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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

biccat wrote:
How this is newsworthy remains unclear.

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

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

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

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

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.

biccat wrote:
FIFY

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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