Every POTUS during my lifetime has endorsed the same Israel borders that Obama did today

[BernieSandersIsGod]

so why exactly is this news?

Why was this speech made? Does POTUS want to make things more difficult for himself?

[CTyankee]

1. I don't see a good future for this thread...

[damntexdem]

2. Francisco Franco is still dead.

But did Dubya actually do this?

[Enrique]

3. is that true?

i was wondering about that, if that was just a little hyped by the media, but I can't find any info on it. I thought Obama himself has already taken this position, but I wasn't sure.

[BernieSandersIsGod]

4. I remember him saying it as well. The media in this country sucks.

I also don't understand the reasoning for bringing this up now. We should be just hammering the GOP on budget matters.

[leftynyc]

15. Here it is

From President George W. Bush's 2008 address:


As we make progress toward security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to Sept. 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.

...

I've asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution building.

Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them.

This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognized borders.

We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror.



I have no idea why everyone's hair is on fire. Same policy as under Pres Bush and same policy as under Pres Clinton also. There is nothing new here and I suspect what I'm seeing is a lot of posturing.

[Solomon]

18. I hope you realize pre 2000 is not the same as pre 1967.

Jeez :eyes: (Shakes head) Of course that interferes with your Obama is same as Bush bullshit.

[leftynyc]

20. LOL - you want sooooo badly

to believe Pres Obama has dumped on Israel. You're going to be massively disappointed. Pres Obama's position is the exact same as both Pres Bush and Pres Clinton before him.

[Solomon]

21. What the fuck are you talking about wanting to dump on Israel?

What bullshit. You're the one spreading bullshit. Exoplain to me how what I said is not true? Pre 2000 is definitely not the same as pre 1967 since they have been pushing the seetlements further out over time. You people need to get a grip on your derangement disorder. This is what destroys your credibility. It's one thing to make valid criticisms, but you guys have to strectch the truth to spread your crap.

You can't find anything I've evr written that anyone can say I want so bad for somebody to dump on Israel. Utter bullshit. And pre 2000 is definitely not the same as pre 1967. Prove me wrong. Just like somebody else I know, facts just don't matter with you guys does it.

[DCBob]

5. This is perfect timing.. right after he took out OBL..

He has major cred. This is smart.. very smart.

[Thrill]

6. Pres Obama has been the first

To have the balls to say it publicly.

[jenmito]

8. EXACTLY. And that is why Netenyahu said this today:

In part: “Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state... cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state,” the tweets state. “That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress. Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines..."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/netanyahus-office-tweets-disapproving-response-to-president-obamas-speech.html

[flpoljunkie]

17. It is telling those on the right choose to ignore the 'with mutually agreed land swaps' part

Particularly those Republicans, Romney et al, who are courting Israel's hard right. It has been an almost non-stop bashing of the president by the Morning Joe crowd this morning. No surprise there. Joe started out, of course, with Romney's charge Obama was 'throwing Israel under the bus.'

J Street, the political home for pro-peace, pro-Israel Americans, lauded President Obama's speech yesterday.

J Street commends President Obama’s Middle East Speech

May 19, 2011 at 1:00 pm

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami issued the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s speech on his approach to the changing Middle East:

J Street commends President Obama for his important speech today outlining his approach to the changing Middle East and stating that efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution are “more urgent than ever.” We are grateful that the President reiterated that America’s friendship with Israel is rooted in shared values and that the United States maintains an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

We share, however, the President’s deep concern that the status quo today between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable, and that “the dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” He is correct in saying that Israel will only find security through granting the Palestinian people their freedom, and the Palestinian people will only achieve freedom if Israel finds security.

J Street wholeheartedly endorses the approach to resolving the conflict outlined today by the President, namely, to address borders and security first. This is an approach which J Street first advocated when negotiations stalled last year. He also clearly established that those borders must be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps – an essential component of the ad J Street ran this morning in The New York Times.

We hope the President will now put his words into action in the coming days as he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he will launch a credible new diplomatic initiative in advance of the looming September United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.

We urge the President to publicly ask the leaders of both parties to join him in an intensive and immediate effort to achieve a two-state solution on the basis of the principles laid out in this speech. He has laid out the parameters of a workable two-state deal, and now the parties must decide if they are ready to work seriously to achieve that elusive goal.

http://jstreet.org/blog/j-street-commends-president-obamas-middle-east-speech/

[Enrique]

9. i dont think that's true

op is talking about official policy, which is of course public.

[CTyankee]

7. I don't think he has a whole lot of choice. The issue is here, it is now.

We can't deal with it...that's just part of being President...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. It's Obama who's making the speech

Duh. Anything and everything he says will be analyzed and probed 10000000000000X more closely than anything Bush, Cheney, et. al ever said. :banghead: :mad:

[golfguru]

11. Got any links to substantiate your allegation?

[classysassy]

12. If not for American interference

The Israeli/Palestinian solution would have been resolved years ago.Money has influenced America's position in the mid east conflicts for years,causing untold deaths.Our politicians have sold their souls to the highest bidders and we suffer because of their evil deeds.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Oh please provide proof of your assertion!

