'Kerry slams Israel’s West Bank policies'

[bud]

rarely do you see the u.s. administration publicly showing frustration and speaking candidly about israel's west bank policies.

in an interview with israel's channel 2, kerry did just that:

How could Israel credibly claim to be working for peace, he asked, when it kept on building settlements in an area that was going to be Palestine?

a valid question that many people ask and have wondered why the u.s. administration, for so long, has not.

kerry also made it clear that, just like the rest of the international community, it considers the settlements to be illegal:

He also said ongoing settlement construction risked creating the sense that Israel was not “serious” about wanting a permanent accord. The US, he stressed, considers “settlements are illegitimate” and believes that “the entire peace process would be easier if these settlements were not taking place.”

are we at a crossroad and will we finally see a u.s. administration that is willing to put real pressure on israel to not get in the way of creating a palestinian state, or will the aipac lobbied congress and senate put the pressure on the obama administration to continue the status quo of doing nothing?

[bleeding heart]

This is an ongoing reiteration of official US policy. Almost every administration at least once criticizes the settlements.

Clinton:

“The settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be a part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”

George H.W. Bush:

“The United States policy on settlements in the occupied territories is unchanged and is clear: We oppose new settlements in territories beyond the 1967 lines—settlements [are] contrary to the United States policy; and I will continue to reiterate the policy, and try to persuade the Government of Israel that it is counterproductive to go forward with additional settlements in these territories. Our objective is to get the parties to the peace table.

Ronald Reagan:

“The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.

Jimmy Carter:

“We consider these settlements to be contrary to the Geneva Convention, that occupied territories should not be changed by the establishment of permanent settlements by the occupying power. The ultimate status of the West Bank and Gaza area will be determined through negotiations, [the US has] long maintained this position that the establishment of settlements in that area was contrary to progress toward a comprehensive peace.”

Edited November 8, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bud]

This is an ongoing reiteration of official US policy. Almost every administration at least once criticizes the settlements.

Clinton:

George H.W. Bush:

Ronald Reagan:

Jimmy Carter:

yes of course. it has been the u.s.' official policy. however, i have never seen any administration question israel's genuineness and true intentions. kerry did that:

How could Israel credibly claim to be working for peace, he asked, when it kept on building settlements in an area that was going to be Palestine?

[jbg]

rarely do you see the u.s. administration publicly showing frustration and speaking candidly about israel's west bank policies.

in an interview with israel's channel 2, kerry did just that:

How could Israel credibly claim to be working for peace, he asked, when it kept on building settlements in an area that was going to be Palestine?

I guess you relish having an administration committed to losing on beahlf of the West?

And while we're at it how peaceful would an independent "Palestine" actually be?

[bud]

I guess you relish having an administration committed to losing on beahlf of the West?

expansion of illegal settlement is not winning.

And while we're at it how peaceful would an independent "Palestine" actually be?

more peaceful than how it is now. regardless how peaceful they will be; they have a right to have a state.

those who are against the formation and existence of a palestinian state are no better than those who are against the existence of a israeli state. why are you against the existence of a palestinian state?

[bush_cheney2004]

How could Israel credibly claim to be working for peace, he asked, when it kept on building settlements in an area that was going to be Palestine?

The same way that Canada or the U.S. claim to be working for peace by bombing or invading other nations, supporting rebels, and mining natural resources through corporations.

[Topaz]

The same way that Canada or the U.S. claim to be working for peace by bombing or invading other nations, supporting rebels, and mining natural resources through corporations.

Did you just realize this??

[bush_cheney2004]

Did you just realize this??

Of course not....'peace' has always been way overrated !! That's why Canada calls it "peacekeeping".

[Rue]

I agree with Bud that this is new. Never has the US been this openly critical of Israel.

I did know Kerry was an opponent of Netanyahu's policies on the West Bank. He has made speeches since 2003 blasting Netanyahu.

I realized when Obama took on Zbigniew Brezinski as his no.1 Middle East advisor, he would turn against Israel Brezinski is openly anti Israel and pro Iran. Brezinski believes the key to US interests is to reconcile with Iran at all costs.

I don't get it.

By cozing up to Assad and allowing Putin to humiliate them, coupled with Obama's refusal to support the current Egyptian government, the US has both Egyot and Saudi Arabia feeling sold out.

