THEEERE HE IS...Grizalltheway wrote:Two states is the only viable solution, and Kerry should be lauded for pursuing it.
Keep sucking that Zionist dick SH.
Yup, Wilhelm von Jizz, right on schedule. Has a coal-scuttle helmet in the passenger seat of his shitbox '97 Honda, too.travelinman67 wrote:THEEERE HE IS...Grizalltheway wrote:Two states is the only viable solution, and Kerry should be lauded for pursuing it.
Keep sucking that Zionist dick SH.
...been awhile since the CS Nazi made an appearance.
Kerry and Obama are anti-Semitic. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
Says the person who calls "teabaggers" racist. Oh the irony.Skjellyfetti wrote:Yeah, no political or economic discrimination in Israel whatsoever. Totally offbase. Kerry is clearly antisemitic.
Funny how the people that always whine about teabaggers being called racist... are the first to call people that criticize Israel "antisemitic."
This hasn't been ignored. It was on CNN earlier. He had a poor choice of words. This is nothing major. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. So is it the word you don't like(which means "separate") or that he gave an opinion?SuperHornet wrote:The media ignored THIS one, too.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared that Israel was on the way to becoming an "apartheid state" if they don't acquiesce to his bogus "two-state" Middle East peace initiative. Naturally, Republicans like Boehner and Cruz bashed this low blow from Kerry. But the true sign of how bad his statement was that he even got bashed by Boxer. At THAT point, he got into a serious backpedal.
What a hypocrite....
So referring to a supposed ally as a potential apartheid state is good diplomacy, then? No biggie, just a bad choice of words?Ibanez wrote:This hasn't been ignored. It was on CNN earlier. He had a poor choice of words. This is nothing major. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. So is it the word you don't like(which means "separate") or that he gave an opinion?SuperHornet wrote:The media ignored THIS one, too.
Secretary of State John Kerry declared that Israel was on the way to becoming an "apartheid state" if they don't acquiesce to his bogus "two-state" Middle East peace initiative. Naturally, Republicans like Boehner and Cruz bashed this low blow from Kerry. But the true sign of how bad his statement was that he even got bashed by Boxer. At THAT point, he got into a serious backpedal.
What a hypocrite....
Agreed. Very poor choice of words for a diplomat, but isn't he kinda right?CID1990 wrote:So referring to a supposed ally as a potential apartheid state is good diplomacy, then? No biggie, just a bad choice of words?Ibanez wrote:
This hasn't been ignored. It was on CNN earlier. He had a poor choice of words. This is nothing major. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. So is it the word you don't like(which means "separate") or that he gave an opinion?
The guy is supposedly strong on foreign policy... ran on it against Bush... chairman of the Senate FRC... and yet he cannot figure how it is that the Israelis won't come to the table while the PA and Hamas are reconciling?
He cant even get the Palestinians to concede Israel's right to exist and somehow he's mad at Israel
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/30/israel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Israel's prime minister issued a rare warning yesterday that his nation risked being compared to apartheid-era South Africa if it failed to agree an independent state for the Palestinians. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Ehud Olmert said Israel was "finished" if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights.
If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/f ... tine-peace" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Poli ... ael-318307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;“I appreciate the fact that they care and are thinking about the future, and obligating us to think about the future,” she said. “But the time has come for the same youth to ask, to what kind of state do they want to leave the gas reserves? To a Jewish democratic Israel? Or to a binational Arab state? Or to an apartheid state? It is impossible to deal with economic issues and to ignore the important diplomatic issues related to two states for two peoples.”
Why the hardon of Israel, that they can't do no wrong? I'm not saying they are wrong or right but this isn't a big deal. We have a 24/7 news cycle watching humans interact. Eventually, you're going to witness a human make a mistake. There are more important things to worry about than Kerry. How about a Congress returning to Washington that will do nothing about Immigration or mental health; no jobs legislation. They won't do anything about long-term unemployment. They won't even touch medicare insolvency or our exploding debt.CID1990 wrote:So referring to a supposed ally as a potential apartheid state is good diplomacy, then? No biggie, just a bad choice of words?Ibanez wrote:
This hasn't been ignored. It was on CNN earlier. He had a poor choice of words. This is nothing major. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. So is it the word you don't like(which means "separate") or that he gave an opinion?
