Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: 1967 Lines With 'Swaps' Means Different Israeli Border Than in 1967 (Double-Talking Jive)
Fox News ^ | 5/22/2011 | fox news

Posted on 05/22/2011 12:01:36 PM PDT by tobyhill

Claiming his remarks earlier this week on borders for Israel and a future Palestinian state had been misrepresented, President Obama said Sunday that "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" means the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

In remarks Sunday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president tried to explain his earlier position to a warm but occasionally tentative crowd by saying that his speech Thursday at the State Department didn't offer anything new or provocative in the way of peace negotiations.

"There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations," he said

"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately," he added, saying his remarks were no different than a "well-known formula" that has been worked on for a generation.

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/22/2011 12:01:38 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Bibi to Zero: Stuff it.


2 posted on 05/22/2011 12:05:03 PM PDT by Victor (If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert." -David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

He keeps using the word contiguious when speaking about a Pali state

I don’t see that as reality


3 posted on 05/22/2011 12:09:18 PM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

swaps mean swaps and Israel going back to the same amount of land they had in 1967. Israel was attacked in 1967 and won. Why should they give back everything they won? I can see them offering to give back some of it IF the palestinians showed responsible behavior. But they haven’t


4 posted on 05/22/2011 12:13:42 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Shuckin and jivin. The Obama shuffle.


5 posted on 05/22/2011 12:13:54 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Obummer is a tool.


6 posted on 05/22/2011 12:14:10 PM PDT by South40 (Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
the two sides will "negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

oh, yeah...that sounds a WHOLE lot better.

what a maroon.

7 posted on 05/22/2011 12:24:32 PM PDT by ZinGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


8 posted on 05/22/2011 12:32:59 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Has anyone posted the transcript?


9 posted on 05/22/2011 12:35:42 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature ($1.84 - The price of a gallon of gas on Jan. 20th, 2009.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Obama is over medicated. wants to create an Israel 2’ feet wide and 3000 miles long.


10 posted on 05/22/2011 12:36:38 PM PDT by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Have we all had enough of Barack Obamas audacity yet?


11 posted on 05/22/2011 12:42:49 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (Hating *me* won't make *you* handsome, intelligent, straight, male *or* white.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature

If you see the transcript will you please ping me. I will do the same; perhaps C-Span will publish it later.

I’ve already reached my Obama face-time quotient for the week, but if you are interested, here is the complete video AIPAC speech:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Pres-Obama-Impatience-Growing-for-Peace-Deal/10737421659-7/


12 posted on 05/22/2011 12:51:57 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ZinGirl
Obama is a moron.

It was totally irresponsible for him to invoke the *1967* borders; -the Arab world understands that to mean one thing :

the borders as they existed prior to the Six Day War.

Period.

13 posted on 05/22/2011 1:07:15 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I read the transcripts and he did say swaps.
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,”
As usual he did not define anything; you could take a million different interpretations of what he meant. I bet he did not mean to cause so many problems when he read it off the teleprompter.
What a bad week for Obama, when he expected to be still basking in the glory of killing Osama he gets bitch slapped by a Jewish guy on worldwide TV, has to help the press cover for him with the “it’s always been about the 67 borders just in secret” story, and then a bunch of big dollar donors tell him to pound sand. I’ll bet he just can’t wait until the meeting Monday when he has to face Netanyahu again.
Link to transcripts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/19/barack-obama-speech-middle-east
Caution: reading the above transcript may cause dreariness and disorientation, do not operate heavy machinery while reading.


14 posted on 05/22/2011 1:34:35 PM PDT by shoff (Cuomo is going to change the NY state motto from Excelsior to elixir (cause we bought it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shoff
Yea, “swaps” mean the Muzzies get all of Jerusalem and in exchange he'll tell the Muzzies to let some of the Jews live.

Bibi needs to tell Obama and any other idiot Presidents we may inherit that Jerusalem is not and will never be up for negotiation.

15 posted on 05/22/2011 1:48:02 PM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

Knowing how Liberals think I find the concept of returning lands won in a war an interesting, but not unusual Leftist scheme.

The Left is behind the NWO scheme(”Imagine”), and the Left is behind the lack of enforcement of our borders (”Imagine”).

If the Left succeeds with Israel, what’s to stop them?

Just a thought.


16 posted on 05/22/2011 2:04:05 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
the president tried to explain his earlier position... didn't offer anything new or provocative in the way of peace negotiations. "There was nothing particularly...

Our hero Obama trying to vote "present" once again.

17 posted on 05/22/2011 2:30:41 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

Hey, if it’s good enough for gerrymandered House districts, it’s good enough for the Jews....


18 posted on 05/22/2011 2:59:09 PM PDT by mikrofon (Don't argue with the Peace" Prize winner...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Benni should just (publicly) tell Barry to F off.


19 posted on 05/22/2011 3:02:18 PM PDT by Constitutional Patriot (Socialism is the cancer of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Lying is a symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissists think they can outwit others and then feel very proud of themselves for such deceit. He probably doesn't even realize that everyone can see right through it because his staff were probably telling him he did great. I only hope that someone called him out of it.