Both countries have now told Russia they will form an alliance with them to replace the US.

Now Russia is being allowed to build a navy port in Egypt and Saudi Arabia's belief that the US will not support it against Iran has caused them to request nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Israel? The entire nation is in shock at Kerry. He stated in the middle of sensitive talks as to the future state of the West Bank comments that not only humiliated Netanyahu but will turn on Abbas and get him killed. By doing what Kerry did and stating another intifada will occur if Israel does not UNILATERALLY leave the West Bank, he has empowered Fatah Hawks not Abbas. He has in essence said, get violent again.

Kerry openly ripped up any pretense he was mediating the talks between the PA and Israel and then as a further slap he didn' just make a comment that calls for an intifada but also made tacit references he will look the other way on Hamas and Hezbollah as well.

Now after dropping that bombshell which has empowered Fatah Hawks the arch enemy of Abbas, he is on his way to Geneva to make an agreement with Iran where they will NOT ask Iran to stop making a nuclear bomb.

But wait. The moderates in Israel? How does Tzip Levni their defacto leader try say anything to Netanyahu now about adapting a more conciliatory tone? How?

There it is. Out in the wide open. The US no longer considers Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel its allies, but instead will make deals with Syria, Iran and make comments they know will empower violence and weaken the hand of moderates.

How can or does a Secretary of State be so stupid as to make comments he knows will incite violence on the West Bank? The moment Kerry finished his address to Israel telling them to get out of the West Bank or face an uprising, violence arose yesterday.

What kind of idiot makes such comments?

Why would you insult an entire nation and its leader? Why would you not make such comments behind closed doors if that is what you really felt?

Does anyone believe if you humiliate and talk down to a leader of a nation like that it not only insults him and his entire nation but causes them to dig in even more on their intransigence?

For moderates such as myself we are flabbergasted. How can we now possibly say to Israel, be flexible when the doors are shut? How do we tell Israelis oh just pull back to the pre 1967 borders. Never mind all the settlers. Never mind Fatah Hawks. Just withdraw. Never mind that means terrorists dedicated to destroying Israel will be less than metres away from you and your borders will be indefensible, just do it.

How did Kerry expect to influence moderate responses from Israel by embarrassing it? It will do the exact opposite. It has. Tzipi Levni the defacto leader of the moderate Israelis who wanted Israel out of the West Bank is now unable to speak. If she says anything she looks like she is cowtowing to Kerry.

In the Middle East what politicians say to the public and what they say behind closed doors are never the same. There is always bluff and puffing. But this? This is not an attempt to force Netanyahu's hand this is a f...ck you finger.

To blast Israel in the middle of sensitive talks making it impossible for Israel to negotiate secure borders and then in the next breath say you are off to back away from getting Iran to stop making its bomb abandoning Saudi Arabia and Israel means what?

It means what many said when Obama was elected-that he always had an anti Israel agenda and his kissing the hand of the Saudi Arabia leader showed he has no clue what that subservient act or his grinning means to Arabs and Jews alike in the Middle East.

Obama has made it clear he has sold out Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

In so doing he has signaled Iran they have full approval to fight Sunni Muslims all over the Middle East and the US will remain silent just as they are now in Syria.

There is now a power vacuum in the Middle East and Russia already stepped up. Putin is laughing his ass off. He just got a deal to set up a navy port in Egypt and to supply Egypt and Saudi Arabia with weapons replacing the US.

With this huge split between the US and Israel, the military industrial complex of the US which is heavily dependent on Israel research and technology now finds itself in a very uncomfortable position. What happens now?

Does it pull all its relations and technology transfer agreements?

With this kind of chaos being created and the Snowden leaks, if I am a terrorist I will now take advantage of the intelligence chaos between Israel and the US which this will trigger to exploit it. Why not.After all Kerry just gave the Fatah Hawks a green light.

The US will announce shortly it will come up with this agreement where Iran does not have to stop making nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia will then make it clear they are turning to Pakistan for nuclear weapons. This may then trigger Israel to pre-empt that move by attacking Iran on its own.

I hope not.

