Ok, and here is the map presented by Dennis Ross (President Clinton's lead negotiator, who, since he was actually in the room, is in a real position to know what he's talking about):
Ok, and here is the map presented by Dennis Ross (President Clinton's lead negotiator, who, since he was actually in the room, is in a real position to know what he's talking about):
Umm, no, it can't. A map may not have been presented, but negotiations progressed well beyond the point depicted by the map you linked to. The map in my link, while not actually presented in the negotiations, is a visual representation of the final offer that was on the table at the end of the talks. The map may not have physically been presented, but the offer it represents WAS actually made.
You're playing games, claiming that what Israel offered at the beginning of the negotiations WAS ALL THAT THEY OFFERED, when, in fact, negotiations progressed well beyond that point. But of course you wouldn't want to admit that Israel actually made a viable offer based on the '67 lines, because that would put quite a dent in your fantasy that Israel is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, vampire state.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... #Territory
In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem" referring to his 2001 book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.
UBut of course you wouldn't want to admit that Israel actually made a viable offer based on the '67 lines, because that would put quite a dent in your fantasy that Israel is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, vampire state.
There was no viable offer. It was an attempt to carve up the West bank into three separate cantons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... #Territory
The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."
What exactly does that quote mean? It's in the wiki article without any context. It could have nothing to do with the borders Israel was offering, and just relate to some other issue that was being negotiated.
In any event Israel made another peace offer in '09 under Olmert. The map of what was offered in that much more recent package can be found here:
What exactly does that quote mean? It's in the wiki article without any context. It could have nothing to do with the borders Israel was offering, and just relate to some other issue that was being negotiated.
It's in a Wiki article entitled '2000 Camp David Summit'. [Inappropriate comment removed by Admin]
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: My concern is let’s look at the diplomatic record, the factual record. What were the offers being made on each side of the Camp David talks and in the Taba talks? And the standard interpretation, which comes— which is—you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat’s unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.
Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50%—50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now – they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about—which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact – I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down—other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book—he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.
Finkelstein isn't a legal scholar. If he was maybe he could actually get the legal status of the occupied territories right. From Dr. Meir Rosenne, AN ACTUAL LEGAL SCHOLAR AND EXPERT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW:
The Acquisition of Territory Captured in a War of Self-Defense is Different from a War of Aggression
There is a further cardinal point regarding the question of whether the acquisition of captured territory from 1967 by Israel can be regarded as illegal. The great authority in international law, Elihu Lauterpacht, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war."
The case of a war of self-defense in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel's case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution's call for new "secure and recognized boundaries" beyond the earlier 1967 lines.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Finkelstein isn't a legal scholar. If he was maybe he could actually get the legal status of the occupied territories right. From Dr. Meir Rosenne, AN ACTUAL LEGAL SCHOLAR AND EXPERT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW:
The Acquisition of Territory Captured in a War of Self-Defense is Different from a War of Aggression
There is a further cardinal point regarding the question of whether the acquisition of captured territory from 1967 by Israel can be regarded as illegal. The great authority in international law, Elihu Lauterpacht, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war."
The case of a war of self-defense in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel's case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution's call for new "secure and recognized boundaries" beyond the earlier 1967 lines.
The 1967 war wasn't a war of self defence. Israel attacked first.
Not that your quotation gives any detail whatsoever in explaining how it would be different.
Of course you would say that '67 was an offensive war on Israel's part. You would need to recognize that all-so-terrible thing "NUANCE" to understand otherwise. Yes, Israel fired the first actual shots in the six day war, but the war is considered to have been defensive on Israel's part because of the pre-existence of legitimate casus belli. From wiki:
A casus belli played a prominent role during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of casī bellorum, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation. The most important was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port to the Red Sea, through which Israel received much of its oil. After several border incidents between Israel and Egypt's allies Syria and Jordan, Egypt expelled UNEF peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula, established a military presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, and announced a blockade of the straits, prompting Israel to cite its casus belli in opening hostilities against Egypt.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It would be different because if acquisition of territory by war was banned, regardless of whether the war was offensive or defensive, then an important disincentive against aggressive warfare would be removed, namely the possibility of losing territory should your country's aggression be repulsed and you lose the war you've started.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Of course you would say that '67 was an offensive war on Israel's part. You would need to recognize that all-so-terrible thing "NUANCE" to understand otherwise. Yes, Israel fired the first actual shots in the six day war, but the war is considered to have been defensive on Israel's part because of the pre-existence of legitimate casus belli. From wiki:
A casus belli played a prominent role during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of casī bellorum, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation. The most important was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port to the Red Sea, through which Israel received much of its oil. After several border incidents between Israel and Egypt's allies Syria and Jordan, Egypt expelled UNEF peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula, established a military presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, and announced a blockade of the straits, prompting Israel to cite its casus belli in opening hostilities against Egypt.
