Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[pkspeaker]

uggh, i know, we talked about it in other threads, we even put up maps, but israel has built settlements all over the place, so in an area of a mere 10km, which is about the distance from sukhumvit road to silom, the border is going to be stringing all over the place between these 2 states because israel wants to retain settlement blocks; it's ridiculous, not done anywhere else in the world and it will lead to a situation where israel one day, maybe even in 30 years from now; collapses into 1 state, like it was during British Palestine.. and until then we have misery and violence every day because no one in america will stand up to the destructive agenda of aipac.

[Ulysses G.]

So nothing to worry about, Israel will keep building more and more in settlements in occupied territories and the Palestinians will have to do with the left-overs.

I am not so sure about that, but if one looks at the Arab's actions over the last 60 years (and further back), it is pretty much exactly what they deserve.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[samurai]

At least some in the U.S are prepared to call Hussein Obama's policies dangerous and deluded.

http://west.house.go...leases&Itemid=2

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world's 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people

Roman Emperor Hadrian was born 76 AD, reigned 117 - 138 AD need I say more?

America should never make foreign policy based on (false dated) declarations by a Roman Emperor.

Shame for America that they happen to have a modern day Emperor Nero at the helm. I note as usual the leftards are prescriptive and sanctimonious in their oppinions as to what should happen but never for a second look at centuries of history to conclude that Islamists are supremacists who never accept a slice of the cake, only the whole thing. Obama it would appear does not even intend to give them a tricky moment when they have to lie about their intentions - some negotiator.

Israel is not amused that Emperor Nero Obama II mentioned the 1967 lines. What is the cake and what is the slice of the cake?

For a second look at history - look up what the real Roman Emperor Hadrian was up to with the Jewish people back the days in 130's AD. Congressman Allen West got there not only the dates mixed up. That was my point.

[Ulysses G.]

it's not democratic, it's a racist aphartied state, if it were democratic 4 million palestinians would be voting in every election since 1967;

Huh? The Palestinian Arabs refused to become citizens, so of course they have no right to vote. Some Arabs did become citizens and can vote just like anyone else, so your "racist" charges are just foolish nonsense.

And what does 1967 have to do with anything? The Arabs declared war on Israel in 1948 and refused the deal offered by the UN for their own country - in which case they would not vote in Israel anyway.

If you are going to argue about this, you better learn the actual history instead of just making things up.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[kuffki]

Or can always be realistic and rational . Stop the rockets, denounce violence, compromise and have Arabs living in Israel , Jews living in Palestine. And Palestine can enjoy the already established and developed prosperity Israel has.

But that would be too rational so the next best thing is to demand what can not physically be done.

uggh, i know, we talked about it in other threads, we even put up maps, but israel has built settlements all over the place, so in an area of a mere 10km, which is about the distance from sukhumvit road to silom, the border is going to be stringing all over the place between these 2 states because israel wants to retain settlement blocks; it's ridiculous, not done anywhere else in the world and it will lead to a situation where israel one day, maybe even in 30 years from now; collapses into 1 state, like it was during British Palestine.. and until then we have misery and violence every day because no one in america will stand up to the destructive agenda of aipac.

[kuffki]

Do not forget to bring the coupon

Arab world joined together already 3 times and thanks to that happy reunion each time Israel got bigger.

Perhaps it's time for Arabs to realize Israel is here to stay and is most prosper and democratic nation in the region .

Rather than running around and crying , perhaps IRS also tine for PA to come up with realistic plan of action instead of making UN realistic demands.

This is good news for the Palestinian people and all Arabs around the world. Yet Israel is still trying to deny the inevitable. Best they come back to the table and save as much land as the Palestinian will allow them to keep. With the Arab world joining together it would be best to settle this long, drawn out problem and establish a Palestinian State as soon as possible and by peaceful mean. If not I fear a major confict in the region. A conflict that will have no winners.

I can see all the pro Israeli's here venting their own anger at Mr Obamas decision. They too are in denial.

And now it is time to hand that land back. Hahaha. Enjoy your dinner!!!

[powderpuff]

Obama is just anti-Israel & anti-Jewish. He has slapped Bibi in the face more than once.

