• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'

You've obviously missed a big passage here:

Apocalypse said:
The freezing means that no new constructions would be approved.
This construction has received its approval long ago, during Olmert's time.

Are you trying to contradict me or yourself here?
 
Are you trying to contradict me or yourself here?
Olmert's decision came a long time before the freezing decision.
The renewed approval, as pointed out by your article, is an exemption due to the fact that the constructions were paused due to a funds problem, hence a renewed approval was necessary even though the construction was already approved.

One way or the other, you're arguing about one single case here that was made an exemption.
You have got absolutely nothing to say on the rest of the buildings that were all frozen.
 
Olmert's decision came a long time before the freezing decision.
The renewed approval, as pointed out by your article, is an exemption due to the fact that the constructions were paused due to a funds problem, hence a renewed approval was necessary even though the construction was already approved.

One way or the other, you're arguing about one single case here that was made an exemption.
You have got absolutely nothing to say on the rest of the buildings that were all frozen.

Actually the article says the construction was paused due to “infrastructure problems and safety issues", not funds.

And it is not a renewed approval. The construction was granted a permit under the Olmert government, but it was never approved under the Olmert government.

One single case is all I need to show that Israel cannot abide by its own promises.
 
Actually the article says the construction was paused due to “infrastructure problems and safety issues", not funds.

And it is not a renewed approval. The construction was granted a permit under the Olmert government, but it was never approved under the Olmert government.

One single case is all I need to show that Israel cannot abide by its own promises.
Israel itself has made it known that this is an exemption.

In the same article we have the same minister (Barak) stating that he would not make an exemption for the Gaza Withdrawal's Gush Katif Expellees.

An exemption like that of 112 apartments is really nothing when compared to all of the buildings that were frozen, you're simply looking for an excuse.
 
That clearly says nothing

Whatever.

If Israel has any interests in peace then she would need to understand concessions are needed. She may say it is not occupied but the UN does not.

Concessions WERE made and the PLO rejected them.

I notice you are Christian and extreme. Someone gave me a link to a Christian party once which fully supported Israel but only because they were going to get something out of this. They also had some murkey anti Jew stuff going on.

Yes, I am Christian, but what about supporting democracy and Israel's security makes me extreme?
 
Whatever.



Concessions WERE made and the PLO rejected them.



Yes, I am Christian, but what about supporting democracy and Israel's security makes me extreme?

You should be siding with the people who cheered 9.11. Didn't you know that?
 
Obama is an asshole.
 
Why am I not surprised to learn that Barack Obama is snubbing Netanyahu? Like all Muslims and Islamic sympathizers, they don't like Israel.


He will like Israel again in January of 2012.
 
Concessions WERE made and the PLO rejected them.

Right so Obama and the world should be clear, peace is not on offer. :doh

Yes, I am Christian, but what about supporting democracy and Israel's security makes me extreme?

I have no interest in your views on democracy. Possibly on your reasons for supporting Israel as you showed yourself to be an extreme Christian here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...building-east-jerusalem-7.html#post1058645368

You carry on to discuss the Crusades with Degreez. As I said someone did tell me some time ago about some Christians who were on the side of Israel but not because they were interested in the well being of the current people.

Your harping on about the Crusades made me feel you are somewhat extremist and wondered whether that was the reason and that was what I asked you.

At the same time your interest in supporting Israel may simply be because you hate all Muslims because of the Crusades and you feel supporting Israel is one of the easiest ways to get at them.

I do not know but that was the area where I was suggesting you were extreme.
 
Right so Obama and the world should be clear, peace is not on offer. :doh

Are you incapable of understanding peace is a two way street? If the PLO does nothing but reject you can't have peace.

Unless you just hate Israel and the jooz and don't care.
 
Are you incapable of understanding peace is a two way street? If the PLO does nothing but reject you can't have peace.

Unless you just hate Israel and the jooz and don't care.



I won't respond to you again. If
Concessions WERE made and the PLO rejected them.

is a response to the idea of peace talks then my answer
Right so Obama and the world should be clear, peace is not on offer.

is completely appropriately.

Now please go back to whoever is looking after you and ask them to teach you some manners.

As I said, no more abusive replies from you will be replied to.
 
I won't respond to you again. If

is a response to the idea of peace talks then my answer


is completely appropriately.

Now please go back to whoever is looking after you and ask them to teach you some manners.

As I said, no more abusive replies from you will be replied to.

I don't think he was being abusive, he was only challenging your viewpoint.
 
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner' - Times Online

What a bumbling fool. Insulting one of our closest allies with such idiocy is really unbelievable.

But considering the moronic capitulation to Russia and turning our back on Poland with absolutely no diplomatic gain this kind of adolescent diplomacy really isn't surprising anymore.

