Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Almost, But Not Quite Incredulous
When I heard Obama had thrown Israel under the bus — again — and actually gone so far as to tell Israel to pull back to its 1967 borders to make way for a Palestinian state, even I couldn’t quite believe it. But it appears he did in fact mean precisely that. So where is the outrage?
Published in General
He didn’t say that, and what he said was basically an affirmation of what every administration has said since the ’67 war.
Here’s what he said:
There really wasn’t a word that could be construed as “throwing Israel under a bus.” No idea where Fox got that.
Claire, that’s a relief.
“Agreed swaps” means no swaps, which means no agreement. That’s how it always plays out.
I believe, before 1967, when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, Christians were not allowed to buy any additional property there, and if you had a Christian school, you could only teach in Arabic. And you certainly couldn’t teach any Muslims about Christianity.
Pretty much every peace deal put forward by Israel to the Palestinians since Oslo has envisioned that the Palestinians would have well over 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza — some as much as 99+ percent — with adjustments to the 1967 borders based on swaps of equal acreage. Israel has always insisted that it retain sovereignty over the area on the border of Jordan to ensure that it can prevent arms from entering the West Bank.
However, since Israel ceded control of the Philadelphi Corridor separating Egypt from Gaza to Egypt, that may mean that a peace deal will require that Israel get that control back — because Egypt cannot be trusted to keep arms out of Gaza. If the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians leads through Cairo, I hope that Israeli tanks won’t have to traverse it to convince the Egyptians of the value of peace.
I think you’re discounting what is meant in this phrase, David.
“with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Ohlmert, expressed a willingness for essentially what Obama described. Netenyahu has made some similar noises. There is plenty of wiggle room in what Obama said.
This is exactly what the Nobel committee was hoping for when they awarded Obama the award; they were hoping for an American President to abandon Israel. So, it seems he deserves his reward after all.
“with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Ohlmert, expressed a willingness for essentially what Obama described. Netenyahu has made some similar noises. There is plenty of wiggle room in what Obama said. ·May 19 at 1:02pm
How can Israel possibly be “secure” if they return the land?
Overheard in Tahrir Square, Cairo:
“So, did ya hear Obama’s speech?”
“Does that guy ever show up on time?”
“Golf, Beyonce – he’s Johnny on the Spot….”
“Anyway, I caught part of of it. Yadda, yadda…billion dollars…gripping stuff…”
“Yep. The more things change. Hey, whatta ya doin’ tonight?”
“Eh, mosque, beat my wife…”
“Me and Ahmed and some guys are gonna go burn a church if you wanna come….”
“I’m totally there, brother…”
I suppose it depends on what land is returned. Presumably portions that Israel needs to maintain security would be kept in exchange for portions of land inside the green line that aren’t necessarily crucial to security. I don’t know that Obama is proposing anything different from what Olmert offered, as described in this article.
http://www.forward.com/articles/121260/
Also, from the wikileaks documents, Netanyahu himself expressed openness to the idea of swapping land.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/50779112-68/netanyahu-swaps-cable-anonymity.html.csp
David, I’d also point out that Obama isn’t talking about the pre-1967 borders. He’s talking about the 1967 borders after the war.
Yes, I saw and wondered about that. I need to review the precise borders pre and post. Thanks.
David I think your first reaction was correct.
The AP and Fox are both reporting Obama endorses going back to pre-war borders.
From Fox:
Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians’ demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders.
I must not be too far off. “Israeli PM Quickly Rejects Obama’s Border Demands: ‘Indefensible.'”
The AP and Fox are both reporting Obama endorses going back to pre-war borders.
From Fox:
Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians’ demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. ·May 19 at 2:24pm
Yes, Tommy — and that seems to be what is reported on the Blaze via the link on my immediately preceding post — re Bibi’s rejection of Obama’s demand. So thanks.
Sorry David, I was giving Barry the benefit of the doubt. However, CNN reports and Clair seems to concur that in our negotiations in the past, we’ve always used the pre-1967 borders as our starting point and tried to negotiate something more secure from there. So what Obama proposed isn’t necessarily new. It certainly all depends on just what land would be swapped. Presumably, we would support something similar to what Olmert proposed to Abbas a couple of years ago. But I’ll get out of the presuming business at this point.
I have looked at both pre and post war 1967 borders, listened to Obama, listened to Dore Gold, ignored pundits, and I come down to this:
This is classic Obama. He said 1967 and only that, purposefully, to make his statement as ambiguous as possible. Those that support Israel will be encouraged to believe that the new boundaries would be based upon the post-war boundaries (plus swaps). Those that support Hamas will be encouraged to believe they will be based upon the pre-war boundaries. This was a carefully worded statement, delivered a half hour late. I believe the Administration relishes this sort of controversy and wants both sides to overreact, so that they can appear occupy the sensible middle.
When has Obama, ever, publically uttered and stuck with precise language on an issue related to foreign policy?
What CJRun has reported and surmised is consistent with what is reported about Obama’s actions from law school on. He wants to be and works hard at being all things to all men all the time. That may be what is going on here.
As a staunch supporter of Israel, I wish that we had someone with the gumption of Reagan and Bush, II, as our current president. Wait a bit, Mr. Obama will yet , as Claire said, “throw Israel under the bus”.
This is what the Israeli Prime Minister said today upon hearing of Obama’s,speech:
by Gil Ronen
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick on the draw Thursday in voicing clear displeasure with President Barack Obama’s mideast policy speech.
“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”
“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”
“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”
* * * *
“Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.”
Whether it is the pre-1967, 1967, or post-1967 border is kinda academic – as I recall, Hamas has in it’s charter that there must be no border, other than the Mediterranean Sea.
There’s also the small matter of the George W Bush 2004 agreement with Ariel Sharon, which Mr Obama has just torn up (didn’t know the President could do that):
“Third… In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949… It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of “is”.
East Jerusalem. That’s what it’s about. We can pretend it’s about anything else we want, but both sides want East Jerusalem, and can’t stand the thought of the other side having it.
IT will never end.
How is that different when you consider the source of the quote. The President’s comments should not put Israel at ease.
with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
There really wasn’t a word that could be construed as “throwing Israel under a bus.” No idea where Fox got that. ·May 19 at 11:10am
There really wasn’t a word that could be construed as “throwing Israel under a bus.” No idea where Fox got that. ·May 19 at 11:10am
Claire: It doesn’t bother you that he wants to return to the ’67 boundaries?
Every administration since ’67 has said Israel should revert to ’67 borders? What?
See this piece by Dore Gold quoting President Reagan as saying “I can’t ask Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders.” What am I missing?
If the “Palestinians” wanted their own state they could have had it in 1947 with the whole world’s blessing, but then they would have been prized loose from the U.N. tit long before this. And, it was not the Israelis who made them, or rather their great grandparents, “refugees”, it was the Muslim Brotherhood.
No U.S. administration has been clear sighted enough to recognize these facts. Carter made the situation very much worse by handing over the camp occupants to the terrorists to be used as hostages, human shields, and milk cows while their children are recruited through Stockholm syndrome.
Obama has revealed ignorance and malice which should surprise no one.