Obama’s call for Israeli/Palestinian borders to be "based on 1967 lines" mirrors Bush/Clinton policy

[Tx4obama]

Obama’s call for Israeli/Palestinian borders to be "based on the 1967 lines" mirrors Bush, Clinton policy

Today in his speech on the Middle East and North Africa, President Obama said that “a lasting peace” between the Israelis and the Palestinians “will involve two states” and that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.”

For some reason, the Beltway media is treating this as some kind of breaking news. Foreign Policy reported that Obama is altering U.S. policy and the Washington Post claimed that the Obama administration referred to the 1967 border as part of the solution “ for the first time.”

Next came the right-wing outrage that Obama hates Israel. Matt Drudge issued the marching orders soon after the speech ended with the headline, “Obama sides with Palestine.” Mitt Romney then accused Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said Obama “betrayed” Israel, saying on Twitter, “Obama’s call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division & more aggression in Middle East & put Israel at further risk.” The far-right Simon Wiesenthal Center, which purports to promote tolerance, basically called Obama a Nazi, saying that “Israel should reject a return to 1967 ‘Auschwitz’ borders.”

But the problem is that this just isn’t new. Even President Bush in 2005 endorsed a two-state solution with negotiations based on the post-1949 Armistice, pre-1967 borders: ... SNIP

Full article here: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/obama-israel-1967

[Thrill]

1. I don't believe Bush or Clinton ever said it publicly

.

[Tx4obama]

4. Turn on MSNBC The Ed Show

Ed is going to do a segment on it in a few minutes ... and Ed just said that Bush SAID almost the same thing.

[Renew Deal]

2. What game is Obama playing here?

I'm sure he knew the reactions. So where is he headed with this???

[Distant Observer]

5. Nothing different in US position for last 30 years. Just US Power visa-vis Israeli lobby

[Renew Deal]

8. Yes, but he doesn't need a speech to do that,

That's what's confusing about it.

[classysassy]

12. Could it be a game where the officials

are fair and honest,unlike the ones of the past?

[elfin]

3. The difference is that the PRES. is stating it publicly

Calling the participants out and delineating the outlines of the fundamental disagreements and telling both sides publicly that adhering to their no-go sticking points will leave them stuck in a failing future.

The position has been well known for decades -- but not articulated by a President to the WORLD in an address so succinctly.

Perhaps forced by Mitchell's resignation, but history is marching on in the region and this conflict needs some forward movement now that back channels like Egypt and Syria have outlived their utility.

I thought the most important part of the presentation was the recognition that extremes deflect the unrest of their peoples on to Israel instead of dealing with social and economic issues of their own.

Syria's part in the recent incidents at Israel's border are just one example.

[Johonny]

6. because you know whatever he's for they're against

all the Rethug "hopefuls" spent a brain fart to tell us what we already know. If Obama is for it then they think it is the worst idea EVA!

I think White House should start releasing joke positions just so the Republicans can express outrage over more stupid pointless things.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Regardless, no president has ever PUSHED the point

They may have referred to it obliquely, but no president has ever made it official policy or even tried to make it conditional on full US support.

I've seen presidential promises come and go. I'll wait to see how this particular flavor turns out. It won't be without a cost.

[Distant Observer]

9. Just the OPPOSITE, Bush 41 w J Baker did exactly that.

Check out the history of confrontations under 41.

This has been a major topic in US policy debate. Guess you missed it.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11619

[Canuckistanian]

10. I don't see anything there about the 1967 borders

It was merely a push to stop the Israeli settlement progression, which is a LONG WAY from the 1967 argument.

[classysassy]

11. " It has been a long time coming but a change has come"

The half hearted effort of past presidents that caused little or no change seem to be at an end if Obama does not retreat under heavy pressure from the Israeli lobby and their supporters.We need to support a fair process one that does not favor either side as it has in the past.The entire world know we have favored Israel in the past so they did not have to negotiate in good faith,knowing America would veto any settlement that did not favor Israel,it appears their is a new sheriff in town who want to be fair and honest in his dealing with both parties.We Americans need a reality check,have we been honest and have our law makers been honest with?It seem too many Americans have bought into the big lie,Israel can do no wrong,anything they do is justified.We pride ourselves on being a good and fair nation,stop,look,listen and decide if we really are what we think we are.What will it be justice or propaganda and lies?