I think Obama over played his hand again. Like his ridiculous red line in Syria which came back to haunt him, this insult to Netanyahu will do the same as will the insult to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Here we go again. Obama sent in a guy to Libya trying to make nice to extremists and he was sodomized and left mutilated for being openly gay and being considered a pansy. Now Obama is kissing up to Assad, Iran...just two days ago extremists in Iran gathered shouting death to the US and he thinks he is going to kiss up to this regime as he tried in Libya?

Man oh man.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Rue

[jbg]

How can or does a Secretary of State be so stupid as to make comments he knows will incite violence on the West Bank? The moment Kerry finished his address to Israel telling them to get out of the West Bank or face an uprising, violence arose yesterday.

What kind of idiot makes such comments?

An idiot like Kerry or Obama. That's why I didn't vote for either of them

Obama has made it clear he has sold out Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

In so doing he has signaled Iran they have full approval to fight Sunni Muslims all over the Middle East and the US will remain silent just as they are now in Syria.

I repeat my earlier concept posted above. This "President" seems dedicated to dismantling U.S. and Western accomplishments in favor of the wild un-civilization of Iran.

Here we go again. Obama sent in a guy to Libya trying to make nice to extremists and he was sodomized and left mutilated for being openly gay and being considered a pansy. Now Obama is kissing up to Assad, Iran...just two days ago extremists in Iran gathered shouting death to the US and he thinks he is going to kiss up to this regime as he tried in Libya?

Man oh man.

Exactly. Great way to sum it up.

[GostHacked]

It would be a good move on Israel's part to reverse the trend on the illegal settlements.

[jbg]

It would be a good move on Israel's part to reverse the trend on the illegal settlements.

Why?

Did not the Arabs have plenty of time to embrace negotiations and reject "rejectionism"? Why should they get to take a mulligan when the results of denying recognition to the reality of Israel didn't work out so well?

[GostHacked]

Why?

Did not the Arabs have plenty of time to embrace negotiations and reject "rejectionism"? Why should they get to take a mulligan when the results of denying recognition to the reality of Israel didn't work out so well?

It's the biggest roadblock to any peace deal. Plain and simple. Those illegal settlements are not being built for the benefit of the Palestinians. Technically it is still an occupation. Don't cry me a river if the locals offer resistance. They see these enclaves go up, not for the benefit of the Palestinians by any means.

Next time an attack happens on a 'quiet Jewish neighborhood', make sure it is not one of these illegal settlements. That might put some of these attacks into context. Every time one of these enclaves is attacked, the reports are geared towards making it look like it is an attack on Israel Proper and not the illegal settlements. Makes a huge difference in my view.

[dre]

Whether people want to hear it or not, what Kerry said is the plain simple truth.

[bush_cheney2004]

As we have seen before, the "truth" for John Kerry changes with the political wind, being the king of "flip-floppers".

Israel can/should build as many "illegal settlements" as it wishes, just as the USA and Canada did in North America.

[GostHacked]

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/judaization-of-the-negev-at-any-cost-1.406251

This kind of thing is also happening within Israel Proper. And this might be evidence of Israel's policies that are interpreted as racist.

The proposal was submitted by the Prime Minister's Office, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Minister for the Development of the Negev and Galilee Silvan Shalom. The decision stated that the move is part of the government's policy to promote and develop the periphery while lowering housing prices. It turns out, in fact, that behind the decision lies another purpose - preventing the Bedouin from "taking over" the area.

The cost of these measures is quite high from an economic viewpoint, from the standpoint of losing green spaces, and also because of problems it raises for established localities. The usual critics of such moves, the heads of local authorities in the region and green groups, have now gained support from an unexpected corner - a study by the Knesset's Research and Information Center.

"The goal of the plan is to grab the last remaining piece of land and thereby prevent further Bedouin incursion into any more state land and the development of an Arab belt from the south of Mount Hebron toward Arad and approaching Dimona and Yeruham, and the area extending toward Be'er Sheva," Yaron Ben Ezra, director-general of the Jewish Agency's settlement division, is quoted as explaining in the study performed by the center's Shiri Bass-Spector.

Peace = Piece.

Edited November 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[bud]

here is a piece from mainstream internet media source, salon, who has come out in support of boycotting israel for its human rights violations after a major academic group calls for it.

