Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/obamas-mideast-speech-offers-punishment-praise/

Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders
ShareretweetEmailPrint Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama: Future of U.S. bound to Mideast AP Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama To Deliver Mideast Message CBS4 Miami Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama's Speech Will Address Middle East ABC News – 45 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

**gman1401**

Wow.... Poor little Israel :(.

**biccat**

Sounds like he's basically adopting Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" except for the part that requires Palestinians to stop attacking Israel.

Brilliant.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:Sounds like he's basically adopting Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" except for the part that requires Palestinians to stop attacking Israel.

Brilliant.

Read the speech before speaking.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

**daedalus**

So now we're pissing off the one country that our previous support of which pissed off generally every other country?

...or is international politics trickier than my attention span is long?

**Da Boss**

About time someone threw the palestinians a bone.

**dogma**

daedalus wrote:So now we're pissing off the one country that our previous support of which pissed off generally every other country?

...or is international politics trickier than my attention span is long?

Yes, and yes.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Sounds like he's basically adopting Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" except for the part that requires Palestinians to stop attacking Israel.

Brilliant.

Read the speech before speaking.

It would be nice if, for once, you undertook some of this research for yourself. Honestly, it's getting tiring.

Road map for peace:

Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.
...
Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

Obama's position (emphasis added):

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

"Non-militarized" is different than requiring Palestinian leadership to undertake actions to disarm violent groups and stop incitement against Israel.

**Frazzled**

Where have I heard the term "demilitarized zone" before? TMZ, DMZ it sounds so familiar.

We gotta get out of this place, if its the last thing we ever do..

**Bastion of Mediocrity**

Wow, I am not a political analyst or anything, but now should Netanyahu tell President Obama that he thinks the U.S. should pull back to their 1776 borders?

I think the palestinians have been thrown a lot of bones, one of the first things our president did when he came into office was send them financial aid. BUT until the palestinian authorities can really show that they CAN control the terrorists, I would worry about handing any territory over to them.

Having friends from Lebanon, I have not heard great things about what the "Palestinean Authorities" did in their country. I feel worse for Beirut than either Israel or Palastine (for the record), but I think it is hypocritical that so many western countries (U.S. and Europe) are telling Israel what their borders are when our own borders were developed by conquest all the same.

So 44 years later we tell them, oh BTW you cannot keep that because the UN says so.

No wonder we as a species will never know peace.

**daedalus**

dogma wrote:
daedalus wrote:So now we're pissing off the one country that our previous support of which pissed off generally every other country?

...or is international politics trickier than my attention span is long?

Yes, and yes.

Ah, okay then. I think I'll just go chill and watch some Survivor then until the bombs drop, the smallpox is released, or rapture occurs.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
It would be nice if, for once, you undertook some of this research for yourself. Honestly, it's getting tiring.

You're comparing a speech to a drafted document, that is either bad rhetoric, or deliberate delusion.

For example, here is Bush's description of the Road Map's provisions regarding violence in his first announcement speech:

The world expects an immediate cease-fire, immediate resumption of security cooperation with Israel against terrorism. An immediate order to crack down on terrorist networks. I expect better leadership, and I expect results.

They are more strongly worded versions of the phrases used by Obama, who is basically duplicating the plan and adding a velvet glove.

biccat wrote:
"Non-militarized" is different than requiring Palestinian leadership to undertake actions to disarm violent groups and stop incitement against Israel.

Wait, did you not read this sentence?

Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security.

Moreover, a "sovereign" state is one which has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and a "non-militarized" state is one which is not aggressively planning the end of another by use of force. Even if you believe that Obama's speech shows the relaxation of support for Israel, and it does, it does not explicitly declare that the Palestinians may continue their use of force against Israel. In fact, it make many allusions to the contrary .

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:...but I think it is hypocritical that so many western countries (U.S. and Europe) are telling Israel what their borders are when our own borders were developed by conquest all the same.

I mean, Israel wouldn't exist were it not for Western support, so that's not quite right.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:Even if you believe that Obama's speech shows the relaxation of support for Israel, and it does, it does not explicitly declare that the Palestinians may continue their use of force against Israel. In fact, it make many allusions to the contrary on the latter.

Yes, like I said, it's Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" without the "disarming terrorists" bit.

However, unlike Bush's policy that placed a burden on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it places more weight on the Israelis to take the first step.

How this is newsworthy remains unclear.

**Ahtman**

I'm pretty sure they stole this from the 6th season of The West Wing.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Yes, like I said, it's Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" without the "disarming terrorists" bit.

Right, and my point is that this speech is basically just a velvet glove version of Bush's speech introducing that policy.

You keep comparing something drafted by the State Department (which, if you listen to Gingrich, would not exist save for the Department's bureaucratic will) to a speech made by a President, instead of simply comparing speeches made by the two relevant Presidents.

biccat wrote:
However, unlike Bush's policy that placed a burden on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it places more weight on the Israelis to take the first step.

What policy? A speech is not an official policy unless it claims to be.

Anyway, Bush was primarily concerned about terrorism, and that is evident in his speech. You can argue that this particular tactic was superior to a focus on either Israel or Palestine, or you can argue that such tactics gloss over important injustices. Either way, Obama's speech is not an obvious reversal of policy regarding Israel, no matter what Little Benny has to say.

biccat wrote:
How this is newsworthy remains unclear.

