Obama Pledges Support For '67 Borders
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Hopefully his word on this is good. We can only wait and see.
Obama:
"...what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. 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."
Obama:
"...what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. 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."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gee, what do most of the world's problems have in common?
Answer: Religion. (and also, imperialism, greed, colonialism, ignorance, stupidity, etc. etc, etc.)
With respect to Israel/Palestine, he is doing the right thing (as far as my limited knowledge tells me) so yes, he will be met with opposition. Sad how that works.
About the contiguous state, what sort of link is proposed between Gaza and the West Bank? The Israeli government reaction will be interesting, to say the least.
http://www.ipcri.org/files/passages.html
The Gaza-West Bank Passage
A Review of Options and Recommendations
Monday, July 04, 2005
...Our main recommendation is that a rail link of about 1.5 kilometers between Erez and Zikim be constructed that will link Gaza to the Israeli rail system. Once moving on the Israeli system goods could travel to Ashdod, Ben Gurion airport, and other points in Israel. With minor infrastructure developments movement to other West Bank points could easily be developed including a linkage to Tulkarem. The most logical connection would be an additional rail link from Kiryat Gat to Tarqumieh which is about a distance of 25 kilometers. This is the cheapest and fasted way of ensuring the movement of goods between the West Bank and Gaza.
A security checking facility able to scan containers would be set up in Erez. Containers would be sealed and loaded onto the trains for transshipment to the West Bank.
In the future it could be possible to discuss how the train link could be used to transport vehicles and people between the West Bank and Gaza. Once the rail link connections are in place, dedicated trains could be placed on the rails that would transport directly between Gaza and the West Bank without any stops in between.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ation.html
USAID Study on a Transportation Link Between Gaza and the West Bank
(October 1, 2005)
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has awarded $1,000,000 to fund a study of ways to boost the Palestinian economy by creating a viable trade and transportation link between Gaza and the West Bank. The study, which will be conducted in collaboration with the World Bank, will look for efficient, low-cost, and secure solutions that would allow for a physical link between the West Bank and Gaza, thereby facilitating the movement of people and goods in a secure fashion. In addition, it will identify infrastructure projects and services needed to make the connection possible.
USAID has spent more than $1.7 billion to combat poverty, create jobs, improve education, build roads and water systems, construct and equip medical clinics, and promote good governance in the West Bank and Gaza during the last decade.
Hopefully.....
And hopefully this is the start of a new US approach to Israel affairs. No more 'blind' support....
"hope!" "change!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed3e6t5uEo4
I thought you said Obama was a murderer like Bush?
What part will millions of people be welcomed? Should these people just get along, have they been fighting long enough? Talk about hate. I am so surprise people on here agree with the Palestine
Nobody's asking them to give up Israel. They are being asked to give up the land they've been stealing from the Palestinians since the 1967 war.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Except the Israeli's didn't offer the Palestinians these parameters at Camp David, which is why they were rejected. In fact, Israel made no concessions whatsoever at Camp David, but instead sought to carve up the West bank into a series of Apartheid-style bantustans:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e14120.htm
Interview with Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky explains the reality of Israel's actions to Canadian interviewer Evan Solomon.
Chomsky: The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal...here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.
Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.
Chomsky: That's not true.
Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -
Chomsky: They did. That's false.
Solomon: That's false?
Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .
Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .
Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.
Very good article here on the subject:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
2007
'...Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just and lasting peace’ that will allow ‘every state in the area [to] live in security’, Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
...Underlying Israel’s efforts to retain the occupied territories is the fact that it has never really considered the West Bank as occupied territory, despite its pro forma acceptance of that designation. Israelis see the Palestinian areas as ‘contested’ territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions notwithstanding...That the former prime minister Ehud Barak (now Olmert’s defence minister) endlessly describes the territorial proposals he made at the Camp David summit as expressions of Israel’s ‘generosity’, and never as an acknowledgment of Palestinian rights, is another example of this mindset. Indeed, the term ‘Palestinian rights’ seems not to exist in Israel’s lexicon.
The problem is not, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians do not know how to compromise. (Another former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, famously complained that ‘Palestinians take and take while Israel gives and gives.’) That is an indecent charge, since the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nonetheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this.
I don't see how Israel qualifies as an ally of the U.S. They bleed you to the tune of $4Billion of tax-payers money every year, and your governments unqualified support of their continual aggression makes America hated the world over, placing American lives in danger. Not only that, but the Israeli leadership treats the U.S with contempt, as evidenced by it's recent dismissal of Washington's calls to halt settlement expansion.
"This guy doesn't get it, does he?"
- Netanyahu responding in cabinet to Obama's first criticisms of his settlement policy
Right, just cut the funds, then see how serious things get.
and by the way, will someone tell palin and bachmann to shut the fuck up and let the adults handle the situation???
