That’s pretty much the upshot of Obama coming down firmly on the side of the pre-1967 borders being the end result of a peace agreement, plus some land swapping.
While some have contended this merely states prior policy, there is an important shift. Prior policy emphasized the 1967 borders as the starting point, not the end point, and did not condition Israel keeping land in what is now the West Bank on Israel giving up other land.
Rather, in 2004 George W. Bush assured Israel (h/t Jake Tapper) that Israel would not be forced back to the pre-1967 border (emphasis mine):
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
So this represents a major coup for the Palestinians.
Without Palestinians having to make any concessions on the so-called “right of return” or Jerusalem or reparations or anything, Obama has handed the Palestinians a major territorial victory which violates promises made just seven years ago by a President of the United States.
The destructive nature of the speech is made even worse because it rewards bad behavior, including the recent Fatah coalition with Hamas and the breach of Israel’s borders organized by Syria and Hezbollah.
Obama first should have done no harm. Instead, first he did harm to the peace process. Intransigence works.
Update: I should have mentioned in the text that the 2004 letter from Bush linked above was in connection with Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, which as we now know resulted in an Iranian proxy on Israel’s southern border. So to go back on those pledges is particularly onerous because it shows Israel that land for peace not only is a joke as far as the Palestinians are concerned, but also that U.S. assurances as inducements for territorial withdrawal cannot be relied on.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Muslims are already calling Obama the 'new Arafat'.
When, WHEN are the Jewish voters ever going to learn to stop voting Democrat?
This just proves you can take the lefty out of academia, but you can't take academia out of the lefty.
How we treat our allies makes me sick.
So this means that the word of the President of the United States truly has an expiration date.
Israel has forgotten Who is the source of its security and peace. It's not military might; it's not number of allies; it's not any particular allies. It is God. That's where Israel needs to look for help from the savage hordes howling around her borders.
Looking to America during the 'reign' of Barack Hussein Obama will only bring Israel to the house of genocide at the hands of the Muslims he supports. Obama has consistently sought the self-interest not of the U.S., not of Christians, not of Jews, but of Muslims the world over. That is where his allegiance lies, and no amount of sweet, lying rhetoric will convince us otherwise.
Now it is up to the Jews of America to wise us and stop supporting the man, named Barack Hussein Obama, who is herding their people first (Christians are next) into the cattle cars headed for extermination by Arab Muslims.
Jews in Israel are already cognizant of who and what Obama is, unless they are of the Left, of course. Jews in America? Too many of them have a death wish. Well, guys, Obama is gonna help you out with that.
A flashback from the you tube time machine when the Pinnocchio in chief was still trying to get elected….http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v;=Tl-GHERR9hM
The only surprise to me is that people are actually surprised. We know what this man's core beliefs are, and any promises or proclamations he makes at variance with them comes, as Glenn Reynolds is wont to say, with an expiration date.
Its an odd thing, the pretty consistent hostility Jews tend to have for evangelical Christians- particularly those of the Southern stripe. When you get right down to it, those are really just about the only friends they've got.
A. Everything that cat says is a lie.
B. A campaign play to the cat's academic/communist base. Rhetoric.
C. The gist, and not a lie: subsidize the "Moslem Brotherhood," the cat's sponsor, per the reason the cat's in play.
D. The cat's not a "new Arafat." The cat's a pretending new Fatimid Caliph (Shia).
E. 2008 campaign promise to stop USA stomping about in countries, now dictating to them and stomping about in them.
F. Rise in SpecOps across ME to eliminate leaders of MB enemies, also crimp their finances.
G. This is Mohammedan Africa flexing its muscle, showing its imperial and imperialistic intent.
H. Nothing to be concerned about. Really. This is a year of closings. Big careers have closed/are closing. Blood in area crazes cat herds.
And still more than sixty five percent of American Jews will vote democrat for Obama next election.
I am starting to watch Glenn Beck again because at least he is publicizing it. I feel so helpless.
"Instead, first he did harm to the peace process. Intransigence works."
As opposed to rewarding the Israelis who have been so accommodating of peace?
The best thing that can be said of the situation is both sides are complete %$#holes and we should wash our hands of them.