Thank you President Obama for once again showing that experience actually does matter. :roll:

It is prolly just for show to play down our and their actual ties. Notice how America still puts its chips in on Israel's side when it comes to the UN.
 
I won't respond to you again. If

is a response to the idea of peace talks then my answer


is completely appropriately.

No its not. It doesn't explain why you are accusing Israel of not seeking peace while giving the PLO a free pass on rejected the offers made.

Now please go back to whoever is looking after you and ask them to teach you some manners.

As I said, no more abusive replies from you will be replied to.

You really need to grow a pair if you think ignorant comments on the Israeli Palestinian peace talks are going to be treated with kid gloves.

The victim forum is down the street on the left. (literally)
 
It is prolly just for show to play down our and their actual ties. Notice how America still puts its chips in on Israel's side when it comes to the UN.

Not with this administration.
 
Right so Obama and the world should be clear, peace is not on offer. :doh

Peace is not on offer due to the actions and rejections of the PALESTINIANS, not the Israelis.


I have no interest in your views on democracy. Possibly on your reasons for supporting Israel as you showed yourself to be an extreme Christian here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...building-east-jerusalem-7.html#post1058645368

You carry on to discuss the Crusades with Degreez. As I said someone did tell me some time ago about some Christians who were on the side of Israel but not because they were interested in the well being of the current people.

Your harping on about the Crusades made me feel you are somewhat extremist and wondered whether that was the reason and that was what I asked you.

So, an HONEST apprasial about history somehow makes me an EXTREMIST? Pointing out the truth of THIRTEEN CENTURIES of Islamic aggression against Christianity makes me an EXTREMIST? How many formerly Christian lands have been conquered by Muslims? How long have Christians had to right to get their lands back .. INCLUDING AS RECENTLY AS THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?!?!? How is looking at the TRUTHS of history make one an extremist?!?! Or are you simply trying to turn a blind eye to the truth of the matter.

At the same time your interest in supporting Israel may simply be because you hate all Muslims because of the Crusades and you feel supporting Israel is one of the easiest ways to get at them.

I do not know but that was the area where I was suggesting you were extreme.

I don't hate Muslims because of the Crusades. Islamic aggression PREDATES the Crusades and has NEVER STOPPED. Honesty about the situation does NOT make one an extremist. I merely don't want the Christian world to have to put up with Islamic aggression anymore.
 
You should be siding with the people who cheered 9.11. Didn't you know that?

Ive always found it curious to hear the suggestion that the fact that many of these people cheered 9/11 should have any bearing on whether or not someone speaks out when their rights are violated. Since when did human rights become conditional? classing entire nationalities as 'evil' and somehow exempt from the UNHR kind of runs contrary to the values that western civilization claims to stand for IMHO. And of course once you begin talk of whether 'those people' are inherently evil and deserve to be punished as such as a group then you are quickly entering Hamas territory.
 
Last edited:
you don't piss off aipac without paying, without pain

337 House members sign letter criticizing Obama?s Israel policy | San Francisco Examiner

obtuse obama has NO foreign policy

the world is spinning apart, korea's sinking ships on the parallel, the cartels are killing embassy employees and terrorizing entire barrios like ciudad juarez

the leaders of iran are nuking and spitting in his face and STILL WAITING for that much bruited meeting, sans preconditions

american casualties in afghanistan are four times what they were under bush, and the enemy we seek aren't even there, they're in pakistan

china---trade, currency, climate, taiwan, tibet, SANCTIONS, kim...

our dependence on the people's republic to prop up our debt

once the reachout shipwrecked the keystone klutz has NO clue

he is answerless

all that's left is his ESCALATION of OBAMA'S WAR

pathetic
 
Last edited:
Thank you. Our nation has sacrificed more persons to protect others nations. Euro hates us, Israel uses us. We have our own crap to fix at home.
Great Brittan is the only nation I think we should help.

I was just making the point that N.A.T.O is defending us against imaginary potential invaders.
 
Peace is not on offer due to the actions and rejections of the PALESTINIANS, not the Israelis.

Oh is it you and the Christian Crusaders now who are going to choose whether peace is on offer. It remains from your viewpoint, a Christian one, that for whatever reason Obama and the world needs to know that your brand of Christianity does not want peace in the middle east and it would appear will support anything Israel does against this.

So, an HONEST apprasial about history somehow makes me an EXTREMIST? Pointing out the truth of THIRTEEN CENTURIES of Islamic aggression against Christianity makes me an EXTREMIST? How many formerly Christian lands have been conquered by Muslims? How long have Christians had to right to get their lands back .. INCLUDING AS RECENTLY AS THE TWENTIETH CENTURY?!?!? How is looking at the TRUTHS of history make one an extremist?!?! Or are you simply trying to turn a blind eye to the truth of the matter.

