Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[Ulysses G.]

Netanyahu told Obama very plainly that going back to the the 1967 border was are not going to happen and then Obama backtracked on it the next very day after numerous outraged Americans in both parties weighed in. That is why Netanyahu backed off.

Regarding the 1967 lines, Obama clarified that he did not mean that he thought Israel would have to return to the lines that existed on June 4, 1967, which would mean ceding the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall, the giving up of Ramot, Gilo and other post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem, and the US reversal of a position stated by president George W. Bush in his 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon that any agreement would have to take into account "new realities on the ground."

Saying that his reference on Thursday night to the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, was "misrepresented several times," Obama went on to explain himself.

What this means, he said, is that the Israelis and Palestinians "will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=221755

Edited May 23, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

Historically, this argument has collapsed under the weight of its own chutzpah. When the American people take a time out from the unemployment line to consider whether their well-being is more important than protecting Israel's borders, this mess will come tumbling down. If we keep it on the front burners long enough, they will figure it out.

The West needs Israel in a similar way that Arab countries do. They need it to distract their people from problems at home (which was working fine up until a few months ago) and the West needs Israel as a buffer between the islamo-fascist-terrorist-nutjobs and the West.

[Scott]

Several inflammatory posts and the responses to them have been removed.

Please be civil.

[LomSak27]

Maybe it has something to do with all the "Hope" and "Change" he peddled leading up to his election?

Could be, although I recall “I’m a uniter not a divider” or "compassionate conservatism" being mouthed back in 2000. I guess I never thought much of them afterward because I knew they were lies at the time.

[Scott]

There has been way too much nastiness in this thread. I will close it until I have time to attend to some of the posts and posters that seem to be causing a problem.

//CLOSED FOR CLEANING//

Edit:

Reopened: Please keep it civil.

[Ulysses G.]

Obama is backpedaling fast.

Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/ears-obama-israel-lobby-conference/?test=latestnews

[Steely Dan]

Obama is backpedaling fast.

Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/ears-obama-israel-lobby-conference/?test=latestnews

Tis a bugger when you have the volume on when thinking and then have to backpedal pretty pronto, ask Mel Gibson.

[kuffki]

Obama is backpedaling fast.

Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

Tis a bugger when you have the volume on when thinking and then have to backpedal pretty pronto, ask Mel Gibson.

Who is Mel Gibson,?

[samurai]

Obama is backpedaling fast.

Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/22/ears-obama-israel-lobby-conference/?test=latestnews

He is backpedalling from what?

The key words "with mutually agreed swaps" where there from the beginning and if you didn't want deliberate misread and misinterpret them is was clear what it means. That was pointed out in this thread by several posters.

[Ulysses G.]

So that is why Obama is frantically claiming that he was "misinterpreted"? It seems that a LOT of people all over the world made this little "mistake"

The thing that actually matters is that there is no way that Obama can pressure Israel to go back to indefensible borders that stem from when Israel was attacked for no reason by five huge Arab countries and have been outdated for more than 40 years.

[LomSak27]

when Israel was attacked for no reason by five huge Arab countries

Are you referring to Egypt blocking the Straits at Sharm and Israel launching a suprise attack in 1967?

[kuffki]

when Israel was attacked for no reason by five huge Arab countries

Are you referring to Egypt blocking the Straits at Sharm and Israel launching a suprise attack in 1967?

I believe he is referring to the war stemmed from Egypt's decision to expel United Nations troops from the Sinai peninsula and blockade Israel's port of Eilat, under international law a casus belli, or act of war, in addition to belligerent Arab threats to destroy Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

Are you referring to Egypt blocking the Straits at Sharm ...

You means after they had been threatening to ANNIHILATE Israel for weeks?

No, I was talking about the 1948 war when the "Palestinians" refused the land that the UN offered them.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[luckizuchinni]

Israel is the US' ally, no doubt about that, and the Palestinians have not been so kind to US positions. However, that does not mean that the US has to be in lock-step with the Israelis. Nor does it mean that a US president cannot publicaly express opinions which the Israelis might not like.

The Israelis certainly do not follow our positions 100%. When other presidents have expressed their misgivings on Israeli settlements, for example, the Israelis pretty much ignore those opinions and build away. They regularly spy on the US. And let's not forget the USS Liberty.

So if the Israelis can go against the US when they deem it in their best national interests, why can't the US take any issue with Israel without unleashing a storm of criticism?

Frankly, nothing has happened to the positive for peace in the region for decades, and if it takes Obama stirring up the pot a bit, I am all for it. Without abandoning Israel, let's get some movement going towards peace. And it is in the US' self interest to have a true and lasting peace in the region.

[Ulysses G.]

