HUGE: Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders

#1
Holy heck!

Whether or not you agree with this policy, this is massive news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?_r=1&hp

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” he said. “The Palestinian must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in sovereign and contiguous state.”

Mr. Obama’s words were a strong signal that the United States expected Israel — as well as the Palestinians — to make concessions to restart peace talks that have been stalled since September. For instance, he seemed to rule out a key Israeli demand — for an ongong Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley — when he called for a “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces.”

“Precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel, too, must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
 
#3
He'll change his mind next week, once someone has told him about the jewish lobby in America.
 
#4
He's pissed off because Netanyahu made a monkey of him over the settlements.

This time tomorrow all the 'secretly a Muslim' stories will be going batshit in the press.
 
#5
Antenna twitching. So George Mitchell, US envoy to middle east quit just in time. Obama's on a roll. Loved the timing of this announcement just as Benjamin Netanyahu is about to embark on a Washington visit. Do you think Ben had some advance warning of this, judging by his icy reaction I reckon the conversation when he arrives at the White House will be 'interesting'.
 
#6
#7
It said on one news site that I read that Obama is coming around to the European view of how the Arab-Isareli conflict should be settled. I don't know if that's an accurate assessment, but Israel will never agree to go back to their pre-67 War borders and if Obama insists, he's just lost the Jewish lobby here and any hope he might have had for a second term. Which in my view is not a bad trade-off. We give the shaved chump the bum's rush and try to save our country from going bust by electing somebody who doesn't think we can spend our way to financial security.
 
#8
It said on one news site that I read that Obama is coming around to the European view of how the Arab-Isareli conflict should be settled. I don't know if that's an accurate assessment, but Israel will never agree to go back to their pre-67 War borders and if Obama insists, he's just lost the Jewish lobby here and any hope he might have had for a second term. Which in my view is not a bad trade-off. We give the shaved chump the bum's rush and try to save our country from going bust by electing somebody who doesn't think we can spend our way to financial security.
It is hardly just the "Jewish Lobby" in America that supports Israel.
 
#9
Antenna twitching. So George Mitchell, US envoy to middle east quit just in time.
Well, he's had a lot on his plate:

Crashing cars while stoned.
Drugs again.
Public toilets.
Wham reunions.
etc
 
#11
He said Mitchell not Michael !
Really? Well spotted, because I couldn't have noticed the difference between a washed up singer and an international envoy, but thank you for your diligence and keen eye.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
Where's the Middle East peace envoy while all this is going on?

Shouldn't Blair be in the middle of this?
 
#14
Several Yanks I know , when I have asked why the US always supports Israel, have said words to the effect of

'All major US Universities are financed by massive Gifts from Jewish Citizens'

Don't know if it's true but would explain an attitude to me.

john
 
#15
Somehow I can't see BN going for it. It seems that the best way to voted in in Israel is to promise more land for settlements etc and if the civpop don't get what they want........look in.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#18
It said on one news site that I read that Obama is coming around to the European view of how the Arab-Isareli conflict should be settled. I don't know if that's an accurate assessment, but Israel will never agree to go back to their pre-67 War borders and if Obama insists, he's just lost the Jewish lobby here and any hope he might have had for a second term. Which in my view is not a bad trade-off. We give the shaved chump the bum's rush and try to save our country from going bust by electing somebody who doesn't think we can spend our way to financial security.
He can threaten to cut Israels aid package - they might come round to the idea when all their F-xx's are parked up due to lack of spares.
Solve the Jewish/Arab conflict focal point, and save a bag of cash - its a win win! ;-)
 
#19
Huge? Is it really that much if any of a departure from the previous US position? President Bush back in 2005 during a press conference when Mahmoud Abbas said:

"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 negotiation."
In 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated:

"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
And now in 2011 we have President Obama saying:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
Now maybe not being an American and not following the whole Israel-Palestine situation all that much am I missing something that mkes this a major change? All of them seem to be fairly consistantly saying that they should use the old borders as a starting point and generally stick to them except where it's been mutually negotiated, as I understand it so that Israel can keep control of say West Jerusalem and some of the major settlement blocks in return for giving land to the Palestinians elsewhere.
 
#20
A 180 degree tturn from 60 years of US foreign policy! Yes that is huge. Obama has one major goal, to get re-elected in 2012. Interesting that Senator Mitchell GBE resigned fairly suddenly but now we know why. I suspect that this is something Obama has wanted to do for a while and the timing might be good now as the US media are full of so many other things (Libya, Osama dead, A'stan, The IMF rapist, Swarzernegger's love child....) that the media cannot focus to much on this. This will however hurt him with Jewish voters and even more importantly, fundraising as the Jewish community here has been very generous to the Dems in general and Obama in particular.

I will leave the discussion of whether the 1967 borders are tenable and defensible to others with more experience but this is a major policy shift by a man who has had no clearly defined foreign policy until now. This action alone really makes George W. look a lot better.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top