Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders

The Obama backs down, accepts Bush policy:
While sticking to the views he outlined in a Middle East policy speech Thursday, Obama more clearly aligned his position on borders to one espoused by the George W. Bush administration in 2004. The Bush White House had concluded that a return to the precise boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War was not realistic because of the presence of large Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Click to expand...
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...fends-remarks-on-israel-warns-tim-ar-1056044/

Do I see a pattern here? :)
 
Damocles said:
In order to complete the pattern we need some lefties calling Bush a buffoon, posting pictures of him with Hitler mustache and several more with him as a "chimp", then totally ignoring the reality of the matching foreign policy and telling us what a genius Obama is on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the cries of 'racist!' when someone shows a picture of The Obama as the Joker or as a chimp.
 
Yurt said:
Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders

President Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, on Thursday endorsed Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

The break with longstanding U.S. policy is likely to aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations. The declaration comes ahead of a meeting in Washington between Obama and visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said. "A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples."

Though the president endorsed the call for a Palestinian state with permanent pre-1967 borders, including mutually agreed land swaps, the president sought to assure that the United States' commitment to Israeli security is "unshakable." He said Israeli's right to defend itself will remain paramount, and suggested the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist group, is problematic for negotiations. He also publicly rejected attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition for their own state before the United Nations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/obamas-mideast-speech-offers-punishment-praise/

maybe the US should give mexico its land back...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1967 borders is not a radical proposition.
 
Saint Tomato said:
I am against a Palestinian state. Israel should take over the West Bank and Gaza Strip and rebuild their settlements. Palestinians who don't want to live peacefully with Jews can move to Jordan, which should for all intents and purposes be regarded as the Palestinian homeland.
Click to expand...

I am against a Palestinian state and a Jewish state.
 
Yurt said:
Obama 'disrespected' Israel, threw it 'under the bus,' says Romney

President Obama "disrespected" Israel and threw it "under the bus" in a wide-ranging speech on the Middle East on Thursday, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney charged.

Romney strongly criticized Obama, who, in a speech at the State Department, called for Israel to return to its border lines as drawn before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/162211-romney-obama-has-thrown-israel-under-the-bus

another reason i support romney
Click to expand...

When did this become some sort of radical proposition? Is the two-state solution dead, along with any hope of peace in the middle east?
 
Saint Tomato said:
Why are you so convinced that the Palestinians would be satisfied with a Palestinian state? It is apparent to me that only the destruction of the Jewish state and its inhabitants will satisfy the Palestinians' primitive urges. Some Palestinians manage to live peacefully in Israel. The remaining 80% have chosen to be barbaric, irrational, and lazy.
Click to expand...

It is apparent to me that only the destruction of the Palestinian state and its inhabitants will satisfy the Jews' primitive urges.
 
apple0154 said:
Considering one of the main points of disagreement is the Temple Mount where the (Muslin) Dome of the Rock stands and where the (Jewish) Second Temple stood that is the first area that requires attention. It is the "center" of both the Jewish people and the Muslims and because of the influence from and the beliefs in that particular area it needs to be removed from the picture.
Click to expand...

Well, actually under current Jewish doctrine standing on the ground of the former Second Temple could cause the death of your soul. That's why the Israeli's haven't really been pushing this point.
 
Saint Tomato said:
Yeah, who gives a damn about those Zionist kikes - is that right, Mott? You truly are blind to reality. It's as though you intentionally take the irrational position on any given issue solely for the sake of being "different."

Israel's security is most certainly of importance to the United States. It is the only democracy in a region that hosts what are among the most brutal, backward regimes in the world. A stable, secure Israel is therefore in our best interests.
Click to expand...

The whole concept of Israel has damaged democracy more than pretty much any other thing in the 20th century. Without this incredible injustice as a rallying point for the fundamentalists, most of the middle east would probably be comprised of moderate democracies.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Lots of Jews are liberal and therefore have no understanding of what Israel needs. The Arabs attacked Israel in 1967 and were beaten back to defensible borders. When you lose a war you lose your land.
Click to expand...

Winning a war doesn't entitle the victor to take whatever piece of land they want from it and void the property rights of all individuals living on it. You have zero understanding of foreign affairs if you have such a naive view of things.
 
St. Albert the Great said:
The whole concept of Israel has damaged democracy more than pretty much any other thing in the 20th century. Without this incredible injustice as a rallying point for the fundamentalists, most of the middle east would probably be comprised of moderate democracies.
Click to expand...


This is just stupid naivete`. Israel may be the cause celeb` for hate, but that is no excuse to not support them (the only actual functioning democracy in the whole fucking region) The ME is a tribal warring region of backward misogynist brutes for the most part. Israel took no ones land. Israel was given land that was inhabited by Jews and Arabs. The borders that were originally marked became obviously indefensible when they were attacked (without provocation). That Oblama was so irresponsible to say what he did with regards 1967 borders. IT shows he is as naive as you are.

Arabs have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries...they have likewise always fought Jews in Israel and have always taken their property as they pleased- Israel is a sovereign state, they ain't allowing Arab's to take as they please no more.. They have a right to exist as much as the US has a right to exist.

000.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
Israel took no ones land. Israel was given land that was inhabited by Jews and Arabs. The borders that were originally marked became obviously indefensible when they were attacked (without provocation).
Click to expand...

I know I would be perfectly fine if the UN suddenly decided that Mississippi were Blackistan, the country of Black People. And if Alabama (now Whiteistan) decided to go to war over this completely understandable decision, it would be perfectly justifiable for them to ethnically cleanse me from the region.
 
Annie said:
I expect that Israel will need to decide now if they can count on the US. The answer is, "No." So what does Israel decide is in its best interests? Why is this administration further destabilizing the ME?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ Annie. Do you believe any thing you hear on Fox News? For Christs sakes the only thing Obama did was reiterate long standing US Policy that all our Presidents since LBJ have supported. So if you're accusing Obama of destabilizing the ME with his comments about US Policy towards Israel/Palestine then you also have to accuse Bush I and II and Clinton and Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon and LBJ of doing the same.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/ said:
The new Republican doctrine demands erasing the old Republican doctrine, even if the old doctrine was acceptable a few years ago. GOP hacks are as busy as apparatchiks in the old Soviet Union who erased out-of-favor Communist VIPs from official photographs.


Anything that President Obama proposes is automatically subjected to bristling condemnation, even if the GOP supported it three years ago.


Given that, it’s no great surprise that Mitt Romney is claiming Obama “threw Israel under the bus” in his Mid-East speech yesterday, in which the president called for a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.


‘But just for the sake of adherence to facts, it’s worthwhile to check out recent history. As Atlantic Monthly’s Jeffrey Goldberg points out:


I’m amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel’s 1967 borders should define — with land-swaps — the borders of a Palestinian state. I’m feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here.


This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years.


This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.(Emphasis added.)


So what’s the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn’t think that the 1967 border won’t serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?’




​





gop-hypocrites.jpg
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker...lestinian-state/?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker
Click to expand...

Great post. I mean the right wing criticisms are pure partisan hackery. Oppose anything Obama says or does at all costs.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Anything that The Obama supports creates an orgasmic response by liberals, even if they excoriated Bush for doing it three years ago.
Click to expand...
More irrational stupidity. He repeated LONG STANDING US POLICY. Is there something about that you don't understand? Is you're hate so strong and are you such a fanatic that you are that blind or do you just not know jack shit about US foreign policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top