Obama said borders based on the green line with mutually acceptable land swaps. There was no trying to say everything had to go back to where it was in 67. I really think this is a tempest in a teapot. You certainly could be right about Abbas but that has no bearing on what Obama said. It isn't surprising, of course. Anytime anyone says anything about Israel and Palestine, people try and twist everything to fit their own agenda. I doubt that will change anytime soon.
As for the actual content Obama's speech, my take pretty much follows along with the CS Monitor this time: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0519/Obama-s-speech-a-historic-shift-on-Israel-and-Palestine-No Cheers, Judah On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Michael Dinowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, but this has not been America's position for decades. While every > president since Clinton has supported the land for peace concept (like > that's worked so far), there was never any explicit calls for the borders to > be based on the 67 lines. Obama is the first one who said this. > > In fact, in 2004 the US, with overwhelming support from the senate and > house, made a commitment to Israel where it flat out said that any return to > the 67 lines was unrealistic and America would not push for it. Obama > ignored that commitment just as he's ignored others that he just didn't > like. In effect, he's broken promises made by the American government to its > allies. > > As for Abbas, he's not looking for peace. His move with the UN again breaks > the Palestinians commitment to the Oslo agreement and is based on starting > more conflict with Israel. He's flat out stated that once there is a > declaration of a Palestinian state based on the pre-67 lines he'll be able > to make a diplomatic push to remove Israel from any land outside those > lines. No negotiations, not peace deals. Just more tries to get everything > while giving nothing. > > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I think that this is much adieu about nothing. Obama did not state "we >> have to go back to the green line", he stated that the green line >> needs to be a starting point with mutually agreed upon land swaps that >> reflect current reality. That has been the US position for decades, >> there has been no change. This is just posturing on behalf of Israel >> ahead of Abbas wanting to push a UN resolution in September ( a >> resolution that I disagree with, btw). >> >> Judah >> >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Militarily, the Golan Heights are a critical strategic position on their >> > northern border. Giving it up is suicide in a military situation. So the >> > question becomes, could Israel trust Syria to be a good neighbor? Would >> you? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> What does he mean the lines are indefensible? >> >> >> >> He's implying that for some reason they cannot defend their borders with >> >> the >> >> pre-war arrangements? >> >> >> >> On 20 May 2011 20:30, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > "While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it >> >> cannot >> >> > go back to the 1967 lines," Netanyahu declared. "These lines are >> >> > indefensible." >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:338184 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