MOST Americans do not support Obama's position on the borders including many members of the Democrat party and it would be suicidal for Israel to do what he wants (wanted?). That is why.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[luckizuchinni]

MOST Americans do not support Obama's position on the borders including many members of the Democrat party and it would be suicidal for Israel to do what he wants (wanted?). That is why.

Most Americans don't want to pay taxes, either. But we do.

We are not the United States of Israel. That is all I am saying. We don't have to abandon Israel, but neither should we put their interests above ours.

[Ulysses G.]

We also do not have the right to tell them to do something as stupid as returning to borders that they can not defend.

[luckizuchinni]

We also do not have the right to tell them to do something as stupid as returning to borders that they can not defend.

That is my point. We have the "right" to tell them anything we want, even if you are misstating Obama's specifics. "We" in this case, are the USA, and just as we tell other countries what we think as we define it for our own national interests, we can tell Israel pretty much anything we want, just as Russia, China, the UK, Iran, the RSA, whomever, has the right to make their views known.

Look, it is very obvious from your body of posts that you, along with a few others, are adamantly pro-Israel to the point that nothing else matters, just as the MIA bangkokeddy is anti-US. And if you want to blindly support Israel, that is your perogative. But I don't think anything is so 100% black and white.

I have served alongside the Israeli Army. I have been in amongst the Palestinians. I have served throughout the Middle East. And while the US' and Israeli interests are generally parallel, Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they have a long history of contravening US interests. As is their "right" to do so. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests. Not Israel's. Not the Palestinians'. Not Yap's or Martinique's. The USA's.

[flying]

That is my point. We have the "right" to tell them anything we want, even if you are misstating Obama's specifics. "We" in this case, are the USA, and just as we tell other countries what we think as we define it for our own national interests, we can tell Israel pretty much anything we want, just as Russia, China, the UK, Iran, the RSA, whomever, has the right to make their views known.

Look, it is very obvious from your body of posts that you, along with a few others, are adamantly pro-Israel to the point that nothing else matters, just as the MIA bangkokeddy is anti-US. And if you want to blindly support Israel, that is your perogative. But I don't think anything is so 100% black and white.

I have served alongside the Israeli Army. I have been in amongst the Palestinians. I have served throughout the Middle East. And while the US' and Israeli interests are generally parallel, Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they have a long history of contravening US interests. As is their "right" to do so. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests. Not Israel's. Not the Palestinians'. Not Yap's or Martinique's. The USA's.

LZ,

your last few posts on this topic have been pretty level headed

[Ulysses G.]

. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests.

I agree with that, but I do not think that Obama is looking out for our best interests in a number of situations and this is one of them. He is blinded by his own PC ideology to the point that he is willing to sell out the the will of the majority of Americans.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel is far from a perfect ally

No one is perfect and that certainly includes us.

[Steely Dan]

We also do not have the right to tell them to do something as stupid as returning to borders that they can not defend.

That is my point. We have the "right" to tell them anything we want, even if you are misstating Obama's specifics. "We" in this case, are the USA, and just as we tell other countries what we think as we define it for our own national interests, we can tell Israel pretty much anything we want, just as Russia, China, the UK, Iran, the RSA, whomever, has the right to make their views known.

Look, it is very obvious from your body of posts that you, along with a few others, are adamantly pro-Israel to the point that nothing else matters, just as the MIA bangkokeddy is anti-US. And if you want to blindly support Israel, that is your perogative. But I don't think anything is so 100% black and white.

I have served alongside the Israeli Army. I have been in amongst the Palestinians. I have served throughout the Middle East. And while the US' and Israeli interests are generally parallel, Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they have a long history of contravening US interests. As is their "right" to do so. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests. Not Israel's. Not the Palestinians'. Not Yap's or Martinique's. The USA's.

As with any relationship between allies things are a two way street. I'm sure there are those within the U.S who resent the money that Israel receives, though the amount other regimes receive does not get the same scrutiny and if it's less than Israel does receive then perhaps that is down to the hostility or cooperation received from others. Since Obama took office he has precided over a policy of appeasement with respect to Iran, they have effectively ran with the ball on their nuclear development and also made Lebannon into a proxy state through Hizbollah. Then we have the policy towards Egypt, which was the largest most important domino in the so called Arab spring - but many people have concluded that the arabs are not ready for a spring and will resort to secatarian racism and external agression soon after removing their ruling despots. As I commented before, judge Obama by his actions not his words, his actions have left Israel facing greater threats to it's existence than it has done for decades.

[Jingthing]

Arab Spring is probably a misnomer.

In two recent speeches, Barack Obama assured Israel that he is its champion. This has been in considerable doubt — this president feels no one’s pain — but in talking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama did everything but plant a tree in Israel. He affirmed its right to be the Jewish homeland, denounced Hamas and insisted that “the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination.” As far as Obama is concerned, “now” is now.

