Ted Belman explains at Israpundit "Why I hate Annapolis":
Let me count the ways;1. Israel consented to being castrated. [That says it all but I’ll continue anyway.]
2. The Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
3. In accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.
4. Israel gave up all protection afforded by the Roadmap including
a) agreed to discuss final status issues (core issues) before Arab compliance with
Stage I of Roadmap
b) agreed to accept US rulings as to performance by Israel and the PA
5. Olmert retreated from his promise that he would never agree to any document that would not recognize Israel, first and foremost, as a Jewish state.
6. Israel agreed to negotiate even though Arabs insisted on “right of return”
7. Israel agreed to accept a narrow limits for negotiation such as ‘67 borders and sharing of Jerusalem
8. Israel compromised their fight against terror by agreeing to additional “gestures”
9. Israel put off indefinitely their anti-terror operation in Gaza leaving Sderot exposed.
10 Israel closed a deal with a Palestinian partner that cannot deliver
[...]
25 As a result of Annapolis, Israel is no longer a sovereign nation.
There are 25 points. Read it all.
Let the Palestinians have their state--then bomb the crap out of them if they keep attacking Israel. It's a lot easier to deal with a territorial state anyway.
2. The Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
3. In accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.
.................................
Sounds like apartheid (and dhimmitude) to me. And yet Olmert made this astonishing and grotesque statement where he compares--not Arab states, but *Israel*, to apartheid-era South Africa. From the AP article:
JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in a published interview Thursday that "the state of Israel is finished" if a Palestinian state is not created. He said the alternative is a South African-style apartheid struggle.
The explosive reference to apartheid came as Olmert returned from a high-profile peace conference in the USA, hoping to prepare a skeptical nation for difficult negotiations with the Palestinians.
......
This is beyond suicidal. It is rushing to self-immolation, while fervently proclaiming your own unearned guilt. Just appalling.
Look at it this way, though: if a fully established Palestinian state commits any terror acts against Israel, no one--none of the people currently complaining about Palestinian rights (and I suppose I must partially include myself here) would fault Israel for responding with overwhelming force.
I have no problem with the creation of a Palestinian state, provided that the rules of the game are made very, very clear to them.
I would like to give the article a new title.
“25 Reasons why I am disgusted with President Bush and Secretary Rice.”
"I would like to give the article a new title.
“25 Reasons why I am disgusted with President Bush and Secretary Rice.”"
...only 25?
From Israpundit:
"11 Olmert backed off from his opposition to any timetable for negotiations. (end of ‘08)"
From Newsmax:
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that Israel is not bound by a December 2008 target . . ."
From Israpundit:
"4. Israel gave up all protection afforded by the Roadmap including a) agreed to discuss final status issues (core issues) before Arab compliance with Stage I of Roadmap"
From NewsMax:
"'Israel will not have to carry out any commitment stemming from the agreement before all of the road map commitments are met,' Olmert told his Cabinet."
OK what's going on here? Are there other material descrepancies among Olmert, Inasrapundit, and NewsMax? Who has the truth?
http://www.newsmax.com/international/israel_palestinians/2007/12/02/53844.html
This is very disturbing:
http://www.nysun.com/article/67310
“25 Reasons why I am disgusted with President Bush and Secretary Rice.”"
...only 25?
Well Im sure Hillary, Edwards or Obama will be a lot tougher.
As much as I would like to blame Bush and Rice, I lay most of the blame on Olmert.
I think the Israelis must have a plan behind all this. No one can be THIS suicidal.
Ted's take is understandable...
that's what it's supposed to appear like.
For the best way to deal with conmen and scam artists like the islamists is to play them at their own game...using the same stratagem, the same artifice, they themselves apply...lie the terrorist arafat tried, but failed, to do...
So if the public is upset, it's a sure bet the islamists think they have the upper hand, which is what they're supposed to think...
The artifice is working (as it's designed to do, since it's obvious on the face the ideas applied aren't going to work, and W knows it...that wasn't what was intended by Annapolis anyway, but that of buying time...
time to prepare
time to rearm
time to develop the setpiece, and positioning, necessary to thwart what was to be the impending all-out war in the ME, starting with Israel-Hezbollah-Hamas, and spilling over to other countries nearby.