I know, their both awful! Like how the Israelis fire mortars into residential neighborhoods willy-nilly, you know, just for shits and giggles. And strapping bombs onto teenagers to detonate on Palestinian buses and markets. The worst, though, was that time they started handing out candy in celebration because some of them had slipped across the wire and slaughtered an entire family while they slept. Wait…those weren't Israelis?
How any rightminded human being cannot be in awe at the almost superhuman restraint the Israelis exercise towards the Palestinians is utterly beyond me.
Okay William,
I'm carrying our little argument over to this thread. In the first sentence of the paragraph you blockquoted, secure and recognized borders "should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338." Those resolutions establish the starting point as the pre-1967 boundaries, in particular 242 (#338 was more an affirmation of 242). Pre-1967 was the baseline, with conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
The rest of the paragraph acknowledges that those boundaries are no longer realistic, which is why Bush proposed mutually agreed changes (or swaps, to use Obama's word). The daylight I'm seeing between 2004 Bush and 2011 Obama is darn near nothing.
True that Obama made no mention of the Palestinians or Israelis making concessions on the right of return and Jerusalem. That can was merely kicked down the road. The 2004 letter was silent on both issues.
As for Gaza, neither here nor there. Easier to blockade the place than protect Israeli residents within the boundaries of that rat's nest.
"Wait…those weren't Israelis?"
Maybe not but it was Israelis shelling schools with white phosphorus, bulldozing unarmed protesters, flattening apartment buildings to kill a single assassination target and let's not forget this charmer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_Darweesh_Al_Hams
At the end of the day red cross stats show the israelis have killed far more civilians than the palestinains have, that puts the lie to the idea that Israel practices restraint. They don't, they deliberately kill innocents, which makes them no better than Hamas. The restraint you stand in awe of is nothing more than PR, which you have gullible bought into.
Tlaloc,
That's a serious charge, that Israelis deliberately kill innocents. No doubt there are incidents that have crossed the line, but they do have rules of engagement, a quality lacking in Hamas rocket attacks, to name one example.
Well, I'm just a gullible sort of guy, I guess. Hell, I believe all sorts of stupid stuff. Like that throwing rocks at soldiers amidst a riot is a good way to get shot. That standing in front of a moving bulldozer is an excellent way to get squished–my granny taught me that one. Or that active rocket launchers tend to attract return fire, and a body wanting to preserve his hide might not hang around. And that a group firing rockets and mortars from a schoolyard while their leaders manage their little war amidst a civilian population, maybe, just maybe, is hoping for civilian casualties to show on the news that night. I even tend to think that people who would tie bombs onto their children and call them martyrs when blow people walking down the street might constitute a psychotic death cult whose own cousins in the region wouldn't let in their house. Especially if I'd watched them dancing in the streets of Gaza on 9/11. I'm even inclined to think that not a single one of Israel's neighbors would put up with one tenth of that crap before rolling in and snuffing out every man, woman, and child belonging to the problem group.
I know, I'm just all sorts of stupid. I blame the American school system.
It supposed to be "when they blow people up while their walking down the street." It comes off a little, er, "indelicate", the way it got posted.
"That's a serious charge, that Israelis deliberately kill innocents. No doubt there are incidents that have crossed the line, but they do have rules of engagement, a quality lacking in Hamas rocket attacks, to name one example. "
Try a simple logic exercise. Here are the assertions:
You have two forces.
1) A deliberately targets civilians.
2) B deliberately avoids targeting civilians.
3) B has access to the highest grade military technology in the world allowing precise targeting if so desired.
4) B has a much higher incidence of killing civilians than A.
These cannot all be true. They lead to an obvious logical inconsistency so one or more of the above must be false. We agree on 1. You claim 2. Do you disagree on 3? Red cross stats provide ample evidence of 4.
Barring the possibility that you dispute 3 (seems unlikely) the only logical point of contention is 2. And since 2 has absolutely no evidence to back it up (indeed its a claim that cannot be proven only disproven) and substantial evidence to the contrary it is clearly the false assertion.
"Well, I'm just a gullible sort of guy…"
Actually the fact that you excuse deliberate targeting of civilians rather than trying to claim the Israelis didn't do it means you aren't gullible after all…
Just evil.
Given that the US does have the highest grade military technology and equipment on earth, does that mean we are targeting civilians when they occasionally get killed? Why would Obama do such a thing? Does his white half just love killing brown people?
