Thread: Obama Endorses Palestinian State With 1967 Borders

Looks like Obama just took a more or less firm stance, on what has been the US position for a long time. For that, he should get kudos for those that really want to see this problem solved in the M.E. with Israel and the Palestinians.


The two state solution is the only one that COULD foster an end to the disorder. You draw the territorial lines up, borders are established, and Palestine is a new Nation. If they then attack Israel, Israel then has the right to go in and kill em all.

Since a two state solution is the only way out of this, everyone should be for what Obama wants to do. Get the damn borders created, and move on with the show. If not, nothing will ever get fixed. Makes me wonder if some actually want it fixed. Doesn't look that way.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I read his speech, I doubt many people in the world have. He basically said nothing of merit over the course of the speech. Endorsing 1967 borders along with fair and earnest two way negotiation of particulars is asking for dollar trees to spout in inner city of America.



"Demilitarized" ? Who is going to be demilitarized the Palestinians or the Israelis or both? Why would a nation agree to be Demilitarized in a region with a long history of violence? Are the Israelis going to have to give up billions of dollars of defensive capability for thousands of dollars of worth of lies from terrorist factions? A government may indeed be sincere in Palestine but I can't imagine why anyone would believe radical militant factions will lay down their arms in any model of parity.



Who is winning what in this scenario?

You have jumped to an erroneous concluson. The issue of a demilitarized state has been thoroughly hashed over since Oslo and is not a point of disagreement. Only the Palestinian state would be demilitarized. No alteration or commitment by the IDF is part of the accord.

The demilitarization includes not only military weapons but weapons of terrorism. Inspection and enforcement are the responsibility of a regime to which Israel will agree -- probably the UN with US members on the team.

There are only three points in the dispute left to be resolved. They are not easy ones, but you ought to limit your objections to them as Israel has no problem with all the others. They are:

1. The status of Jerusalem.
2. Palestinian "refugees".
3. Exactly which land swaps will be made. In dispute is only 2% of the occupied territories.

My reference to Obama winning is to domestic American politics, of which the "Peace Process" is a part.

Originally Posted by George Aligator

Only the Palestinian state would be demilitarized.

The demilitarization includes not only military weapons but weapons of terrorism. Inspection and enforcement are the responsibility of a regime to which Israel will agree -- probably the UN with US members on the team.

So the middle-east will be appeased by the U.S. playing Team America World Police in the role of keeping the Palestinians disarmed? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

My reference to Obama winning is to domestic American politics, of which the "Peace Process" is a part.

so he's got to cross his fingers and hope the Palestinians play nice with Israel and each other for that to be a factor...good luck to him there.

Originally Posted by George Aligator

There are only three points in the dispute left to be resolved. They are not easy ones, but you ought to limit your objections to them as Israel has no problem with all the others. They are:

1. The status of Jerusalem.
2. Palestinian "refugees".
3. Exactly which land swaps will be made. In dispute is only 2% of the occupied territories.

Here are my thoughts:

1. East Jerusalem goes to the new Palestinian state.

2/3. Palestinians give up the refugee "right of return" claims in exchange for Israel giving up the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

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.

All good points. It should also be noted that if a deal was struck based on international law (1967 borders, UN Res. 242, Oslo Accords, Clinton Parameters, etc.), the Palestinians really get the raw end of the deal; that they get most of only 22% of historic Palestine, not including the land they'll give up during the "mutual swaps."

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Here are my thoughts:

1. East Jerusalem goes to the new Palestinian state.

2/3. Palestinians give up the refugee "right of return" claims in exchange for Israel giving up the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

1. Agreed. And based on demography justified. And not only honouring Jerusalems mixed history, but also taking into account that this point is pretty non-negotiatable for ANY palestinian leadership, regardless how moderate.

2. That has already been part of the Arab peace initiative of 2002 that for the first time called for a "just" solution to the refugee question, not for their return. One of the ideas circulating was to set up two funds, one by Israel ( and possibly the US) and one by the arab states. One is supposed to compensate the Jews driven off arab countries after 1948, and one to pay off those Palestinians that were forced off their lands and still have credible claims to it ( documents or anything). And those refugees that really wish to return ( in the end probably not that many) can be resettled in the palestinian state ( with international assistance if necessary). Something that most Palestinians that I met in the West Bank and Gaza would easily accept.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Obama endorses support for Palestinian State & pre 1967 borders. A move that will infuriate Israel.

Another example of the inapt foreign policy of the Obama administration. I guess Obama's anti-Semitism is peeking out from the closet. But what should we or Israel expect from a guy who sat in the church of Rev. Wright for 20 years?

