Why did Eric Cantor (R) Pledge Allegiance to Israel over the US?

[MasterKiller]

"I'm with you, not my president," Eric Cantor told Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu [Gallo/Getty]

Soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is desperately trying to explain away the promise he made to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last Wednesday.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/11/20101116121343388841.html

[BJJ-Blue]

So now you're using Al Jazeera as a source to attack people with (R)s next to their name.

[BJJ-Blue]

So why are you upset with what Congressman Cantor did/said? Can you explain why?

[MasterKiller]

Obama bowing to the Japanese PM is a scandal, but Cantor pledging allegiance to the ruler of another nation doesn't phase you?


I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary.Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency

[David Jamieson]

So now you're using Al Jazeera as a source to attack people with (R)s next to their name.

Are you saying that didn't happen because Al Jazeera was the media source?
Are you? Really? Is that what you're implying?
Are you saying that he did not make that statement?
Are you saying that because he has an (R) he is beyond corruptions?

[David Jamieson]

Cantor should have impeachment proceedings leveled at him right away in light of this gross and flagrant treasonous statement.

[BJJ-Blue]

Obama bowing to the Japanese PM is a scandal, but Cantor pledging allegiance to the ruler of another nation doesn't phase you?

Again, please explain why you're upset with Congressman Cantor. I don't see that quote he said as an "allegiance" myself, that's why I want you to explain in more detail why you're upset with the man.

[BJJ-Blue]

Cantor should have impeachment proceedings leveled at him right away in light of this gross and flagrant treasonous statement.

Please explain what he did that's treasonous. Is it just the statement alone?

[MasterKiller]

Again, please explain why you're upset with Congressman Cantor. I don't see that quote he said as an "allegiance" myself, that's why I want you to explain in more detail why you're upset with the man.

Who said I'm upset? I'm just curious why a Republican is telling the leaders of other countries that he will side with them over his own president.

[BJJ-Blue]

Who said I'm upset? I'm just curious why a Republican is telling the leaders of other countries that he will side with them over his own president.

Ok, but are you saying he is wrong to do what he did? Or he is overstepping his bounds? Do you disagree with what Mr Cantor did, and if so, why?

[BJJ-Blue]

"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary.Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency"

I can remember it. I believe it was in 1984.

The pic below must be news to Mr Kampeas:

http://www.venezuelanet.org/John%20Kerry%20y%20Daniel%20Ortega.jpg

[MasterKiller]

Ok, but are you saying he is wrong to do what he did? Or he is overstepping his bounds? Do you disagree with what Mr Cantor did, and if so, why?

"Several leading legal authorities have made the case that recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States.--Eric Cantor (in regards to Nancy Pelosi's 2007 trip to Syria)

[MasterKiller]

Anticipating that the extreme austerity measures which his party is demanding might sweep up foreign aid -- and therefore threaten the billions of dollars every year in American taxpayer money transferred to Israel -- Cantor last month proposed that money to Israel not be classifed any longer as "foreign aid" -- in order to shield it from all cuts.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/11/13/israel

[David Jamieson]

Please explain what he did that's treasonous. Is it just the statement alone? Ok. But MK is saying it for me!


Who said I'm upset? I'm just curious why a Republican is telling the leaders of other countries that he will side with them over his own president. Boom there it is.


"Several leading legal authorities have made the case that recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States.--Eric Cantor (in regards to Nancy Pelosi's 2007 trip to Syria) Boom there it is.


Anticipating that the extreme austerity measures which his party is demanding might sweep up foreign aid -- and therefore threaten the billions of dollars every year in American taxpayer money transferred to Israel -- Cantor last month proposed that money to Israel not be classifed any longer as "foreign aid" -- in order to shield it from all cuts.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/11/13/israel Boom there it is.

[Lucas]

"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary.Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency"

I can remember it. I believe it was in 1984.

The pic below must be news to Mr Kampeas:

http://www.venezuelanet.org/John%20Kerry%20y%20Daniel%20Ortega.jpg

can you explain that pic, i am not familiar. thanks.

[MasterKiller]

can you explain that pic, i am not familiar. thanks.

On April 18, 1985, a few months after taking his Senate seat, Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua and met the country's president, Daniel Ortega. Though Ortega was democratically elected, the trip was criticized because Ortega and his leftist Sandinista government had strong ties to Cuba and the USSR. The Sandinista government was opposed by the right-wing CIA-backed rebels known as the Contras. While in Nicaragua, Kerry and Harkin talked to people on both sides of the conflict. Through the senators, Ortega offered a cease-fire agreement in exchange for the US dropping support of the Contras.

