Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[kuffki]

Clearly Palestinians lived in Palestine. As for who ruled them it would depend on when you were refering to.

In the history of the world, Palestine has never existed as a nation. The region known as Palestine was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I.

Read more:Palestinian people do not existhttp://www.wnd.com/n...2#ixzz1MzedE99J

The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."

http://www.topix.com...E2OIRV3R0IPB07L

[Wallaby]

Must be quite frustrating for your view to be in a minority.

As long as I have history and facts on my side, I'm not too worried about being a "minority". Christopher Columbus was in the minority too.

History and facts are as you perceive them are not the same as actual history and facts.

Christopher Columbus is a single entity, he has to be in a minority, same as any other person.

Move on.

[samurai]

So please indicate which military equipment developed by Israel is used by the US military.

Is the US using the

Gabriel - a sea-skimming anti-ship missile.

Arrow missiles.

IAI Lavi

Python missiles

the Iron Dome

BARAK missles

Tavor TAR-21 rifles

I don't think so.

They use Uzi guns in the US and Israel probably share results from their spy satellite with the US.

Please, try again and tell me more about the other things. Bring a reference to your statement that half of the US military equipment was developed by Israel. I wasn't the only person asking you that.

Every single one!, Now you indicate what is not used and show evidence to support your claim

HUH? Remember who made here claims without showing any evidence to support them?

PS. I hope you do realize that at least half of US military equipment was developed by Israel and given for "FREE" so this cheque that US gives is not only support but also a payment for new technology.

[Ulysses G.]

Must be quite frustrating for your view to be in a minority.

As long as I have history and facts on my side, I'm not too worried about being a "minority". Christopher Columbus was in the minority too.

History and facts are as you perceive them are not the same as actual history and facts.

They are the ones in the history books.

[Scott]

This topic will now be closed for a clean-up. Stand by for warnings and suspensions.

[Scott]

The topic is now re-opened, minus some posters. Please stay on-topic and please refrain from baiting and flaming other members.

The topic is not an open season on all things Israeli or Arab. The OP is fairly straightforward. Obama wants the 1967 borders and Israel does not. Israel finds those borders indefensible.

Can Israel protect itself using those borders? What geographical situation might be acceptable to both sides?

[up-country_sinclair]

What Obama said in his speech the other day was essentially identical to what Bush said in Jerusalem in 2008, and Clinton said in 2000. I can't help but think that this is selective outrage.

[bobbin]

Why ask if they can protect themselves?

There are smaller states in the world. For a defense planner, a country the size of Russia or Canada is preferable. Not everybody has a country that size. Live with it. Live with your neighbors.

The whole argument is pointless really.

Israel has The Bomb. Quite a few of them actually. That 's their defense.

In a nutshell.

[powderpuff]

Post the youtube video of President Bush calling for Pre 1967 borders. I seriously doubt it exists.

[Ulysses G.]

What Obama said in his speech the other day was essentially identical to what Bush said in Jerusalem in 2008, and Clinton said in 2000. I can't help but think that this is selective outrage.

Please provide a link.

Obama also said the Jerusalem will stay Israeli and will never be divided in 2008. He needs to make up his mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxf5s8gWtAM

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[bobbin]

Are you guys still here?

[Steely Dan]

What Obama said in his speech the other day was essentially identical to what Bush said in Jerusalem in 2008, and Clinton said in 2000. I can't help but think that this is selective outrage.

The key is the word 'defensable' - If a Country is 9 miles wide at it's narrowest point it would be quite easy to use missile fire to prevent travel between the North and South of Israel effectively cutting the Country in two. I doubt there are any military experts here, but I have little difficulty doubting the vunerability of the pre-67 borders. Obama needed only have reiterated the word defensable and perhaps added pre-67 borders as a framework to begin negotiations from and there would be no fuss.

P.S It's all academic while Hamas refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist - whether or not this was clearly mentioned as a prerequisite for any deal.

[up-country_sinclair]

President Barack Hussein Obama the Capitulator will go down in history with Neville Chamberlain the appeaser of fascist Germany.

I share with these two leaders the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. Both of these leaders believe that the outcome is in the interest of their peoples and are determined to arrive at a negotiated solution to achieve it.

The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent.

It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other's fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement. Security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state are in the mutual interests of both parties.

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.

George W. Bush

10 January 2008

Jerusalem

http://reliefweb.int/node/254093

Again, what's evidenced in this thread appears to be little more than selective outrage.

Edited May 21, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Mutually agreed adjustments does not mean returning to the pre-1967 borders.

[samurai]

Mutually agreed adjustments does not mean returning to the pre-1967 borders.

Bush: "I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

Obama: "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 nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

[geriatrickid]

The issue that the arab negotiators keep bringing up that is tied to the border arguments is the ability of millions of arabs to relocate into Israel and the territory claimed by the arab negotiators. Nowhere is there any acknowledgement from the arabs as to how the issue of the jews expelled from arab lands and how compensation for these people will be addressed. One cannot discuss the issue of the borders and the right of return unless all affected parties are addressed.

The jews expelled from arab countries have to live somewhere, right? If the arabs won't pay compensation or guarantee them safety in their homelands, then they will have to accept that those expelled jewish arabs need to live somewhere and that somewhere is going to be the parts of Israel now under dispute. This was essentially one of the components of a working peace agreement that nearly came into being, but was not approved by the Palestinian leadership because of fears that it would not be acceptable to the extremists.

One of the problems for the arabs is that the level of hatred has been so fanned, the expectations so inflated and the positions so strong that they have not allowed themselves any room for concessions. There could have been a reasonable land and peace deal agreed to on so many occassions over the past 2 decades, but the public statements made by the arab leadership prevented those agreements from being made. I think the first step will have to be that the arabs are going to have to accept that Israel exists and that they cannot push it into the sea and make the area judenfrei. Israel has made concessions in the past and will make concessions in the future, but it requires the other party to do the same. Egypt and Jordan were able to put political posturing aside and they reaped the benefits.

[up-country_sinclair]

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

Edited May 21, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Is this a plain enough explanation?

U.S. Policy Does Not Seek Israel’s

Return to the 1967 Lines

The United States has historically backed

Israel’s view that UN Security Council

Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the

Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does

not require a full withdrawal to the 1949

armistice lines (sometimes loosely called

the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to

that interpretation, both Democratic and

Republican administrations have argued that

Israel was entitled to “defensible borders.”

In other words, the American backing of

defensible borders has been bipartisan,

right up to the latest rendition provided by

President George W. Bush in April 2004. And

it has been rooted in America’s longstanding

support for the security of Israel, which

has gone well beyond the various legal

interpretations of UN resolutions.

http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/gold.pdf

[samurai]

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

Presidential election in 2012 and it are the Obama haters that create that outrage.

[Steely Dan]

The issue that the arab negotiators keep bringing up that is tied to the border arguments is the ability of millions of arabs to relocate into Israel and the territory claimed by the arab negotiators. Nowhere is there any acknowledgement from the arabs as to how the issue of the jews expelled from arab lands and how compensation for these people will be addressed. One cannot discuss the issue of the borders and the right of return unless all affected parties are addressed.

The jews expelled from arab countries have to live somewhere, right? If the arabs won't pay compensation or guarantee them safety in their homelands, then they will have to accept that those expelled jewish arabs need to live somewhere and that somewhere is going to be the parts of Israel now under dispute. This was essentially one of the components of a working peace agreement that nearly came into being, but was not approved by the Palestinian leadership because of fears that it would not be acceptable to the extremists.

One of the problems for the arabs is that the level of hatred has been so fanned, the expectations so inflated and the positions so strong that they have not allowed themselves any room for concessions. There could have been a reasonable land and peace deal agreed to on so many occassions over the past 2 decades, but the public statements made by the arab leadership prevented those agreements from being made. I think the first step will have to be that the arabs are going to have to accept that Israel exists and that they cannot push it into the sea and make the area judenfrei. Israel has made concessions in the past and will make concessions in the future, but it requires the other party to do the same. Egypt and Jordan were able to put political posturing aside and they reaped the benefits.

Things really fell apart with Wikileaks announcing Abbas was prepared to drop the so called right of return demand. It was Al-Jazeera who ran this story hence killing any chance of an agreemnent not to the liking of certain Arab states, irrespective of the view of the Fatah leaders.

Of course what you say about Arabs having to defer to the extremists is so true - they will kill anyone and everyone who crosses them. Hence we have Hamas essentially calling the shots due to Fatah leaders fearing for their own safety hence Israel has nobody to negotiate with and should anyone be foolish enough to recognise a Palestinian state with an unreformed Hamas as part of it war is guaranteed.

[up-country_sinclair]

Is this a plain enough explanation?

I'm sure what you cited from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explains something to someone on a different topic, but it's not what we were discussing on the previous page. And that was the fact that Bush said essentially the same thing about the two state solution in 2008 that Obama said last week. By any chance did you make a post at the time comparing Bush to Neville Chamberlain like you did with Obama on page one of this thread?

By no means is this a personal attack on you, and I hope you don't perceive it that way. I'm simply illustrating what is apparent to me to be selective outrage on this issue.

Edited May 21, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[WarpSpeed]

JFYI on a similar topic for those who haven't figured it out yet it's not at all ironic that Bin Laden was executed 60 years to the day as Hitlers death. That was a political message and a shot across the bow back at Al Qaeda for their 9/11 code stamping, consider the primary agenda of both of those "leaders" and the labels of evil they represent..

Where is the similarity?

The other bullshit that got posted in this thread?

Sorry it escapes you, I'm pretty certain it's obvious to most other thinking people..

[flying]

Are you guys still here?

:lol:

[Huey]

Is this a plain enough explanation?

U.S. Policy Does Not Seek Israel's

Return to the 1967 Lines

The United States has historically backed

Israel's view that UN Security Council

Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the

Six-Day War on November 22, 1967, does

not require a full withdrawal to the 1949

armistice lines (sometimes loosely called

the 1967 borders). Moreover, in addition to

that interpretation, both Democratic and

Republican administrations have argued that

Israel was entitled to "defensible borders."