The key is the countermove set up, because the islamists THINK they have the upper hand, especially when they see a western public clearly upset at what can only appear to be to their benefit, and appearances can be very deceiving, just as Israel portended to the U.A.R right up to, and at, the point of no return, in June 1967, almost identical in pattern of events...and just recently, a ship delivering some badly needed "toys" arrived in Haifa, Israel that are designed specifically for the purpose of dealing with Hezbollah & Hamas (in direct contravention of th so-called "spirit" of Annapolis, and thus, a REALLY BIG CLUE there's a LOT more to the story than just what the MSM reports to the general public)...
...and it hasn't even begun to play out yet.
Christmas & Hanukkah may well prove a bit more exciting than expected this year.
Patience...
;-)
As much as I would like to blame Bush and Rice, I lay most of the blame on Olmert. >>>>>
Are you an American citizen or an Israeli? Why do you lay most of the blame on Olmert?
RoobartSbunsar wrote:
"Let the Palestinians have their state--then bomb the crap out of them if they keep attacking Israel. It's a lot easier to deal with a territorial state anyway.>>>>>
This always sounds nice but in the real world it does not work out the way you expect.
The Administration places enormous pressure on Israel to exercise restraint. Your rationale was the rationale we heard for Oslo, for the Lebanon retreat in 2000 resulting in the second Lebanon war, 2006, and for the Gaza retreat, 2005.
In reality it does not work out the way you would propose.
Best to hold on to militarily strategic territory and not retreat in the face of threats of violence and terrorism. You seem to advocate defeatism and retreat.
This policy did not work well with the Nazi menace in the nineteen thirties and it surely will not work with Islam in the 21st century. What you advocate, Islam rightly perceives to be weakness.
JPost.com » Israel » Article
{George W. Bush and his administration are arming these criminals and training them.}
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546785899&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Dec 2, 2007 23:42 | Updated Dec 3, 2007 1:29
Palestinian police behind last week's terror attack
By YAAKOV KATZ
Palestinian policemen were behind the shooting attack last week which killed Ido Zoldan, a 29-year-old father of two from the settlement of Shavei Shomron, the IDF and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) revealed Sunday night.
Zoldan was killed last Monday night - the day before the Annapolis summit began - when shots were fired at his car as he drove past the Palestinian village of al-Punduk.
The three members of the cell were Palestinian policemen and members of the Palestinian National Security Force, in which Israel and the United States have been investing as part of the international effort to strengthen Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah government....
monk,
American and he has the final say if he wants Israel to commit suicide. I doubt Sharon or Netanyahu would have agreed to this.
Now am I defending Iman Bush or Condhimmi Rice? No, they are vile in their own right and cant wait till this administration is over.
Pelayo, there was a similar article on Debka. It looks as though the Arabs and the US were trying to screw Israel behind its back!
Monk, the New York Sun details how the US have been training Fateh to kill more Jews:
One of the great mysteries of recent years is how Idiot Olmert has managed to live this long and stay in power despite all of his treason and stupidity. Historians will be at a loss as to how to explain this.
Per Kessler of Washington Post who has reportedly researched the real estate records (it came out in The Times today as well), Rice co-owns a house with this woman:
http://longevity2.stanford.edu/personRandy.html
Not touching on the gay thing, what is a Republican Secretary of State doing being in a business relationship (giving the benefit of the doubt) with a producer for Bill Moyer? Why is Rice being allowed to influence the future of Israel?
Answer: There is no leadership in the West.
jcom972
I wish I could have the confidence that you have in this administration. For all of our sakes, I sincerely hope that future events prove you to be the most prescient among us. As much as I try, I am simply no longer able to give this man the benefit of the doubt.
As much as I try, I am simply no longer able to give this man the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: patagonianplato at December 2, 2007 9:05 PM
Me either, but I can still cross my fingers and pray for a miracle. I don't usually want to be wrong about something but this time, I hope I am.
Right now it is all talk, talk, talk. I doubt Israel would have Bombed Syria if it did not expect to be around for a long long time.
The Road Map to nowhere.