This trip probably indirectly led to the Iran-Contra hearings, which obviously are a burr in any Regan-lover's behind.

[David Jamieson]

can you explain that pic, i am not familiar. thanks.

John Kerry and Ortega.

Ortega led the Sandanistas.


Sandinistas members of a left-wing Nicaraguan political party, the Sandinist National Liberation Front (FSLN). The group, named for Augusto Cesar Sandino , a former insurgent leader, was formed in 1962 to oppose the regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle . In 1979 the Sandinistas launched an offensive from Costa Rica and Honduras that toppled Somoza. They established a junta that nationalized such industries as banking and mining, postponed elections, and moved steadily to the left, eventually espousing Marxist-Leninist positions. The Sandinista-dominated government was opposed by U.S.-supported guerrillas known as contras (see Nicaragua ). In 1984, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega Saavedra won the Nicaraguan presidency in an election that was boycotted by some opposition groups. In 1990 the opposition candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro , defeated Ortega, but Sandinistas continued

Now where did we put that photo of Rumsfeld having a glad hand with Saddam.
Or that video of Cheney talking about how removing Saddam would be a disaster and create a power void in Iraq and that's why they didn't take him out in the early 90's.

[David Jamieson]

1 name of 1 patsy reveals the true value of the Reagan Era.

"Oliver North" who revealed for all the world to see what a pack of gun running drug dealers could do with the American tax payer behind them and by not being transparent about their power games.

Reagan pulled out the "I can't recall" line so many times he revealed himself to be either a liar or a complete idiot. I feel he was both and had no respect for him as POTUS or as an actor. he was terrible at both and until he came around and his lap dog to the north, I honestly cannot recall any homeless people on the streets of my country, but by the Time Reagan and Mulroney were finished raping North America, there were plenty.

two of the most despicable western leaders in modern times.

[BJJ-Blue]

can you explain that pic, i am not familiar. thanks.

That is Senators John Kerry and Tom Harkin, Communist dictator Manuel Ortega, and an unidentified woman.

They went down there to tell the dictator they would do all they could in Congress to thwart President Reagan's foreign policy. Reagan was supporting the rebels who wanted to oust the dictator. 10 Democrat Congressmen also sent Ortega a "Dear Comandante" letter telling him pretty much the same thing.

Ortega told Harkin and Kerry he would grant them concessions in return for a vote killing aid to the rebels and that he was not a Marxist and a USSR puppet. Less than a week after Congress killed the aid bill, Ortega flew to Moscow and announced the USSR was giving Nicaragua a $200 million foreign aid package. The only funny part was watching Kerry, Harkin, et al trying to wipe the egg off their faces after Ortega publicly duped them. Congress reversed itself shortly after that and did give the rebels the aid.

[BJJ-Blue]

Reagan pulled out the "I can't recall" line so many times he revealed himself to be either a liar or a complete idiot.

Hillary and Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" alot more than Reagan did. So what does that make them in your book? ;)


...I honestly cannot recall any homeless people on the streets of my country, but by the Time Reagan and Mulroney were finished raping North America, there were plenty.

LMFAO!!!

Time to dust off the "Reagan created homelessness" card from the Democrat playbook!

[Reality_Check]

Ok, but are you saying he is wrong to do what he did? Or he is overstepping his bounds? Do you disagree with what Mr Cantor did, and if so, why?

Gee, I seem to recall a certain poster saying that members of Congress meeting with foreign heads of state despite the wishes of the President was in some way wrong. Now who was that?

Oh yeah...

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=904947&postcount=1120


And you have to consider the circumstances. During Iran-Contra, Democrats in Congress, John Kerry and Tom Harkin, told in person the dictator of Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) that they would fight Reagan to see that Ortega retained his dictatorial powers.

Show me where in The Constitution it says that members of Congress are responsible for directly dealing with foreign heads of state, despite the wishes of the President....

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=905085&postcount=1161


I just find it hard to believe our system of government would have it set that not only is it the President's right to have face-to-face individual policy discusions with foreign heads of state, but all 435 House members and all 100 Senators could as well. It just doesn't make sense.

I guess it's okay when a Republican does it.

[Syn7]

Gee, I seem to recall a certain poster saying that members of Congress meeting with foreign heads of state despite the wishes of the President was in some way wrong. Now who was that?

Oh yeah...