In other words, the American backing of

defensible borders has been bipartisan,

right up to the latest rendition provided by

President George W. Bush in April 2004. And

it has been rooted in America's longstanding

support for the security of Israel, which

has gone well beyond the various legal

interpretations of UN resolutions.

http://www.jcpa.org/text/security/gold.pdf

Good Thing for us that US Policy is a living breathing thing that changes with time and the will of the people. Lest the folly of this, and other flawed US Policy like the Fugitive Slave Act , Plessy V. Ferguson , and so many more, would have never been eradicated. Times are changing, and it looks like Obama is taking responsibility for correcting flawed policy like this to ensure a better future for America and American Citizens.

[Ulysses G.]

Fortunately, Obama has to get reelected and very few Americans agree with him on this. My guess is that he will be forced to backtrack on the 1967 borders as he has had to do so many of his silliest PC policies.

Jimmy Carter must love the guy for making the Mr. Peanut presidency look somewhat sensible in comparison.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Is this a plain enough explanation?

I'm sure what you cited from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explains something to someone on a different topic, but it's not what we were discussing on the previous page. And that was the fact that Bush said essentially the same thing about the two state solution in 2008 that Obama said last week.

The link is an explanation of what the US policy has been on the 67 borders by the former Israeli ambassador to the UN and it directly contradicts your "theories" on what Bush meant and said.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Posts that are excessively argumentative and off-topic have been deleted.

[koheesti]

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

When Bush said it, everyone knew "mutually agreed" meant the results would be in favor of our ally and best friend in the region - Israel.

When Obama said it, there is every reason to believe that he meant it to benefit the people who love to dress their children up in suicide vests, bomb buses & cafes when given the chance, cheered 9/11 and mourn UBL's death - the Palestinians.

dam_n right there's outrage.

[Steely Dan]

Obama said nearly the same as Bush.

mutually agreed swaps = mutually agreed adjustments

armistice lines of 1949 = the 1967 lines

Thank you for helping to make it abundantly clear.

US policy on the two state solution has not changed in over a decade, but suddenly there is outrage.

When Bush said it, everyone knew "mutually agreed" meant the results would be in favor of our ally and best friend in the region - Israel.

When Obama said it, there is every reason to believe that he meant it to benefit the people who love to dress their children up in suicide vests, bomb buses & cafes when given the chance, cheered 9/11 and mourn UBL's death - the Palestinians.

dam_n right there's outrage.

He's also authorised $1 billion for Egypt as a reward for it's increased persecution of Coptic Christians. The libtard belief system seems to revolve round rewarding those who despise you the most, I can think of no other explanation for their actions.

Here is a link for the deliberately obtuse who can't or won't see the change in U.S policy contained in Obama's speech. Get this dangerous delusional clown out of office a.s.a.p.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html?wpisrc=xs_sl_0001

In the context of this history, Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.

[dananderson]

The wheels of justice are grinding slowly but surely. Sooner or later justice will prevail, and Israel has to give back what it stole decades ago. Sooner or later the Palestinians will get what is rightfully theirs. Israel has been fooling the world for too long a time now, I am pleasantly surprised to finally see an American President telling like it is, instead of appeasing the Zionist Israel lobbyists of the AIPAC and other Anti-American organizations. Israel has made itself a burden to the USA and a disgrace to the world, it is time that it is put in its place!

Total Garbage! Israel for all its faults is the only democracy in the middle east. The Arab states routinely oppress their own people far worse than Israel has ever done to the Palestinians. The only disgrace to the world is that it does not condemn the genocidal acts of sundry Muslim leaders against their own people and their appalling human rights records. Israel would be a burden on nobody if their right to exist was recognised and they didn't have to plough so much money into defence spending.

Which other country ever had their "right to exist" recognized? Why is Israel so anxious to become the first country in the world to have it's right to exist put into a document? Could it be because :

"

By Alan Hart - 2010

The question is: How can you de-legitimize something which it is NOT legitimate?

Leaving aside the fairy story of God's promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who "returned" in answer to Zionism's call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state's assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly's partition plan resolution of 1947.

The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British not possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognized by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.

Zionism's assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal - meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine - after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away - was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favored and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state.

In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah's intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was "the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force."

The truth of history as summarized briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball's chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel's right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.

It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.

========

Not to mention the question when Israel is going to acknowledge the Palestinian's right to exist within safe borders....

---

And isn't it the USA that pays some 3 billion US dollar per year to Israel's defense, as well as shipping immeasurable amounts of military hardware to Israel, which keeps it "in store" for the US, just in case Israel is attacked and the US army needs to come to the rescue, the US weaponry is already there...

"Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received more than $106 billion in assistance":

http://www.jewishvir...oreign_aid.html

But not to worry, Israel will never allow a Palestinian state in any shape or form, and the USA will keep pumping those billions to Israel, no matter how many millions of Americans become homeless and have to survive on food stamps.

Succintly stated opinion and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual suspects who dominate any thread dealing with the Palestine/Israel conflict. It would be nice to have an intelligent and rational discourse on this topic but that seems to be out of the realm of possibilities.