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.)

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?)

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.

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. '

AMEN! 

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

Peace!

No problem. Always glad to hear from you.

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

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.

dp

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.

YUK!

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.

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.