I expect a War between Fatah and Hamas to take place before 08 and that is about all the good that will come out of this.
Hamas needs to make a decision before its Weapons degrade and Fatah can defend itself too much.
2. The Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
3. In accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.
gravenimage, this is beyond dhimmitude this is known in india as laws of untouchables. where on the bad old days higher class indians could not even touch the untouchable classes lest they be spoiled. if they did accdently touch them they had to take a bath and pray to god. this still exists to a lesser extant.
[i]Let the Palestinians have their state--then bomb the crap out of them if they keep attacking Israel. It's a lot easier to deal with a territorial state anyway.[/i]
For once I agree with you, Roobartbunsar
Of course, what the hell do I know about military strategy?
Annapolis is just Bush trying to be Clinton, but using Rice rather than taking part himself. Clinton at Camp David was trying to be Carter at Camp David, and Bush/Rice is pathetically trying to be Clinton trying to be Carter.
None of it is binding, and besides "binding" means nothing in the Middle East. It's all urinating upwind.
Bush/Rice have debased themselves, but then Bush already did when post-9/11, he never went after the Wahhabis.
It is too bad Olmert doesn't have the cajones to just say no to this kind of empty political theater, designed to make Bush look like Clinton/Carter. But it may not matter. Bush will be gone soon, and so will Olmert.
"And the world looks just the same, and history ain't changed, 'cause the banners, they are flown in the next war."
This whole thing is all for show. It is little adieu signifying nothing. Israel will not really give anything away. The Arabs have once again shown themselves for what they are. It's all just a charade.
The most significant thing here is that Bush/Rice allowed Arab "racist" supremacism to dictate protocol on American soil. What sell outs.
If we get Giuliani, we may actually make some headway against Arab intransigence and Islamism in general. If not, more of the same window dressing that accomplishes nothing and means nothing.
it's ok, patagonianplato,
your misgivings are understandable (that's why ya won't hear me casting disparaging remarks on it)... I'm lucky enough to have access to info not limited solely to crumbs doled out by the MSM to the public.
Regardless, it's ok to be concerned...it reminds me I'm not the only one who cares about what happens to Israel, and I'm glad for it.
How is it that George Bush was allowed to walk through the sanctified hall? Isn't he disallowed
to pass through the same entrance as a Muslim also, being a Christian?
What is up with that?
I told ya....
Why even bash Bush anymore? I expect him to behave like this. This is his MO! It is his signature move! I find it amazing anyone at this point is stunned by this.
What has Bush done that would give you any confidence that he has any idea what the hell he is doing? Give me one! Iraq? Nah..try again sparky! Afganistan? Nah...Taliban II is in western Pakistan! Oh Oh Oh I know what will be said: We have not been attacked since 9-11..am I right?
Oh wow! Really? That means he has accomplished the same thing as Bill Clinton! Slick Willy lost once and so did GW so does that mean Bush is doing a good job?
Really what has he done? We can't even capture the Egyptian doctor who is now an internet video star because we are afraid of crossing the border into Taliban II so instead we drop soccer balls on them that way we will win hearts and minds by giving them a chance to play the most boring sport in creation! Which still sent them into a tizzy because the stupid Arabian flag is on it!
Cartoons, Soccer Balls and Teddy Bears...oh my!
The most significant thing here is that Bush/Rice allowed Arab "racist" supremacism to dictate protocol on American soil. What sell outs.
If we get Giuliani, we may actually make some headway against Arab intransigence and Islamism in general. If not, more of the same window dressing that accomplishes nothing and means nothing.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 2, 2007 10:39 PM
What is surprising is that Americans never realized they were electing a sellout. All Americans had to do was to look at Bush record. Infact, had Americans even observed daddy Bush, they would not have elected dubya. Daddy Bush used the American tax-dollars and lives to protect his wahhabbi friends from Saddam, and Americans elect the AWOL son who "won" the 2000 election in his brother's state. That Bush helped Bin Ladens escape and smoked cigars with Bandat, should not surprise Americans, nor should selline out America to Mexican criminals while giving "aid" to rich and corrupt wahhabbis in Riyadh. Why would Bush not pass on American treasury to Saudi Atabia and who ever Saudis want him to? After all, Saudis "invested" in Bush businesses. It is only returning the favor when Bush twists Israeli hand into submission. Israel shoukd thank Bush for not pushing them into sharing Jeruselam. You see, Saudi money buys votes, which brings the keys to American treasury with which to repay the Saudis.