Romney: Obama 'threw Israel under the bus'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_mideast_republicans
HANOVER, N.H. – Republicans looking to unseat President Barack Obama charged Thursday that he undermined the sensitive and delicate negotiations for Middle East peace with his outline for resumed talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Obama, whom he served as U.S. ambassador to China until last month, undercut an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to build trust. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."
Foreign policy has hardly been the center of the debate among the still-forming GOP presidential field. Instead, the candidates and potential candidates have kept their focus — like the country's — on domestic issues that are weighing on voters and their pocketbooks. Obama's speech provided one of the first opportunities for Republicans to assert their foreign policy differences with Obama and his Democratic administration.
Obama endorsed Palestinians' demands for the borders of its future state based on 1967 borders — before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. That was a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy.
Campaigning here in the state that hosts the first presidential nominating primary, Huntsman also said the United States should respect Israel and work to foster trust between Israelis and Palestinians.
"If we respect and recognize Israel as the ally that it is, we probably ought to listen to what they think is best," said Huntsman, who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before surprising his party and serving Obama, a Democrat.
He acknowledged he didn't watch Obama's speech and was reacting to news coverage — or, as he called it, "the aftermath."
"It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It is not appropriate for the president to dictate the terms."
Instead, the United States should work with Israel to push for peace without acceding to the Palestinians, he said.
Gingrich said Israel simply cannot go back to the 1967 borders and expect to remain secure, given technological advancements that would allow its enemies to fire rockets deeper into the state.
"Get a map of the region and look at what Hamas does in firing missiles into Israel," Gingrich told The Associated Press. "The president should have said that Hamas has to abandon its determination to destroy Israel."
Obama urged Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation." That follows what other Republicans have painted as hostility from this administration toward a stalwart ally in the Middle East.
"The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies," Santorum said in a statement.
Obama's speech at the State Department addressed the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. Speaking to audiences abroad and at home, he sought to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind the protesters who have swelled from nation to nation across the Middle East and North Africa.
"We know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith," the president said.
But the remarks only muddied things, especially on the dicey issue of Jerusalem, said former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
"The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," Pawlenty said. "At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."
Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a tea party favorite who is leaning toward a run, called the border suggestions "a shocking display of betrayal" to Israel.
"Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first," she said in a statement.
On Twitter, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin didn't directly address the speech but urged Obama to publicly welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of ushering him into private meetings away from reporters, as has occurred on Netanyahu's previous visits. The two leaders will talk Friday at the White House.
"Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks, Concerned Americans," she tweeted.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Did you spontaneously ejaculate when you heard Obama demand pre-67 borders?
There were finally indictments issued in the Hariri investigation/Special Tribunal for Lebanon (guess I jumped the gun with my thread about happening 'soon' like six months ago
Plus, everywhere I turn I'm reading the words "Al Qaeda leader", immediately followed by the word "Egyptian" (tho they thinkn he's based in Pakistan lately :roll: )....demonization of Egypt following what just went on there....?
The situation in the middle east/ N Africa is so fluid right now, I am even more suspicious of ulterior motives than usual...(how we doin in Libya, btw? :roll: )
Call me paranoid, but without any concrete action from the Obama admin, I'm more inclined to think this is advance political posturing for some kind of Israeli action the US public will find unappealing.
Byrnize is a hate mongering pig who leaves comments like "Oh well" when Bin Laden is killed and chides us for violating International Law y killing him? AYFKM? His anti-American, and yes, anti-semitic, Nazi defending opinions have been espoused on this Board for years. I find it disgusting. I find him disgusting. He adds his own self serving and often really banally ignorant interpretations of history that are so far from correct it staggers the mind that he has some people stupified into thinking that because he has the ability to cut and paste the original thoughts of others, that he is somehow intellectually superior. He demeans any opinion that is not his, even on issues not involving America or Israel. He consistently insults people. And yet, he remains. Such is life.
I've been banned before because being the little girl that he is, a cyber bully with no substance, he tattles to mods because he can't take the heat and deal with it man up. I long ago stopped caring about the views in this thread. I laughed my ass off when Obama got elected and all the Obamatons who inhabited this place have all quietly slipped away when they realized that, hey, that dude lied to get elected.
Have your stupid board. I joined for the concert tickets. Got em. Yes Im the Face, Last Exodus, etc. Ban me! Please! Save me from the impulse to respond to the ignorance and hate that seeps into this part of an otherwise pleasant board.
And yes, Steve is still a cunt. A leopard never changes his spots.
Bye
No, we're just asking them to give up Jerusalem.
It's official. Most people on the train are smoking crack......good luck with that.
liberal web site.
Stealing ey? What did the US do to the native americans? The Russians to the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, etc, etc. England to India, Northern Ireland (still occupied). The French to Indo China. China to Tibet? The difference> Jews escaped to Palestine to prevent their extermination as a people by the peoples of Europe. The British were in history the biggest colonial pigs in modern history. Clean up your own house first.