Obama knows that the 1967 borders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama is stating what has always been the starting point. Note that he did not say "1967 borders" but 1967 borders plus land swaps. This is old news. Even Netanyahu supports that.

But what Obama did was to position Israel and Palestinians as equals - equal in their legitimate rights and equal in their responsibility for the problem. That parity drives the Israel lobby crazy.

Everyone knows that for a peace agreement to be reached, the U.S. needs to start putting pressure on Israel. Obama just waved a feather at them, and even then they are screaming and threatening to get donors to abandon him for 2012.

Screw it, Obama can raise enough money. He can go over the top of the lobby. Some president has to do it, and he can do it.

And if he raises money w/o them, that would be a turning point in US politics.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone who opposes the 1967 line have any good ideas about what border would be fair?

[Anonymous]

Aaaaaand here come the ass kissers, desperate to talk about anything besides health care:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43107432/ns/politics-decision_2012/

[Anonymous]

I really want to understand this. Why can't Israel secure the 1967 borders? Aren't they currently putting some Palestinians behind walls and barbed wire? And, it seems, from some reading, that Palestinians aren't free to move about the country, even for medical care. Israelis can just deny someone access to travel to another hospital, even if it results in death? The Palestinians are citizens with voting rights, but they the canceled 100,000+ Palestinian IDs for reentry? What the hell?

I tried having this discussion on Facebook with friends. They seem to be hanging on to the "God's chosen people" aspect and can't accept that Israel is doing anything wrong. I don't get it.

Jeff, you've always brought insight on international matters. Can you point me in the right direction?

[Anonymous]

This may be a grammatical detail, but I think it is important, given the niceties of diplomatic language. The transcript of the speech, as I have found it printed on every website I looked at, contains the relevant sentence in the following form:

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.

Note that there is no comma after "1967 lines". So the basis Obama is advancing is not the '67 lines, with land-swaps as an afterthought, but on a mutually agreeable modification of those lines. a modification that would be secure for both sides. As many writers hve pointed out, this has been the US and international position for years.

My opinion is that both Netanyahu and the nettin' yahoos of the GOP are intentionally distorting this (as a new attempt to go back to the actual 1967 borders) in order to play to their bases, and that they putting politics above peace. In all fairness, though, I suppose progress is unlikely anyway, so the sabotage probably does not make much difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This may be a grammatical detail, but I think it is important, given the niceties of diplomatic language. The transcript of the speech, as I have found it printed on every website I looked at, contains the relevant sentence in the following form:

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.

Note that there is no comma after "1967 lines". So the basis Obama is advancing is not the '67 lines, with land-swaps as an afterthought, but on a mutually agreeable modification of those lines. a modification that would be secure for both sides. As many writers hve pointed out, this has been the US and international position for years.

My opinion is that both Netanyahu and the nettin' yahoos of the GOP are intentionally distorting this (as a new attempt to go back to the actual 1967 borders) in order to play to their bases, and that they putting politics above peace. In all fairness, though, I suppose progress is unlikely anyway, so the sabotage probably does not make much difference.

And you're not "playing" to YOUR base, as in those who share your opinions on DCUM?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are too much for the Israelis to give up and too little for the Palestinians to accept.
Why get involved in this mess? Just do some summits and shake hands and make statements like "Israel has the right to defend herself", and "the Palestinians need to embrace democracy and peace", and ride it out.

Every peace proposal since 1967 has been based on the 1967 borders. There is absolutely nothing new about that.

Also, I love your proposal: Israel can do whatever it wants and the Palestinians have to accept it. Talk about non-starters.

That aint my suggestion, it is just the way things seem to be!

If that is the way things actually worked, do you think that Israel would have been created? You sound like a Melian who sold her soul to the Athenians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be a grammatical detail, but I think it is important, given the niceties of diplomatic language. The transcript of the speech, as I have found it printed on every website I looked at, contains the relevant sentence in the following form:

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.

Note that there is no comma after "1967 lines". So the basis Obama is advancing is not the '67 lines, with land-swaps as an afterthought, but on a mutually agreeable modification of those lines. a modification that would be secure for both sides. As many writers hve pointed out, this has been the US and international position for years.

My opinion is that both Netanyahu and the nettin' yahoos of the GOP are intentionally distorting this (as a new attempt to go back to the actual 1967 borders) in order to play to their bases, and that they putting politics above peace. In all fairness, though, I suppose progress is unlikely anyway, so the sabotage probably does not make much difference.

And you're not "playing" to YOUR base, as in those who share your opinions on DCUM?!

You're right -- it was an unforgivable pun, for which I would be totally ashamed if I were not so pleased with myself for thinking of it. And if I am guilty of the same sin as the GOP presidential candidates, I invite them to restrict their self-indulgence to anonymous blogs rather than broadcasting to the world that the opposition is undercutting their president's foreign policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be a grammatical detail, but I think it is important, given the niceties of diplomatic language. The transcript of the speech, as I have found it printed on every website I looked at, contains the relevant sentence in the following form:

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.

Note that there is no comma after "1967 lines". So the basis Obama is advancing is not the '67 lines, with land-swaps as an afterthought, but on a mutually agreeable modification of those lines. a modification that would be secure for both sides. As many writers hve pointed out, this has been the US and international position for years.

My opinion is that both Netanyahu and the nettin' yahoos of the GOP are intentionally distorting this (as a new attempt to go back to the actual 1967 borders) in order to play to their bases, and that they putting politics above peace. In all fairness, though, I suppose progress is unlikely anyway, so the sabotage probably does not make much difference.

And you're not "playing" to YOUR base, as in those who share your opinions on DCUM?!

You're right -- it was an unforgivable pun, for which I would be totally ashamed if I were not so pleased with myself for thinking of it. And if I am guilty of the same sin as the GOP presidential candidates, I invite them to restrict their self-indulgence to anonymous blogs rather than broadcasting to the world that the opposition is undercutting their president's foreign policy.

I'm the PP. As a former teacher, I must admit . . . you deserve an A+ for your clever pun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really want to understand this. Why can't Israel secure the 1967 borders? Aren't they currently putting some Palestinians behind walls and barbed wire? And, it seems, from some reading, that Palestinians aren't free to move about the country, even for medical care. Israelis can just deny someone access to travel to another hospital, even if it results in death? The Palestinians are citizens with voting rights, but they the canceled 100,000+ Palestinian IDs for reentry? What the hell?

I tried having this discussion on Facebook with friends. They seem to be hanging on to the "God's chosen people" aspect and can't accept that Israel is doing anything wrong. I don't get it.

Jeff, you've always brought insight on international matters. Can you point me in the right direction?

There are a few complications with the 1967 borders. But everyone knows the way to handle them. They will do land swaps - ie, Palestine gets some territory out of Israel, and in exchange, Israel gets some territory from Palestine. This is already an acceptable way to smooth out some of the kinks in the borders, but it does not allow for major renegotiations of the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Israel should just implement apartheid. That way the palestinians could be citizens. Pass control laws under apartheid restricted the movement of people from one part of the land to another. There were separate schools and separate suburbs and separate schools.
They could have that for 40 years and then when this generation has passed away bring in a new system of democracy. They are already living in segregated communities. The demographics will change in 30 years. Israel cannot sustain an 80% majority of jews in every town. Or maybe if they could investigate the caste system that India had for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Israel should just implement apartheid. That way the palestinians could be citizens. Pass control laws under apartheid restricted the movement of people from one part of the land to another. There were separate schools and separate suburbs and separate schools.
They could have that for 40 years and then when this generation has passed away bring in a new system of democracy. They are already living in segregated communities. The demographics will change in 30 years. Israel cannot sustain an 80% majority of jews in every town. Or maybe if they could investigate the caste system that India had for centuries.

It already is apartheid.

[Anonymous]

They will fight over the "swaps"

[Anonymous]

Yes, any unbiased individual who has visited Israel already knows that it is an apartheid state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, any unbiased individual who has visited Israel already knows that it is an apartheid state.

should we boycot them?