Skip to comments.Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal
Posted on 11/17/2008 6:22:34 PM PST by bruinbirdman
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to Americas president-elect.
Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.
The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.
On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be crazy for Israel to refuse a deal that could give them peace with the Muslim world, according to a senior Obama adviser.
The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York.
Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.
A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.
Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Super. There’s no way this can’t end well.
Yeah, that worked out well.
Dream on. That is change Israel can live without.
“Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world”
Geeze...and I would have given that particular award to Washington DC. Just goes to show...
What will we ever do with all those Israeli Trespassers in their tens of thousands who now live on presumably repatriated land.
israel won this lad and deserves it as the fruit of conquest. The Israelis were attacked, they didn't initiate the 7 day war, and then kicked butt.
NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
The Israelis will never voluntarily give up Mount Sinai to anyone.
Hey Barry!!! What happened in 1967 to change those borders that you are so willing to give back?
translation: i think this is a terrible idea
“peace with the Muslim world” LOL!!!
The Israelis gave up gaza which was part of the 1967 borders and what did they get in return for that? Daily rocket barages.
Israel was formed because of the Holocaust Hussein's tea-sipping buddy Ahmamadjihadi denies.
In 1948 the charade of "refugees" began--Arabs were evacuated for the presumed successful destruction of Israel.
Didn't happen then nor in 1967 nor in 1973.
Every genius-wannabe sees his legacy brokering peace at the slight cost of Israel's destruction--and each is astonished at Israel's obdurate refusal to accept such a golden opportunity.
Hamas is on Hussein's Malley's speed-dial and Biden has a fondness for the IRGC presenting his seeing it as terrorist.
Hussein is down for the Palis but was in stealth mode in the campaign as he explained sotto vocce to a Pali friend at the time.
Clinton & Clinton made the charming Arafat the most popular and frequent White House guest, but Hussein and the lovely Michelle will top that in some way with another favorite.
Brent Scowcroft is more useful as a sand bag in New Orleans.
I'm pulling for Netanyahu to prevent Israel's capitulation to Hussein's overtures.
An Army colonel was an observer at the Golan Heights and remarked at what a fine vantage point it was for defensive gunnery.
Outnumbered by intractable enemies Israel ought not yield a centimeter.
Ask the christians in Mosul, Iraq how interested the muslim world is in peace.
Hope Bibi is there to tell Obama to go sit on a mosque minaret and rotate.
"Back in 1784, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had to decide whether to appease or stand up to armed Middle Eastern pirates. Sound familiar?
.... The Middle East, a term coined by Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of McCains boyhood idols, is where both American warfare and American diplomacy began in the late 18th century, as our infant republic faced its first post-Revolutionary struggle against the evocatively named Barbary States of the Ottoman Empire.
The regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers (future homes of Muammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and the Islamic Salvation Front, respectively) had been hosting and sponsoring Islamic piracy since the Middle Ages. Scimitar-wielding corsairs would regularly interrupt the flow of trade and traffic along the coasts of North Africa, seizing European vessels and taking their crews into bondage. Cervantes wrote his first play, in the 16th century, about the dread corsairs, and by the 18th, the American colonies had a minor seagoing presence in the Mediterranean protected by the redoubtable British Navy. But the Crown was reluctant to war against so petty an antagonist, preferring to pay tribute to the Barbary States instead, as a shopkeeper would protection money to the mafia. After the U.S. broke away from England and became its own nation, however, the geopolitical dynamics changed, as did the American equanimity with doing business with pirates.
In 1784, corsairs attacked the Betsy, a 300-ton brig that had sailed from Boston to Tenerife Island, about 100 miles off the North African coast, selling her new-made citizens as chattel on the markets of Morocco. The U.S. was not free of its own moral taint of slavery, of course, but it would be impossible to hasten the industrial development that would eventually render the agrarian-plantation economy obsolete if merchant ships could not be assured of safe conduct near the Turkish Porte. Other vessels, such as the Dauphin and Maria, were also seized, this time by Algiers, and the horrifying experiences of their captive passengers relayed back home were the cause for outrage. James Leander Cathcart described the dungeon in which he was being kept as perfectly dark where the slaves sleep four tiers deep many nearly naked, and few with anything more than an old tattered blanket to cover them in the depth of winter.
In response, Thomas Jefferson, then the Minister to France, suggested a multilateral approach of what we would now term deterrence. He asked that Spain, Portugal, Naples, Denmark, Sweden and France enter into a coalition with America to dissuade the regencies from their criminal assaults on life, liberty and the pursuit of international commerce. As Michael Oren, in his magisterial history Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present relates, By deterring, rather than appeasing, Barbary, the United States would preserve its economy and send an unambiguous message to potentially hostile powers. Jefferson thought it would impress Europe if America could do what Europe had failed to do for centuries and beat back the persistent thuggery of Islamists. It will procure us respect, said the author of the Declaration of Independence. And respect is a safeguard to interest.