Why don't we see what the Israeli's themselves say on the matter:
1967:
'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).
Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."
Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.'
Oh come on. :roll: The Syrians were shelling Israel's northern civilian communities for years from the Golan heights. These weren't attacks on military targets, they were the bombardment of civilian communities inside sovereign Israel. On top of that the closing of the straights of tiran was a clear act of war, with which you barely dealt.
All you did was present a series of quotes entirely out of context. What's especially interesting about them is that they are all from after the war. It isn't as if a stunning military victory over three enemy armies in just six days could have possibly caused anyone to go back and reassess the prewar situation. :roll: :roll: :roll:
History aside, resolution 242 clearly accounts for negotiated territorial adjustments to the pre-'67 armistice lines.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Oh come on. :roll: The Syrians were shelling Israel's northern civilian communities for years from the Golan heights.
And that's all there is to it, right? The Syrians were shelling Israel, and during this period preceding the war the Israeli's were just innocently sitting around picking daisies?
Finkelstein: Moshe Dayan, who became the defense minister during the June ‘67 war, gave an interview in 1976 in which he acknowledges, and now I’m more or less quoting him, that 80%, he said at least 80%, but I’ll say 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by us. That we were engaged, now I’m using my language, but it’s I think a correct paraphrase, we were engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel. And in the course of this land grab there were conflicts arising with the Syrians. And it was only as a result of these conflicts that the Syrians then would fire artillery from the Golan Heights on the Israelis. So Moshe Dayan himself acknowledged that was instigated by the Israelis.
In April, just let me get right up to the point where the count down, as it were, begins. In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis then unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser is being taunted that “you’re not doing anything.”
Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and now the test is for Nasser. Are you going to do anything about it? The Israelis are announcing over and over again, the generals, the statesmen, that we’re going to give Syria now a serious blow. And it’s at that point that Nasser announces, or Nasser tells Secretary General [not "of State"] U Thant, that the peace keeping force which had been stationed between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, that peace keeping force should be withdrawn. And that’s the beginning of the count down to the war.
History aside, resolution 242 clearly accounts for negotiated territorial adjustments to the pre-'67 armistice lines.
With the preamble that refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and that calls for 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. The recent conflict being the 1967 war.
This seems like a good place to put this, since there's an actual debate happening here.
Feel free to begin a topic to debate about debating and how it applies to everyone here. There are usually few absolutes but it's absolutely required to debate here without getting personal. It's a poor discussion tactic to go after the person you're speaking with during a discussion. It signifies that you're, hmmm, I don't want to use the word "Losing"...that you're not on top of your topic. Be secure if you have your facts and be careful about what you believe on the internet...just discuss. There are so many serious topics to discuss. Thanks everyone. x
Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English,.
l
im polite,but need to learn English first..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
Oh come on. :roll: The Syrians were shelling Israel's northern civilian communities for years from the Golan heights.
And that's all there is to it, right? The Syrians were shelling Israel, and during this period preceding the war the Israeli's were just innocently sitting around picking daisies?
Finkelstein: Moshe Dayan, who became the defense minister during the June ‘67 war, gave an interview in 1976 in which he acknowledges, and now I’m more or less quoting him, that 80%, he said at least 80%, but I’ll say 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by us. That we were engaged, now I’m using my language, but it’s I think a correct paraphrase, we were engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel. And in the course of this land grab there were conflicts arising with the Syrians. And it was only as a result of these conflicts that the Syrians then would fire artillery from the Golan Heights on the Israelis. So Moshe Dayan himself acknowledged that was instigated by the Israelis.