Bibi reject this knave. Tell him to get on his bike.

[samurai]

Could you please elaborate how to police the new so called borders?

What plan do you propose to undertake? besides knocking down the houses?

Who and how would provide security for the Jews living there? Or do you propose Israel throws out the 1.5 million arabs living on Israels land or would you prefer that those left living in the NEW so called Palestine will be just killed since PA has no ability or control to police and provide security

How do you propose to set up Jerusalem? what and how to police the borders?

And last and pretty much most importantly, since Hamas already made a statement that they want PRE-1967 borders, more like 1948 borders or no Israel at all, Please tell us again, why Israel should go to 1968 borders? which will not solve anything(as already stated by Hamas)

and why should Israel do anything, if Hamas refused to recognize Israel

Pre-1967 borders means in most cases pre-Six-Day War borders. In the same sense the term "1967 borders" is used, it refers to the pre-war lines.

The war happened in the middle of the year 1967 and this war changed the border lines, to avoid confusion sometimes the term "pre-1967" borders is used to make clear its not about the post-war borders of that year 1967.

About the 'logistic questions' of border control Obama said:

"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,"

Obama said also: "For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

You should listen to the full speech or read here the transcript of it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43095947/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/transcript-obamas-mideast-speech/

I don't get the fuss about about it. Obama didn't came up with something radical new and he spoke previously about his opinion on the 1967 borders, It is actually that what the international community thinks. That position is not unknown in Israel. To reject such calls a well practised exercise in Israel and causes no headache.

Everything else is just an US-domestic issue, an anti campaign in relation to the 2012 presidential elections.

[powderpuff]

If this Arab Awakening brings Democracy to the Arab world it will have a far greater impact on the Israel/Palestinian conflict than American foreign policy.

You're kidding right? What is much more likely is that the Arab states will end up with a Theocracy like Iran has. Taliban style.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't get the fuss about about it. Obama didn't came up with something radical new and he spoke previously about his opinion on the 1967 borders, .

There is a big difference between pandering to the left for votes and actually implementing something this stupid. Think about what he has (not) done about closing Gitmo and holding trials for terrorists in New York.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Pre-1967 borders means in most cases pre-Six-Day War borders. In the same sense the term "1967 borders" is used, it refers to the pre-war lines.

The war happened in the middle of the year 1967 and this war changed the border lines, to avoid confusion sometimes the term "pre-1967" borders is used to make clear its not about the post-war borders of that year 1967.

The US made an agreement with Israel not to hold them to the pre-1967 borders for concessions from Israel. Obama is violating that agreement.

[Wallaby]

Was not aware Palestinians were Israeli citizens, perhaps in country of your origin non citizens get to vote.

Well at least you are right there. I'm not a citizen where I live but I can vote, in fact it is compulsory that I vote.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

You are not a citizen of Australia and you still must vote?

[Wallaby]

You are not a citizen of Australia and you still must vote?

Yes that is correct. You don't have to be a citizen to vote. I am a 'resident' not a citizen, but as a resident I am eligible to vote. If you are eligible to vote then it is compulsory. Well, it is compulsory to go in and have your name ticked off, you can wipe your arse with it instead of use it to vote if you so wish.

[kuffki]

Was not aware Palestinians were Israeli citizens, perhaps in country of your origin non citizens get to vote.

Well at least you are right there. I'm not a citizen where I live but I can vote, in fact it is compulsory that I vote.

WHAT RUBBISH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOW?

Non citizens or perm residence DO NOT get to vote in any country worldwide, which includes Australia

What a load of rubbish you like to post sometimes, REALLY

[kuffki]

You are not a citizen of Australia and you still must vote?

If he is a permanent resident, which is a status given to those who are granted residency which pretty much means a citizen. Some countries have a 2 year wait, others 5 year wait.

Palestinians not living in Israel do not have a status of perm resident of Israel(only in their minds) so they do not have the right to vote.

The ones living in Israel who apply for the perm residency status, can and do vote, not only that they can demonstrate and voice their opinions.

[powderpuff]

Does nothing to excuse the fact that it is a stupid policy.

[samurai]

Pre-1967 borders means in most cases pre-Six-Day War borders. In the same sense the term "1967 borders" is used, it refers to the pre-war lines.

