Herman Cain has announced his candidacy for the nomination

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote:

jmc wrote: I just watched him on Fox News Sunday, sorry but he is another wing nut. He said Israel would support the "right of return" for Palestinians. He had no clue that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish State..His tax proposals were naive at best. Seemed like a nice guy though.

Instead of "Jewish" State you should have said "Religious" State. I am totally in favor of abolishing religious states worldwide. Religious states can never be just or democratic.

So are you for the "right of return " for Palestinians?

If they are granted citizenship, yes. This would mean the end of Israel as a religious state, but it would become a democratic state. Are you against democracy?

If you are worried about a buffer, then that would not be considered as the boundries of '67.
I believe that the U.S. should stay out of the controversy. I do not agree with Cain on this issue.

major bean wrote: If they are granted citizenship, yes. This would mean the end of Israel as a religious state, but it would become a democratic state. Are you against democracy?

Not at all. Just a little taken back that going to the 67 border is offensive but right of return is not throwing an ally "under the bus" Big disconnect.

I do not agree with Cain or Obama on this issue. Obama made the situation much worse by even mentioning the subject. We should mind our own business. The '67 boundry has always been an unspoken bargaining chip that has never been mentioned publicly. By publicly acknowledging this topic, Obama has lessened its power in nonpublic negotiations. Advantage; Palestinians.

major bean wrote: I do not agree with Cain or Obama on this issue. Obama made the situation much worse by even mentioning the subject. We should mind our own business. The '67 boundry has always been an unspoken bargaining chip that has never been mentioned publicly. By publicly acknowledging this topic, Obama has lessened its power in nonpublic negotiations. Advantage; Palestinians.

Does this give you any pause about Cain being Pres? Kind of out of touch?

It is not a deal breaker for me. Every president goes into the office with a naive outlook concerning foreign policy. The CIA quickly pulls them aside and presents their case. This was the case with all recent presidents except Bush. He would not listen, but rather bullied.

Bullsquat! You talk like going back to the '67 boundary is a big secret. Unspoken my ass. Previous presidents have aknowledged this as a starting point before in public and print.

Photo-fish wrote: Bullsquat! You talk like going back to the '67 boundary is a big secret. Unspoken my ass. Previous presidents have aknowledged this as a starting point before in public and print.

Yeah, but they weren't Obama.

Photo-fish wrote: Bullsquat! You talk like going back to the '67 boundary is a big secret. Unspoken my ass. Previous presidents have aknowledged this as a starting point before in public and print.

I have previously searched the internet for the openly suggested policy by past presidents concerning a return to the '67 boundry and found nothing.
Here is a story, which is echoed by other news media stating that Obama is the first president to publicly support this '67 suggestion.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
May 19, 2011|By Tom Cohen, CNN
In the past, the United States has unofficially backed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula.

In a major speech Thursday, Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy, but he also acknowledged the need for modifications through the negotiating process due to conditions on the ground.

the link: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS

Sorry that it is CNN but it is representative of many other articles.

archer wrote: Yeah, but they weren't Obama.

And I was highly motivated to show a CNN article to slap down archer (such an openminded person.) Her statement demonstrates that she is totally ignorant on the subject. But does that stop her? Naw.

Perhaps it is just that Obama says what he means, and past presidents just hint around at the subject. When Bush brought it up it was not considered a big deal.....when Obama brings it up everyone is outraged.

— President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002

Bush slipped in a mention of 1967 in his famous Rose Garden speech that called for the ouster of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. One could argue that the reference to Resolution 242 was a de facto mention of the 1967 lines. At the time, the Arab League was promoting a peace initiative based on the idea of Israel returning to the 1967 boundaries, and this reference was seen as a nod to that concept. But most experts did not view his reference to “1967” as a change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Nice try archer, but "no cigar".