Lula, its good to hear from you. I haven't seen you around the boards for some time.  There are rules/principles for interpreting or understanding any language.  The first and primary one is usually called the 'Golden Rule of Interpretation' is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise.' This rule is recognized by logicians, grammarians and rhetoricians as the true criterion by which one must be governed. When guided by this principle, one cannot go far afield, but if it is ignored, one roams at will and can never know whether he has interpreted the Word of God correctly.

I have noticed that a lot of your bibical interpretation violates this rule.  Then a Second primary rule for interpretation is to become intimately acquainted with the author or in other words dicover the author and the people who is addressing and the life and times of those involved in a given case.  A very quick and brief example of this is that even thoush all wrote of the same one and only gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) the writes of each of the 4 gospels wrote to different groups of people:  Matthew to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greek, and John to the Gnostics.  All of them have certain flavors in them due to the people groups they had in mind.

Your interpretations violate this rule as well.

How would one interpretate this verse:

 ' If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget;
  let my tongue cleave to my palate, if I do not remember you, if I do not bring up Jerusalem above the head of my joy. '

Everyone keeps speaking ill of Leauki obssession over Hillary and wondering why?

During the primaries of this most recent race guess which candidate was the ONLY candidate to put a full page ad in Hebrew in Israel?

Yes, Hillary was the ONLY one.  She said in this ad that if she was elected she would do whatever it takes to make sure that Iran would NEVER obtain Nuclear weapons. 

When I read this, it was funny because it was just after a debate of the candidates when both Obama and Hillary said that they would negotiate and essentially military force is out of the question.

If you know Leauki, he loves Israel as do I.  I would have voted for her if I didn't know that she lies a lot.  Most people from the States don't realize how popular the Clintons are aboard and how unpopular Bush was aboard for the most part.  I don't support either political party for various reasons.

Lula, its good to hear from you. I haven't seen you around the boards for some time.  There are rules/principles for interpreting or understanding any language.  The first and primary one is usually called the 'Golden Rule of Interpretation' is to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate otherwise.' This rule is recognized by logicians, grammarians and rhetoricians as the true criterion by which one must be governed. When guided by this principle, one cannot go far afield, but if it is ignored, one roams at will and can never know whether he has interpreted the Word of God correctly.

I have noticed that a lot of your bibical interpretation violates this rule.  Then a Second primary rule for interpretation is to become intimately acquainted with the author or in other words dicover the author and the people who is addressing and the life and times of those involved in a given case.  A very quick and brief example of this is that even thoush all wrote of the same one and only gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) the writes of each of the 4 gospels wrote to different groups of people:  Matthew to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greek, and John to the Gnostics.  All of them have certain flavors in them due to the people groups they had in mind.

Your interpretations violate this rule as well.

How would one interpretate this verse:

 ' If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget;
  let my tongue cleave to my palate, if I do not remember you, if I do not bring up Jerusalem above the head of my joy. '

My apologies Leauki for invading your article with that post.  I saw that you were taking some slack and I figured most people on this board probably didn't know that she did that.

Also my apology for posting the rules of interpretation.  I really don't like people who are followers of Jesus Christ who have a strong leaning into Supersession/Replacement Theology.  This theology is very anti-biblical and has a minor tone of ant-semitism flavor.  I will not post anything further that would remove from your original intent.

I pray that all is well with you and that I can find your forgiveness.

AMEN! 

Leauki...be back tomorrow.  No time to respond to you tonight! 

Peace!

TPP,

Your post was perfectly fine and helped to clear up some of the confusion that arised here about the Clintons and my opinion of them.

And thank you for quoting this:

 ' If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget;
  let my tongue cleave to my palate, if I do not remember you, if I do not bring up Jerusalem above the head of my joy. '

If anything, I guess, one can fault me for being too fanatic about this commandment.

No problem. Always glad to hear from you.

I find it most interesting to learn about a Christianity in harmony with the Jewish people.

TPP, I second Leauki's sentiments, as you did manage to explain better than Leauki has his obsession with Hillary (I knew it was not sexual, he does have better taste than that).  So thanks for posting.  I still do not agree with him (or you) on her, but at least understand his support.

Quite Frankly, I still maintain that Hilary would sell Israel to bin Laden for a bagel and Lox.

I just commented on another thread. I think I found a general principle that explains people's positions regarding Israel.

Left and right have different principles. And then there is a third group, often known as "the extreme right" but their supporters can also be found on the extreme left. Let's call the three liberals, conservatives, and fascists. Fascists includes communists.

