There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Editor
    @Claire

    He didn’t say that, and what he said was basically an affirmation of what every administration has said since the ’67 war.

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Editor
    @Claire

    Here’s what he said:

    The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines 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.

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @JosephEagar

    Claire, that’s a relief.

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MelFoil

    “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.

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @StuartCreque

    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.

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BThompson

    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.

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @

    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.

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh
    BThompson: 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. · May 19 at 1:02pm

    How can Israel possibly be “secure” if they return the land?

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @

    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…”

    • #9
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BThompson
    David Limbaugh How can Israel possibly be “secure” if they return the land? · May 19 at 1:05pm

    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

    • #10
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BThompson

    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.

    • #11
  12. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh
    BThompson: 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. · May 19 at 1:47pm

    Yes, I saw and wondered about that. I need to review the precise borders pre and post. Thanks.

    • #12
  13. Profile Photo Contributor
    @TommyDeSeno

    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.

    • #13
  14. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh

    I must not be too far off. “Israeli PM Quickly Rejects Obama’s Border Demands: ‘Indefensible.'”

    • #14
  15. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh
    Tommy De Seno: 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. · 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.

    • #15
  16. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BThompson

    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.

    • #16
  17. Profile Photo Inactive
    @user_83937

    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?

    • #17
  18. Profile Photo Member
    @M1919A4

    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”.

    • #18
  19. Profile Photo Member
    @M1919A4

    This is what the Israeli Prime Minister said today upon hearing of Obama’s,speech:

    Israel Expects Obama to Take Back ‘1967 Lines’ Demand

    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.”

    • #19
  20. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DavidWilliamson

    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”.

    • #20
  21. Profile Photo Contributor
    @TommyDeSeno

    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.

    • #21
  22. Profile Photo Member
    @

    How is that different when you consider the source of the quote. The President’s comments should not put Israel at ease.

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Here’s what he said:

    The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines

    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

    • #22
  23. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Here’s what he said:

    The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines 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

    Claire: It doesn’t bother you that he wants to return to the ’67 boundaries?

    • #23
  24. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: He didn’t say that, and what he said was basically an affirmation of what every administration has said since the ’67 war. · May 19 at 11:04am

    Every administration since ’67 has said Israel should revert to ’67 borders? What?

    • #24
  25. Profile Photo Contributor
    @DavidLimbaugh

    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?

    • #25
  26. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RawPrawn

    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.

    • #26

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.