As it happens, this is more or less the conclusion that Dov Weissglass has reached. Weissglass was Ariel Sharon’s chief of staff and his credentials as a hard-liner cannot therefore be challenged. Yet, he too thinks the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority “is the best leadership it has had from Israel’s perspective ever since the PA was formed.” Moreover, Palestinians are finally appreciating the immense power of passive resistance. Terrorism repels people; unarmed resistance elicits admiration. Weissglass called for talks. “They need to begin immediately,” he wrote just last week in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

I can understand Netanyahu’s reluctance to move off the dime. The Arab world is in flux. Zealots, radicals and anti-Semites are vying for influence. The region’s so-called revolutions are actually counterrevolutions — reversing the policies of the military men who secularized their governments and tempered their hot hate of Israel with cold pragmatism. The region may not be getting ahead of history but returning to it. It could be a swell time to do nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/time-for-netanyahu-to-ditch-his-do-nothing-policy/2011/05/23/AFHgP49G_story.html

Obama is a friend of Israel which is NOT the same thing as being a rubber stamp for Netanyahu, and that is a good thing. However, I agree with the sentiment that Americans should support American interests first, and that includes Jewish Americans. I realize the right is demonizing Obama over his so called soft support for Israel. However, you can bet the house that Jewish Americans will vote overwhelmingly YET AGAIN for Obama, as they did the last time, though I expect the support to soften by 10 or 20 percent.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Jingthing

[Pakboong]

There are many "intel" professionals who believe to this day that the 67 war was not defensive by Israel but a very clever trap designed to grab land for settlements. True or not, the Israelis are that clever. Their intelligence network is the most sophisticated in the world and much like FDR's comment that nothing in politics happens by accident, very little in the middle east that involves Israel happens by accident. Certainly nothing happens without Israeli knowledge. Think Jonathan Pollard thousands of times over posted in pretty much every country in this world.

The Arabs are way over their head in these matters and that is simply their problem. NO reason to give the Arab world a handicap. The movie "Zulu" comes to mind. Sadly, I am beginning to believe that the USA is also way over its head.

My difficulty is usually connected to the notion that every thing with regard to Israel is just as it appears when I know for certain that nothing could be further from the truth. If Israel needs something to happen, it will happen. I occasionally make the point that if the Israelis need the rockets to continue, they will continue. This is not reference to past events but, a statement of capability. This statement is met with sarcasm which is expected. But the irony that I find interesting is the contradictory nature of the new argument. You are basically confirming the magnificance of the Israeli defense machinery but being contrary seems to supersede all other considerations. Something along the lines as "The Israelis would never do that, or even "They are not that stupid". The Israelis will do what they need to do and that includes every imaginable possibility.

Anybody who believes that "Never Again" is not locked in stone is dreaming. It is a matter of perceived survival and there are no moral or ethical limitations in it's regard. International law does not stand in the way of "Never Again". Deception is the primary strategy employed by all Israeli Defense, there are never simple answer to what they do and why they do it except for the "Never Again" conditioning. Every Israeli politician accepts "Never Again" as his personal charge and will do nothing to reflect otherwise.

[Ulysses G.]

A lot of Israelis are very clever, but far from the cunning, all knowing geniuses that you describe.

If the Arabs had done what the Soviets told them in 1973 and had not lied to each other about intelligence, there would probably not be an Israel anymore.

The Soviets armed the Arabs to the teeth and told their vast armies exactly what to do, but they were too arrogant to obey instructions and blew their only chance.

Israel can not afford to believe that they can rely on either the kindness or stupidity of the rest of the world.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

There are many "intel" professionals who believe to this day that the 67 war was not defensive by Israel but a very clever trap designed to grab land for settlements. True or not, the Israelis are that clever. Their intelligence network is the most sophisticated in the world and much like FDR's comment that nothing in politics happens by accident, very little in the middle east that involves Israel happens by accident. Certainly nothing happens without Israeli knowledge. Think Jonathan Pollard thousands of times over posted in pretty much every country in this world.

The Arabs are way over their head in these matters and that is simply their problem. NO reason to give the Arab world a handicap. The movie "Zulu" comes to mind. Sadly, I am beginning to believe that the USA is also way over its head.

My difficulty is usually connected to the notion that every thing with regard to Israel is just as it appears when I know for certain that nothing could be further from the truth. If Israel needs something to happen, it will happen. I occasionally make the point that if the Israelis need the rockets to continue, they will continue. This is not reference to past events but, a statement of capability. This statement is met with sarcasm which is expected. But the irony that I find interesting is the contradictory nature of the new argument. You are basically confirming the magnificance of the Israeli defense machinery but being contrary seems to supersede all other considerations. Something along the lines as "The Israelis would never do that, or even "They are not that stupid". The Israelis will do what they need to do and that includes every imaginable possibility.

