Thread: Obama Endorses Palestinian State With 1967 Borders

Originally Posted by chrisl

The 1967 are the internationally legal borders AFAIK.


But it's all moot. The current Israeli government has no interest in peace. The Palestinians may or may not; their politics is sufficiently fractured to make it complicated. The status quo is definitely unstable, but there's little to do except hope the blowup when it goes will be limited to a fraction of the middle east.

I agree. Despite all the talk about trading land for peace, the real Israel policy has been to trade peace for land. Israel is willing to spend a hundred more years in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians, Lebanese and anyone else who stands in the way of the annexation and absorbtion of the entire West Bank into Eretz Israel.

The trouble is: it won't work. It won't work even if the American taxpayer continues to pay for it. Eventually, Israel will bow to the inevitable. The longer Israel stalls, and Israel can only stall if we pay for it, the more painful the final deal will be. Bibi and Likud are living in the past. That is always tragic. In the Middle East, it is deadly.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

That little point seems to be lost in all the ridiculousness of having to listen to conservatives talk about foreign policy.

If the media is so liberal, than how come conservatives seem to be the flooding all the "lamestream" media orgs?

Obama said the '67 deal should be the roadmap, not the end result. He then gave Israel an easy out by insisting that nothing can start until Hamas recognizes Israel.

The President laid it out very clear. Rational, direct, truthful, while holding all sides to account for whatever it is their responsibility should be going forward. He's basically telling the Palestinian side that they've actually got someone they can deal with and that it's their loss should they refuse to deal and find themselves with the prospects of an uprising at some point from people who are tired of being ruled by losers.

Israel can bellyache all it wants and conservatives in America can always hope that maybe this will be what finally cost liberals the Jewish vote, but it's just not gonna happen.

I love it, Obama is projecting just the right tone to Palestine, and he's got all these uprisings on his side to put pressure on the leadership there to make a deal and they know he's right.

Fact, what Obama said about the 67 border undermined Israel, that is a non starter for Israel. So going there did nothing to move forward any peace movement. In fact it moved Israel to a more rigid position and the Prime Minister said so to Obama.

That's right when you have a group in the bag, beat them up all you want. Their not going anywhere. Does that not sound just a little arrogant, of course that is exactly what Obama is, is arrogant.

Originally Posted by George Aligator

I agree. Despite all the talk about trading land for peace, the real Israel policy has been to trade peace for land. Israel is willing to spend a hundred more years in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians, Lebanese and anyone else who stands in the way of the annexation and absorbtion of the entire West Bank into Eretz Israel.

The trouble is: it won't work. It won't work even if the American taxpayer continues to pay for it. Eventually, Israel will bow to the inevitable. The longer Israel stalls, and Israel can only stall if we pay for it, the more painful the final deal will be. Bibi and Likud are living in the past. That is always tragic. In the Middle East, it is deadly.

There is an old saying, "possession is 9/10 of the law" a lot has changed since 67 and right or wrong Israel is not backing up. The prime minister said so to Obama.

Originally Posted by Alma

Just before the WW2 the world Jewish population was around 16 million. In 1945 there were 11 million Jews. Why are talking of genocide of Jews when other ethnicities lost much more in WW2?

Becasue we're talking about Palestine and Israel in this thread, try to keep up.

You made the assertion that Israel was slowly annihilation the Palestinians and yet the population of the Palestinians has increased 8 fold since 1948. By simple math alone while they are perhaps downtrodden and maltreated people they aren't being annihilated.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Good luck gettin a Jew to give back what was taken.

Good luck being an anti-semite.

Don't you have some crosses to burn or something?

Originally Posted by Forplay

There is an old saying, "possession is 9/10 of the law" a lot has changed since 67 and right or wrong Israel is not backing up. The prime minister said so to Obama.

Israel can refuse to "back up" only as long as America is willing to pay the costs for the gigantic military machine necessary. The price to the US is not only in the billions spent giving Israel endless arms and aid, the cost to America's position in the world is also immense. The joint US-Israel policy that has been in place for fifty years is no longer sustainable economically or politically.

We are not talking about the security and prosperity of Israel, no one is going to put those things at risk. What we are talking about is an attempt by the Israel-American right wing to gradually absorb the West Bank and exile its Arab population.