In April, just let me get right up to the point where the count down, as it were, begins. In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis then unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser is being taunted that “you’re not doing anything.”
Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and now the test is for Nasser. Are you going to do anything about it? The Israelis are announcing over and over again, the generals, the statesmen, that we’re going to give Syria now a serious blow. And it’s at that point that Nasser announces, or Nasser tells Secretary General [not "of State"] U Thant, that the peace keeping force which had been stationed between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, that peace keeping force should be withdrawn. And that’s the beginning of the count down to the war.
You know in the lead up to the war the Soviets were telling everyone that the Israeli army was massing to invade Syria. Of course that wasn't even a little bit true, but whatever, who cares about annoying little things like truth.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israel fired the first shot of the war, but only after Egypt had closed the Straights of Tiran (a clear act of war), and begun massing troops in the Sinai peninsula on Israel's border. In effect Egypt started the war, but Israel was able to strike first, or if you like, Israel started the war, but was justified in doing so because of Egypt's aggressive prior actions. The point is that Israel didn't attack its neighbors out of nowhere in a bid to gain territory. It acted in self-defense, after hostile actions by its enemies created the perception that an attack on Israel was imminent.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This seems like a good place to put this, since there's an actual debate happening here.
Feel free to begin a topic to debate about debating and how it applies to everyone here. There are usually few absolutes but it's absolutely required to debate here without getting personal. It's a poor discussion tactic to go after the person you're speaking with during a discussion. It signifies that you're, hmmm, I don't want to use the word "Losing"...that you're not on top of your topic. Be secure if you have your facts and be careful about what you believe on the internet...just discuss. There are so many serious topics to discuss. Thanks everyone. x
Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
So, Netanyahu said the old borders did not take into account the "the "demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years"? And just what demographic changes might these be? Oh yes, these are the illegal settlements built by Israel over the past 44 years.
As for the 1967 borders being indefensible, this is clearly bullshit. How can these borders be any less defensible than the hundreds of isolated settlements in amongst Palestinian land?
Israel PM defiant over Obama border proposals
21 May 2011
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected US President Barack Obama's call for peace with the Palestinians based on pre-1967 borders.
After tense talks at the White House, a defiant Mr Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to compromise but there could be no peace "based on illusions".
Mr Obama, who formally adopted the principle on Thursday, admitted there were "differences" between the views.
But he said such differences were possible "between friends".
In his speech to the state department on Thursday, Mr Obama stated overtly for the first time that the peace talks should be based on a future Palestinian state within the borders in place before the 1967 Middle East War.
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said.
This proposal has been a key demand of the Palestinians in the negotiations.
But speaking in the Oval Office after their meeting, Mr Netanyahu flatly rejected this proposal, saying Israel wanted "a peace that will be genuine".
"We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts."
Israel was "prepared to make generous compromises for peace", he said, but could not go back to the 1967 borders "because these lines are indefensible".
He said the old borders did not take into account the "demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years".
An estimated 500,000 Israelis now live in settlements built in the Palestinian West Bank, which lies outside those borders.
The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
Mr Obama said there were obviously "some differences" in the "precise formulations and language" used by Israel and the US, but that this "happens between friends".
He did not bring up the matter of the borders in his joint conference with Mr Netanyahu.
But he said Palestinians faced "tough choices" following the recent reconciliation deal between Fatah, which runs the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs Gaza and still denies Israel's right to exist.
Mr Obama said true peace could only occur if Israel was allowed to defend itself against threats.
The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington says that while notion of a peace agreement based on 1967 lines is not news, Mr Obama has clearly angered Mr Netanyahu by formally adopting it.
Mr Netanyahu has come under increasing pressure as world figures and organisations, including American's partners in the Middle East Peace Quartet, EU, UN and Russia - lined up to back Mr Obama's position.
Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, also called on President Obama to remain committed to the plan.
But in the absence of a viable peace process, it is unclear what will come of US-Israel talks, says our correspondent.
History aside, resolution 242 clearly accounts for negotiated territorial adjustments to the pre-'67 armistice lines.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
'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.'
B, your last post has no bearing on the fact that the international community recognizes Israel's right to seek to alter its border through negotiation. I do not contest the legitimacy of the Palestinian right to statehood.
