could also just mean 

We can throw out the time definition (that just makes no sense what so ever).  Which leaves the touching or close to.  Which then begs the question.  If he meant close to - why not say that?  Why use the word contiguous - which in geography is generally accepted to mean touching. One does not talk about the 49 contiguous states - only the 48 contiguous states or the 49 continental states.

Or in Obama's case - the 57 states.

I think I have to agree there is an underlying message in that speech or is just plain double talk. When responding to Israel it could mean time and when responding to Arabs it means touching. The perfect word 

LOL, could mean "I just a dumb hick that cant read a teleprompter" but I am pretty sure Obamas words are very carefully chosen for him and approved by many others.

That was one of the rare occasions when he was off Teleprompter.  Now, he even takes them into elementary class rooms when reading "Dick and Jane" to first graders.

I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out what Obama means as opposed to what he says ... so whatever he may be implying with the use of "Contiguous" ... it is just more imponderable Obama doing what he does best, read and orate.

They can also tell you what year it is - Mr. Teleprompter does not work when signing guest books either.

pass by^^

myfist0,

The map you posted is a lie.

Jerusalem was a Jewish-majority city already in the 1800s and the JNF alone owned much more land in 1946 that is marked as "Jewish land" in your map.

Also note that those maps tend to count all public land (i.e. land neither owned by Jews or Arabs) as "Palestinian" and hence Arab land. (The term "Palestinian" is also problematic, because before the 1960s, "Palestinians" included Jews.)

Plus your map does not include eastern Palestine ("Jordan") and does not show any Jewish land in the territory later controlled by Jordan. But the JNF bought land all over Palestine, not just at the coast.

You can find photographs of old blue boxes (used by the JNF to collect money) that show how much land the JNF had already bought. A 1946 blue box will show much more land as JNF-owned than your map as Jewish-owned. And to that you would have to add land owned by individual Jews, owned by other Jewish settler groups, and the lands owned by the Rothschild family's settlement project. But the people who made your maps don't care about history or land ownership, they care only about repeating lies about Jews.

You will also find that land sales to Jews in the past are now referred to as "being expropriated by the JNF" (as if the JNF had such power under British rule which supported Jordan's king) and are now illegal under penalty of death.

Land owned by Jews in the rest of the Middle-East was incidentally really expropriated by Arab governments and the Jewish owners fled or were expelled. They live in Israel now.

I assume they used 1946 for the map because that was the year Transjordan Palestine was granted independence (under Hashemite rule, not Arab Palestinian rule). That way they can claim that they showed a map of "all Palestine" without having to show to 70% of the land simply given to the Arabs without regard to landownership or nationality of residents (the Jews of Transjordan Palestine fled west).

The "Palestinian Case" (look up "Hajj Amin al Husseini" to learn about its first leader, Yasser Arafat's uncle) must have better arguments than fake maps, dubious choices of dates, and obvious racism in claiming public lands as naturally Arab land.

If they want contiguous states in the Middle-East, they could simply return Gaza to Egypt (the British drew the border quite artifically through the city of Rafah) and let Transjordan (Jordan) annex Arab regions in Cisjordan (Israel).

I don't see why anybody needs a 22nd Arab state before the Kurds, Aramaeans, Nilotes, Assyrians and Berbers have their own states.

That's also because the map is fake. Between 1949 and 1967 Gaza and the West-Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan (and were Jew-free). None of the land was then controlled by Palestinian Arabs at all.

Egypt under Sadat and Nassar did not want it.  Now?  I am sure the Muslim Brotherhood can see a use for it.

Who cares what anybody wants?

Here are a few things Palestinians want that their "friends" in the "international community" don't care about:

1. A majority of Arabs in Jerusalem want Jerusalem to remain part of Israel. And a majority of that group has said they would even move away from East-Jerusalem to remain in Israel if East-Jerusalem should be given to "Palestine".

2. Palestinians in Jordan want full citizenship rights. Instead Jordan, a part of Palestine, is ruled by Bedouins and a king imported from Arabia.

3. Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon want civil rights.

Culturally and linguistically the Gaza strip is part of the northern Sinai, not the hills of Judaea and Samaria or the Jordan valley.

I thought the whole purpose of this exercise (Obama's pronouncement) was all about what EVERYONE wanted.

myfist0 - the first give away on the absurdity of the piece was the presenter.

I am only surprised they did not give Rather the "Accuracy in Reporting" award for the national guard hit piece.

Sorry for going off topic but it irks me when things are taken out of context. Last post on this subject.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB3BE5whlmI

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WK9Xzhilw&feature=related

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9xpWNSzKec&feature=related

Why does Mike keep needing to inject what President Ahmadinejad says when Ahmadinejad is sitting right there?

