Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

[CrusaderFrank]

Update!!!!

The Obama Administration has issued the following statement.

"There's been a lot of people getting all wee-weed up about my recent statement regarding Israel. Let me be clear and tell the American people across all 57 states, that as surely as you treat an asthma attack with a breathalyzer, when I said "Israel" I was not referring to the nation of Israel, I was referring to the real estate developer Israel Roizman, he must return to his pre-1967 borders if there is to be peace in the Middle East. Thank you and Allah Abkar the USA"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't understand what's so controversial about his statements?

using 1967 as a start point is poor benchmark and heavily weighted from the beginning, it ties the start of negotiations from that geographical marker.

What do you think would be a good benchmark or starting point for negotiations? And just ftr I'm pretty much agnostic on this issue.

You cannot negotiate with people who only have your death in mind.

 

[Trajan]

I don't understand what's so controversial about his statements?

When a country has a death warrant issued against it how can it defend itself against any attacks when it redces it's borders?

There you go again with the PRE-1967 lie again.
You gotta admire the shamelessness of CON$ to continue telling the same lies over and over no matter how many times they are exposed as lies.

you are either psychotic .......or incapable of simple logic.

the Palestinians are demanding a start at the pre- 1967 borders, that what hes lobbying the UN for, because, starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Update!!!!

The Obama Administration has issued the following statement.

"There's been a lot of people getting all wee-weed up about my recent statement regarding Israel. Let me be clear and tell the American people across all 57 state, that as surely as you treat an asthma attack with a breathalyzer, when I said "Israel" I was not referring to the nation of Israel, I was referring to the real estate developer Israel Roizman, he must return to his pre-1967 borders if there is to be peace in the Middle East. Thank you and Allah Abkar the USA"

That was not Obamush he did not use the UH UH PALSE UH UH...... in that press release.

 

[edthecynic]

When a country has a death warrant issued against it how can it defend itself against any attacks when it redces it's borders?

There you go again with the PRE-1967 lie again.
You gotta admire the shamelessness of CON$ to continue telling the same lies over and over no matter how many times they are exposed as lies.

What is your ******* problem Are you having a problem with PREmenstrual syndrome. The border lines on the map are the border lines Obamush would like to see Israel take.

Please show where Obama said the PRE-1967 borders.
Thank you in advance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

using 1967 as a start point is poor benchmark and heavily weighted from the beginning, it ties the start of negotiations from that geographical marker.

What do you think would be a good benchmark or starting point for negotiations? And just ftr I'm pretty much agnostic on this issue.

You cannot negotiate with people who only have your death in mind.

^ The Crux of the bisquit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There you go again with the PRE-1967 lie again.
You gotta admire the shamelessness of CON$ to continue telling the same lies over and over no matter how many times they are exposed as lies.

What is your ******* problem Are you having a problem with PREmenstrual syndrome. The border lines on the map are the border lines Obamush would like to see Israel take.

Please show where Obama said the PRE-1967 borders.
Thank you in advance.

I am not saying obamush said pre. But as Trajan said

"starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

 

[edthecynic]

you do know what was promised to Israel in a congressional bipartisan consensus April 2004...right?

I would be quite surprised if YOU did, so why don't you tell us first.
Thank you in advance.

if you meanderings around this thread mouthing off, one would think you'd be up on the basic historical background at the very least.......go educate yourself, I am not teaching you the abc's.

You can't teach what you don't know yourself. Thank you for showing that you don't know what was promised to Israel in 2004.
BTW, I have posted with links what was promised in 2004 many times on this board already and therefore have already proved I know it.

 

[Trajan]

I don't understand what's so controversial about his statements?

using 1967 as a start point is poor benchmark and heavily weighted from the beginning, it ties the start of negotiations from that geographical marker.

What do you think would be a good benchmark or starting point for negotiations? And just ftr I'm pretty much agnostic on this issue.

First- first the Golan must remain in Israeli hands.


second; they should start at the half way/centre point of the west bank territory, between tel aviv and the Jordan river imho. That would already provide a gain for the Palestinians straight away, I believe thats fair.


third - Jerusalem.....it depends on ones ideology there by ones own sense of fairness.