It might be gullible on my part, but I'm going to go ahead and call BS on the whole "higher incidence" line of argument here. As a percentage, it almost has to be false, given that the Palestinians, like all brave freedom fighters throughout history, targets civilians (preferably unarmed) almost exclusively. As for raw numbers, again, I'm profoundly skeptical, and would certainly want to see extensive sourcing, as well as the particulars of what sorts of death are being lumped into that figure. Gullible person that I am- choc full of teh stoopid- I suspect that just about anyone who goes toes-up for any cause in Palestinian areas gets blamed on the Jews. Given the Palestinian/international media's habit of reporting massacres that never happened, such as Jenin, I also tend to expect that when such incidences are included in death tallies, its the initial, provably false numbers, that get used.
Eh, evil, republican, potato, patato…
Given that even the UN has been forced to admit that when Israel kills civilians it is solely because the terrorists are using them as shields & sandbags, I'd have to say that anyone who believes Tlaloc's little list "can't all be true" is showing a deliberate blockheadedness. Or is just evil.
I dunno why I waste my time on this Soros' sock, but there is ample evidence of #2, from leaflet drops to phone calls to text messages warning of attacks in civilian areas.
It's a moot point, anyway, because the premise is based upon the absurd notion of "proportional" response. Proportional response is just begging for unending attacks. Since after today it's obvious that Israel no longer has any reason to appease the left in the US, the next time they are attacked, they should strike back with everything they've got and crush the Palestinians utterly until they scream uncle. The only way to truly defeat an enemy is to BEAT the ever loving f— out of him until he decides he's had enough. Is it a dirty, bloody business? Oh, you bet, but then, war is a dirty, bloody business. Before you scream in mock horror, Mr. Soros' sock, remember the flip side.
Genocide is a dirty, bloody business as well. And you're defending it.
Personally, the Israeli's should use this opportunity to walk away from the whole mess. Obama has reneged on the US commitment and the Palestinians rarely keep their word either. My take on this is it's a no win situation. Neither Hamas nor the PLO will ever honor their agreements, much less are they able to reign in on the religious nuts, they had now almost 50 years to settle the issues and haven't. Any two state solution will ultimately end in a war between them and Israel will be back to the POST 1967 borders with Muslims whining for another 50 years.
Israel needs to tell the Arabs who are born within the POST 1967 borders and their children born afterwards, they have a choice, become Israeli citizens subject to the same law as everyone else OR shut up. That means everyone of them who were "land owners" should be allowed to return to live on their land OR Israel must give them fair market value at today's prices. Israeli's for their part needs to get over the idea God gave them the land, sorry but history records God kicked them out repeatedly so now they have to share, get over it. End the whole nonsense of the Hamas (Gaza strip) and PLO governing any areas. Let the military sweep in and kill off anyone who resists. Anyone who wants to leave, put them on a bus to the Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese or Jordanian border of their choice.
The UN and Islamic countries will scream, big hairy deal, shut up or put up. Saudi Arabia has to make a choice, be taken over by the Shiites (Iran) or watch after their own interests with the Sunnis, Israel is not their problem and quite frankly a better ally than the US. Hezbollah will fire rockets from Lebanon, Israel will have already deployed Iron Dome and the Patriot missle batteries. They aren't going to be invading Israel as they can't muster an organized fighting force. Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood will scream, make threats and then eventually shut up because as much as they talk about going to war with Israel, this is just jingoistic populist talk for domestic consumption. Loud mouths seldom have the stomach for a fight when push comes to shove. Syria will make lots of threats but let's face it, they had 50 years to get their land back, haven't had the muscle to do it and they still don't otherwise they would have.
Tlaloc, the reason the Palestinian terrorists have more of their civilians killed is that they routinely commit the war crime of perfidy, defined in the Geneva Conventions as deliberately conducting attacks from within civilian populations, operating in civilian clothing without identifying uniforms, using civilian buildings for military purposes.
This has been extensively documented, and for you to say anything else simply reveals you as a despicable liar and enabler of war crimes.
dscott: Israel started compensating anyone who had land right after they *left*; no one else is left to compensate! & no Israeli seriously falls back on the "G-d gave us the land" – all the serious argument I hear are legal ones. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.
