[KimLinbert]

Good you agree it's all an assumption. Except for Obama it is not an assumption thus the lecture by the PM. Now it is clear to Obama and the rest of the world the 67 border is not in play.

If you say so. Talking to you seems to be a waste of time.

[repldoinfo]

Can you produce a quote from all the previous presidents that Israel's border is to be that of 67.

I think you'd have to do an awful lot of homework to find quotes from all the previous presidents, but Dubya said it - and of course, it was perfectly fine when he did:

In Fact, Bush Publically Stated in 2005 That Changes To The 1967 Border "Must Be Mutually Agreed To"
In 2005, Bush Stated: "Any Final Status Agreement Must Be Reached Between The Two Parties, And Changes To The 1949 Armistice Lines Must Be Mutually Agreed To." From Bush's statement during a May 26, 2005, press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas:

"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today; it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

The imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the roadmap. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life. "

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine as the "1949-1967 Armistice Lines." [Press Conference with Presidents Bush and Abbas, 5/26/05; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed 5/19/11] Doocy Falsely Claims Obama "First President" To "Suggest" 1967 Israeli Borders | Media Matters for America

[Kryfamid]

That's comical.

Like you really give a shit about "bringing the world together".

When the world was criticizing President Bush I'd bet dollars to donuts that you were in the "who gives a shit what the world thinks - we're AMERICA motherfuckers!!!" camp.

All I see is, once again, President Obama taking the hard right over the easy wrong.

He did it in Libya and then he did it again with UBL in Pakistan.

Now he's doing it again with Israel.

As opposed to the "we're America and we've done horrrrrible things so sorry....sorry everyone" camp.

[Bbjhjxfy]

Somebody needs to get used to the fact that Isreal has never sought to expand it's borders using it's militeristic powers. Only by whipping ass on the countries that thought they could get by with attacking Isreal did they gain anything beyond the 1949 lines. They have the same rights to security that we do. All this will of course be a moot point soon with the growing threat from Iran,,,Which it seems only Isreal might be willing to deal with. Somehow all Obama's talking about his mideast plans seems to reflect that 78% think he's a socialist and 28% think he's a muslim. He does very little to make them think otherwise.

[Kneedycrype]

Somebody needs to get used to the fact that Isreal has never sought to expand it's borders using it's militeristic powers. Only by whipping ass on the countries that thought they could get by with attacking Isreal did they gain anything beyond the 1949 lines. They have the same rights to security that we do. All this will of course be a moot point soon with the growing threat from Iran,,,Which it seems only Isreal might be willing to deal with. Somehow all Obama's talking about his mideast plans seems to reflect that 78% think he's a socialist and 28% think he's a muslim. He does very little to make them think otherwise.

Israel has been the tail wagging us ( the dog) since 1948 primarily by the ability through the use of superior organizational skills and leverage in supporting candidates who will do their bidding. Only Obama has tried to bring them to heal so to speak by a realistic gesture defining the starting point. Regardless of justifications on either side of the issue it is time to call a halt to the skirmish and demand a settlement be reached. Israel was formed by the dictates of foreign power and could be disassembled in the same way. President Obama is also the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and has the power given to him by Congress IMO to dictate the starting point ( at least for the moment by reason of our brute force) "of negotiations" not Reid. Read is just another Senator now (maybe just for the time being). THis coming election is about the forces of money VS the needs of all humanity The Israeli / Arab brouhaha is a far ranging factor in this puzzle.

I'm sick of it !!! and hope all the American people are of the same mind.

[Lt_Apple]

I've yet to see any reason why any POTUS has sought to get in the middle of negotiations but I don't see this as being a right decision at all. I don't really see it as much of a right vs. wrong thing as it is a the borders are what they are type thing.

I think that's the practical approach... ignoring right/wrong and good/bad

Israel will not accept undefensable borders (in a military sense) as this invites invasion which defeats the purpose of stability and peace.

The Palestinians have to start with recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Israel may well simply declare what they wish the borders to be and abandon the land outside the borders and tell the Palestinians to do what the wish with the land and let them deal as best they can. Seems like that's, in effect, what they have done over the past decade.

[Pyuvjzwf]

I don't know that there's a specific sound bite but it seems to be pretty much the de facto standard all recent POTUS have used in brokering peace. The only real difference is Pres. Obama said it publicly.

President Bush stated there would be NO negotiations if Palistine--aka Hamas recognized Isreal's right to exist. Currently in their charter they state the opposite.

You can not negotiate with someone who is determined to destroy you and that is the difference between Obama who doesn't recognize or understand this--and Bush.