Academics should boycott Israel: Growing movement takes next step A major scholarly group affirms a boycott over Palestine. They're right and ethical -- and widely misunderstood

In recent years, we have seen greater recognition in the United States that religious acrimony and ancient blood feuds are not the source of the Israel-Palestine conflict, whose progenitor in fact is Jewish colonization. As this recognition grows, along with corresponding support for Palestinian human rights, unprecedented pressure bears on Israel’s defenders to maintain the once-dominant narratives of Israeli victimhood and Palestinian terror.

These days, Israel is an extremely difficult state to defend.

It should be so. Israel continues to make a mockery of the “peace process” by constructing new settlements and insulting American leaders. It tolerates politicians who routinely make racist statements. And it continues to be in violation of at least 77 United Nations Resolutions andnumerous provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

if the american politicians are powerless in persuading israel to do the right thing, this is what needs to be done. the resistance against south africa started with such boycotts and when it picked up momentum, the easily influenced politicians had no choice but to do the right thing, which was to condemn the human rights violators and stop supporting them.

The latest challenge to these violations comes from the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions movement, which has attracted the attention of pro-Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government itself, thus validating the efficacy of the tactic. A specific element of BDS, academic boycott, was recently ratified by the Association of Asian American Studies and enjoys overwhelming support among the membership of the American Studies Association, whose National Council today voted to affirm a resolution honoring the Palestinian call to boycott Israeli universities.

the article lists the reasons why israel is in violation and why its necessary to speak out against it

Here are the facts: No evidence has ever been presented that the Israeli government is interested in a viable solution to the conflict. Instead, Israel has persistently built illegal settlements, intensified its Judaization programs, shot and arrested children, appropriated land, destroyed olive groves, flaunted international law, tolerated pogroms against black immigrants, and passedovertly racist legislation, all of it with indisputable, institutional participation from Israeli universities.

More facts: The people of Palestine have been subject to a project of settler colonization for nearly 150 years, as long as the French occupied Algeria. Over a million Palestinians live in refugee camps throughout the Arab World, many in severe poverty. Palestinian citizens of Israel inhabit the lower level of a two-tiered legal system that limits their rights to employment, land ownership, education, mobility, free expression, political participation and public services. The Gaza Strip is destitute and overcrowded, victim of an Israeli campaign to strangulate its economy with the express purpose of making its residents starve and suffer. The West Bank is carved into hundreds of inaccessible geographies separated by segregated highways, settlements, checkpoints, military installations and concrete walls.

link

Edited December 5, 2013 by bud

[Rue]

The Beduin issue is not about race. It is the same situation faced by Beduins in all the Arab countries. To say Israel's

problems with accommodating Beduins is racist precisely because its the exact same problem within Arab nations.

The issue has nothing to do with race. It has to do with a way of life embraced by Beduins which comes into direct

conflict with urbanization. In a country like Israel with no land space available, indicating you want to live in a manner

where you can constantly move and live where you end up can't happen.

Likewise in countries far larger than Israel, specifically Morrocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq,

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Beduins have come into direct conflict with their governments as creeping urbanization and the movement of people to large cities pushes them further and further from their migratory path and way of life.

There were clashes with Egypt's government last month and yet how is it Ghost, there is no discussion of what happened there

when we talk of Beduins. Why is it only discussed if it can be attached to an Israel bashing pretext? Is it possible to look at

ANY phenomena in the Middle East for you and not blame it on Israel let alone Israeli government racism?

At least you prefaced your words which I do appreciate and say it lends to the appearance thereof. I do appreciate that.

So that is why I am responding. I am saying yes there is in fact a cultural conflict. Its cultural. It certainly is. Its a classic case

of modern urbanization an ancient way of life colliding and so say what you want but the blunt Bush Chaney is simply stating it as it is only he is no liberal with guilt.

Here is the other most crucial factor to keep in mind. Unlike any Arab state Israel provides Beduins family benefits. So generous the

Beduins have the largest birth rate in the world. Please go check that out. If Israel was racist why would it be paying famly benefits of any kind to Beduins? How is it Israel is the only country of the Middle East and is not even an Arab nation yet provides benefits

to these people? How is it Bud and I guess you skip over that fact.