It is that simple.
Didn't Giuliani go to court to protect Bush's illegal immigrants? TWICE? So you see, Giuliani protects New Yorkers from Jihadies so Mecixans can rape them.
In this race to sell out Americans to whoever has a riyal or a peso to spare, Tom Tancredo is the only candidate with a clean record. Americans should realize that Islamic Jihad is the nuclear bomb and illegal immigration, poison gas. Both are lethal, one with a bang, another, silent slealth; yet both are equally lethal. Only Tom Tancredo has unflinchingly stood up to both. Tom Tancredo passes all tests with flying colors while his opponents sruggle to pass just one.
http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com
Finally, this is what slick-willy left Americans children to: http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm
His wife has no problem with any of this.. why should she? She has no problem with her lying husband or any of his adultry. But, Americans will pay a heavy price for forgetting any of their candidate's records. There is too much as stake. I would say, dump the lying cheating sellout families who feed off of American tax-payers. Elect statesman and a patriot, Tom Tancredo... before it is too late.
Alert
Ah Ah...but Giuliani does dislike the Arabians and they don't like him. Thus he will at least end that nightmare of a relationship. He is maybe clueless as to why he dislikes them but I will take any ray of hope at this point.
Ah Ah...but Giuliani does dislike the Arabians and they don't like him. Thus he will at least end that nightmare of a relationship. He is maybe clueless as to why he dislikes them but I will take any ray of hope at this point.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 3, 2007 12:37 AM
Like I said, Rudy stands up to Islamists, only for Mexican criminals to rape sanctuary cities, while Tom Tancredo has a clean record on both of these national-security issues. It is common folly to trade one for another. Americans don't have to settle for one or another. Both ..Islamic terror and illegal immigration, have to be categorically rejected. Tom Tacnredo, true American patriot that he is, won't sell one for another when something as important as American culture is at stake. No, you do not have to settle for lesser of the two. Americans should firmly reject both threats.
Also, I think that it is not right to elect a candidate who Arabs hate most, but one who stands up to any and every threat to America, bravely. You want a candidate who stands up to threats, with clarity, astutely, and directly: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007240.php
"As much as I would like to blame Bush and Rice, I lay most of the blame on Olmert."
Posted by: Elric66
And all three are connected to the same agenda, along with others mentioned above. What is their true goal, that should be what people are asking. The answer is in the charter of the groups they are involved in, and support.
Alert;
I agree , we must try and support the best, and know as much as we find on every single issue, from each one.
Rudy is slippery, bad choice. Mitt overall is much better, and Tom is the best out there. Fred has got a lot going for us with his ideas.
The democrats will enslave us all.
I agree , we must try and support the best, and know as much as we find on every single issue, from each one.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 3, 2007 2:50 AM
Ah.. such a breath of fresh air in that one sentence. I whole-heartedly agree. Therefore, I am focusing on Tom, trying very hard, to see one weak link in his chain, one crack in his aromr and the best I have found is his lack of smooth guile some of his adversaries possess. Then again, is lack of guile, a sign of upfront and forthright personalty? Who does America need more? A smooth-talking politician or an upfront and forthright statesman? I think wAmerica needs a statesman who has America's wellbeing at heart. With Tom Tancredo, it is hard to see that his heart is not in the right place. Tom Tancredo is a committed American. Look at his record here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=685 and I don't mean his photograph. Look at what Tom stands for: http://www.teamtancredo.typepad.com Look for his weaknesses look for his weak link and then, look at his heart. Now, tell me it does not beat for America. No, I am not laying heavy emotions. Am am trying to see if Tom's stand is consistent with his record. In these times of political trechery and sell-out, isn't an astute statesman, a breath of fresh air? Now square that against America's enemies.. Islamists, CAIR, open-border lobbists and others. All are against Tom as they are against America. Therefore Tom should be for America. This is good enough for a common American like myself, But I am still looking for Tom's weaknesses.. the weakest I have found is his lack of eloquence, not a lack of spine and certainly not a lack of heart! After being cheated and sold out by Clintons and Bushes, this is the kind of leader I want and I think America should also. But I am still looking for weakness in Tom Tancredo and it is not easy.