If rockets were raining down on Brownsville Texas fired from Mexico how long do you think we'd put up with it before we obliterated everything within a 10 mile radius of the source? I'd say about 24 hours.
And if it continued I'd guess it would take about a month for us to establish a buffer south of the border larger than the maximum range of any weapons possessed by the Mexicans.
The idea that there's something inhumane about what the Israelis have been doing is insane. If anything they've exercised too much restraint.
Tlaloc = another dime-a-dozen poseur who latched onto a trendy, progressive cause du jour. I find it highly doubtful that Tlaloc has ever set foot in that part of the world or truly gives one thread off a rat's derriere about the plight of his precious Palestinians.
"Given that the US does have the highest grade military technology and equipment on earth, does that mean we are targeting civilians when they occasionally get killed? "
If we ended up killing them in those kinds of numbers, you bet your #@! it would.
"It might be gullible on my part, but I'm going to go ahead and call BS on the whole "higher incidence" line of argument here. As a percentage, it almost has to be false, given that the Palestinians, like all brave freedom fighters throughout history, targets civilians (preferably unarmed) almost exclusively. "
Cognitive dissonance -> Denial
"Tlaloc, the reason the Palestinian terrorists have more of their civilians killed is that they routinely commit the war crime of perfidy, defined in the Geneva Conventions as deliberately conducting attacks from within civilian populations, operating in civilian clothing without identifying uniforms, using civilian buildings for military purposes."
So you're claiming Israelis are just too stupid to use the guidance systems on the weapons we sell? I'm finding that a hard sell frankly. Nor does it explain the repeated instances of Israeli soldiers deliberately firing on targets known to be unarmed and fleeing, including children.
"If rockets were raining down on Brownsville Texas fired from Mexico how long do you think we'd put up with it before we obliterated everything within a 10 mile radius of the source? I'd say about 24 hours."
Here's a better example, a foreign power, say China, arbitrarily decides to take half of Kansas and give it to the vietnamese under chinese occupation. The vietnamese upon arrival begin a series of terror campaigns aimed at driving the chinese out which eventually works. The Chinese leave the vietnamese in Kansas and basically say "they're your problem now, US." At that point the Vietnamese allies the russians give the vietnamese a bunch of high tech weapons and the vietnamese. Tensions increase between the native kansans and the vietnamese eventually leading to atrocities on both sides, but as the vietnamese are vastly better armed they grab more and more of Kansas, stealing lands, bulldozing homes, and so forth. The remaining Kansans, with no hope of being able to militarily fight the vietnamese start a dirty guerrilla war that uses a lot of really ugly tactics. The Vietnamese are guilty of genocide against the kansans as they attempt to starve them by stealing more and more of their farm land and access to water while shooting at and boarding relief missions.
That'd be pretty analogous to the middle east situation today. Remember that Israel was born out of terrorism against the brits by the proto-israelis. It hasn't come far from that beginning.
@Tlaloc
Can you sing and dance in unison with like-minded people?
This is probably all cognitive dissonancey on my part, but did the Vietnamese live in Kansas for 4,000 years? Did God give it to them?
"Toto … I have a feeling we're not in the Gaza Strip anymore."
–An understandably frightened Dorothy, whisked away by ferocious winds (fanned by the Jews) from her Shangri-la home and violently dumped down in Tlaloc, Kansas.
Iron Chef Kosher: "Israel started compensating anyone who had land right after they *left*; no one else is left to compensate!"
This is news to me or a very well keep secret. IF this is the case then Israel has done a very poor PR job in refuting the "Right of Return". To me, that more than any other issue was THEE problem not the silly idea of a racially pure self governing area for the Arabs within Israel. IF again it is the case that Israel settled accounts with the land owners, then they have wasted their time and effort in bargaining with the Arabs because after 50 years they demonstrated time and again they will never like a Jew as long as he/she lives. Listening to the Arab celebrated version of the May 15 holiday, it becomes clear that the only peace in Israel for a Jew is the peace of the grave. This conflict therefore can never be rationally resolved when the sole motive for peace is killing off the group you don't like for whatever the insane reason given.
"Nor does it explain the repeated instances of Israeli soldiers deliberately firing on targets known to be unarmed and fleeing, including children. "
That is a lie, and you are a liar.