This sober judgment fused the cold calculations of latter-day realism with the morality behind revolutionary interventionism: not only would America protect its citizens from plunder and foreign slaveholding; it would ensure that other countries under Christendom were similarly protected.
Though Jefferson found a stalwart Continental ally in a former one, the Marquis de Lafayette, France squelched the idea of a NATO made of buckshot and cannon. While waiting for funds that would never come from Congress for the construction of a 150-gun navy, the sage of Monticello resigned himself to further diplomacy with the enemy. In 1785, he dispatched John Lamb, a Connecticut businessman, to secure the release of hostages in Algiers, held by its dynastic sovereign Hassan Dey. Lamb failed ignominiously.
At the same time, John Adams, then minister to England, agreed to receive the pasha of Tripoli, Abd al-Rahman al-Ajar, in his London quarters to discuss a possible peace deal. Adams described his interlocutor as a man who looked all pestilence and war, a suspicion that was soon confirmed by the pashas demand of 30,000 guineas for his statelet, plus a 3,000 guinea gratuity for himself. He also did Adams the favor of estimating what it would cost the U.S. to broker a similar deal with Tunis, Morocco and Algiers the total price for blackmail would be about $1 million, or a tenth the annual budget of the United States.
Adams was incensed. It would be more proper to write [of his meeting with Abd al-Rahman] for the New York Theatre, he thundered. He agreed with Jefferson that a military response was increasingly likely, but Adams doubted his countrys economic ability to sustain it. For the short term, he thought it better to offer one Gift of two hundred Thousand Pounds rather than forfeit a Million annually in trade revenue, which the pirates were sure to disrupt. Not long thereafter, Jefferson joined him in London to prevent the universal and horrible War and reach an accord with the refractory envoy from Tripoli. Both gentlemen of the Enlightenment, and comrades in revolution, affirmed Americas desire for peace, its respect for all nations, and suggested a treaty of lasting friendship with the regency. Abd al-Rahman listened well, but his reply was one that would shock modern ears less than it did those of the two Founding Fathers:
It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged [the Muslims] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon wheoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Though a period of paying tribute and douceurs (or softeners expensive trickets and toys) to Islamic pirates would continue, the words of Abd al-Rahman Adams were chilling enough to leave Adams and Jefferson in no doubt as to the sanguinary and messianic nature of their adversary. An angel sent on this business, lamented Jefferson, could have done nothing to placate such men. He called them sea dogs and a pettifogging nest of robbers. The episode preceded further acts of piracy against American vessels and the imprisonment and sale of its crews and passengers, and was enough to get Jefferson to overlook his wariness of federalism and agree to a Constitution with a strong central government capable of building and keeping a powerful navy. Adams, as it turned out, was more worried that American opinion wouldnt rally for war, or accept its dire consequences. But the Philadelphia convention that drafted our national covenant in 1787 was hastened, and its welter of opinions unified, by the Barbary question. As the historian Thomas Bailey wrote, In an indirect sense, the brutal Dey of Algiers was a Founding Father of the Constitution.
Barbary Pirates torture western prisoners
America still sued for peace. The Betsys release had been negotiated, albeit abjectly, and to the accompaniment of Americas first diplomatic accord, the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Ship-Signals, signed with Morocco in 1786. But no sooner was the ship let go and its captives freed than it was recaptured by Tunis and renamed the Mashuda. Also, Washington at one point found itself spending 20% of its annual revenue in paying blackmail to a loose confederation of terrorists on the high seas. Under Jeffersons presidency, the first era of American military predominance was inaugurated, with men like William Bainbridge, William Eaton and the Byronic swashbuckler Stephen Decatur, becoming folk heroes.
....Santayana got it backwards, in fact: even those who remember history are still doomed to repeat it."
I think we’d pay real money to see that.
1967 borders = completely indefensible militarily
If Israel agrees to them, it’s completely suicidal.
... allowing the Syrians to shell their settlements in Samaria and Judea with impunity.
it would be crazy for Israel to refuse a deal that could give them peace with the Muslim world,
Yeah, just like all the other "deals" that gave them peace with the Muslim world ... just long enough for the ragheads to build up a big enough army to invade them.
I don't know why the Israelis continue to put up with this crap. The only thing less trustworthy than an Arab is a Democrat. The IDF has had numerous chances to take war all the way to Damascus, Beirut, Cairo, and Amman. It's high time they did, and ended this waffling once and for all.
Send a signal to the raggies that one more move on Israeli territory and the Arab League ceases to exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.