[Pyuvjzwf]

I think you'd have to do an awful lot of homework to find quotes from all the previous presidents, but Dubya said it - and of course, it was perfectly fine when he did:



Doocy Falsely Claims Obama "First President" To "Suggest" 1967 Israeli Borders | Media Matters for America

There are Presidents who have suggested that--but a lot of you liberals are determined to "forget" about recent history. And that recent history is who is in charge of Palistine--Hamas--who in their charter specifically state--that Isreal has no right to exist.

President Bush stated that the 1967 borders were a start--but that due to security for Isreal those borders would be unrealistic. Bush also stated that until Palistine--aka Hamas recognizes Isreal's right to exist--there could be no negotiations.

Obama blew it with Isreal--with bascially getting all over Isreal about these borders--but then put's on the soft--cushy gloves for Hamas.

[wMceqj7F]

Harry Reid rebukes Barack Obama's Israel speech - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Time to jump ship--LOL. I guess Harry figured out--that yes--there is a large voting block of Jewish in this country. And the main stream media is out there in a furry--trying to defend Obama--and calling all critics like Netanyahu rude for "treating Barack like a school boy."

I'm going to paraphrase Reid for you - " I am a dumb fuck. people are talking about stuff. i will comment and it might be stupid...the important thing is that i get money for my constituents. "

[QQ9ktYrV]

There you go, that's an assumption on your part. In reality you have no idea what was actually said in any of those meetings. Obama did say the 67 border was the starting point. Not so from Israel's point of view, not in the least. I will say past presidents knew that, thus never took Israel back to the 67 border, like Obama did. Huge difference, and that is what prompted the PM of Israel to give Obama a lecture on the subject, publicly.

The 67 borders (at least in principle, it has long been acknowledged that adjustments and land swaps ARE on the table) have been the base for ALL treaties that Israel and the Palestinians signed on the issue, for example Oslo, Annapolis, Wye Plantation (under Netanyahus first governement) for the Arab peace initiative ( that offers Israel recognition, peace treaties and integration in the region and has been adopted by the EU AND the US), and also for George Bushs "roadmap", including sharing Jerusalem. In essence , regardless how you spin it, that shows Netanyahu wishes to go back behind that and doesn´t want peace. Since a palestinian state without Jerusalem, with the settlements in place, only in not clearly defined parts of the West Bank that Israel doesn´t want, with a huge israeli army presence inside its borders while completely demilitarised and what else Netanyahu has demanded isn´t a state, it is a joke. And no palestinian leader,regardless how moderate is going to accept his terms.

[Pyuvjzwf]

The 67 borders (at least in principle, it has long been acknowledged that adjustments and land swaps ARE on the table) have been the base for ALL treaties that Israel and the Palestinians signed on the issue, for example Oslo, Annapolis, Wye Plantation (under Netanyahus first governement) for the Arab peace initiative ( that offers Israel recognition, peace treaties and integration in the region and has been adopted by the EU AND the US), and also for George Bushs "roadmap", including sharing Jerusalem. In essence , regardless how you spin it, that shows Netanyahu wishes to go back behind that and doesn´t want peace. Since a palestinian state without Jerusalem, with the settlements in place, only in not clearly defined parts of the West Bank that Israel doesn´t want, with a huge israeli army presence inside its borders while completely demilitarised and what else Netanyahu has demanded isn´t a state, it is a joke. And no palestinian leader,regardless how moderate is going to accept his terms.

Then what was the point of Obama making a speech about it?

[wooclosmercob]

Geeezus, Harry is a moron.

His own family called him "Pinky".

His dad Harry and his mother Treva were the salt of the earth, Harry Junior is an idiot.

He is my Ex Wife's cousin.

Your Post is called "Projection".

Our Republican friends always forget that the Democratic party has the largest tent in the country, and in that tent are a multitude of views with shades of gray all throughout and despite my objections, the Democrats seem content with letting all of their leaders weigh in on things with their own words and thoughts, whereas Republicans are much more controlled and organized and will parrot each other incessantly the minute a new soundbite is given them, like "Death Panels" or "Gov't is the problem". And all Republicans italicize the "is" in that latter one, just as an example of how unified they are on the little details.

Harry Reid is one of the most conservative Democrats, he's from an older generation, and therefore it makes sense that he sees Obama's speech as perhaps too idealistic, despite the fact that if you look back at two speeches from John McCain and George W. Bush, they all repeated the same things.

Disingenuous Republicans with nothing to do need to throw whatever they can throw at Obama no matter what he says, so yet another thread that reflects conservative wishful-thinking is not surprising.