You really think Bud is going to discuss Beduins and their issues in light of the entire Middle East and not just Israel? Of course not. His script only allows him to raise an issue if its attached to a message that presents that issue in a vacuum and only happening in Israel and can be manipulated as a pretext to bash Israel.

It's not working. Bud has come on this board and engaged in this tactic so many times or inter-changed it with the same

comments from Hudson Jones that the sheer repetitive volume of the exercise has blown itself out.

Israel is the only country of the Middle East that has pledged 20% of its land pre 1967 to the Beduins. Show me one Arab country that has done the same. Please. You won't find any.

With that context in mind yes its tragic a people and their way of life is being suffocated. It is inevitable. In a tiny state, a state can not be all things to all people. There are limits. The notion you can continue to move and have constant temporary squatting rights

wherever you go clashes with a modern society where people live in crowded spaces and require roads, sewage, electricity,

hospitals, schools. That is not racism to say the modern way of life is sedentary and condensed and so clashes with a society whose values do not understand nor want to buy into the concept of paying municipal taxes for things like sewage.

Something has to give and unfortunately those Beduins who do not want to embrace urbanization just like the wildlife that used to

live where these urban centres are now, will be forced further and further away and those that do not move will find themselves

in a different way of life full of materialism and competition two phenomena that cause havoc on the psyche of holistic peoples who

reject both concepts.

Please take note of how Bud uses the plight of Palestinians for his own political platform and agenda.

He now equates Palestinians to Beduins. Palestinians only began identifying themselves with that word in 1967.

In his world any issue can be used to attack Israel. In so doing he makes a mockery of Beduins. Beduins in fact

fought for Jewish independence and sufferage. Some of the IDF's most famous soldiers were Beduins.

The Beduin culture is respected in Israel and those who fought and died for Israel are referred to as righteous

people.

No one wants to see Beduins crushed and suffocated by urbanization but the alternative? Do you think its possible

in today's world to return all our land to the aboriginal peoples and we all live without land title?

Give me a break.

[GostHacked]

So is Israel going to build them something there they currently reside? Or displace them elsewhere and Jewish neighborhoods built instead?

And land titles means the state owns everything and the people who have been there for a long time get screwed.

I'll post this again.. Who's land is it?

[Rue]

How is it a supposed thread on Kerry's criticism of Israel's West Bank policies now becomes a platform to

suggest a different issue with Beduins is now a pretext to bash Israel?

if you think Kerry was right, then you missed the point as usual. The point was not what he said, but when,

where and how he said it.

Within Israel there is a huge debate on how and when Israel could and should consider a withdrawal of

Israelis from the West Bank if it could be attached to a comprehensive two state peace solution.

Right now Mr. Abbas has stated on record he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state or Jews having a right to

a Jewish state. He in fact has said so repeatedly. Given that comment, its hard to make a deal of any kind with him.

Its also difficult to state you are going to withdraw from the West Bank without guarantees it won't evolve into another Lebanon or Gaza. When Israel withdrew from both, immediately after withdrawal it was attacked.

It was attacked because we have this situation where people like to dictate to Israel what it must do but remain completely silent on what the Arab world should do. When examining the conflict, the dialogue focuses only on Israel.

How does Israel act unilaterally and just withdraw if the next day it will be attacked?

I don't hear one person saying Israel must withdraw stating all terrorists must disarm and all Arab countries must exist the right of Israel to remain a Jewish state.

How does Israel negotiate that? How does Israel withdraw when Fatah Hawks and so many other terror cells remain operative on the West Bank. What should they create another staging zone for attacks on Israel?

Will any of you guarantee if Israel leaves the West Bank, terrorists will not use it as a launching post?

Go on tell me. Does Hezbollah or Fatah Hawks have a mandate for peace with Israel? Does Hamas? Hello are you there. They have charters calling on the murder of all Israeli Jews and Jews and Israel supporters world wide until Israel is toppled and replaced by

a Muslim caliphate.

When Netanyahu was involved with Abbas in very delicate negotiations trying to find some common ground they both could live with there were of course mixed signals being sent back and forth as part of that posturing process.

So you tell me, why would Kerry in the middle of that blow up the negotiations which he did. Why would he in the middle of such delicate negotiations publically blow them up by saying if Israel did not unilaterally withdraw to 1967 borders, this will trigger another uprising?