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=904947&postcount=1120



http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=905085&postcount=1161



I guess it's okay when a Republican does it.




whooops......:eek: surely you dont go after somebody just because they have a (D) beside their name???:o

[Drake]

Declaring loyalty to another nation while in such a position is treason, regardless of what letter is in parentheses next to their name. I'd say hang the guy. Publicly.

You serve the United States. Not Israel. Treason.

edit: Me spell bad.

[Syn7]

Declaring loyalty to another nation while in such a position is treason, regardless of what letter is in paranthese next to their name. I'd say hang the guy. Publicly.

You serve the United States. Not Israel. Treason.

agreed...


"pass me a rope, lucky"

[Syn7]

hey since yall talkin bout mccain, whats up with the whole snookie twitter thing??? why is this waste of skin and john mccain actually speaking like friends?

[Drake]

I don't have any problems with Sen. McCain.

[David Jamieson]

Hillary and Bill Clinton said "I don't recall" alot more than Reagan did. So what does that make them in your book? ;) idiots. but in context to the subject at hand, Bill and Hillary weren't dealing drugs and selling guns undercover to destabilize other sovereign nations. Like Reagand did you know.




LMFAO!!!
yep, that's what a lot of people do when they are in an uncomfortable position and they realize their heroes were actually villains.



Time to dust off the "Reagan created homelessness" card from the Democrat playbook! All I'm saying is that before Reagan and Mulroney, there wasn't homelessness since the depression and even then!

here's some reading if you got the guts.
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3103173

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0610-03.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/11/reagan_and_the_homeless_epidemic_in


Why is Reagan blamed you wonder?

Well mommy...

...the single most devastating thing Reagan did to create homelessness was when he cut the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by three-quarters, from $32 billion in 1981 to $7.5 billion by 1988. The department was the main governmental supporter of subsidized housing for the poor. Add this to Reagan’s overhaul of tax codes to reduce incentives for private developers to create low-income homes and you had a major crisis for low-income families and individuals. Under Reagan, the number of people living beneath the federal poverty line rose from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988.

And that's the facts Jack!
In my opinion he was possibly the worst president next to W as far as callous disregard for his fellow Americans. they were only Reagan's fellow Americans when it suited him.

[Reality_Check]

"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary.Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency"

I can remember it. I believe it was in 1984.

The pic below must be news to Mr Kampeas:

http://www.venezuelanet.org/John%20Kerry%20y%20Daniel%20Ortega.jpg

Oh, and evidently you do use the "but others do it too" type of argument. Notwithstanding your claims to the contrary.


Instead of just saying she was wrong, you used the "but others do it too" argument. I stopped using that by the time I was a teenager.

[BJJ-Blue]

The Al Jazeera article the OP mentioned stated Cantor was there with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, was he meeting Netanyahu in a covert way, or was he there in an official capacity?

When Harkin, Kerry, et al met with Ortega it was not in ANY official capacity. The letter they wrote the 'Dear Comandante' was not done through government channels. There is a big difference, but I'm sure all the liberlas here cant/wont see it and will just say I have a double standard.

But the only relevant question imo is was Cantor there in an official capacity, or was he doing it behind the country's back? To me, that's the million dollar question.

[BJJ-Blue]

All I'm saying is that before Reagan and Mulroney, there wasn't homelessness since the depression and even then!

Are you actually saying there was NO homelessness before the Reagan and Mulroney? Is this your assertion? :rolleyes:

FYI, you do know this year we set a record for the number of Americans on food stamps, right? And yes, that includes the Reagan, GHW Bush, and the GW Bush years.

[BJJ-Blue]

Declaring loyalty to another nation while in such a position is treason, regardless of what letter is in parentheses next to their name. I'd say hang the guy. Publicly.

Which is not what Congressman Cantor did. Obviously Cantor and Netanyahu are politically alot more in line with each other than with Obama. And what I got from the quote was that Cantor was telling Netanyahu that.

[MasterKiller]

Which is not what Congressman Cantor did. Obviously Cantor and Netanyahu are politically alot more in line with each other than with Obama. And what I got from the quote was that Cantor was telling Netanyahu that.

"It has long been the established principle of this country that the president of the United States leads our foreign policy," said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "And if you don't like the president, then you change him. But you don't have the two parties each conducting foreign policy in the way they think it ought to be conducted."

[Reality_Check]

The Al Jazeera article the OP mentioned stated Cantor was there with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, was he meeting Netanyahu in a covert way, or was he there in an official capacity?