On one hand, I think that, due to the war and Israel taking Jerusalem, its theirs, wholly on that basis.

HOWEVER, I think that due to the religious significance of the city, there has to be a settlement, some sharing, I am just not sure how far to go ala turning how much of it over to the arabs....I really am stuck on that one.

 

[Trajan]

I would be quite surprised if YOU did, so why don't you tell us first.
Thank you in advance.

if you meanderings around this thread mouthing off, one would think you'd be up on the basic historical background at the very least.......go educate yourself, I am not teaching you the abc's.

You can't teach what you don't know yourself. Thank you for showing that you don't know what was promised to Israel in 2004.
BTW, I have posted with links what was promised in 2004 many times on this board already and therefore have already proved I know it.

really? where?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Lakota Sioux love Obama's logic and they think the USA should be based on its pre-1860 borders

 

[edthecynic]

When a country has a death warrant issued against it how can it defend itself against any attacks when it redces it's borders?

There you go again with the PRE-1967 lie again.
You gotta admire the shamelessness of CON$ to continue telling the same lies over and over no matter how many times they are exposed as lies.

you are either psychotic .......or incapable of simple logic.

the Palestinians are demanding a start at the pre- 1967 borders, that what hes lobbying the UN for, because, starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The 1967 borders are not the problem That has been agreed to by everyone forever. Even the Palestinians have agreed in principle to the idea that there would be something similar.

Basic issue is right of Return. Until both sides start dealing with that issue on a rational basis, then border discussion is just so much Kabuki theater. There really can be no worthwhile discussion on border issues until the right of return issue is resolved.

And when it comes to the borders issue, Israel has made some things very clear.
1) Tel Aviv will not be in range of Artillery.
2) Israel is keeping the Golan and all lands around the sea of Galilee
3) Israel is keeping Jerusalem and environs.
4) Gaza and west bank will not be contiguous. That would oblige Israel to be split. No way.

The Arab states have fed the Palestinians with the story they are going to get everything back to the level of pre 1948. All the Palestinians who ran off from Jaffa and all the other cities when the war started got dumped into camps and neglected. Israel's position is that the Arabs and Israelis both had a refugee problem in 1948. The Israelis had a problem that was considerably worse both in relative and in absolute terms. (650,000 Arab refugees, 850,000 Jewish refuges ) The Israelis took care of business, the Arabs didn't.

The Israeli point of view is that the Arabs were not chased off, the moved out of the way so the neighboring armies could finish off what Hitler started. They are not innocents who got trampled, but culpable conspirators who got hoist by their own cupidity. They are not at all sympathetic.

The Arabs maintain that the Jews pursued a systematic campaign of terror to scare folks out of their property. Fleeing your property in fear of your life does not mean it doesn't belong to you. The robber who chases you away from your wallet is not therefore entitled to the contents because at the moment you considered your life to be more valuable than a collection of bus tokens, a condom and a few dollars.

Anyway, both sides have dug in, neither side is interested in compromising on the one issue that really matter to both sides. Until both sides budge a bit, or even one sides budges a bit on the right of return, then the borders discussion is pretty moot.

As to what caused all the fireworks, Obama moved the borders discussion to the top of the debate tree. It is the last thing anyone really cares about, and the Israeli side thought that he was selling them out on the most important issue, right of return, in an effort to get peace on a matter of far less importance.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Lakota Sioux love Obama's logic and they think the USA should be based on its pre-1860 borders

The Cherokee want the pre 1775 borders.

 

[edthecynic]

if you meanderings around this thread mouthing off, one would think you'd be up on the basic historical background at the very least.......go educate yourself, I am not teaching you the abc's.

You can't teach what you don't know yourself. Thank you for showing that you don't know what was promised to Israel in 2004.
BTW, I have posted with links what was promised in 2004 many times on this board already and therefore have already proved I know it.

really? where?

