Thread: Obama Endorses Palestinian State With 1967 Borders

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...

So appeasing the irrational demands of the rabid Arab street is "ballsy"?

You might not be all that attached to the Temple Mount, but Europe is next.

Originally Posted by Commodore

So appeasing the irrational demands of the rabid Arab street is "ballsy"?

You might not be all that attached to the Temple Mount, but Europe is next.

Insisting that International Law be applied is ballsy, no other president has done it. You know doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to change is insanity. Obama wants a different result, so he is taking a different approach.

There's a little bit of nuance. He says it should be based on pre-1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." Obama announces 'new chapter' in U.S. Mideast diplomacy - CNN.com

So, he's saying there should be some adjustments from the pre-1967 borders settled by agreement.

Originally Posted by goober

Insisting that International Law be applied is ballsy, no other president has done it. You know doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the result to change is insanity. Obama wants a different result, so he is taking a different approach.

Where was international law in 1948?

Originally Posted by Commodore

So appeasing the irrational demands of the rabid Arab street is "ballsy"?

You might not be all that attached to the Temple Mount, but Europe is next.

"Yes" it is Ballsy and you know it. It defines 2012 as a race of Money VS People and due for many years. Win Lose or Draw.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

There's a little bit of nuance. He says it should be based on pre-1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." Obama announces 'new chapter' in U.S. Mideast diplomacy - CNN.com

So, he's saying there should be some adjustments from the pre-1967 borders settled by agreement.

The article indicates this is a new position negating the old one you speak of.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

"Yes" it is Ballsy and you know it. It defines 2012 as a race of Money VS People and due for many years. Win Lose or Draw.

If anything, it boils 2012 down to a simple question, do you like Western Civilization?

Hint: It's a yes or no question.

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?

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

So, he's saying there should be some adjustments from the pre-1967 borders settled by agreement.

So what he's saying is he doesn't expect anything to happen?

Originally Posted by Commodore

If anything, it boils 2012 down to a simple question, do you like Western Civilization?

Hint: It's a yes or no question.

This type of rhetoric is used to attempt to discredit any presumptive negative thoughts related to Israel and IMO comes from the Israeli Book of "Reversal by Verbal Assault".

Your question is at least PRETENTIOUS in nature by reason of its very presence and your conclusion it is of great import in your view.

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?

It is not the Jewish vote it is the Jewish money !

His position is a calculated risk I'm sure. However; I think its the right one to take.!

Originally Posted by skeptic1

This type of rhetoric is used to attempt to discredit any presumptive negative thoughts related to Israel and IMO comes from the Israeli Book of "Reversal by Verbal Assault".

Your question is at least PRETENTIOUS in nature by reason of its very presence and your conclusion it is of great import in your view.

Its a simple thought exercise. What is likely to happen to Israel without defensible borders?

The answer is another Holocaust. If one is opposed to that, then one must oppose this. If one is not, when one is a genocidal maniac.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

It is not the Jewish vote it is the Jewish money !

His position is a calculated risk I'm sure. However; I think its the right one to take.!

I gotta say that I have been waiting a really long time for a president to take such a stand.