Posted on 05/22/2011 10:57:03 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama warned America's pro-Israel lobby on Sunday that the Jewish state will face growing isolation without a credible Middle East peace process.
He defended his endorsement of a future Palestine based on Israel's 1967 boundaries but subject to negotiated land swaps as a public expression of long-standing U.S. policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
It is equally true that it is a long-standing US policy that the workers of the world should unite, kill the bourgeoisie and create a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Wishing Obama would slip on a bar of soap, fall in the shower and break a hip.
Because the Palestinians have shown they are interested in swapping land to Israel?
Of course not. So then what are you left with?
Indefensible 1967 borders.
The well received bit, frankly, I don't get that. Is this because they weren't mooning him?
It might reflect the long-standing policy of Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and other antisemitic, pro-terrorists, but it certainly does not reflect the policy of the United States. Fox News has pretty thorougher debunked it, showing that as recently as 2006, the Bush administration made a point to disavow the '67 borders in a letter. I'm surprised that Barry is still pushing the lie.
“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”
— President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”
— Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988
Starting with President Lyndon Johnson, right after the Six-Day War, U.S. presidents often have shown great sympathy for Israel’s contention that the pre-1967 dividing line did not provide security.
“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli's security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.”
— President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001
In his waning weeks in office, Clinton laid out what are now known as the “Clinton parameters,” an attempt to sketch out a negotiating solution to create two states. His description of the parameters is very detailed, but he shied away from mentioning the 1967 lines even as he spoke of “territorial swaps.”
“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 UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”
— President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002
Bush slipped in a mention of 1967 in his famous Rose Garden speech that called for the ouster of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. One could argue that the reference to Resolution 242 was a de facto mention of the 1967 lines. At the time, the Arab League was promoting a peace initiative based on the idea of Israel returning to the 1967 boundaries, and this reference was seen as a nod to that concept. But most experts did not view his reference to “1967” as a change.
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”
— Bush, letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 14, 2004
Sooner or later obama will show the cattle cars and ovens. Maybe, by then they will realize who he is. In his supreme arrogance, he is now going to redistribute Israel. Is there just no end to this guy’s crap?
Pay NO attention to that man behind the curtain!
Wow. US policy dating back to the last Leftist infesting the White House.
I think we need to build a moat around the White House. With gators, of course.
How he thinks no one understands his true meaning in that statement “of long standing policy” which only means the ultimate annihilation of the Jews and their rights to ownership of any private property and the removal of their Natural Right to defend their persons and families and freedom of religion.
(Ah, zero the Marxist!)
How he disregards history of the Arabs at dispossessing the Jews of their property and rights for over a century in the middle East....and the arrogance of lying about the Jewish lands as if there is no historical fact that actually much more land should be accorded the Jews because of the confiscation of their lands and wealth and enslavement and killing of their people by the Arab whom zero wants to reward for these very acts of barbarianism.
Zero seems extremely evil by his embrace of killers and liars and destroyers of all which is good in humanity. He stands on the side of Satan but all his acquaintances (friends) from Ayers to Van Jones to Rev. Wright are Satanist worshipers....as is their idol, Saul Alinsky...so no surprise there.
Its longstanding policy if you’re a muslim.
I’ll have to research what, if anything, Carter said regarding the 1967 border.
it would be just a shame if something happened to the little pencilneck community organizer jew hater for declaring "kinetic" war on Israel......just a cryin "unsustainable" shame
I guess he just can't help himself.
Why should Israel have to give up anything at all?
Unfortunately, I think this is wrong. 0bama's statement is not that different from what President Bush said in 2005:
"Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity on the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza."
Regardless of who said it, it's terrible policy. That's a given - U.S. policy on Israel has been terrible for decades, regardless of who has been President. I don't know why people think that "this is nothing new" is a defense of the policy - it's nothing of the sort.
He must be referring to when Clinton "mediated" (bombed the crap out of) the Balkans in order to crush the Christians and set up the Islamics there as rulers once and for all
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.