This is just not in the cards. Too many Arabs. Too much oil money. Too few Arab dictators willing to stifle the will of their own people to stay in power. History and world opinion are turning away from Israel and the dream of an Arab-free Eretz Israel is not happening.

American public opinion and critically American Jewish opinion is shifting steadily. Israeli public opinion is neither as monolithic nor as expansionist as Likud would like to believe. The Jewish right in both countries has put one-half million illegal colonizers onto land which nobody but the USA thinks they have any right to. Now Bibi is claiming (and Obama agrees) that these illegal "facts on the ground" must be accepted as legitimate if Israel is to stop its brutal occupation. We have seen this pattern before in history. It doesn't work. If there were anything to that silly expression about possession being nine-tenths of the law, they would be speaking German in Warsaw today,

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Denying people their rights on conjecture is not only dishonest, it's morally reprehensible.

So you are completely pro Second Amendment rights, correct?

Originally Posted by Steve

Supporting the idea of a Palestinian state, and reworking Israel's borders, will likely infuriate many of the American Jews (estimates as high as 78%) who voted for Obama in 2008. Jews I know, while they were fully behind Obama in 2008, will not, under any circumstances, vote for him in 2012.

The question needs to be asked by every lib out there: Did Obama just jeopardize a second term?

I think Mr.Obama just ran into a statesman who is in no way in awe of his highness. The Isreali put it to him very clearly,,,that the borders of Isreal will not be breached in solving the palestinian issue. I think we can surely quote him as saying,,,it ain't goona happen.

Originally Posted by George Aligator

You don't know that Bibi wasn't briefed on the president's speech. Tell me: what was new or changed in what Obama said about the peace process?

Lost the Jewish vote? You wish! That would be a mis-calculation as great as the one Boehner made about the Ryan budget. Obama doesn't make those mistakes.Watch and you will see.

You do understand that the policy Obama laid out in the speech is exactly the same policy as the policy of the Bush administration, don't you? If you disagree, tell us what you think was different.

Yeah--he's lost the Jewish vote in this country--even the talking heads are saying it. Sorry you missed it--LOL.

The policy is OPPOSITE of the Bush Admininstration--and you probably should be reading links to inform you of that. It's always wise to read the news before commenting.

In an April 2004 letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President George W. Bush suggested that the 1949-1967 borders were a starting point, but he also said that any final peace would be subject to agreements that would reflect Israel's settlements in some of the territory seized since 1967. "It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiation will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," Bush wrote.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/2...amas-idea.html

Originally Posted by skeptic1

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

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

Money VS the People !

Very ballsy, and indicative of both the immaturity and arrogance of the mighty O. True colors are on display for all those watching. Surprising only in the unambiguous nature of the comments.

I respect the clarity. I disagree with the position. We know what were voting for now.

Originally Posted by MajTom

I think Mr.Obama just ran into a statesman who is in no way in awe of his highness. The Isreali put it to him very clearly,,,that the borders of Isreal will not be breached in solving the palestinian issue. I think we can surely quote him as saying,,,it ain't goona happen.

ahoy MajTom,

thats fine matey...the Isreal be a sovereign nation and should be free to determine thar own fate. if they do not wish to seek the aid 'o the United States in hammerin' out a peace agreement, that be thar perogative.

i think, though, that we all agree that then thar be no reason to send such a mighty nation 24 billion dollars (which be what we be slated to donate to'm, accordin' to US State Dept. papers) thru 2018...nor can we continue to be thar proxy in the United Nations.

agreed?

or be we somehow commited to do so because it be what this nation owes Isreal?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Good luck gettin a Jew to give back what was taken.

ahoy Moonglow,

that be a peculiar comment, matey.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy MajTom,

thats fine matey...the Isreal be a sovereign nation and should be free to determine thar own fate. if they do not wish to seek the aid 'o the United States in hammerin' out a peace agreement, that be thar perogative.

i think, though, that we all agree that then thar be no reason to send such a mighty nation 24 billion dollars (which be what we be slated to donate to'm, accordin' to US State Dept. papers) thru 2018...nor can we continue to be thar proxy in the United Nations.

agreed?

or be we somehow commited to do so because it be what this nation owes Isreal?

- MeadHallPirate

Ahoy, my pirate friend!

I don't believe that it is about owing Israel anything, as much as it is about buying the Jewish American vote.

With that in mind, the speech of Mr. Obama is all the more peculiar.