Thread: Obama Endorses Palestinian State With 1967 Borders

No wonder they waged war so often. They knew there was nothing to lose. Until Israel stayed on the land, now the Arabs know that war means you lose land. So they don't wage war anymore, at least not conventionally.

The President's speech included no changes. A Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders has been US policy for some time now. And such a policy is still vehemently opposed by the Palestinians.

As for money vs. the people, that's just dumb. The people favor Israel, at least in this country.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm not really sure what Obama said is anything different than the past. That's what the Arabs concluded. As for the borders, he said the 1968 borders with 'swaps' based on what's happened since then. If anything, that's a bad deal for the Palestinians given what Israel has and might be willing to 'swap'--if it's even willing to do so--is likely to be unpopulated desert areas in exchange for the choice lands they have settled in the West Bank. That's especially so concerning the Jerusalem area that Israeli hardliner expansionists desire the most, which is the biggest contested area where the Palestinians want the traditionally Arab East Jerusalem as its capital for ethnic, historical and religious reasons that is increasingly and intentionally encircled by Israeli settlements.

Lets compare that with our border, and the land we took from Mexico and the Indians. With the Indians we took everything they had, and claimed it ours. So how many years do you want to go back. Did we not conquer this land we live in.? Should we now give it back?

*stands up and cheers*

Bravo, bravo, well done Mr. Obama, and a pox on Mr. Netenyahu, who attempted to pre-empt our president on his own vessel, by seekin' to address congress before our president proposed his plan to the american peoples. the nerve...

if Isreal wants to continue thar belligerent policies in the West Bank, so be it. they be the captains 'o thar own vessel....but if they don't want to play nice with our skipper, they can stop expectin' thar 3 billion dollar per year gift from our taxpayers.

*puts his foot down*

aye!

- MeadHallPirate

And meanwhile, Netanyahu has rejected a palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, has rejected the removal of settlements, and just while he is in Washington, ministers from his governement inaugurate a new settlement, probably not a coincidence :


After Obama speech, Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Israeli ministers inaugurate new Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Netanyahu is rejecting something Obama has not proposed.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Obama also said that Hamas has to recognize Israel. That is a pretty major big deal. If Hamas recognizes Israel then Israel can find a way to accept the old borders with land swaps, involving gaining land with buildings, for giving up desert lands.

Hamas has declared a truce not to put obstacles in the road towards a palestinian state, Hamas has accepted negotiations ("prepared to give peace with Israel a chance") and Fatah ( the palestinian peace camp under Abbas) to be in charge of them and pledged to honour the outcome of such negotiations, should they ever resume. Hamas has also said to favour a "palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank" which amounts to an implicit recognition of Israel. That should for rational people be enough to start talks. It is your enemies after all with whom you are negotiating peace, therefore it makes no sense to build up new and new preconditions. ( There are two threads under International politics)
Hamas speaks no more for all Palestinians than the Tea party speaks for all Americans. It makes no sense to make it sound as if there was only Hamas at the table.
The israeli governement on the other side also consists of quite a number of hatemongerers, settler activists and radicals, for example organizing public prayers for the death of all Palestinians ( the Schas partys spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Joseph) or demanding the execution of arab members of the Knesset ( FM Lieberman). Or to give another example : The present israeli governement has honoured a Rabbi who has issued an appeal not to employ Arabs, and not to rent to Arabs ( something that should sound familiar to Jews with ancestry in Europe).

Shas spiritual leader: Abbas and Palestinians should perish - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Lands conference awards Safed rabbi who said Jews shouldn't rent to non-Jews - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Originally Posted by CNN

President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

I guess the fawning Obama fans in this thread missed the fact that this is not a new policy. It's not something President Obama came up with.

Matt

What I want to know is what happens when the Palestinian state attacks Israel. The Israelis would defeat it and occupy it. What happens then? are they supposed to just leave?

It is an interesting point. If Palestine is a state, and the Hamasholes continue indiscriminately shelling Israel with rockets, is the Palestinian state accountable for that action? Or do they get to say "Oops, some rowdy guys got carried away. It's not our fault" and get a pass?

It certainly won't work the other way, if the Israelis attack Palestinian civilians again.

Originally Posted by Commodore

So, the Arabs can threaten and wage war, but if they lose, we are suppose to pretend nothing happen?

There are two wings to the Republican Party: TEA and Likud. Both are delusional. No Arabs are threatening war with Israel. Those tank battles in the Siani are as out of date as mounted Crusaders besieging Acre. The mighty IDF is about as ueless now as the American armored divisions in Afghanistan.

Today's battlefield isn't the Golan, it's the UN. The recognition of a Palestinian state will be vetoed by the US. What the world is watching is, who will vote with the USA. The answer: damn few.

Nor can Israel just squat tall in behind a pocket of Merkava tanks. The "Battle of the Bedroom" has been lost and Palestinians will soon outnumber Israelis in Israel. At this point, Israel will have to abandon all pretense of being a democratic state and deny a majority of people the vote, turning the Jewish state into a militarized theocracy.

But that isn't the really tough part. The Arab Spring signals that Israel's neighbors will now have to deal with popular opinion in their Israel policy. Israel is putting itself on the wrong side of history. Soon Israel's only ally will be Saudi Arabia! Theocratic dictatorships stick together.

Bibi isn't dealing with the US via diplomacy but through American domestic politics. That is why I say Likud is a branch of the Republican Party. This is dangerous and degrading to the USA. Boehner is playing with fire by accepting AIPAC into the GOP. Why? Because is Likud fails to lead the US around by the nose there will be a snap-back of anti-Israel sentiment fueled by the ancient evil of anti-Semitism.

It is bad enough that the GOP has unleased our racist demons from the past. Provoking anti-Jewish anger will compound the tragedy.,

Whether they use tanks or cheap rockets, it's still war.

This is what being a leader is all about, leading.

By stating current policy? That's a pretty low bar.