Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes. when they talk about the '67 lines they are actually talking about the '48 lines they officially rejected. And as pointed out in another thread, Jordan, now, has no say in the matter because both countries set their borders in the 1994 treaty.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.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This.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.
Now wherre did you get the idea that Hamas would lead a Palestinian state? Are you assuming that Fatah would just stand by and that the whole population would root for Hamas? Or that Hamas would turn into a dictatorship? I really don't get it.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.
There are many Americans who are just as surprised that our President could be so ignorant. Actually, I am ashamed.I am surprised by the American gullibility in their negotiations.
We ain't too impressed with Israeli intransigence & inability to make peace with their neighbors either.I am surprised by the American gullibility in their negotiations.
I am surprised by the American gullibility in their negotiations. either they are giving a lip service to the Arabs, not a very good lip service I might add. or they have no concept of the georaphical disputes in this region and of the opinions of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has never supported the 1967 borders. hell I dont support it. it means that I can go to our balcony right now and see the newly born Palestinian state spread before me.
not very comforting. nor very realistic.
We ain't too impressed with Israeli intransigence & inability to make peace with their neighbors either.
Doing the same thing over & over again, with failure the result every time is no solution.
Time for different approaches.
Alas, I don't think Obama has the wherewithal to contribute anything useful.
I only think that there might be.Rev, you assume there is a solution.
We ain't too impressed with Israeli intransigence & inability to make peace with their neighbors either.
Doing the same thing over & over again, with failure the result every time is no solution.
Time for different approaches.
I give Obama credit for trying, but alas, I don't think he has the wherewithal to contribute anything useful.
Beside the point? Nah....tis germain.That's beside the point. He has a ton of advisors, and apparently this is what they are telling him to do. This doesn't speak to him personally as much as it does his entire foreign relations team.
Also true, but some are better equipped to give it the ole college try than others.And to be fair, no one has ever known what to do with the Palestinian // Israeli conflict.
These negotiations have been going on for so long. and the stands of the key political figures have usually been clear. Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear that he will not fall back to the 1967 borders, he has also made his stand on Jerusalem clear.There are many Americans who are just as surprised that our President could be so ignorant. Actually, I am ashamed.
Beside the point? Nah....tis germain.
He runs the show, & decides how to use the advice given him.
Also true, but some are better equipped to give it the ole college try than others.
These negotiations have been going on for so long. and the stands of the key political figures have usually been clear. Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear in his negotiations that he will not fall back to the 1967 borders, he has also made his stand on Jerusalem clear.
Why would an American president expect Israel to make such concessions. without even beginning to understand the history behind these borders reality.
you are absolutely right.Perhaps, but what good is how hard one tries if one fails.
Sure hand it to men with dreadlocks and knives.The whole place should be nuked and handed over to people of more diplomatic religions since none of the three major Abrahamic sects seem to show any true concern or their holy land. Let's say the Sikhs.
I'm kidding. Somewhat.
Hopefully Obama bin Golfin is kidding too. Given the anti-Israeli stance of his regime, sorry, administration I'm not so sure he is kidding.I'm kidding. Somewhat.