Reid remarks hardly qualify as throwing the President under the bus.

[QQ9ktYrV]

Then what was the point of Obama making a speech about it?

It was Netanyahu, who claimed this was a big affair, not Obama.

[wooclosmercob]

LOL....tell us...why did Bammy say it then ?

It was Netanyahu, who claimed this was a big affair, not Obama.

[Wymdqcvb]

Then what was the point of Obama making a speech about it?

Bibi called Boehner and said he wanted to make a speech to both houses of Congress. Boehner said, "yes, Sir, I'll set it up right away," which gives you some idea of the role of the Israel government in US domestic policy.

Naturally, the White House wanted to go first rather than be responding to Bibi, hence the change in date for Obama's speech.

I think the reason for both speeches is the upcoming vote on a Palestinian state requested by the PA if negotiations are not restarted.

Obama, in favor of restarting negotiations and producing a Palestinian state, is calculating the US moves at the UN if the statehood motion is introduced. Bibi, of course, wants a US veto in the Security Council announced in advanced, coupled with continued stall-and-crawl on the so-called "peace process."

The recent speech-o-rama is part of the preliminary jostling for position on the issue, with both sides trying to rally US domestic support.

[nickayary]

Bibi called Boehner and said he wanted to make a speech to both houses of Congress. Boehner said, "yes, Sir, I'll set it up right away," which gives you some idea of the role of the Israel government in US domestic policy. . . .

The way Congress hoop-hollered Netanyahu the other day during the joint session speech was very troubling and embarrassing IMO.

First, it made the US appear as Israel's total lapdog and puppet and specifically of Netanyahu. It was completely unbecoming, reckless and unflattering for the US to signal that to Israel and the rest of the world.

Second, it harmed the US's ability to play any fair and effective role in solving the Palestinian issue. They saw that grovelling spectacle and so did all other Muslims and/or Arabs (a few are Christian) and it signalled that the US will side with anything Israel requests over them.

Third, it was shameless pandering for short term personal kudos with the Jewish, Evangelical and some other religious based voters, influence and funding at the expense of a serious longtime foreign relations problem. It's one that's also consistently caused the US problems with being too biased towards Israel and not just with terrorism. The US needs friends in the Muslim world too--there's over a billion of them and in places of key strategic influence. How much oil does Israel produce? Or gas? Or other natural resources?

Fourth, it made the US look weak and pathetic and even almost delegating its sovereignty and direction to a foreign leader for his nation's--not the US's--uses and interests. Take a look at how the British reacted to Obama's speech in London yesterday before:

Obama: He came, he spoke, he conquered Westminster

The smooth rhetoric of the US President's address to Parliament won him a standing ovation. But the speech also made two important points

In a spirit of unyielding optimism neatly combined with a message of hard-headed pragmatism, Barack Obama has insisted that the time for American and European leadership "is now" in spite of the rise of new global superpowers. He was the first United States president to address MPs and peers in Westminster Hall and received a standing ovation before he began his speech, which covered issues such as foreign policy, economic development and international security.

The theatre of a state visit from Mr Obama is unavoidably mesmerising. Even the long wait in Westminster Hall for his arrival had a compelling quality, as Tony Blair spoke animatedly with Gordon Brown, David Cameron exchanged what seemed like a joke or two with Nick Clegg and opposite them sat the film star Tom Hanks. The delay in the presidential arrival led to an even greater sense of anticipation. Abroad at least, Mr Obama still casts spells as he did before the hard grind of power took hold.

. . .
Obama: He came, he spoke, he conquered Westminster - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Once again, the US got a great boost from the POTUS there. Obama is proving to be a very effective leader for the US in foreign policy insofar as message delivery, popularity, rationale, effect, etc. He even got an honour no other POTUS ever received beforehand--a 'joint session of Parliament' speech in Westminster Hall--and he hit the ball out of the park with it.

Yet, if you watch the video of that speech, the British gave him the standing ovation at the end. They NEVER hoop-hollered him during his speech or otherwise acted as if the UK was his 'little bitch,' if you will. The UK is a powerful country in its own right with its own character, history, etc. To the British, they are allies and Obama is supposed to be the leader of an ally, not a proxy PM or leader to whom they grovel.

In no way whatsoever is what I'm saying anywhere meant to say that the Palestinians and their allies and supporters don't have to compromise or clean up much of their act. They absolutely do and form just as much of the problem. There's plenty of overreaching and wrongdoing by all sides here IMO. But it needs to get solved and not being part of the problem helps do that.

[wooclosmercob]

The Palestinians don't want "Peace"....only the delusional still hold to that...and by the way,by Palestinians I mean the people in "charge".