That's what was so awesome about Bibi. He was straight up. No BS, no reading between the lines. O can't compete with that because it's based on truth. Bibi will not be manipulated with deceptive talk. Hopefully, during the debates, we'll see someone with some back bone call him out on the truth.

20 posted on 05/22/2011 3:14:28 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IllumiNaughtyByNature; tobyhill
Transcript begins after short introductory article:

In light of Barack Obama’s speech of last week suggesting the way to peace for Palestine hinges on Israel moving their borders back to pre-1967 war lines, he continued the same today with an explanation of what those borders will mean today. In addition, he was showing the love to Israel. Note that he says he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “reaffirmed” a “fundamental truth” that while the U.S. and Israel sometimes disagree, the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is “ironclad.” To say that the U.S. disagrees with Netanyahu is highly arrogant and misleading. He should speak of his administration only. I believe many more Americans disagree with Obama than they do with the Prime Minister. I offer my summary and have highlighted related pieces of the transcript.

Jerusalem and West Wall

The fundamental truth is, that position is not truthful – it’s just words. Israel returning to pre-1967 borders is championed by every Muslim in the world willing to relent and let Israel remain sovereign, without completely wiping them off the face of the earth. Once the borders are moved back, then Israel is completely vulnerable, and the land reduction does not solve the Hamas and Fatah founding documents calling for Israel’s demise – or, the fact that the League of Nations gave the land, and one-hundred-thousand square kilometers more than Israel has today, and that mandate has NEVER changed.

In the speech below Obama reiterates his Thursday comments…to applause:

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

He explains what “mutually agreed-upon swaps means:

By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means.

And apparently today, Obama believes Israel will give up control of Jerusalem to either Jordan or Palestinians – even after Netanyahu further humiliated him in the this week’s press conference, when when he said “it’s not going to happen” and then counseled that Palestine should be told exactly that. What borders does Obama think can be “swapped?” Jordan controlling the West Bank or Egypt controlling Gaza, or no border-buffer between Israel and Syria?

Completely ignored is that Israel has nothing healthy to give up, but Obama expects a discussion and negotiations to go forth with “mutually agreed upon swaps.” Appalling.

Obama mentions that a new generation of Arabs in the area are reshaping the region. He doesn’t mention that many of this new generation “democratically” elected Hamas to the Palestinian government. He says the U.S. will hold Palestinians responsible for partnering in peace, but fails to get to the bottom line and demand that constitutions and charters be changed to accept Israel. And he says this:

And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state.

There is nothing in that to make Israel feel safe.

Obama hangs the whole albatross around the neck of Israel:

Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.

 

I see this as a subtle threat. In earlier remarks, Obama points to the increasing Arab population and strides made in technology (weaponry.) I believe he is saying these populations will eventually take over Israel…make peace or lose the Jewish state.

Obama alludes to the Arab Spring and the quest for democracy in the Middle East – without acknowledging that Islam does not, and will never, allow for democracy.

I look forward to your thoughts on this debacle.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE AIPAC POLICY CONFERENCE 2011

Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Washington, D.C.

10:56 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Good morning. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please, have a seat. Thank you.

What a remarkable, remarkable crowd. Thank you, Rosy, for your very kind introduction. I did not know you played basketball. (Laughter.) I will take your word for it. (Laughter.) Rosy, thank you for your many years of friendship. Back in Chicago, when I was just getting started in national politics, I reached out to a lot of people for advice and counsel, and Rosy was one of the very first. When I made my first visit to Israel, after entering the Senate, Rosy, you were at my side every step of that profound journey through the Holy Land. So I want to thank you for your enduring friendship, your leadership, and for your warm introduction today.

I also want to thank David Victor, Howard Kohr and all the board of directors. And let me say that it is wonderful to look out and see so many great friends, including a very large delegation from Chicago. (Applause.) Alan Solow, Howard Green. Thank you all.

I want to thank the members of Congress who are joining you today — who do so much to sustain the bonds between the United States and Israel, including Eric Cantor — (applause) — Steny Hoyer — (applause) — and the tireless leader I was proud to appoint as the new chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Applause.)

We’re joined by Israel’s representative to the United States, Ambassador Michael Oren. (Applause.) And we’re joined by one of my top advisors on Israel and the Middle East for the past four years and who I know is going to be an outstanding ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro. (Applause.) Dan has always been a close and trusted advisor and friend, and I know that he will do a terrific job.

And at a time when so many young people around the world are standing up and making their voices heard, I also want to acknowledge all the college students from across the country who are here today. (Applause.) No one has a greater stake in the outcome of events that are unfolding today than your generation, and it’s inspiring to see you devote your time and energy to help shape that future.

Now, I’m not here to subject you to a long policy speech. I gave one on Thursday in which I said that the United States sees the historic changes sweeping the Middle East and North Africa as a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of opportunity for greater peace and security for the entire region, including the State of Israel.