With regard to the '67 borders being indefensible, what is being referred to is the fact that Israel is 8-9 miles wide in the vital stretch between the Mediterranean Sea and the '67 line. This stretch includes the majority of Israel's population, virtually all of its major economic centers, and its lone international airports, all of which are on the low ground along the coastal plain, below the hills of the West Bank. The strategic reason Israel wants to adjust the border is so that the hilltops looking down onto the coast directly along the '67 line (from which it would be incredibly easy to bombard the vital population/economic centers of Israel with even the most simple weapons) will remain in Israeli hands.
And yes, Netanyahu is a scumbag. That doesn't mean that he doesn't also make some valid points.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
B, your last post has no bearing on the fact that the international community recognizes Israel's right to seek to alter its border through negotiation. I do not contest the legitimacy of the Palestinian right to statehood.
With regard to the '67 borders being indefensible, what is being referred to is the fact that Israel is 8-9 miles wide in the vital stretch between the Mediterranean Sea and the '67 line. This stretch includes the majority of Israel's population, virtually all of its major economic centers, and its lone international airports, all of which are on the low ground along the coastal plain, below the hills of the West Bank. The strategic reason Israel wants to adjust the border is so that the hilltops looking down onto the coast directly along the '67 line (from which it would be incredibly easy to bombard the vital population/economic centers of Israel with even the most simple weapons) will remain in Israeli hands.
This is all very nice, but it's not something the Israeli leadership has ever been satisfied with, as evidenced by all the previous so-called 'peace-talks' which have been nothing but an attempt to carve up the West Bank. These minor border adjustments you speak of have never been laid out as a basis for a viable settlement by the Israeli's.
Godfather, I don't know where you're getting this idea that anything in this speech is so offensive to Israel. Certainly no one is going to war over this. In fact there is nothing new here at all. This is basically exactly the same thing that the US, Israel, and the Palestinians have been talking about for the last decade at least. Look at what was being negotiated at camp david in 2001 and you'll see that the parameters were exactly what Obama is talking about, namely the '67 borders with minor agreed upon land swaps.
As for Obama losing support from American Jews it's not gonna happen, mostly for the same reason I just discussed, plus the fact that most American Jews are pretty liberal and overwhelmingly supportive of Obama.
Whygohome, I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but how could you possibly know something like that? I'm an American Jew and I know exactly what's going on in my homeland, as do pretty much all my American Jewish friends. Granted not everyone is like me, and maybe "most" aren't, but that's a pretty broad statement you're making.
Byrnzie, I don't expect you to change your views, but in light of the recent discussions on the train about being nicer in debates maybe you could tone it down a bit. I, for one, find the whole "Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, ethnic cleansing, seal clubbing, puppy throttling, Nazi criminal state" thing to be just a little not nice, to say the least.
obama is ridinga wave after osamas death, I give him much credit for risking that.
the whole landscape in the middle east is changing, countries that once had the USA's support becaause they made a peace with isreal have had much upheaval, those leaders are gone and now the peoples thoughts will shape policy. and unfortunatly most hate isreal with a an unsurpassed venom.
should obama sit back and let them all deal with it themselves
whats the point of having political milage when you will put that car in the garage
obama is ridinga wave after osamas death, I give him much credit for risking that.
the whole landscape in the middle east is changing, countries that once had the USA's support becaause they made a peace with isreal have had much upheaval, those leaders are gone and now the peoples thoughts will shape policy. and unfortunatly most hate isreal with a an unsurpassed venom.
should obama sit back and let them all deal with it themselves
whats the point of having political milage when you will put that car in the garage
Supporting the rights of the Palestinians doesn't mean that you hate Israel.
obama is ridinga wave after osamas death, I give him much credit for risking that.
the whole landscape in the middle east is changing, countries that once had the USA's support becaause they made a peace with isreal have had much upheaval, those leaders are gone and now the peoples thoughts will shape policy. and unfortunatly most hate isreal with a an unsurpassed venom.
should obama sit back and let them all deal with it themselves
whats the point of having political milage when you will put that car in the garage
Supporting the rights of the Palestinians doesn't mean that you hate Israel.
didnt say that
unfortunatly most in the region hate based on religon, not only on palestine
Comments
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... smap2.html
No map was ever presented during the final negotiations, so this can be easily dismissed.