In a thread you've posted in, so you tell me what you think was promised in 2004 and I'll link you to the posts which link to the 2004 agreement.

But you first, since I've already posted it and you apparently missed it, you still have posted nothing and if I link you to my past post you will pretend you already knew it.

 

[Trajan]

There you go again with the PRE-1967 lie again.
You gotta admire the shamelessness of CON$ to continue telling the same lies over and over no matter how many times they are exposed as lies.

you are either psychotic .......or incapable of simple logic.

the Palestinians are demanding a start at the pre- 1967 borders, that what hes lobbying the UN for, because, starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

he as in Abbas...you know, the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

 

[Trajan]

You can't teach what you don't know yourself. Thank you for showing that you don't know what was promised to Israel in 2004.
BTW, I have posted with links what was promised in 2004 many times on this board already and therefore have already proved I know it.

really? where?

In a thread you've posted in, so you tell me what you think was promised in 2004 and I'll link you to the posts which link to the 2004 agreement.

But you first, since I've already posted it and you apparently missed it, you still have posted nothing and if I link you to my past post you will pretend you already knew it.

show me your quote please.

 

[Trajan]

The 1967 borders are not the problem That has been agreed to by everyone forever. Even the Palestinians have agreed in principle to the idea that there would be something similar.

Basic issue is right of Return. Until both sides start dealing with that issue on a rational basis, then border discussion is just so much Kabuki theater. There really can be no worthwhile discussion on border issues until the right of return issue is resolved.

And when it comes to the borders issue, Israel has made some things very clear.
1) Tel Aviv will not be in range of Artillery.
2) Israel is keeping the Golan and all lands around the sea of Galilee
3) Israel is keeping Jerusalem and environs.
4) Gaza and west bank will not be contiguous. That would oblige Israel to be split. No way.

The Arab states have fed the Palestinians with the story they are going to get everything back to the level of pre 1948. All the Palestinians who ran off from Jaffa and all the other cities when the war started got dumped into camps and neglected. Israel's position is that the Arabs and Israelis both had a refugee problem in 1948. The Israelis had a problem that was considerably worse both in relative and in absolute terms. (650,000 Arab refugees, 850,000 Jewish refuges ) The Israelis took care of business, the Arabs didn't.

The Israeli point of view is that the Arabs were not chased off, the moved out of the way so the neighboring armies could finish off what Hitler started. They are not innocents who got trampled, but culpable conspirators who got hoist by their own cupidity. They are not at all sympathetic.

The Arabs maintain that the Jews pursued a systematic campaign of terror to scare folks out of their property. Fleeing your property in fear of your life does not mean it doesn't belong to you. The robber who chases you away from your wallet is not therefore entitled to the contents because at the moment you considered your life to be more valuable than a collection of bus tokens, a condom and a few dollars.

Anyway, both sides have dug in, neither side is interested in compromising on the one issue that really matter to both sides. Until both sides budge a bit, or even one sides budges a bit on the right of return, then the borders discussion is pretty moot.

As to what caused all the fireworks, Obama moved the borders discussion to the top of the debate tree. It is the last thing anyone really cares about, and the Israeli side thought that he was selling them out on the most important issue, right of return, in an effort to get peace on a matter of far less importance.

well said.

edit- R of R would ispo become a terrestrial concession imho.

 

[Trajan]

further, just adding some verisimilitude....

Selected Writings of Stephen M. Schwebel, Judge of International Court of Justice

EXTRACTS

That ground may well be based on appreciation of the fact that Israel's action in 1967 was defensive, and on the theory that, since the danger in response to which defensive action was taken remains, occupation - though not annexation - is justified, pending a peace settlement

Those distinctions may be summarized as follows:
(a) a State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
(c) where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the State which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

Selected Writings of Stephen M. Schwebel

 

[edthecynic]

you are either psychotic .......or incapable of simple logic.

the Palestinians are demanding a start at the pre- 1967 borders, that what hes lobbying the UN for, because, starting at the post 1967 war borders would leave them starting from' no where' ....

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

he as in Abbas...you know the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.