The guy is supposedly strong on foreign policy... ran on it against Bush... chairman of the Senate FRC... and yet he cannot figure how it is that the Israelis won't come to the table while the PA and Hamas are reconciling?
He cant even get the Palestinians to concede Israel's right to exist and somehow he's mad at Israel
Not really. It was a porr choice of words not only because it was crass hyperbole, but also because it was incorrect.kalm wrote:Agreed. Very poor choice of words for a diplomat, but isn't he kinda right?CID1990 wrote:
So referring to a supposed ally as a potential apartheid state is good diplomacy, then? No biggie, just a bad choice of words?
The guy is supposedly strong on foreign policy... ran on it against Bush... chairman of the Senate FRC... and yet he cannot figure how it is that the Israelis won't come to the table while the PA and Hamas are reconciling?
He cant even get the Palestinians to concede Israel's right to exist and somehow he's mad at Israel
NAZI!!!!!!!!Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, fawning over Israel and polishing their balls for the last 50 years hasn't been effective diplomacy. Maybe a new strategy is needed?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/30/israel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Israel's prime minister issued a rare warning yesterday that his nation risked being compared to apartheid-era South Africa if it failed to agree an independent state for the Palestinians. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Ehud Olmert said Israel was "finished" if it forced the Palestinians into a struggle for equal rights.
If the two-state solution collapsed, he said, Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished". Israel's supporters abroad would quickly turn against such a state, he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/f ... tine-peace" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Poli ... ael-318307" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;“I appreciate the fact that they care and are thinking about the future, and obligating us to think about the future,” she said. “But the time has come for the same youth to ask, to what kind of state do they want to leave the gas reserves? To a Jewish democratic Israel? Or to a binational Arab state? Or to an apartheid state? It is impossible to deal with economic issues and to ignore the important diplomatic issues related to two states for two peoples.”
Skjellyfetti wrote:Yeah, no political or economic discrimination in Israel whatsoever. Totally offbase. Kerry is clearly antisemitic.
Funny how the people that always whine about teabaggers being called racist... are the first to call people that criticize Israel "antisemitic."
THIS!CID1990 wrote: Not really. It was a porr choice of words not only because it was crass hyperbole, but also because it was incorrect.
Unless the black South Africans were shooting rockets into Cape Town, blowing up buses full of Africaaners, and refusing to stop until all the white South Africans left South Africa (or were killed), I don't see the parallels.
Apartheid was a system of segregation based solely on the idea of racial superiority. What is going on in Israel is rooted in Israeli security. You wouldn't want Al Qaeda setting up shop in your neighborhood, and the Israelis balking at it is not an indication of Israel becoming an apartheid state. It is moral equivalency, nothing more.
Here's some moral equivalency for you: we fight pre-emptive foreign wars half a world away for our own supposed security and yet want to tell Israel that they should accomodate what would be the equivalent of standing up an Al Qaeda-run district in every large American city. Even Bismarck couldn't make this work.
.
I guess Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and Tzipi Livni were playing in a sandbox when apartheid in South Africa ended.travelinman67 wrote:
Most of the anti-semites on this board were playing in a sandbox when S.African apartheid ended...Kerry was not. His "so called" slip was nothing but another reveal from another enemy of the State of Israel.
And this is a big deal because...travelinman67 wrote:THIS!CID1990 wrote: Not really. It was a porr choice of words not only because it was crass hyperbole, but also because it was incorrect.
Unless the black South Africans were shooting rockets into Cape Town, blowing up buses full of Africaaners, and refusing to stop until all the white South Africans left South Africa (or were killed), I don't see the parallels.
Apartheid was a system of segregation based solely on the idea of racial superiority. What is going on in Israel is rooted in Israeli security. You wouldn't want Al Qaeda setting up shop in your neighborhood, and the Israelis balking at it is not an indication of Israel becoming an apartheid state. It is moral equivalency, nothing more.
Here's some moral equivalency for you: we fight pre-emptive foreign wars half a world away for our own supposed security and yet want to tell Israel that they should accomodate what would be the equivalent of standing up an Al Qaeda-run district in every large American city. Even Bismarck couldn't make this work.
.
Most of the anti-semites on this board were playing in a sandbox when S.African apartheid ended...Kerry was not. His "so called" slip was nothing but another reveal from another enemy of the State of Israel.