You're playing games, claiming that what Israel offered at the beginning of the negotiations WAS ALL THAT THEY OFFERED, when, in fact, negotiations progressed well beyond that point. But of course you wouldn't want to admit that Israel actually made a viable offer based on the '67 lines, because that would put quite a dent in your fantasy that Israel is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, vampire state.
In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem" referring to his 2001 book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.
There was no viable offer. It was an attempt to carve up the West bank into three separate cantons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... #Territory
The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."
In any event Israel made another peace offer in '09 under Olmert. The map of what was offered in that much more recent package can be found here:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/ ... ertmap.pdf
It's in a Wiki article entitled '2000 Camp David Summit'. [Inappropriate comment removed by Admin]
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/f ... shlomo_ben
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: My concern is let’s look at the diplomatic record, the factual record. What were the offers being made on each side of the Camp David talks and in the Taba talks? And the standard interpretation, which comes— which is—you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat’s unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.
Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50%—50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now – they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about—which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact – I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down—other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book—he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.
The Acquisition of Territory Captured in a War of Self-Defense is Different from a War of Aggression
There is a further cardinal point regarding the question of whether the acquisition of captured territory from 1967 by Israel can be regarded as illegal. The great authority in international law, Elihu Lauterpacht, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war."
The case of a war of self-defense in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel's case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution's call for new "secure and recognized boundaries" beyond the earlier 1967 lines.
The 1967 war wasn't a war of self defence. Israel attacked first.
Not that your quotation gives any detail whatsoever in explaining how it would be different.
A casus belli played a prominent role during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of casī bellorum, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation. The most important was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port to the Red Sea, through which Israel received much of its oil. After several border incidents between Israel and Egypt's allies Syria and Jordan, Egypt expelled UNEF peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula, established a military presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, and announced a blockade of the straits, prompting Israel to cite its casus belli in opening hostilities against Egypt.
Why don't we see what the Israeli's themselves say on the matter:
1967:
'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.
The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).
Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."
Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.'
All you did was present a series of quotes entirely out of context. What's especially interesting about them is that they are all from after the war. It isn't as if a stunning military victory over three enemy armies in just six days could have possibly caused anyone to go back and reassess the prewar situation. :roll: :roll: :roll:
History aside, resolution 242 clearly accounts for negotiated territorial adjustments to the pre-'67 armistice lines.
And that's all there is to it, right? The Syrians were shelling Israel, and during this period preceding the war the Israeli's were just innocently sitting around picking daisies?
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkel ... -1967-war/
Finkelstein: Moshe Dayan, who became the defense minister during the June ‘67 war, gave an interview in 1976 in which he acknowledges, and now I’m more or less quoting him, that 80%, he said at least 80%, but I’ll say 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by us. That we were engaged, now I’m using my language, but it’s I think a correct paraphrase, we were engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel. And in the course of this land grab there were conflicts arising with the Syrians. And it was only as a result of these conflicts that the Syrians then would fire artillery from the Golan Heights on the Israelis. So Moshe Dayan himself acknowledged that was instigated by the Israelis.
In April, just let me get right up to the point where the count down, as it were, begins. In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis then unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser is being taunted that “you’re not doing anything.”
Things then start deteriorating between Israel and the Syrians. Come the beginning of May Israel is making clear that it’s going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and now the test is for Nasser. Are you going to do anything about it? The Israelis are announcing over and over again, the generals, the statesmen, that we’re going to give Syria now a serious blow. And it’s at that point that Nasser announces, or Nasser tells Secretary General [not "of State"] U Thant, that the peace keeping force which had been stationed between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai, that peace keeping force should be withdrawn. And that’s the beginning of the count down to the war.
With the preamble that refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and that calls for 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict'. The recent conflict being the 1967 war.