C-SPAN programming VP Terry Murphy says “we agreed with CBS News that airing this interview in its entirety is very much in the public interest and fits with C-SPAN’s style of airing events as they happened and without commercials. This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air.”

20,975 videos on the C-SPAN archives, where is this unedited version? It is gone. Every Youtuber that has tried to post it under "Fair Use" has had it removed.

Why does 60 minutes allow the edited version on YouTube? Look at the dates on the YouTube links I gave, Nov 2007. 

It's typical to attack any information supplied that's not from the MSM but that video CLEARLY SHOWS how the MSM edits videos to support the position of the Government. This is not news, it is indoctrination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5MEyeqYEBk Daily show segment posted by a YouTuber

Sorry about the map. If you can post a link to a more accurate map of the Israeli timeline I will be happy to amend my post.  IMO calling people racists for showing information you don't agree with just hurts your position. I am a Canadian with no position on either side other than peace.

I didn't call anyone a racist for showing information I don't agree with. I said it is racism to treat Jews and Arabs differently by assuming that Arabs have priority over land that is owned by neither Arab nor Jew. That would still be racism even if I agreed with it.

Whether you are a Canadian or not makes no difference to me. But you are hardly neutral when you decide to post fake maps. You should have noticed that the source of the map was a pro-Palestinian side. A simple fact check would have shown you that the JNF had already owned more land than is shown on the map as "Jewish" in 1946. And you should have known, because it's the same in Canada and every state in the word, that not all land is privately owned and that hence any map showing land ownership would contain large areas of publicly owned land or land owned by no-one or the state.

I myself am most decidedly not neutral and nor do I claim to be. But I also don't post fake information to convince people that I am right. I also think it's impossible to both report the facts and be neutral. One is either pro-truth or pro-lie, but not "neutral" between the two.

Did you never wonder why a map allegedly showing 1946 differentiates between "Jewish" and "Palestinian" at a time when the only "Palestine" that existed was a British territory in which both Jews and Arabs lived? Did you not wonder why the map showed large amounts of land as "Palestinian land" between 1949 and 1967 when no "Palestine" existed at all?

And worst of all, did you not wonder why Jerusalem is marked consistently as "Palestinian land" despite the fact that it was a majority Jewish city and was assigned as an international zone (together with Bethlehem) in the partition plan?

What on earth compels an allegedly neutral observer to learn about history from an Arab propaganda site? Is it so difficult to use Wikipedia instead? Do you really know so little about history and the basic makeup of land ownership that you actually believed a map that ignores a large Jewish population and knows no public lands?

So, yes, I am upset. Because those maps you posted are part of the antisemitic campaign to deny Jews property rights, to deny Jewish history and to steal Jewish-owned land in the name of "neutrality".

Heck, 4000 square miles of mostly uninhabited desert is claimed as "Palestinian land" by the map. What exactly makes uninhabited land "Palestinian"? Maybe such land is "Jewish"? Who knows?

All that yammering and no link to a "proper" map. 

I will admit all I did was use google images to find what I was looking for so ya I guess using google makes ma an anti-semite. ROFL 

 POSTED 2007 Wikapedia and still does not show me a time line.

Please discus any changes to the maps you are trying to edit on the talk page. Simply uploading map with false information is unacceptable --Justass (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Also the uploader has been BLOCKED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bambuway

Thanks for telling me to check the sources, maybe you should do the same. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).png

HERE IS YOUR WIKIPEDIA MAP. This is 4 years old now. Wonder what would look like now.

Israeli-occupied territories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories

The establishment of Israeli settlements are held to constitute a transfer of Israel's civilian population into the occupied territories and as such are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.^[75][76][77]

In 2000, the editors of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1998–1999) said "the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory" amounts to a war crime. This is obviously applicable to Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Arab Territories."^[78]

In 2004 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory, non-binding^[79] opinion—noted that the Security Council had described Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court also concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law and that all the States parties to the Geneva Convention are under an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law as embodied in the Convention.^[71]

Israel denies that the Israeli settlements are in breach of any international laws.^[80] The Israeli Supreme Court has yet to rule decisively on settlement legality under the Geneva Convention.^[81]

 oohhhh my. did Wikipedia in which you pointed to me to check just use the term WAR CRIMES? Ouch.

All I wanted to do was show an example of "contiguous" but thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia. Lots of great info.

YouTube knows 

Probably not 100% accurate but it makes a good point.

Well, there are always two sides ... and then there is humor, hehehe. Plenty of fault for everyone here ... but of course only one can be true ... huh

ROFL another great vid BT 

BTW I forgot to give credit to BT for finding that History of Empires video.

I agree its a very complicated mess.