The war happened in the middle of the year 1967 and this war changed the border lines, to avoid confusion sometimes the term "pre-1967" borders is used to make clear its not about the post-war borders of that year 1967.

The US made an agreement with Israel not to hold them to the pre-1967 borders for concessions from Israel. Obama is violating that agreement.

What agreement?

[JUDAS]

This is ridiculous.

[Ulysses G.]

What agreement?

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

http://www.mfa.gov.i...14-Apr-2004.htm

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[kuffki]

Could you please elaborate how to police the new so called borders?

What plan do you propose to undertake? besides knocking down the houses?

Who and how would provide security for the Jews living there? Or do you propose Israel throws out the 1.5 million arabs living on Israels land or would you prefer that those left living in the NEW so called Palestine will be just killed since PA has no ability or control to police and provide security

How do you propose to set up Jerusalem? what and how to police the borders?

And last and pretty much most importantly, since Hamas already made a statement that they want PRE-1967 borders, more like 1948 borders or no Israel at all, Please tell us again, why Israel should go to 1968 borders? which will not solve anything(as already stated by Hamas)

and why should Israel do anything, if Hamas refused to recognize Israel

Pre-1967 borders means in most cases pre-Six-Day War borders. In the same sense the term "1967 borders" is used, it refers to the pre-war lines.

The war happened in the middle of the year 1967 and this war changed the border lines, to avoid confusion sometimes the term "pre-1967" borders is used to make clear its not about the post-war borders of that year 1967.

About the 'logistic questions' of border control Obama said:

"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,"

Obama said also: "For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

You should listen to the full speech or read here the transcript of it:

http://www.msnbc.msn...mideast-speech/

I don't get the fuss about about it. Obama didn't came up with something radical new and he spoke previously about his opinion on the 1967 borders, It is actually that what the international community thinks. That position is not unknown in Israel. To reject such calls a well practised exercise in Israel and causes no headache.

Everything else is just an US-domestic issue, an anti campaign in relation to the 2012 presidential elections.

The main point that you missed is How police the borders when Hamas does not recognize Israel? So what good it will do to even give this compromise?

I personally have no problem with what Obama said, because just few days ago he also said they US will not deal with Hamas and there will be no recognition unless PA denounced violence and recognized Israel

The only problem i do have is, while so many talk about 1968 borders, no one so far has come up with a workable plan.

How do you split up a city and police it?

How do you make borders and police them especially when the other side is hostile and does not even recognize other part right to exist.

Israel is speaking in realistic terms that its simply not possible, while everyone else is talking theory.

So since PA is making those demands, why have they not come with with workable plan?

Edited May 20, 2011 by kuffki

[samurai]

What agreement?

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

http://www.mfa.gov.i...14-Apr-2004.htm

A letter from George W. Bush, discussing opinions and ideas with Sharon.

So what does Obama violating here?

[Ulysses G.]

I heard several discusions on CNN today refering to an "agreement"in 2004 and this is the first thing that came up when I Googled - which seems to refer to it.

Will do more research when I have a little time later in the evening.

[Wallaby]

yes fot this i do apologize, that was a misspell, as i did make it more clear in the other post.

Now, would you mind to provide the source of your statistics from your post 47, to which i have already asked in post 49

No problem, yes you did say something contradictory in another post which did confuse me (easily done).

Statistics, I would doubt there are any statistics on such a thing for or against. Most of the news reports we are getting overwhelming show support for Palestine.

But to answser your question. No, I have no statistics, nor have I sought any. But the link below does indicate a lot of countries supporting a Palestinian state

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/j-lem-130-un-members-will-support-palestinian-state-1.362002

[kuffki]

yes fot this i do apologize, that was a misspell, as i did make it more clear in the other post.

Now, would you mind to provide the source of your statistics from your post 47, to which i have already asked in post 49

No problem, yes you did say something contradictory in another post which did confuse me (easily done).

Statistics, I would doubt there are any statistics on such a thing for or against. Most of the news reports we are getting overwhelming show support for Palestine.

