Obama's proposal to go back to the 1967 borders

[YmirGF]

So, the ever eloquent Golfer-in-Chief has come out with this breathtakingly brilliant idea to confine Israel to it's 1967 borders. You know, those are the borders that Israel enjoyed prior to the infamous Six Day War when Israel handed her attackers their butts and grabbed chunks of land in the process.

After studying the issue, the Obama regime, err, sorry, Administration has come out with this great idea that peace could be had if Israel simply went back to those former borders and that he would support a Palestinian nation state led by Hamas. Strangely, Hamas has rejected his proposal and the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu has launched diplomatic, but withering, attacks on the whole load of nonsense issuing from the White House.

So, what do you think? Should Obama simply do the right thing and keep his thoughts to himself? Should the US stop offering solutions to the ongoing Middle East problems Do you think that the proposal is a good one - considering that none of the parties involved think much of the idea?

Has the most brilliant president ev'ah come up with one of the most ill-conceived anti-Israel plans ever, effectively throwing Israel under the Campaigner-in-Chief's bus?

What say you RF stalwarts?

Personally, I think that Obama should stick to his problems at home rather than offering his unenlightened foreign policy efforts to the world. And why is anyone listening to an Administration that has no discernible foreign policy successes to its credit? Have the thoughts of the US Administration become irrelevant on the world stage (or does that come next year)?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I must say that I thought it was odd.

However, Obama is not alone in thinking that this is the best way to go about with the "peace process." And I don't mean just the Palestinians and their sympathizers.

I wish that the USA would not outline ANY peace processes for Israel / Palestine and instead act as a force that discourages violence.

In a way I think that it doesn't matter. Israel is not going to give the land back.

 

[Flankerl]

On a positive note the spokesman of Hamas said something nice.
"Clearly Obama's plan is no different, aside from a few small details, from that of George Bush. Now he refers to the 1967 borders as sacred, but who says we accept them, and that we won't speak of the '48 lines?"

Awesome.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

On a positive note the spokesman of Hamas said something nice.
"Clearly Obama's plan is no different, aside from a few small details, from that of George Bush. Now he refers to the 1967 borders as sacred, but who says we accept them, and that we won't speak of the '48 lines?"

Awesome.

Sarcasm?

 

[Rakhel]

I liked watching Bibi on the Hill talking about this new "peace plan."

I also like the PA response of (paraphrasing here) "Dem's fightin' words!"

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't suppose there is a viable solution that will stick.
Eventually there will be another war and the borders will be redrawn in blood.

the Jews will not back down unless the entire population loses its faith. The same can be said for the Palestinian position. both are totally unrealistic.

After the War there might be little for any one , Jew, Christian or Muslim to salvage.

 

[Willamena]

So, the ever eloquent Golfer-in-Chief has come out with this breathtakingly brilliant idea to confine Israel to it's 1967 borders. You know, those are the borders that Israel enjoyed prior to the infamous Six Day War when Israel handed her attackers their butts and grabbed chunks of land in the process.

After studying the issue, the Obama regime, err, sorry, Administration has come out with this great idea that peace could be had if Israel simply went back to those former borders and that he would support a Palestinian nation state led by Hamas. Strangely, Hamas has rejected his proposal and the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu has launched diplomatic, but withering, attacks on the whole load of nonsense issuing from the White House.

So, what do you think? Should Obama simply do the right thing and keep his thoughts to himself? Should the US stop offering solutions to the ongoing Middle East problems Do you think that the proposal is a good one - considering that none of the parties involved think much of the idea?

Has the most brilliant president ev'ah come up with one of the most ill-conceived anti-Israel plans ever, effectively throwing Israel under the Campaigner-in-Chief's bus?

What say you RF stalwarts?

Personally, I think that Obama should stick to his problems at home rather than offering his unenlightened foreign policy efforts to the world. And why is anyone listening to an Administration that has no discernible foreign policy successes to its credit? Have the thoughts of the US Administration become irrelevant on the world stage (or does that come next year)?

I guess nobody gets the "swaps" part. He explained it well enough, I thought. He's not proposing to reassert the old borders, but to renegotiate from them using "swaps."

 

[Rakhel]

I guess nobody gets the "swaps" part. He explained it well enough, I thought. He's not proposing to reassert the old borders, but to renegotiate from them using "swaps."

Bibi reinforced this during his speech before Congress.
I know when he was talking with the President, he assumed the same thing, but when he spoke before Congress he also said "swaps."

 

[Revoltingest]

So, what do you think? Should Obama simply do the right thing and keep his thoughts to himself? Should the US stop offering solutions to the ongoing Middle East problems Do you think that the proposal is a good one - considering that none of the parties involved think much of the idea?
Has the most brilliant president ev'ah come up with one of the most ill-conceived anti-Israel plans ever, effectively throwing Israel under the Campaigner-in-Chief's bus?
What say you RF stalwarts?
Personally, I think that Obama should stick to his problems at home rather than offering his unenlightened foreign policy efforts to the world. And why is anyone listening to an Administration that has no discernible foreign policy successes to its credit? Have the thoughts of the US Administration become irrelevant on the world stage (or does that come next year)?

What say I?
Ignoring the issue of Obama's complete ineptitude at everything except snowing the masses & winning elections,
it is absolutely this country's business to meddle. We must ease the middle eastern mess which has ensnared us.
Solving domestic problems hinges on disengaging ourselves from that tar baby, which won't happen until the
carnage subsides. I hope Obama succeeds.
Now, don't think I've gone all soft & touchy feely....it's about my money.

 

[Rakhel]

 

[Revoltingest]

Were that still a current & violent dispute, it might actually compare.
Using American Indians instead of the old queen would work even better.

Btw, there he is bowing to royals again!

 

[Rakhel]

Were that still a current & violent dispute, it might actually compare.
Using American Indians instead of the old queen would work even better.

Agreed, however, when was the last time he went to an Indian tribal consul meeting?

Btw, there he is bowing to royals again!

Only in the cartoons does he bow to the Brits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed, however, when was the last time he went to an Indian tribal consul meeting?

I....I....I've never even been invited to one!
Do they just sit around thanking their lucky stars they were conquered by people who brought them smallpox & fire water?

Only in the cartoons does he bow to the Brits.

I vaguely recall'm bowing to some other dignitary....a non-cartoon one.

 

[Rakhel]

I....I....I've never even been invited to one!
Do they just sit around thanking their lucky stars they were conquered by people who brought them smallpox & fire water?


I vaguely recall'm bowing to some other dignitary....a non-cartoon one.

LOL I have no bleeding clue what happens at one of those meetings.


He bowed to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor(a tiny bow). But never the British Queen.

 

[Revoltingest]

He bowed to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor(a tiny bow). But never the British Queen.

What....he doesn't like her?
Is it cuz he's Irish?

 

[Rakhel]

What....he doesn't like her?
Is it cuz he's Irish?

Guess being Irish is as good a reason as any not to like the Queen

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally I'm disappointed by Israel's response, and wondering about Hamas' answer.

If there is a significant flaw in Obama's proposal itself I have yet to be made aware of it.

 

[Valjean]

I think it was more Netanyahu and the Likud party's response than Israel's, Luis. There are more radical proposals in Ha'aretz all the time.

First, there was nothing new or radical in Obama's proposal and, if memory serves, he's not the first US president to propose something like this. Nor was he proposing restoring the original borders. The border change was to be based on the pre '67 line. This is also the opinion of every other country in the world as well as the UN.

Netanyahu maintains that the border would be "indefensible. I'd like to hear some discussion of this. The news media seem to be ignoring it.
Perhaps if everyone made friendly there would be no need for defense.

 

[Rakhel]

Well, from what this article is saying, it looks likely that the US will veto Palestinian statehood come Sept.

President Obama, in a far-ranging interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr, made it clear that he couldn’t and wouldn’t back the efforts of Palestinians to get “formal recognition of statehood” from the United Nations.



Read more: Barack Obama: No Palestinian state via U.N. - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

 

[kai]

LOL I have no bleeding clue what happens at one of those meetings.


He bowed to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor(a tiny bow). But never the British Queen.

Whats a republican doing bowing to anyone Saudi,Japanese or British and isn't it the subject of debate whether he actually has bowed to anyone? As for the Queen she wont mind either way she has seen Presidents come and go like the weather.


check her out here with the presidents:

http://lisawallerrogers.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/queen-elizabeth-with-12-u-s-presidents/

As for the 67 borders ? whats new?

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=88968




and isnt the 1967 borders really the 1948 armistice line, a line that was used in the 67 war by Jordan as not being a fixed boundary .




Heres what Reagan said in 1982


n the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again... So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States' position that - in return for peace - the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242