The way Congress hoop-hollered Netanyahu the other day during the joint session speech was very troubling and embarrassing IMO.

First, it made the US appear as Israel's total lapdog and puppet and specifically of Netanyahu. It was completely unbecoming, reckless and unflattering for the US to signal that to Israel and the rest of the world.

Second, it harmed the US's ability to play any fair and effective role in solving the Palestinian issue. They saw that grovelling spectacle and so did all other Muslims and/or Arabs (a few are Christian) and it signalled that the US will side with anything Israel requests over them.

Third, it was shameless pandering for short term personal kudos with the Jewish, Evangelical and some other religious based voters, influence and funding at the expense of a serious longtime foreign relations problem. It's one that's also consistently caused the US problems with being too biased towards Israel and not just with terrorism. The US needs friends in the Muslim world too--there's over a billion of them and in places of key strategic influence. How much oil does Israel produce? Or gas? Or natural resources?

Fourth, it made the US look weak and pathetic and even almost delegating its sovereignty and direction to a foreign leader for his nation's--not the US's--uses and interests. Take a look at how the British reacted to Obama's speech in London yesterday before:



Obama: He came, he spoke, he conquered Westminster - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Once again, the US got a great boost from the POTUS there. Obama is proving to be a very effective leader for the US in foreign policy insofar as message delivery, popularity, rationale, effect, etc. He even got an honour no other POTUS ever received beforehand--a 'joint session of Parliament' speech in Westminster Hall--and he hit the ball out of the park with it.

Yet, if you watch the video of that speech, the British gave him the standing ovation at the end. They NEVER hoop-hollered him during his speech or otherwise acted as if the UK was his 'little bitch,' if you will. The UK is a powerful country in its own right with its own character, history, etc. To the British, they are allies and Obama is supposed to be the leader of an ally, not a proxy PM or leader to whom they grovel.

In no way whatsoever is what I'm saying anywhere meant to say that the Palestinians and their allies and supporters don't have to compromise or clean up much of their act. They absolutely do and form just as much of the problem. There's plenty of overreaching and wrongdoing by all sides here IMO. But it needs to get solved and not being part of the problem helps do that.

[wooclosmercob]

Once again, the US got a great boost from the POTUS there. Obama is proving to be a very effective leader for the US in foreign policy insofar as message delivery, popularity, rationale, effect, etc. He even got an honour no other POTUS ever received beforehand--a 'joint session of Parliament' speech in Westminster Hall--and he hit the ball out of the park with it.

Yet, if you watch the video of that speech, the British gave him the standing ovation at the end. They NEVER hoop-hollered him during his speech or otherwise acted as if the UK was his 'little bitch,' if you will. The UK is a powerful country in its own right with its own character, history, etc. To the British, they are allies and Obama is supposed to be the leader of an ally, not a proxy PM or leader to whom they grovel.

In no way whatsoever is what I'm saying anywhere meant to say that the Palestinians and their allies and supporters don't have to compromise or clean up much of their act. They absolutely do and form just as much of the problem. There's plenty of overreaching and wrongdoing by all sides here IMO. But it needs to get solved and not being part of the problem helps do that.

Yeah....no. Obama is not a leader is is simply pandering the people in his sphere that are against Israel....

[nickayary]

Yeah....no. Obama is not a leader is is simply pandering the people in his sphere that are against Israel....

Nah, he's not against Israel...there's nothing in what he said that's even materially different than what Bush, Clinton and preceding people before him said. What gets in his way, as it did with Bush, Clinton and predecessors is the amount of pandering each party and its lackey supporters in their bases do to spin against the sitting POTUS on it even if it's shamelessly inconsistent with what each does themselves when in power. The Dems did it to Bush and now they're doing it to Obama, and the GOP did it to Clinton before they backed Bush on it, etc. American partisanship--insofar as the US being helpful--consistently helps erode its ability to actually do something to help solve it.

[wooclosmercob]

Oh...I suggest you look at who he has surrounded himself with

You may start here.

Samantha Power

Nah, he's not against Israel...there's nothing in what he said that's even materially different than what Bush, Clinton and preceding people before him said. What gets in his way, as it did with Bush, Clinton and predecessors is the amount of pandering each party and its lackey supporters in their bases do to spin against the sitting POTUS on it even if it's shamelessly inconsistent with what each does themselves when in power. The Dems did it to Bush and now they're doing it to Obama, and the GOP did it to Clinton before they backed Bush on it, etc. American partisanship--insofar as the US being helpful--consistently helps erode its ability to actually do something to help solve it.