Feel free to begin a topic to debate about debating and how it applies to everyone here. There are usually few absolutes but it's absolutely required to debate here without getting personal. It's a poor discussion tactic to go after the person you're speaking with during a discussion. It signifies that you're, hmmm, I don't want to use the word "Losing"...that you're not on top of your topic. Be secure if you have your facts and be careful about what you believe on the internet...just discuss. There are so many serious topics to discuss. Thanks everyone. x
Debate Advice and Suggestions
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-Eng ... dvice.html
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
That's a lot of points to remember :wtf:
How do people know if I'm smiling or not when I'm disagreeing? Is it really that obvious? :P
You know in the lead up to the war the Soviets were telling everyone that the Israeli army was massing to invade Syria. Of course that wasn't even a little bit true, but whatever, who cares about annoying little things like truth.
that would be like me throwing the first punch in an altercation and saying i was defending myself. it can't work like that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
:shock:
As for the 1967 borders being indefensible, this is clearly bullshit. How can these borders be any less defensible than the hundreds of isolated settlements in amongst Palestinian land?
Netanyahu is a scumbag.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13481924
Israel PM defiant over Obama border proposals
21 May 2011
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected US President Barack Obama's call for peace with the Palestinians based on pre-1967 borders.
After tense talks at the White House, a defiant Mr Netanyahu said Israel was prepared to compromise but there could be no peace "based on illusions".
Mr Obama, who formally adopted the principle on Thursday, admitted there were "differences" between the views.
But he said such differences were possible "between friends".
In his speech to the state department on Thursday, Mr Obama stated overtly for the first time that the peace talks should be based on a future Palestinian state within the borders in place before the 1967 Middle East War.
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said.
This proposal has been a key demand of the Palestinians in the negotiations.
But speaking in the Oval Office after their meeting, Mr Netanyahu flatly rejected this proposal, saying Israel wanted "a peace that will be genuine".
"We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts."
Israel was "prepared to make generous compromises for peace", he said, but could not go back to the 1967 borders "because these lines are indefensible".
He said the old borders did not take into account the "demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years".
An estimated 500,000 Israelis now live in settlements built in the Palestinian West Bank, which lies outside those borders.
The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
Mr Obama said there were obviously "some differences" in the "precise formulations and language" used by Israel and the US, but that this "happens between friends".
He did not bring up the matter of the borders in his joint conference with Mr Netanyahu.
But he said Palestinians faced "tough choices" following the recent reconciliation deal between Fatah, which runs the West Bank, and Hamas, which governs Gaza and still denies Israel's right to exist.
Mr Obama said true peace could only occur if Israel was allowed to defend itself against threats.
The BBC's Paul Adams in Washington says that while notion of a peace agreement based on 1967 lines is not news, Mr Obama has clearly angered Mr Netanyahu by formally adopting it.
Mr Netanyahu has come under increasing pressure as world figures and organisations, including American's partners in the Middle East Peace Quartet, EU, UN and Russia - lined up to back Mr Obama's position.
Arab League chief, Amr Moussa, also called on President Obama to remain committed to the plan.
But in the absence of a viable peace process, it is unclear what will come of US-Israel talks, says our correspondent.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
'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.'
With regard to the '67 borders being indefensible, what is being referred to is the fact that Israel is 8-9 miles wide in the vital stretch between the Mediterranean Sea and the '67 line. This stretch includes the majority of Israel's population, virtually all of its major economic centers, and its lone international airports, all of which are on the low ground along the coastal plain, below the hills of the West Bank. The strategic reason Israel wants to adjust the border is so that the hilltops looking down onto the coast directly along the '67 line (from which it would be incredibly easy to bombard the vital population/economic centers of Israel with even the most simple weapons) will remain in Israeli hands.
And yes, Netanyahu is a scumbag. That doesn't mean that he doesn't also make some valid points.
This is all very nice, but it's not something the Israeli leadership has ever been satisfied with, as evidenced by all the previous so-called 'peace-talks' which have been nothing but an attempt to carve up the West Bank. These minor border adjustments you speak of have never been laid out as a basis for a viable settlement by the Israeli's.
well done yosi great post
the whole landscape in the middle east is changing, countries that once had the USA's support becaause they made a peace with isreal have had much upheaval, those leaders are gone and now the peoples thoughts will shape policy. and unfortunatly most hate isreal with a an unsurpassed venom.
should obama sit back and let them all deal with it themselves
whats the point of having political milage when you will put that car in the garage
Supporting the rights of the Palestinians doesn't mean that you hate Israel.
unfortunatly most in the region hate based on religon, not only on palestine