Conservatives believe that one should trust one's friends and distrust one's enemies.

This principle is best formulated as "Trust, but verify." which is the rule applied to enemies that look they they want to become friends.

Liberals believe that one should trust one's enemies and distrust one's friends.

This is the principle of solidarity which tells us that all humanity are brothers and that none are better than others. Hence we have to trust everyone but make sure that we do not trust some people more than others just because we like them.

Fascists simply believe that accusation is proof.

But while there is a clear divide between conservative and (right-wing) fascist (although the divide is becoming weaker at the moment), there is no clear divide between liberal and communist (left-wing fascist). Thus many liberals really fall between camps 2 and 3 these days.

There is no clear divide at all between right-wing fascism and communism.

Obama and Mrs Clinton clearly fall into camp 2.

George W. Bush was a clear camp 1.

So to summarise this:

A conservative is someone who trusts his friends and distrusts his enemies.

(The weakness is that he also distrusts people he only thinks are his enemies.)

A liberal is someone who trusts his enemies and distrusts his friends.

(The weakness is that he cannot be trusted by his friends.)

A fascist is someone for whom accusation is proof.

When I originally asked you Leauki about the latest news it was in reference to what I had read on "Israel Today's" news release last week.  They had sent out a couple of news articles saying that Netanyahu caved under Obama/Clinton pressure. 

In the article it said that Netanyahu agreed to a package of concessions and gestures toward the Obama Administration and the Palestinians in an effort to ease the tensions coming from the White House. 

This included:

1.  all core issues including control of Jerusalem will now be on the table in indirect US brokered peace talks with the Palestianians.

2.  Israel will significantly slow the pace of Jewish construction on the Eastern side of Jerusalem. 

3.  Israel will free hundreds of jailed Palestinian terrorists affiliated with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

4.  Israel will ease its blockade on the Hamas ruled Gaza Strip and allow entry of building materials that Jerusalem had previously warned Hamas could make military use of. 

The Times of London reported that some of these concessions may have had to do with Obama's sudden diversion of a shipment of advanced bunker buster bombs to Israel.  According to the report, 387 of the bombs were on the way to Israel last week when the White House decided to send them to a holding facility instead. 

It was also reported that Netanyahu planned to press Obama to release the bomb shipment which could be crucial should Israel decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. 

speaking of that...what do you know about Daniel's prophecy of Israel's 70 weeks (Chap 9)?  It's called the 70 weeks of Daniel by most.  It most definitely includes Israel's final days right up to the end. 

dp

I guess I am all over the place.  I trust until betrayed.  Then you become my enemy.  But as for facists, I guess the liberals are.  They do not care for proof, only that "the seriousness of the accusations". 

Interesting breakdown.

Yes, that's a good point.

For a conservative serious accusations demand that the accuser be watched. For a liberal serious accusations demand that the accused be watched.

I would add that in my ladder system liberals have a tendency to become fascists, fascists have a tendency to become conservatives, and conservatives have a tendency to become liberals.

Of course in the Middle-East the ladder is the other way around: fascists become liberals become conservatives become fascists.

And in the Netherlands everything is confused.

In the netherlands, women become men who become women.

YUK!

I just want to clarify that I wouldn't vote for Hilary because she speaks from both sides of her mouth while tooting her own anus.  I agree with what you said Dr. Guy, but she gave continual lip service/attention to Israel.

I'm not sure what the Republicans were thinking when they nominated John Mccain.  They funny thing is that everyone was saying that if he got elected that we would get more of Bush a la Bush 3.  Obama has done a lot of things Bush like well except for the way he is treating Israel.

No, I don't feel Obama is the antichrist.  Most people from the States are very ethnocentric.  It doesn't suprise me that most Believers of Messiah Jesus from the United States feel that the antichrist will come from the West.

Actually that (AntiChrist) is just a metaphor (my belief and I am not going to debate it with others).  It is not a person, but traits of many people.  So he (or she) will come from all over the place. And has come (look at some of the clowns the world saw last century!)

It makes for some great stories (one of my favorites is The Stand), but that is about it.

FYI Doc (tuck this away somewhere) you may want to know another name for the AC is "the man of perdition"  Judas was called "the son of perdition."  So if you believe that the AC is a metaphor you may want to include Judas. 

Many Thanks KFC for not trying to drag me into a debate.  I will keep your statement in mind.  I am an obstinate old fool, but that does not mean I can't learn a trick or 2.