A President made a speech regarding a contentious issue. Seems very obviously newsworthy to me.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:You keep comparing something drafted by the State Department (which, if you listen to Gingrich, would not exist save for the Department's bureaucratic will) to a speech made by a President, instead of simply comparing speeches made by the two relevant Presidents.

The President's speech suggested that this was some sort of change to official US policy. It's not.

However, if you're suggesting that Obama is engaging in some political grandstanding without actually saying anything, then you're right. It's pretty much what his entire presidency has been about.

dogma wrote:What policy? A speech is not an official policy unless it claims to be.

That would be the "roadmap to peace" policy. I linked to it above.

dogma wrote:Either way, Obama's speech is not an obvious reversal of policy regarding Israel, no matter what Little Benny has to say.

Did I say it was? No, it's a restatement of Bush's policy, only shifting the burden to Israel to take the first steps towards peace.

dogma wrote:A President made a speech restating a (almost) 10-year-old policy. Seems very obviously not newsworthy to me.

FIFY

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
The President's speech suggested that this was some sort of change to official US policy. It's not.

However, if you're suggesting that Obama is engaging in some political grandstanding without actually saying anything, then you're right. It's pretty much what his entire presidency has been about.

Wait, since when is rhetoric not actually a thing?

Anyway, yes, his deviations in international politics have been rhetorical, if that's what you meant, but his domestic policy has been distinct from Bush's. Following trend X does not indicate that no change is occurring.

biccat wrote:
That would be the "roadmap to peace" policy. I linked to it above.

Yes, that was Bush's policy, what policy has Obama promulgated? Speeches are not policy.

biccat wrote:
Did I say it was? No, it's a restatement of Bush's policy, only shifting the burden to Israel to take the first steps towards peace.

You didn't say that it was, nor did I mean to imply that you did, hence the page break.

However, you did say that Obama's speech did not mirror Bush's requirement for the Palestinians to decease the use of force against Israel, which is false unless Israel engages in some sort of terrorism.

biccat wrote:
FIFY

You're just mad because you said something without thinking, and have been forced to backpedal. It was obviously sufficiently newsworthy for you to comment regarding the issue, and not its importance.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:Yes, that was Bush's policy, what policy has Obama promulgated? Speeches are not policy.

"Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy."

When he says he is announcing new policy, I think it's clear that he's addressing policy.

But I never said that it was a new policy. You're putting words in my mouth. If you would like to argue against something I haven't said, please at least quote what you want me to say so that I can understand what you're responding to. Otherwise, your post doesn't make any sense.

dogma wrote:However, you did say that Obama's speech did not mirror Bush's requirement for the Palestinians to decease the use of force against Israel, which is false unless Israel engages in some sort of terrorism.

Please understand that there's a difference between "Palestinians" and "Palestine." Obama called for a non-militarized state. He said that it was Israel's responsibility to deal with the terrorists.

dogma wrote:You're just mad because you said something without thinking, and have been forced to backpedal. It was obviously sufficiently newsworthy for you to comment regarding the issue, and not its importance.

It's newsworthy in that the President gave a speech. It's not newsworthy to reinforce almost a decade of policy. This is like Obama calling a major press conference to declare that we are at war in Iraq.

In other news, CNN has started lying about the speech already. Does anyone still consider them a real news source?

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
"Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy."

When he says he is announcing new policy, I think it's clear that he's addressing policy.

That isn't what he said. He said that is will be the policy of the US to do X. That doesn't mean that it was not the policy of the US to do X before.

biccat wrote:
But I never said that it was a new policy. You're putting words in my mouth. If you would like to argue against something I haven't said, please at least quote what you want me to say so that I can understand what you're responding to. Otherwise, your post doesn't make any sense.

You said:

biccat wrote:
Sounds like he's basically adopting Bush's "Roadmap to Peace" except for the part that requires Palestinians to stop attacking Israel.

Brilliant.

Bush's Roadmap to Peace is a policy. Any change to that policy creates a new policy. You therefore said that Obama created a new policy with this speech.

biccat wrote:
Please understand that there's a difference between "Palestinians" and "Palestine." Obama called for a non-militarized state. He said that it was Israel's responsibility to deal with the terrorists.

No, that's nonsense. There is no necessary reason to draw that conclusion from the speech. He did not say "Israeli measures" nor did he say "Palestinian measures" he said "measures".

biccat wrote:
It's newsworthy in that the President gave a speech. It's not newsworthy to reinforce almost a decade of policy. This is like Obama calling a major press conference to declare that we are at war in Iraq.

Which would also be newsworthy.

biccat wrote:
In other news, CNN has started lying about the speech already. Does anyone still consider them a real news source?

Is the lie in question in the headline?

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
In other news, CNN has started lying about the speech already. Does anyone still consider them a real news source?

Is the lie in question in the headline?

That would be correct.

Although, in their defense, the AP made the same assertion. I'm willing to accept that the error was due to their swiping the AP's story and not doing any original research.

**Frazzled**

Ladies, ladies, continue..

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Although, in their defense, the AP made the same assertion. I'm willing to accept that the error was due to their swiping the AP's story and not doing any original research.

Nah, it was out of a desire to attract more hits, hence the immediate body contradiction.