Of course it makes you an extremist. We have none of your sort here in the UK. However I saw some documentary's on the Crusades some time back and there is evidence that your forbears who were on them were eating children. They had them up on spits and roasted them...so do not try to tell me there is anything superior to you than to Muslims. There is no evidence that Muslims did this to Christian children.

You are also extreme in that not all Christians like yourself, like to spread hate.


I don't hate Muslims because of the Crusades. Islamic aggression PREDATES the Crusades and has NEVER STOPPED. Honesty about the situation does NOT make one an extremist. I merely don't want the Christian world to have to put up with Islamic aggression anymore.


right and that 'Christian' world would be Israel. You do not want Israel to have to put up with Muslims because you would like it once again for Christians.
 
Oh is it you and the Christian Crusaders now who are going to choose whether peace is on offer. It remains from your viewpoint, a Christian one, that for whatever reason Obama and the world needs to know that your brand of Christianity does not want peace in the middle east and it would appear will support anything Israel does against this.

Peace was on offer and the Palestinians rejected it. It is still there IF and ONLY IF the Palestinians really want peace at the table. It isn't up to me, it is up to the Palestinians. To date, they have not shown up at the peace table.

Of course it makes you an extremist. We have none of your sort here in the UK. However I saw some documentary's on the Crusades some time back and there is evidence that your forbears who were on them were eating children. They had them up on spits and roasted them...so do not try to tell me there is anything superior to you than to Muslims. There is no evidence that Muslims did this to Christian children.

So, being historicall honest and saying that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to centuries of Islamic aggression (historical fact) and that Islamic jihad agaisnt Christians started in the 7th century (historical fact) and that Islam's war against Christians did NOT end with the Crusades but continued for centuries more (historical fact) makes me an EXTREMIST?!?!? Sorry, YOU are the one with the problem here, not me. You need to look at history and remember that were it not for heros at places like Tours and Vienna, the Western world could very well be a lot more Muslim today than it is due to Islamic aggression against the Christian world.

You are also extreme in that not all Christians like yourself, like to spread hate.

I don't like to spread hate. I like to spread truth.


right and that 'Christian' world would be Israel. You do not want Israel to have to put up with Muslims because you would like it once again for Christians.

At least under the government of the State of Israel, Christians have access to the holy sites and are a darn bit more friendly to Christians than Muslims in that area are.
 
So, being historicall honest and saying that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to centuries of Islamic aggression (historical fact) and that Islamic jihad agaisnt Christians started in the 7th century (historical fact) and that Islam's war against Christians did NOT end with the Crusades but continued for centuries more (historical fact) makes me an EXTREMIST?!?!? Sorry, YOU are the one with the problem here, not me. You need to look at history and remember that were it not for heros at places like Tours and Vienna, the Western world could very well be a lot more Muslim today than it is due to Islamic aggression against the Christian world.

What you call aggression, others call liberation. The administration of the Holy Lands was not an oppressive one, as it was under Byzantine rule. Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem after five hundred years. Nestorian and Jacobite Christians were no longer persecuted by the Roman Empire. No doubt you will probably state that they were still oppressed because they had to pay the jizya (poll tax). The poll tax was only for non-Muslims and made them exempt from military service. Muslims already pay the zakat, an obligation not forced on non-Muslims.

And it's funny you call it 'Christian lands' while spouting about 'historical fact'. Here's a fact, before Muslims invaded the Levant, Persians had been in control of the region for over twenty years.
 
What you call aggression, others call liberation. The administration of the Holy Lands was not an oppressive one, as it was under Byzantine rule. Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem after five hundred years. Nestorian and Jacobite Christians were no longer persecuted by the Roman Empire. No doubt you will probably state that they were still oppressed because they had to pay the jizya (poll tax). The poll tax was only for non-Muslims and made them exempt from military service. Muslims already pay the zakat, an obligation not forced on non-Muslims.

And the entire religious character of the region was changed. What was predominately Christian became Muslim, partly through forced conversion and colonization. Furthermore, the aggression continued. They invaded Catholic Spain and even France. They attacked Aksum, They moved on Constantinople and eventually took that. They took nearly all of southeastern Europe before they were FINALLY pushed back. You don't call that aggression?!?!? What DO you call it?

And it's funny you call it 'Christian lands' while spouting about 'historical fact'. Here's a fact, before Muslims invaded the Levant, Persians had been in control of the region for over twenty years.

There was a war between the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Empire. However, that war ended BEFORE the Arab invasion and those territories were restored to the Roman Empire after the Battle of Nineveh and the subsequent peace treaty in 628.
 
Back
Top Bottom