What responsible individual posing as a neutral mediator would so such a thing? Please tell me. I have mediated legal issues for over 20 years. Please tell me how as a mediator I am supposed to do my job suddenly bursting out in the middle of the mediation telling one side to give the other side what it wants or else violence against them will be justified?

That is what he did.

The issue isn't he told the truth as Dre said. There is no truth. Both sides have their perspective. Neither is right or wrong. There is no truth just clashing views and the whole point is trying to find a middle ground that both sides can live with.

Kerry blew up the negotiations deliberately by stating what he did to the press and not behind closed doors.

Israel has been down this road time and time again where people try dictate its faith without giving any attention to the reality of the security issues it faces. It can not unilaterally withdraw to the 1967 borders. It won't. Until you disarm every terrorist on the West Bank, it can not.

You arm chair experts do not understand the populations live side by side and the 1967 border would arbitrarily create a border where terrorists would be inches away from the people they are dedicated to kill. That will not happen.

What you are asking is for someone to agree to allow someone to live right next door to them who has stated he will not follow any international laws, recognize your right to live in peace, and the first chance he's got he will kill you and take your home.

That is what you are asking of Israelis. That is why Netanyahu talks with bluff and bluster. He is playing a delicate game of saying to the other side, you want to be peaceful-I will flex-you want to use these talks as simply an exercise to better attack Israel, I won't budge.

Kerry blew up the talks because it was part of an agreement with Syria and Iran. The US is following the play book of Zbignew Brezinski now, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor. Obama is following Carter's positions on Israel and if you want to know where Carter and Bezinski stand you just need to read their books.

They believe the best ally the US can have in the Middle East is Iran.

Obama is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhoods in Turkey and Egypt and believes Iran should be the US's prime ally in the Middle East not Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

For the record Chaney-Bush and JBG warned me years ago of Obama's true agenda and I poo pooed it. I admit here and now to them I was wrong.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

For the record Chaney-Bush and JBG warned me years ago of Obama's true agenda and I poo pooed it. I admit here and now to them I was wrong.

Obama is a UN stooge. Owned by the elites. I would not be so concerned about Obama's agenda towards Israel so much as his agenda for the US. Destroying it from the inside out.

If he really is a closet Muslim, then maybe that birth certificate thing has validity.

[PIK]

What did Israel get when the gave back the gaza, a new mortar base for thier enemies. Now I am totally against these new buildings, but the other side needs to show that they are willing to work with them instead of the same old kill the jew shit.

[PIK]

Obama is a UN stooge. Owned by the elites. I would not be so concerned about Obama's agenda towards Israel so much as his agenda for the US. Destroying it from the inside out.

If he really is a closet Muslim, then maybe that birth certificate thing has validity.

You might be on to something. Remember that clip when he told the russian prs that after the next election he will have more flexiblity? So he does a deal with Iran, quits on syria, shits on Israel and perfers to buy oil from it's enemies or dirt bag muslim countries, instead of canadian. Now the world sees a scared america ditching it's allies, this is nothing but a invitation for trouble, a weak america.

Edited December 5, 2013 by PIK

[GostHacked]

You might be on to something. Remember that clip when he told the russian prs that after the next election he will have more flexiblity? So he does a deal with Iran, quits on syria, shits on Israel and perfers to buy oil from it's enemies or dirt bag muslim countries, instead of canadian. Now the world sees a scared america ditching it's allies, this is nothing but a invitation for trouble, a weak america.

The thing is now a days that Israel is their own country and can handle their affairs on their own. Netanyahu stated that, Israel does not need to be built, they already are. But the benefit of having the USA in Israel's back pocket means that they can continue to receive new military hardware. In a way I think it's good that Obama is scaling back the support for Israel, as that money given to them (or anyone else) could very well be used wisely in the USA.

And if the birth certificate IS fake, then what does that mean for the legitimacy of Obama as President and everything he has done to this day? And then that brings the question of validity of former and future presidents. How does an illegitimate person get elected to the highest office in the land?

Obama cannot be trusted. And if I was Israel, I would not trust him either.

Edited December 5, 2013 by GostHacked