I eagerly await to hear how "If not for American interference The Israeli/Palestinian solution would have been resolved years ago." Do take care not to quote anti-Semitic hate sites.

[jeanpalmer]

13. What difference does it make?

It's just a speech. It will have no bearing on what will happen. The Israelis will ignore it, and the PA is irrelevant.

There must be a political calculation to the speech, but what is it?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. A pointless speech: Yes, we're all hat and no cattle.

Tell Assad to be nice.

Tell Netanyahu to give back land to Palestinians.

It's all just hot air, accomplishing nothing, except to make Obama look like a blustering windbag like GWB.

If he's not willing to back up the words, just stfu. There'll be less future backpedaling that way.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Haaretz' Yoel Marcus: Netanyahu must look to the future if he really wants peace

Netanyahu must look to the future if he really wants peace

It's important that Netanyahu have a daring and credible plan - fresh baked goods that can be eaten by the Palestinians and the world that aspires to peace.

By Yoel Marcus

When a soldier complains to the army cook that the bread is stale, the cook replies: If you want today's bread, come tomorrow. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regularly serves us yesterday's bread. Had he revealed what he's taking to Washington, our situation would be better. The world doesn't revolve around his utterances, but around his actions.

The world sees the Palestinian state as a fait accompli. The fact that Bibi will say that he agrees "on condition that..." is already too late. The security border along the Jordan Valley was decided on when Levi Eshkol was prime minister, when there was a fear that Iraq would invade Israel. To demand this as a condition now is as fresh as last year's bread.

Bibi's speech in the Knesset, which was based on data prepared by his personal pollster, was constructed in such a way that you could both agree with it and oppose it. From Kadima chief Tzipi Livni to Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, the speech was, as a clever observer put it, "rubbish."

Bibi, who presumably aspires to peace, has to think about tomorrow rather than the day before yesterday. When he speaks about secure and recognized borders, is he pretending not to understand that when secure permanent borders are determined, they will be recognized, too? We don't need to have the Palestinians "recognize" a Jewish state, just as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen ) doesn't need our confirmation that the Prophet Mohammed went up to heaven from Al-Aqsa.

Unlike in the days of Franco's Spain and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, we are living in a world that gets involved in places that endanger world peace. Bibi is living in a world in which NATO members are bombing Libya. Bob Simon, the CBS correspondent in Israel for 10 years and now the star of "60 Minutes," said in an interview after a visit here that he found an Israel that has lost hope for change. Its isolation will steadily increase. He said we should imagine a situation in which European ambassadors leave Israel and go live in West Bank cities. Some people are demanding an enforced solution, sums up Simon, but U.S. President Barack Obama won't do that because he wants to be elected to a second term.

Netanyahu's visit to Washington will be crowded with events. Yesterday Obama's speech to the nation, then a meeting between Obama and Bibi, then each of them will appear at the annual AIPAC conference, and finally Bibi will appear in Congress. Lots of background material for summations at the beginning of next week, too little material for guesses on how the visit will end.

The most important event is the discussion between Obama and Bibi; it's Bibi's last chance to talk to a first-term Obama. If he doesn't convince him that he is a partner to an agreement with the Palestinians, we'll be getting a turbo Obama in the second term.

What may be seen as a tactical victory for Bibi will undermine the credibility of relations with a second-term Obama. Were I an adviser who doesn't leak information, I would advise Bibi: When you're with Obama, think about September. The threat to recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is the moldy bread of peace, unless Obama works to stop it. If Obama is convinced of our intentions he can persuade Europe not to support this initiative, and maybe he can even convince Abu Mazen to give it up.

Bibi also has to pay attention to the fact that in September elections are expected in Egypt, and we and America have a mutual interest in removing Egypt from the Mideast upheaval and preserving the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. And another piece of advice for Bibi: If you thought it was possible to put the Palestinians on the back burner at the expense of an agreement with Syria, that dream has been shelved. Relying on the power of the Israel Defense Forces, as the contented defense minister declares, is not enough. We're slowly learning the limits of power. It's more important to rely on smart diplomacy.

The agreement between Hamas and Abu Mazen's government is disturbing, but to them the presence and influence of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the extreme right in Bibi's government are no less disturbing. When we have a leadership that aspires to peace, and the public gets a taste of normal life, there is hope for moderation.

The waste of time that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about this week is not only ours, but the Palestinians', too. It's important that Netanyahu have a daring and credible plan - fresh baked goods that can be eaten by the Palestinians and the world that aspires to peace, headed by Obama.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-must-look-to-the-future-if-he-really-wants-peace-1.362920