It took real balls for that one,making the coming election the most important in at least my lifetime.

Real balls without a brain is a sure recipe for disaster.

Money VS the People !

Delusions VS Reality.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Looks like Obama just took a more or less firm stance, on what has been the US position for a long time. For that, he should get kudos for those that really want to see this problem solved in the M.E. with Israel and the Palestinians.


The two state solution is the only one that COULD foster an end to the disorder. You draw the territorial lines up, borders are established, and Palestine is a new Nation. If they then attack Israel, Israel then has the right to go in and kill em all.

Since a two state solution is the only way out of this, everyone should be for what Obama wants to do. Get the damn borders created, and move on with the show. If not, nothing will ever get fixed. Makes me wonder if some actually want it fixed. Doesn't look that way.

Has another US president suggested to the world that Israel return to 1967 borders? If so, I must have missed it.
If countries began returning territories that they aquired via the spoils of wars, what would be the magic date they would go by?

Originally Posted by chassisman

Has another US president suggested to the world that Israel return to 1967 borders? If so, I must have missed it.
If countries began returning territories that they aquired via the spoils of wars, what would be the magic date they would go by?

I think the issue is, they have to either accept that land as part of their country and its occupants as citizens, return the land (to Egypt and Jordan) or recognize a separate state -- permanent occupation is not cool.

Originally Posted by Forplay

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?

No, the US should not. The US as it exists now both geographically and demographically is a fait accompli. It's entirely impractical and unfair to the innocents affected to attempt to reverse what is now so well settled in what has resulted.

That said, today is a different matter. Unlike the past, there are now internationally accepted rules of conduct against aggressive annexation and expulsions of populations, rules that the US even helped form and enforce (the first Gulf War and the Yugoslavia intervention for example). Yes, Israel took them in a war started by others seeking to wipe them out, but the way it works now--or at least supposed to work--is that two wrongs don't make a right or one wrong justifies another. There are also anti-colonial international rules now, also helped formed by the US. In short, nations are not supposed to own colonial territories without the consent of the people in them.

If Israel wants to keep the West Bank, it should make the Palestinians citizens. It won't do that, however, because they are hostile and--even if they consented--it would destroy the Jewish character of Israel. Therefore what exist now is also an apartheid system. At the same time, it's not supposed to be evicting them to resettle them with Jews. It's a form of ethnic cleansing and aggressive annexation of others' lands. The Jews have long been victims of this kinds of conduct so there is no excuse for any to do the same to others.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

I think the issue is, they have to either accept that land as part of their country and its occupants as citizens, return the land (to Egypt and Jordan) or recognize a separate state -- permanent occupation is not cool.

Maybe, just Maybe if the terrorism stopped they might be able to do that. The thing is, neither side is willing to bend. I am 55 and do not expect to see ME peace in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

I think the issue is, they have to either accept that land as part of their country and its occupants as citizens, return the land (to Egypt and Jordan) or recognize a separate state -- permanent occupation is not cool.

Occupations are usually not permanent. They either end through a rational leadership understanding the signs of the times and simply give it up ( Britain leaving India f.e.) or popular uprisings combined with diplomatic activity ( France/Algeria f.e.)
If the current israeli administration suceeds in derailing the current peace efforts then ALL sides will pay the price of a third Intifada. The status quo IS unsustainable and a dead end. Though some may not wish to change it since they are boiling their own political soup.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Looks like Obama just took a more or less firm stance, on what has been the US position for a long time.

Ah, no it has never been the US position that Israel most return to the 1967 borders. Ever.

For that, he should get kudos for those that really want to see this problem solved in the M.E. with Israel and the Palestinians.

THat is laughable.

The two state solution is the only one that COULD foster an end to the disorder. You draw the territorial lines up, borders are established, and Palestine is a new Nation. If they then attack Israel, Israel then has the right to go in and kill em all.

The two state solution is not at issue, and considering the efforts of Hezbollah and Hamas it would not be a solution. Both groups still consider their main goal the complete distruction of Irael.

Since a two state solution is the only way out of this, everyone should be for what Obama wants to do. Get the damn borders created, and move on with the show. If not, nothing will ever get fixed. Makes me wonder if some actually want it fixed. Doesn't look that way.

It is the Arab states and Iran who are the biggest obstacles to "a two state" or any kind of solution between Palestine and Israel. What Obama wants is to insult and damage the only stable country in the Middle East. The ignorant and the anti-Semite can and will get behind what he is doing.

tashi deleks,

M