Finally, I notice you are not among the pathetic posters who post "Tom is right on most things but we know he is not going to win". Such posters defeat the purpose of a ballot which should be exercised with clarity and conviction. I see you seem to have both and I have to say, in your own right, your post, like Tom, is a breath of fresh air.
"Best to hold on to militarily strategic territory and not retreat in the face of threats of violence and terrorism. You seem to advocate defeatism and retreat."
I look at it like this: if Al-Qaeda was a territorial state (instead of a transnational network), it would be a hell of a lot easier to deal with them. Similarly, it would be far easier to contain Palestinian terror when they are an established state (as opposed to "the enemy within.")
I would hardly say that I advocate "defeatism and retreat."
As for the presidential candidates: I generally wouldn't even consider voting Republican, but if good old Hillary is nominated, I would vote for whoever opposes her--unless it's Giuliani or some other far-right nut. Romney, maybe Tancredo, I could go for.
...on the other hand, I would vote for Obama without hesitation if he's nominated (which ain't happening, because, by and large, the Democrats are idiots).
Guiliani is a far right nut? LOL
Obama? Yeah theres a tough guy. How is he really any differant than Hillary?
Roobart
Just which member of your collective is a registered voter? In the United States of America?
"Obama? Yeah theres a tough guy. How is he really any differant than Hillary?"
I like Obama. I believe he is quite sincere in the things he says.
Hillary? Don't get me started.
Thus, yes, they are different.
...of course, all liberals are traitors worthy of being shot as far as conservatives are conserned. So why bother arguing?
...back to topic (expanding on what I referred to before)...
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4824
(note: "delay major operations", yes, they said "major operations". That's not the work/lexicon of someone about to give up anything-but that of prepping for enemy attacks that will justify Israeli "major operations" in the VERY near future)
Like I said, there's a LOT more at work there than just what the MSM is feeding the masses (the MSM swallowed the bait, as expected), and known by the terms it's called...among them:
stratagem
artifice
(look 'em up)
Stay tuned...things are liable to get a little dicey soon.
Alert ;
Thank you for your words, I was in support of your reasoning, what you were saying about Tom, and was hoping to add to what you had already posted.
Lets work to have a real strong leader for America, its all we can ask for. It should be required by all Americans.
Thanks again for your kind words.
Lets work to have a real strong leader for America, its all we can ask for. It should be required by all Americans.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 4, 2007 12:28 AM
Islofob IS-1
Your constructive approach is inspiring. However, I have to disagree with "its all we can ask for". What Americans fail to do is to bring their elected officials to acount. In a sane world Saudi Arabia and Palkistan would be on notice and Bush would have been tried for treason and imrpisoned. Anyway, that is just me. No reason to stop from being constructive like yourself. As for a strong leader, I have been following Tom since 2001. Have been reading, listening, following Tom and I find him to be the strong leader I would like How do you feel? so far, Tom Tancredo is who I am putting my money on. Not to be close minded but which politician fought unpopular topics like Islamic-terror and illegal-immigration? Not untill late in the campaign did Mitt, Duncan and Rudy even utter anything about Islamic terror. Tom Tancredo visited Beslan right after the massacar. His book 'In Mortal Danger' speaks more about these dangers. Tom is clear, strong and consistent in his stand. Besides, he has stood for America and Americans.
Given the dangers America is in, America does not need a someone who dances to Arab tunes .. nor any flip-flopping clinton. A strong, brave American, with a heart in the right place, will do.
Alert;
I agree. The people can use the net to have near direct access to the leaders of this country, and many have found this to be very effective. I have.
You can see leaders, such as John McCain, have found the people can use the net to get their voices to him clearly.
As far as Tom, he is the best to support, and who can tell? A year can see many things happen, and he may find that chances will become better as his message mirrors world events.
We shall see.