Anybody who believes that "Never Again" is not locked in stone is dreaming. It is a matter of perceived survival and there are no moral or ethical limitations in it's regard. International law does not stand in the way of "Never Again". Deception is the primary strategy employed by all Israeli Defense, there are never simple answer to what they do and why they do it except for the "Never Again" conditioning. Every Israeli politician accepts "Never Again" as his personal charge and will do nothing to reflect otherwise.

You forgot to mention the control of the banking system and links to masonic illuminati that allow the world to be controlled by a few men sat round a table who are never known or in the public eye. If you judge everything by effect then work backwards to the supposed hidden cause you can come up with whatever tinfoil hat wearer conspiracies best fit your prejudice bias. It has been documented in several sources that the Israelis genuinely feared anhialation in 1967. That they won so spectacularly left them with a problem in that the greater Israel many had dreamed of but accepted was not possible was suddenly presented to them. The temptation to build on this position and consolidate it was actually aided by the continuing hostility from outside as well as the small matter of the Jews fleeing persecution from arab lands and Russia who needed to be settled somewhere.

You do it very subtly but in effect you are trying to paint the Jews as a machiaevelian super race with allegiences only to themselves - all the better to scapegoat when the shit really hits the fan. Likewise you deliberately under play the capacity of the Arabs to destroy their eternal enemy given half a chance. The arabs and the liberal left have formed an alliance to undermine Israel's existence which has resulted in a global war based on violence, delegitimization of Israel through boycotts and lies/propaganda. And you suggest it's just the Jews who are playing some hidden game.

[luckizuchinni]

. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests.

I agree with that, but I do not think that Obama is looking out for our best interests in a number of situations and this is one of them. He is blinded by his own PC ideology to the point that he is willing to sell out the the will of the majority of Americans.

OK, I can accept that that is your opinion. My opinion is a bit different on this specific case, at least.

I am not writing that his speech was necessarily the correct solution. All I know is that the status quo is doing nothing and has done nothing for peace in the region, and, as such, something different has to be done. I would rather have something else tried which could result in real dialogue and movement, and while it could fail, too, the status quo is failing.

And even if it would fail, the speech in and of itself should serve to give notice that we are not necessarily against the basic Palestinian cause nor are we in lockstep with the position of the more hardline Israeli factions. If we are going to be part of the solution, and I think we should be, we need to be perceived as an honest broker. And in being an honest broker, I think that gives us more credibility when we come out against the rocket attacks and other violence against Israel than if we are perceived to be merely an Israeli puppet.

[Ulysses G.]

If we are going to be part of the solution, and I think we should be, we need to be perceived as an honest broker.

While I agree with you in theory, I think that this is impossible. All of Obama's attempts to curry favor with the Arab world have failed and the more we pander to their demands, the more they see us as weak, gullible and foolish.

The "Palestinians" are well aware that they have little interest in peace with the country of Israel still standing and think that we are idiots for believing otherwise. This is the reality of the Middle East and the reason that most Israelis see American liberals as naive.

The Israelis know that if they lose even one war they are toast and as someone mentioned earlier, they are very determined to never end up as toast again.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[powderpuff]

Jews had better wake up & work hard to defeat this sell-out Marxist ideologue at the very first opportunity. This man is a complete & utter failure who Jimmy Peanut must be thanking his lucky stars to be bumped down to second worst Pres in living memory.

[nontabury]

We also do not have the right to tell them to do something as stupid as returning to borders that they can not defend.

That is my point. We have the "right" to tell them anything we want, even if you are misstating Obama's specifics. "We" in this case, are the USA, and just as we tell other countries what we think as we define it for our own national interests, we can tell Israel pretty much anything we want, just as Russia, China, the UK, Iran, the RSA, whomever, has the right to make their views known.

Look, it is very obvious from your body of posts that you, along with a few others, are adamantly pro-Israel to the point that nothing else matters, just as the MIA bangkokeddy is anti-US. And if you want to blindly support Israel, that is your perogative. But I don't think anything is so 100% black and white.

I have served alongside the Israeli Army. I have been in amongst the Palestinians. I have served throughout the Middle East. And while the US' and Israeli interests are generally parallel, Israel is far from a perfect ally, and they have a long history of contravening US interests. As is their "right" to do so. They need to look out for the best interests of Israel, as the Palestinians need to look out for their best interests. And as an American citizen, I feel that the USA needs to look out for our own interests. Not Israel's. Not the Palestinians'. Not Yap's or Martinique's. The USA's.

A very good post,it's a pity you're fellow Americans on this forum,who have spent the last few days posting their bigoted opinions, cannot look out of the box and try to think forward.

Either Israel and the Palestinians learn to accept each other, or for the next 50yrs the world at large will suffer.