But to answser your question. No, I have no statistics, nor have I sought any. But the link below does indicate a lot of countries supporting a Palestinian state

http://www.haaretz.c...-state-1.362002

Yes many countries do support Palestinian state and those also state that Palestine must recognize Israel and denounce violence and yet it has not happened and this is the only demand Israel has had for years and every time cease fire is reached, some idiots fire rockets again and celebrate it.

if the support for Palestine was AS IS was as strong as you make it out to be, rest assured there already would be a state of Palestine.

Just like the entire world is against the murder of people in Syria and yet no one does anything but talk.

Ever wondered by UN never sent peace keeping troops to Palestine?

One answer is, because UN was well aware that if they do, the peace keeping force will be the subject of terror attacks.

[pkspeaker]

yea 'some' palestinians are israeli citizens and can vote and be represented in the parliament, the ones that managed not to be expelled in 1948, there are currently about 1.5 million of them living in israel proper..but the palestinians living just a few km away in the 'westbank' that is intertwined with jewish settlements and jewish only roads are not invited to this democratic party even though they're all living in the same country, it's just like if in america they were dening blacks equal rights in louisiana or where ever because that would increase black representation in congress, if they let too many palestinians vote than it will radically change the nature of the regime in that country, it will give them the power to ask for equal rights..lets cut the crap here and quit comparing israel to Australia or whatever..and like i said earlier, having this wall that snakes around ramallah, bethlaham and east jerusalem, the whole area is like 10km big, it's like if we had a wall snaking around bangkok cutting thru sukhumvit going in and out and creating an impoverished situation for the people on 1 side of the wall, then we're going to call this '2 states', it's ridiculous

whats insane is youd think that the israeli's would be thrilled that the palestinians are asking for the west bank-this dry hilly area and a poor area in east jerusalem-and sharing the holy sites in the old city and not asking for a 1 state solution..like 'we' get to get rid of all these people and have an almost strait border that keeps immigrants out and have a developed country in the better parts and let palestinians come in on day permits to do low paying jobs and no one else in the world has a border that runs thru downtown but we're given a pass.. but NO they insist on aphartied and insist that the world go along with it.. lobsided power and religious extremism and militarism.

in 1948 the arabs rejected partition because the jewish half of the country would have been 40% palestinian andthose palestinians were supposed to goto the other half, since the arabs had the majority they wanted a 1 state solution that gave the democratic power-you can't blame them for haing that perspective, if an injustice is presented why not fight it.

current maps:

http://nad-plo.org/files.php?id=24

it's not democratic, it's a racist aphartied state, if it were democratic 4 million palestinians would be voting in every election since 1967;

Huh? The Palestinian Arabs refused to become citizens, so of course they have no right to vote. Some Arabs did become citizens and can vote just like anyone else, so your "racist" charges are just foolish nonsense.

And what does 1967 have to do with anything? The Arabs declared war on Israel in 1948 and refused the deal offered by the UN for their own country - in which case they would not vote in Israel anyway.

If you are going to argue about this, you better learn the actual history instead of just making things up.

Edited May 20, 2011 by pkspeaker

[Jingthing]

Its probably not going to happen with the power Jews have in American politics, but its the right thing to do.

If this Arab Awakening brings Democracy to the Arab world it will have a far greater impact on the Israel/Palestinian conflict than American foreign policy.

I find your comment offensive. Typical its the Jews fault rhetoric, as old as the hills and just as dirty. Jews don't control American politics and they are only a tiny minority there. That fact is that a large majority of Americans remain strongly pro Israel, mostly non-Jews, and also being for the 1967 borders is not a reflection of being anti-Israel. I consider Obama to be pro Israel as was GW Bush. They both support the 1967 borders (as do I). How that is to come about and how it can happen without WAR; now that is a serious question and if there is war, don't think for a second it is only Israels or America's fault.

Please do not feel offended if someone states the obvious truth, people of the Jewish faith are if fact well represented in the State Department.