On Friday, I was joined at the White House by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we reaffirmed — (applause) — we reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years — that even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable — (applause) — and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad. (Applause.)

A strong and secure Israel is in the national security interest of the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, although we do both seek a region where families and children can live free from the threat of violence. It’s not simply because we face common dangers, although there can be no denying that terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons are grave threats to both our nations.

America’s commitment to Israel’s security flows from a deeper place — and that’s the values we share. As two people who struggled to win our freedom against overwhelming odds, we understand that preserving the security for which our forefathers — and foremothers — fought must be the work of every generation. As two vibrant democracies, we recognize that the liberties and freedoms we cherish must be constantly nurtured. And as the nation that recognized the State of Israel moments after its independence, we have a profound commitment to its survival as a strong, secure homeland for the Jewish people. (Applause.)

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel living in a very tough neighborhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland. When I went to Sderot and saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year-old boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket, and when I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I was reminded of the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map — face of the Earth.

Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. (Applause.) It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. (Applause.) And that includes additional support –- beyond regular military aid -– for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. (Applause.) A powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation — a powerful example of American-Israeli cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved Israeli lives. So make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. (Applause.)

You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Applause.) Here in the United States, we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. (Applause.) At the United Nations, under our leadership, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we’re going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear –- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality. Moreover, Iran continues to support terrorism across the region, including providing weapons and funds to terrorist organizations. So we will continue to work to prevent these actions, and we will stand up to groups like Hezbollah, who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.

You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. (Applause.) As I said at the United Nations last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.” (Applause.)

So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. In the wake of the Goldstone Report, we stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself. (Applause.) When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it. (Applause.)

And so, in both word and deed, we have been unwavering in our support of Israel’s security. (Applause.) And it is precisely because of our commitment to Israel’s long-term security that we have worked to advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians. (Applause.)

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. (Applause.) And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. (Applause.) No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. (Applause.) And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. (Applause.) And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. (Applause.)

And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable. And that is why on Thursday I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can provide a foundation for negotiations toward an agreement to end the conflict and all claims — the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.

I know that stating these principles — on the issues of territory and security — generated some controversy over the past few days. (Laughter.) I wasn’t surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. I don’t need Rahm to tell me that. Don’t need Axelrod to tell me that. But I said to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe that the current situation in the Middle East does not allow for procrastination. I also believe that real friends talk openly and honestly with one another. (Applause.) So I want to share with you some of what I said to the Prime Minister.

Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace.

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/05/israels-pre-1967-war-borders-what-they-mean-the-reality/. A just and lasting peace can no longer be forged with one or two Arab leaders. Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained.

And just as the context has changed in the Middle East, so too has it been changing in the international community over the last several years. There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one, not just in the Arab World — in Latin America, in Asia, and in Europe. And that impatience is growing, and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.

And those are the facts. I firmly believe, and I repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum. (Applause.) Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. That is my commitment; that is my pledge to all of you. (Applause.)

Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner –- which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. (Applause.) And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric. (Applause.)

But the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations –- will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative. And for us to have leverage with the Palestinians, to have leverage with the Arab States and with the international community, the basis for negotiations has to hold out the prospect of success. And so, in advance of a five-day trip to Europe in which the Middle East will be a topic of acute interest, I chose to speak about what peace will require.

There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations. Since questions have been raised, let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday — not what I was reported to have said.

I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat. (Applause.) Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. (Applause.) And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state. (Applause.) And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. (Applause.)

Now, that is what I said. And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people — (applause) — and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. (Applause.)

If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. (Applause.) The world is moving too fast. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

Now, I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. I respect that. And as fellow Americans and friends of Israel, I know we can have this discussion.

Ultimately, it is the right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed. (Applause.) And as a friend of Israel, I’m committed to doing our part to see that this goal is realized. And I will call not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, on the Arab States, and the international community to join us in this effort, because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone. (Applause.)

But even as we do all that’s necessary to ensure Israel’s security, even as we are clear-eyed about the difficult challenges before us, and even as we pledge to stand by Israel through whatever tough days lie ahead, I hope we do not give up on that vision of peace. For if history teaches us anything, if the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible.

The Talmud teaches us that, “So long as a person still has life, they should never abandon faith.” And that lesson seems especially fitting today.

For so long as there are those across the Middle East and beyond who are standing up for the legitimate rights and freedoms which have been denied by their governments, the United States will never abandon our support for those rights that are universal.

And so long as there are those who long for a better future, we will never abandon our pursuit of a just and lasting peace that ends this conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. This is not idealism; it is not naïveté. It is a hard-headed recognition that a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. (Applause.) That is my goal, and I look forward to continuing to work with AIPAC to achieve that goal.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you. >

Transcript courtesy of National Journal

Posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

21 posted on 05/22/2011 4:34:40 PM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

Somebody tell me why America is involved in Israel? What authority do we have over them to dictate where boundaries go? I just don’t get it.


22 posted on 05/23/2011 6:35:38 AM PDT by freebird5850 (Of course Obama loves his country...it's just that Sarah Palin loves mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson