Bush said the same thing, and somehow it was OK then.
I did a google search and no where did I find Bush suggesting Isreal give up land.
http://www.google.com/search?source...borders&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bush said the same thing, and somehow it was OK then.
No, YOU just lied, as usual!!The oipnion of Israelis, not Obama haters.Opinion piece
Haaretz.Com
Obama granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory
- Published 21:25 19.05.11
- Latest update 21:25 19.05.11
After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders.
By Aluf Benn
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can feel satisfied while flying to Washington Thursday night. U.S. President Barack Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory.
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands, Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands for strict security arrangements and a gradual, continuous withdrawal from the West Bank.
He suggested beginning negotiations on borders and security arrangements, and delaying discussions on the core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.
More importantly, Obama scornfully rejected the Palestinian initiative to attain recognition at the United Nations and to isolate Israel, demanded the Palestinians return to negotiations, and called on Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These points came straight out of the policy pages of the Prime Minister's Bureau in Jerusalem. Netanyahu could not have asked for more: Obama outright rejects Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recognition campaign, as well as the Palestinian reconciliation agreement.
It seems that the new Fatah-Hamas unity has saved Netanyahu from a much more aggressive and binding speech on the part of Obama.
Obama could have also delivered his Mideast speech during the impending AIPAC conference, which he will attend this coming Sunday.
His approach to Israel was empathetic, not only with his reassurance of the U.S. commitment to Israel's security but also with his attempt "to save Israel from itself." Obama warned us that if we perpetuated the occupation, we shall crash due to our demographic inferiority, new military technology, and most importantly, due to the anger of the masses who are slowly gaining power in the surrounding countries. In order to retain the vision of a Jewish and democratic state, Israel must end the occupation and withdraw from the West Bank.
The points of the speech were surely pleasing to Netanyahu's ears. Obama promised he won't force a deal on Israel and the Palestinians and demanded both sides to return to negotiations. He did not condemn, as he did before, the Israeli settlements in the territories as "illegitimate" and did not demand a settlement freeze. He only reminded, in a critical tone, that Israel continues building settlements, as an explanation for the deadlock in peace talks.
Netanyahu will have to reply to Obama by accepting the principle of "1967 borders with agreed land swaps." He made a step toward that direction in his speech in the Knesset this week, when he talked about preserving settlement blocs, which is the same thing in Israeli wording. On the eve of his U.S. trip, Netanyahu's advisers hinted that he will accept this principle on Friday during his close-room meeting with Obama, while presenting a less binding policy during his U.S. Congress speech on Tuesday in fear of causing the breakup of the coalition.
Netanyahu essentially has no choice: after Obama accepted his procedural and security demands, he cannot remain apathetic to the U.S. president's suggestion regarding borders. But Netanyahu has nothing to worry about there is no chance the Palestinian leadership will agree to return to negotiations under these principles.
So Jim just lied obama did make the suggestion for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders?After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
Reb, wtf does the Louisiana Purchase have to do with anything?
No, YOU just lied, as usual!!The oipnion of Israelis, not Obama haters.
Haaretz.Com
Obama granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory
- Published 21:25 19.05.11
- Latest update 21:25 19.05.11
After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders.
By Aluf Benn
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can feel satisfied while flying to Washington Thursday night. U.S. President Barack Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory.
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands, Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands for strict security arrangements and a gradual, continuous withdrawal from the West Bank.
He suggested beginning negotiations on borders and security arrangements, and delaying discussions on the core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.
More importantly, Obama scornfully rejected the Palestinian initiative to attain recognition at the United Nations and to isolate Israel, demanded the Palestinians return to negotiations, and called on Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These points came straight out of the policy pages of the Prime Minister's Bureau in Jerusalem. Netanyahu could not have asked for more: Obama outright rejects Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recognition campaign, as well as the Palestinian reconciliation agreement.
It seems that the new Fatah-Hamas unity has saved Netanyahu from a much more aggressive and binding speech on the part of Obama.
Obama could have also delivered his Mideast speech during the impending AIPAC conference, which he will attend this coming Sunday.
His approach to Israel was empathetic, not only with his reassurance of the U.S. commitment to Israel's security but also with his attempt "to save Israel from itself." Obama warned us that if we perpetuated the occupation, we shall crash due to our demographic inferiority, new military technology, and most importantly, due to the anger of the masses who are slowly gaining power in the surrounding countries. In order to retain the vision of a Jewish and democratic state, Israel must end the occupation and withdraw from the West Bank.
The points of the speech were surely pleasing to Netanyahu's ears. Obama promised he won't force a deal on Israel and the Palestinians and demanded both sides to return to negotiations. He did not condemn, as he did before, the Israeli settlements in the territories as "illegitimate" and did not demand a settlement freeze. He only reminded, in a critical tone, that Israel continues building settlements, as an explanation for the deadlock in peace talks.
Netanyahu will have to reply to Obama by accepting the principle of "1967 borders with agreed land swaps." He made a step toward that direction in his speech in the Knesset this week, when he talked about preserving settlement blocs, which is the same thing in Israeli wording. On the eve of his U.S. trip, Netanyahu's advisers hinted that he will accept this principle on Friday during his close-room meeting with Obama, while presenting a less binding policy during his U.S. Congress speech on Tuesday in fear of causing the breakup of the coalition.
Netanyahu essentially has no choice: after Obama accepted his procedural and security demands, he cannot remain apathetic to the U.S. president's suggestion regarding borders. But Netanyahu has nothing to worry about there is no chance the Palestinian leadership will agree to return to negotiations under these principles.
So Jim just lied obama did make the suggestion for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders?After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
Isnt the LA purchase when white american people bought land from france then liberals, for the next 150 years, screamed that the land was stolen?
Odd
An HONEST question would have been, What WAS THE proposal!!!!!!!No, YOU just lied, as usual!!So Jim just lied obama did make the suggestion for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders?
From your post
What is a proposal?After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands,
This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of CON$.Bush said the same thing, and somehow it was OK then.
I did a google search and no where did I find Bush suggesting Isreal give up land.
bush tells Israel to go back to the 1967 borders - Google Search
This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of CON$.Bush said the same thing, and somehow it was OK then.
I did a google search and no where did I find Bush suggesting Isreal give up land.
bush tells Israel to go back to the 1967 borders - Google Search
The google search is not for "giving up land" but for "going back to 1967 borders." As you know, the Bush "road map" called for a "CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state" and the only way for a CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state would be with land swaps!!!
An HONEST question would have been, What WAS THE proposal!!!!!!!No, YOU just lied, as usual!!
From your post
What is a proposal?
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands,
After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
The quote you cite is the editors headline for the article, not Obama's proposal, as you well know. And it is a testament to your dishonesty as proven by your repeated editing out of Obama's proposal contained in the body of the article and re-posted yet again below!!!!!An HONEST question would have been, What WAS THE proposal!!!!!!!From your post
What is a proposal?
What is a proposal?
The proposal 1967 borders.After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders
Now fuckwit what is a proposal?
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands,
Bush did not say you couldn't!! He only said you could not go back to PRE-1967 borders.This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of CON$.I did a google search and no where did I find Bush suggesting Isreal give up land.
bush tells Israel to go back to the 1967 borders - Google Search
The google search is not for "giving up land" but for "going back to 1967 borders." As you know, the Bush "road map" called for a "CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state" and the only way for a CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state would be with land swaps!!!
Did Bush PROPOSE like obama did that Israel go back to the 1967 treaty border line?
The quote you cite is the editors headline for the article, not Obama's proposal, as you well know. And it is a testament to your dishonesty as proven by your repeated editing out of Obama's proposal contained in the body of the article and re-posted yet again below!!!!!An HONEST question would have been, What WAS THE proposal!!!!!!!
What is a proposal?
The proposal 1967 borders.
Now fuckwit what is a proposal?
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands,
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," he said.
"Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable," Obama said. "But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
Bush did not say you couldn't!! He only said you could not go back to PRE-1967 borders.This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of CON$.
The google search is not for "giving up land" but for "going back to 1967 borders." As you know, the Bush "road map" called for a "CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state" and the only way for a CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state would be with land swaps!!!
Did Bush PROPOSE like obama did that Israel go back to the 1967 treaty border line?
Bush did not say you couldn't!! He only said you could not go back to PRE-1967 borders
As you know, the Bush "road map" called for a CONTIGUOUS Palestinian state would be with land swaps
Obamush's proposal
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," he said.
You are a pathological liar and a terrible one at that!!!Bush did not say you couldn't!! He only said you could not go back to PRE-1967 borders.Did Bush PROPOSE like obama did that Israel go back to the 1967 treaty border line?
You are so highly intoxicate on Obamush that you are contridicting yourself.
Bush did not suggest Israel go back the the pre 1967 borders, Obamush did.