You write "Jews don't control American politics and they are only a tiny minority there"

The truth is, while less than 2% of the US population is of the Jewish faith, more than half of the top officials in the State Department is either Jewish or has a Jewish spouse, this is not a "tiny minority":

"Of the sixty-one (61) top officials in the U.S. State Department, thirty-two (32) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 52%. Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population.* This means that Jews are over-represented among the top officials of the U.S. State Department by a factor of 26 times, or 2,600 percent. This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the top officials of the U.S. State Department cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the U.S. State Department."

http://www.instituteofsocialsurvivalism.org/Main/01_Articles/who_controls_american......htm

Johna is also right to presume that it is not going to happen, there will never be a Palestinian state, it is more likely that the Palestinian population will either be exterminated or expelled to Jordan.

You linked to a virulent antisemitic website. I figured that was the best "proof" you guys could do. Truly disgusting.

[Steely Dan]

yea 'some' palestinians are israeli citizens and can vote and be represented in the parliament, the ones that managed not to be expelled in 1948, there are currently about 1.5 million of them living in israel proper..but the palestinians living just a few km away in the 'westbank' that is intertwined with jewish settlements and jewish only roads are not invited to this democratic party even though they're all living in the same country, it's just like if in america they were dening blacks equal rights in louisiana or where ever because that would increase black representation in congress, if they let too many palestinians vote than it will radically change the nature of the regime in that country, it will give them the power to ask for equal rights..lets cut the crap here and quit comparing israel to Australia or whatever..and like i said earlier, having this wall that snakes around ramallah, bethlaham and east jerusalem, the whole area is like 10km big, it's like if we had a wall snaking around bangkok cutting thru sukhumvit going in and out and creating an impoverished situation for the people on 1 side of the wall, then we're going to call this '2 states', it's ridiculous

whats insane is youd think that the israeli's would be thrilled that the palestinians are asking for the west bank-this dry hilly area and a poor area in east jerusalem-and sharing the holy sites in the old city and not asking for a 1 state solution..like 'we' get to get rid of all these people and have an almost strait border that keeps immigrants out and have a developed country in the better parts and let palestinians come in on day permits to do low paying jobs and no one else in the world has a border that runs thru downtown but we're given a pass.. but NO they insist on aphartied and insist that the world go along with it.. lobsided power and religious extremism and militarism.

in 1948 the arabs rejected partition because the jewish half of the country would have been 40% palestinian andthose palestinians were supposed to goto the other half, since the arabs had the majority they wanted a 1 state solution that gave the democratic power-you can't blame them for haing that perspective, if an injustice is presented why not fight it.

current maps:

http://nad-plo.org/files.php?id=24

it's not democratic, it's a racist aphartied state, if it were democratic 4 million palestinians would be voting in every election since 1967;

Huh? The Palestinian Arabs refused to become citizens, so of course they have no right to vote. Some Arabs did become citizens and can vote just like anyone else, so your "racist" charges are just foolish nonsense.

And what does 1967 have to do with anything? The Arabs declared war on Israel in 1948 and refused the deal offered by the UN for their own country - in which case they would not vote in Israel anyway.

If you are going to argue about this, you better learn the actual history instead of just making things up.

You don't have a clue do you. Those 'expelled' in 1948 or 1967 for that matter left at the suggestion of Arab Countries so they could better wipe Israel off the map. As for your racist apartheid nonsense, Israel treat their Arab citizens a dam_n sight better than all other Arab Counties do. If you want an example of true apartheid look at Saudi Arabia where you can't practice any religion other than Islam in public, bibles are not allowed in and Indonesian guest workers are shipped in and live in conditions worse than refugee camps and they often get beaten thrown in jail and the women raped. Coming to think of it sex apartheid applies throughout the middle east with the exception of Israel. As for 'religious extremism' - what stunning hypocrisy just look at Hamas who broke up a Palestinian wedding party because they were playing music.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Huey]

yea 'some' palestinians are israeli citizens and can vote and be represented in the parliament, the ones that managed not to be expelled in 1948, there are currently about 1.5 million of them living in israel proper..but the palestinians living just a few km away in the 'westbank' that is intertwined with jewish settlements and jewish only roads are not invited to this democratic party even though they're all living in the same country, it's just like if in america they were dening blacks equal rights in louisiana or where ever because that would increase black representation in congress, if they let too many palestinians vote than it will radically change the nature of the regime in that country, it will give them the power to ask for equal rights..lets cut the crap here and quit comparing israel to Australia or whatever..and like i said earlier, having this wall that snakes around ramallah, bethlaham and east jerusalem, the whole area is like 10km big, it's like if we had a wall snaking around bangkok cutting thru sukhumvit going in and out and creating an impoverished situation for the people on 1 side of the wall, then we're going to call this '2 states', it's ridiculous

whats insane is youd think that the israeli's would be thrilled that the palestinians are asking for the west bank-this dry hilly area and a poor area in east jerusalem-and sharing the holy sites in the old city and not asking for a 1 state solution..like 'we' get to get rid of all these people and have an almost strait border that keeps immigrants out and have a developed country in the better parts and let palestinians come in on day permits to do low paying jobs and no one else in the world has a border that runs thru downtown but we're given a pass.. but NO they insist on aphartied and insist that the world go along with it.. lobsided power and religious extremism and militarism.

in 1948 the arabs rejected partition because the jewish half of the country would have been 40% palestinian andthose palestinians were supposed to goto the other half, since the arabs had the majority they wanted a 1 state solution that gave the democratic power-you can't blame them for haing that perspective, if an injustice is presented why not fight it.

current maps:

http://nad-plo.org/files.php?id=24

Beautiful, Simple and eloquent. But the truth is, people who are bigots thinking that they are the chosen race and that God set aside land just for them, or that sympathise with this mentality, will always find a way to distort the facts.

Though with time even the most tangled and convoluted webs must fall apart, and apartheid must end!

More power to President Obama for taking steps in that direction (even if they are tiny little baby ones...ya gotta start somewhere)

[Ulysses G.]

More on AGREEMENT:

US SUPPORT, or failure to oppose, a Security Council resolution for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 lines (these were armistice lines, not borders) would also be inconsistent with US policy going back to 1967, when the Security Council adopted Resolution 242. Famously, that resolution's reference to territories, not "all the" territories, or even "the" territories, at the insistence of the US, over the objections of Syria and other Arab states, was intended to ensure that Israel would not be required to give up all the territory it had captured .

The letter from Sharon states:

"I attach for your review the main principles of the Disengagement Plan... According to this plan, the State of Israel intends to relocate military installations and Israeli villages and towns in the Gaza Strip, as well as other military installations and a small number of villages in Samaria.

The letter from Bush states:

"We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents. I therefore want to reassure you on several points...

"Third... In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949... It is realistic to expect that any finalstatus agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

The letters were both dated the same day. In carefully drafted language, they listed a series of commitments by Israel and the US, respectively.

A reading of the letters leaves no doubt that they were intended to memorialize an agreement between the US and Israel. A concurrent resolution, adopted June 22, 2004, states that Congress "strongly endorse the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon..."

Israel implemented the disengagement at great human and material cost. All the Jewish communities in Gaza were destroyed. Thousands of Jews were forcibly removed from the towns and villages they had built and in which they had lived and worked for many years, some all their lives. Many still have no permanent homes or jobs.

Obama's offer "to formally endorse a Palestinian state based on the borders of Israel before the 1967 Middle East war," if in fact made, is thus clearly inconsistent with president Bush's "reassure[ing]" Sharon that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers... it is realistic to expect that any final-status agreement will... reflect these realities."

Although the US Constitution only provides for treaties ratified by the president with the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate, executive agreements have been used since the beginning of the United States, and most agreements between the US and other countries today are by executive agreement rather than by treaty.

In two cases decided over 70 years ago, the US Supreme Court held that executive agreements are constitutional, and that, like treaties, they supersede inconsistent state law. Those cases involved an exchange of letters between president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Maxim Litvinov, the people's commissar for foreign affairs of the Soviet Union, in which the US agreed to recognize the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union assigned its claims against US nationals to the US.

More recently, the Supreme Court held constitutional an executive agreement in which Iran agreed to free US embassy personnel it had taken hostage and the US agreed to dissolve a freeze on Iranian assets and nullify attachments against such assets, including those based on judgments by US courts. The Supreme Court has even ruled that the term treaty in a statute applied to executive agreements as well.

While there is, of course, no way Israel, or any other country, can compel the US to honor its treaty commitments, the US has generally done so.

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=196206

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ulysses G.