When Harkin, Kerry, et al met with Ortega it was not in ANY official capacity. The letter they wrote the 'Dear Comandante' was not done through government channels. There is a big difference, but I'm sure all the liberlas here cant/wont see it and will just say I have a double standard.

But the only relevant question imo is was Cantor there in an official capacity, or was he doing it behind the country's back? To me, that's the million dollar question.

And yet you objected to Speaker of the House Jim Wright sending a letter, in his official capacity, to Daniel Ortega.


But yet it's ok for John Kerry and Speaker Wright to do it during Reagan's term? :confused:


Here is a full text of the letter 10 Democrats, including the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, sent to the communist dictator Daniel Ortega:

Office of the Majority Leader
Washington, D.C., 20313

March 20, 1984

Comandante Daniel Ortega

Coordinador de la Junta de Gobierno Casa de Gobierno

Managua, Nicaragua

Dear Comandante:

We address this letter to you in a spirit of hopefulness and good will.

As Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, we regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua.

We want to commend you and the members of your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country. The Nicaraguan people have not had the opportunity to participate in a genuinely free election for over 50 years. We support your decision to schedule elections this year, to reduce press censorship, and to allow greater freedom of assembly for political parties. Finally, we recognize that you have taken these steps in the midst of ongoing military hostilities on the borders of Nicaragua.

We write with the hope that the initial steps you have taken will be followed by others designed to guarantee a fully open and democratic electoral process. We note that some who have become exiles from Nicaragua have expressed a willingness to return to participate in the elections, if assurances are provided that their security will be protected, and their political rights recognized. Among these exiles are some who have taken up arms against your government, and who have stated their willingness to lay down those arms to participate in a truly democratic process.

If this were to occur, the prospects for peace and stability throughout Central America would be dramatically enhanced. Those responsible for supporting violence against your government, and for obstructing serious negotiations for broad political participation in El Salvador would have far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.

We believe that you have it in your power to establish an example for Central America that can be of enormous historical importance. For this to occur, you have only to lend real force and meaning to concepts your leadership has already endorsed concerning the rules by which political parties may compete openly and equitably for political power.

A decision on your part to provide these reasonable assurances and conduct truly free and open elections would significantly improve the prospect of better relations between our two countries and significantly strengthen the hands of those in our country who desire better relations based upon true equality, self-determination and mutual good will.

We reaffirm to you our continuing respect and friendship for the Nicaraguan people, and pledge our willingness to discuss these or other matters of concern with you or officials of your government at any time. Very sincerely yours,

Jim Wright
Michael D. Barnes
Bill Alexander
Matthew F. McHugh
Robert G. Torricelli
Edward P. Boland
Stephen J. Solarz
David R. Obey
Robert Garcia
Lee H. Hamilton

Source:The Wall Street Journal, April 17th, 1984

So, why was it okay (in your mind) for the House Minority Whip to do something similar to what you found so problematic when done by the Speaker of the House?

[solo1]

Cantor didnt say anything that millions havent said to themselves. Israel is our best ally in the region and the annointed idiot couldnt turn his back on them fast enough. Obama is a sniveling, miserable coward of a man, a disgrace to his country and the office he and his Muslim bretheren bought. He , as the head of the most powerful country on earth, bows to middle eastern despots and tyrants because he knows even tryants that stone its citizens, mutilate the genitals of girls, engage in a religion that mandates the killing of infidels, call for the destruction of thier neighbors and wage war on the west are STILL better men then he will ever be. Cantor was correct, he stands with Israel and not with Obama and his anti Israel policies.

[BJJ-Blue]

Cantor didnt say anything that millions havent said to themselves. Israel is our best ally in the region and the annointed idiot couldnt turn his back on them fast enough. Obama is a sniveling, miserable coward of a man, a disgrace to his country and the office he and his Muslim bretheren bought. He , as the head of the most powerful country on earth, bows to middle eastern despots and tyrants because he knows even tryants that stone its citizens, mutilate the genitals of girls, engage in a religion that mandates the killing of infidels, call for the destruction of thier neighbors and wage war on the west are STILL better men then he will ever be. Cantor was correct, he stands with Israel and not with Obama and his anti Israel policies.

Very well said.

I honestly have never understood why American liberals always choose the Muslims over Israel. Israel isn't the country beheading journalists, or stoning rape victims to death, or paying the families of suicide bombers, or forcing women to wear burquas and to be subservient to men. Israel has free elections, while the Arab states the liberals support do not. I don't like to level accusations without proof, but what could it be other than anti-Semitism to not support the Israelis?

[BJJ-Blue]

And yet you objected to Speaker of the House Jim Wright sending a letter, in his official capacity, to Daniel Ortega.

So, why was it okay (in your mind) for the House Minority Whip to do something similar to what you found so problematic when done by the Speaker of the House?

As I said earlier, and what you won't address, is that Congressman Cantor was at the meeting with the US Secretary of State. Wright, Kerry, Harkin, etc were not.

[MasterKiller]

I don't like to level accusations without proof, but what could it be other than anti-Semitism to not support the Israelis?
Here we go...everyone who disapproves of Israeli settlement expansion is racist. :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

As I said earlier, and what you won't address, is that Congressman Cantor was at the meeting with the US Secretary of State. Wright, Kerry, Harkin, etc were not.

Um, it was a private meeting before Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Clinton.

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/11/11/2741711/candid-cantor


I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1110/Before_Clinton_meeting_Cantors_oneonone_with_Bibi_ .html?showall


Before Clinton meeting, Cantor's one-on-one with Bibi

Last night, Netanyahu met in New York for over an hour with incoming House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is set to become the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in history. The meeting took place at New York’s Regency Hotel, and included no other American lawmakers besides Cantor. Also attending on the Israeli side were Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, and Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Uzi Arad.

[BJJ-Blue]

Here we go...everyone who disapproves of Israeli settlement expansion is racist. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. But I'll discuss land area then.

So it's over land. Let's look at the land over there:

Israel - 8,522 square miles

Syria - 71,500 square miles
Lebanon - 4,036 square miles
Jordan - 34,495 square miles
Egypt - 387,000 square miles

So Israel has a total of 8,522 sq miles, while the Arab states bordering her have a total of 497,031 sq miles. How much land do YOU say Israel must give up to make it fair?

[Reality_Check]

I didn't say that.

Nevertheless, you did play the racism card.


I don't like to level accusations without proof, but what could it be other than anti-Semitism to not support the Israelis?

[MasterKiller]

So Israel has a total of 8,522 sq miles, while the Arab states bordering her have a total of 497,031 sq miles. How much land do YOU say Israel must give up to make it fair?

A good place to start would be to quit annexing land illegally by building walls around it "for security puposes" and to return land they illegally seized in 1967.

[BJJ-Blue]

Nevertheless, you did play the racism card.

No, I didn't. I asked what else it could be besides anti-Semitism. I'm honestly stumpted as to why anyone could support coutries who do not have elections, who stone rape victims, who force women to be subservient to men, etc over a country with free elections who is a US ally. So I asked the question.

Prove me wrong then, explain why YOU choose to support the Arab states over Israel. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

A good place to start would be to quit annexing land illegally by building walls around it "for security puposes" and to return land they illegally seized in 1967.

Maybe if tha Arabs stopped lobbing rockets a them and sending suicide bombers over there, security wouldn't be an issue for Israel.

So answer the question, how much land do YOU say Israel should give up to make it fair.

Oh, the land was not illegally seized. It was won in a just war. And you neglected to post the massive amount of land they gave back, namely the Sinai Peninsula.

[MasterKiller]

Oh, the land was not illegally seized. It was won in a just war.
Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49(6): “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”


And you neglected to post the massive amount of land they gave back, namely the Sinai Peninsula. But that's not all of it, now is it?

[BJJ-Blue]

Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49(6): “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”

I'm no expert on this, but they didn't "occupy" it, they won it in war and a treaty or ceasefire was signed giving it to them.


But that's not all of it, now is it?

It sure isn't. But it's more than they had to give back. IMO, they should have kept every bit of it.

I'm still waiting on that answer. How much land do you say Israel must give up to make it fair?

[Reality_Check]

I'm still waiting on that answer. How much land do you say Israel must give up to make it fair?

And I'm still waiting to find out why you consider Eric Cantor's actions to be acceptable, but what Jim Wright did was wrong, considering that Eric Cantor said what he did in a private meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu not in the meeting with Secretary Clinton as you stated.

[Drake]

I'm no expert on this, but they didn't "occupy" it, they won it in war and a treaty or ceasefire was signed giving it to them.



It sure isn't. But it's more than they had to give back. IMO, they should have kept every bit of it.

I'm still waiting on that answer. How much land do you say Israel must give up to make it fair?

Urgh...

YOU DON'T WIN LAND IN WAR.

IDIOT.

:mad: