Obama's Speech Urging Israel Return to Pre '67 Borders is Same as GWB's Proposal.

So why the sudden outrage at Obama's proposal? Just another excuse to jump on the sheeple bandwagon of hate mongering and pathetic double standards leveled at the Obama administration, where the previous Bush administration receives no such public opprobrium. Problem here is, your previous President George W called for the exact same thing!

Obama: 1967 Lines With 'Swaps' Means Different Israeli Border Than in 1967

"There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations," he said

"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately," he added, saying his remarks were no different than a "well-known formula" that has been worked on for a generation.

www.foxnews.com...

My dispute is NOT that the Israelites should return to the '67 borders, as this proposal is ridiculous and indeed indefensible given the situation. My dispute is with the masses of uneducated people who fail to look into historical US policy on ME peace and find opportunity to heap judgment on Obama when it has already been proposed by the previous administration, now in opposition.

Here is an extract of George W Bush's proposal:

Bush Pledges $50 Million To Aid Palestinians in Gaza : After meeting with Abbas, calls on Israel to end settlement expansion

Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. As we make progress toward security, and in accordance with the road map, Israeli forces should withdraw to their positions on September the 28th, 2000.

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

The imminent Israeli disengagement from Gaza, parts of the West Bank, presents an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a return to the road map. All parties have a responsibility to make this hopeful moment in the region a new and peaceful beginning. That is why I assigned General Kip Ward, who is with us today, to support your efforts, Mr. President, to reform the Palestinian security services and to coordinate the efforts of the international community to make that crucial task a success. The United States also strongly supports the mission of the Quartet's special envoy, Jim Wolfensohn, to make sure that the Gaza disengagement brings Palestinians a better life.

To help ensure that the Gaza disengagement is a success, the United States will provide to the Palestinian Authority $50 million to be used for new housing and infrastructure projects in the Gaza. These funds will be used to improve the quality of life of the Palestinians living in Gaza, where poverty and unemployment are very high. I've also asked Secretary Rice to travel to Jerusalem and Ramallah before the beginning of the Israeli withdrawal. Secretary Rice will consult with Israelis and Palestinians on the disengagement, their shared commitments and the way back on the road map.

As we work to make the disengagement succeed, we must not lose sight of the path ahead. The United States remains committed to the road map as the only way to realize the vision of two democratic states living side-by-side in peace and security. It is through the road map that the parties can achieve a final permanent status agreement through direct negotiations.

unispal.un.org...

Wow even George was sympathetic to the Palestinians and their plight. Point being: ‘1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps’ (Obama) = ‘changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to’ (Bush).

Look, I think it is fine to oppose Obama on his speech and position, but be consistent and don't be a sheep who follows the herd, singing the same stupid chorus as everyone else who fails to realise that the previous administration also urged the same proposals. You should hold George W Bush to the same judgment as well, less you be blinded by party politics, upholding a double standard with blatant hypocrisy - clearly as most people ranting and raving against Obama are.

However if you have a different opinion, and feel that Bush's proposal differs from Obama's, I would be interested to read your response.

reply to post by surrealist


Israel is not going to revert back to the 1967 borders, not now, not ever!!!! Case closed.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by surrealist

 

Israel is not going to revert back to the 1967 borders, not now, not ever!!!! Case closed.

That is completely fine. If you read my post correctly, you would of seen there that I agree with this assessment. This is not what I dispute.

This is how far Obozo's proposal will ever go......

but I don't think Obozo will last much longer:

youtu.be...

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by surrealist

 

Israel is not going to revert back to the 1967 borders, not now, not ever!!!! Case closed.

What a cogent, articulate response to the OP.

Anyway, VERY good post, sir. And you are right. While I didn't support George, I have put down Obama for his current stance on Israel. Now I can have yet another reason to be down on Dubya.

I have my own thoughts about the current borders, based entirely on historical and archeological evidence, but I hope more people read this. Good job.

/TOA

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by surrealist

 

Israel is not going to revert back to the 1967 borders, not now, not ever!!!! Case closed.

Israel will not all of a sudden value peace more that their acquisitions and I would go so far to say they are acquisitive to a fault.
I only hope I can contribute as much to this thread and urge you to seek work at the UN where your negotiating talents will be better served. Did you even read the post?

This is true OP but all of a sudden people don't seem to remember who GWB was and what he said. The same exact words sound very different coming from this Presidents mouth. Go figure. I am not a fan of the way Obama seems to be in lock step with him either.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by surrealist

 

Israel is not going to revert back to the 1967 borders, not now, not ever!!!! Case closed.

No, in fact it will eventually encompass both the West Bank and Gaza. By that point it will also be an Arab state with a sizable Jewish minority, too.

Of course, this will happen regardless of what the borders are actually decided as.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
This is how far Obozo's proposal will ever go......

but I don't think Obozo will last much longer:

youtu.be...

Birther? A little off topic don't you think?

And more with the too clever for words "name calling."
This is what your opponents are up against?
I can hear them trembling now,


oh wait.....my mistake - that's laughter.

My dispute is NOT that the Israelites should return to the '67 borders, as this proposal is ridiculous and indeed indefensible given the situation.

Why is that proposal rediculous? THose borders are perfectly defensible as the Palestinians will have NO military. Israel has the fifth strongest military on the planet and could easily defend any border. If they are not able to I am sure NATO could. The crux of the matter is Netanyahu does not want to be the Prime Minister that allowed a Palestinian State. The Palestinians would be amenable to land swaps to accomodate some of the large settlement blocks so why not proceed? It is pretty much a moot point as the palestinians will force the issue of statehood on the UN General Assembly in September where there is NO veto and I am guessing their state will be established on the '67 lines.

This will make Israel illegitimate beyand those lines. They will then be occupying a country rather then a territory with a whole new set of rules. It would be much better to stop settlement construction now and enter into negotiations on the possible land swaps. Otherwise all those settlements will be considered to be within the State of Palestines borders by the international community.