Hamas rejects the 1967 borders, too

posted at 1:17 pm on May 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Give some credit to Barack Obama for his speech last Thursday.  He managed to create in one sentence a consensus that has eluded other heads of state over the last few decades between the principals in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Both sides think Obama is all wet with his call to base a two-state solution on the 1967 borders:

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Monday that it was clear that US PresidentBarack Obama’s platform was not so different from the one adopted by former US president George W. Bush. According to Zahar, the 1967 borders, while “sacred,” were not the final borders on which the Palestinians should settle.

Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked “Why won’t we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won’t we discuss the partition plan which was internationally  recognized?”

Er, perhaps because that was based on a status quo ante that changed when the Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to destroy it?  Land gained in defensive war — as the war after the 1948 establishment of Israel was for the Israelis — is legitimately held by the victor.  That’s especially true when the land is needed to prevent further invasions and attempts at extermination.

If the Arabs wanted the 1948 borders, then they shouldn’t have invaded Israel.  For that matter, if they wanted the lands controlled after the 1967 war, then Egypt, Syria, and Jordan shouldn’t have plotted to attack Israel — an attack pre-empted by Israel’s strike against the Egyptians.  Israel could have annexed those lands after the war, but they didn’t, although they built settlements in an attempt to change the demography.  Israel doesn’t want to absorb the people living in the West Bank and Gaza for the same reason that the “right of return” is absolute anathema to Israel, because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.  They’d probably prefer to give the West Bank back to Jordan, but Jordan won’t take it back, and for good reasons.

As Benjamin Netanyahu stated in his excellent speech today, the problem in the region isn’t that Israel won’t accept a Palestinian state.  It’s that Hamas and Fatah won’t accept a Jewish state.  They want to make the borders as impossible to defend as possible in order to use statehood as a stage to launch yet another existential attack on Israel.  Israel is right to demand defensible borders based on the lessons learned from both 1948 and 1967, while Hamas reveals its intentions as exterminatory based on their demand for do-overs that ignore those lessons.

Update: Lest anyone get the wrong impression, the issue with Obama’s speech on Thursday was making the 1967 border an explicit foundation, not the use of the border itself (“with swaps”, the consistent American position), and a lack of clarity on whether he meant the border before or after the Six Day War.  This just points out that Hamas won’t even engage on that basis — which makes Obama’s decision to get explicit a waste of time.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hamas….not just for Gaza anymore.

Oil Can on May 24, 2011 at 1:19 PM

backfire

cmsinaz on May 24, 2011 at 1:21 PM

The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him

~Sahih Muslim, Book 41: Number 6985

The problem isn’t land – the problem is islam.

Rebar on May 24, 2011 at 1:22 PM

We want peace in the middle east… so we’re talking about the ’48 and ’67 borders than were so successful to that end. Brilliant.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM

So that’s that….everyone in the world agrees that Obama is full of crap.

search4truth on May 24, 2011 at 1:24 PM

hamas only wants the whole country of Israel as their land and all non rop type there dead! These rop type have made it clear, Israel and the US gone, dead, or under complete control of these people! God be with you Israel.
L

letget on May 24, 2011 at 1:24 PM

I think we should go back to the 1914 borders… in Europe.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 1:25 PM

If you give a Jihadi a cookie…

teke184 on May 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Every time Israel is attacked, their land mass get bigger.

Profit!!!

faraway on May 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM

1967 is out?!? 1967 is out?!?

Left Coast Right Mind on May 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Thanks for moving the goal posts again Obama.

/F’ing idiot.

Lance Murdock on May 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

And Obama wants to negotiate with those barbarians.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Israel ceded Gaza back to the arabs and Hamas has used it to repeatedly wage war against Israel. There will never be a peace in the mideast. It’s against the arabs’ religion.

Blake on May 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I think we should go back to the 2500 BC borders

ConservativePartyNow on May 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM

If the Arabs wanted the 1948 borders, then they shouldn’t have invaded Israel. For that matter, if they wanted the lands controlled after the 1967 war, then Egypt, Syria, and Jordan shouldn’t have plotted to attack Israel — an attack pre-empted by Israel’s strike against the Egyptians.

And just to be clear to all the idiots who (still!) claim that Israel actually started the war–the blockade of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt was an act of war. Israel was completely in its rights to act at that moment against Egypt. But didn’t. Between their desire to see a peaceful resolution, and the strong-arming they were getting from President Johnson, they waited an additional week before striking against their foes.

But I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here. People with any sense of history already know this. And those who do, but don’t care? Well, you’re just looking for any excuse to bad mouth Israel. Facts be damned.

nukemhill on May 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Look, we know this: if all of Israel consisted of a single inch of land in the Middle East, the majority of the Palestinans and Arab people would demand that inch be destroyed.

Whether the ’67 border or the original UN partition plan, the Palestinian people – or those that count – simply will not accept a Jewish state. Period.

They will not accept Jews living in “Arab land” in a Jewish state. Until they do, no peace will be achieved.

SteveMG on May 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM

And Obama wants to negotiate with capitulate to those barbarians.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

FIFY

Lily on May 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM

nuke: Yes, the logic is rather unassailable.

You simply need to ask two questions.

“Do you think that the 1948 partition was fair?”
“Do you think that if a nation state is attacked, any land lost by the attacker is claimed by the defender?”

If you answer ‘yes’ to both of those questions, Israel’s borders are correct currently. If you answer ‘no’ to either of them, you run afoul of international law.

It really is that simple.

Scott H on May 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Lily on May 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Between Scooter getting schooled by Bibi, and his UK vacay with the stuck limo while Americans are suffering from those awful tornadoes, his poll numbers should drop. Not very goop optics at all.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:36 PM

From the Nile to the Euphrates… for starters.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM

And Obama wants to negotiate with those barbarians.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Makes sense. He was brought up as one of those barbarians.

Sporty1946 on May 24, 2011 at 1:41 PM

SteveMG on May 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM

+1

In a nutshell.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Both sides think Obama is all wet with his call to base a two-state solution on the 1967 borders

very interesting.

Joint statement by PM Netanyahu and US Sec Clinton: ‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Dov Weisglass, who was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in a radio interview that “anyone here deluding himself . . . that the drawing of the new map will be based on any reference point other than the 1967 boundaries is simply disconnected from reality.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: “We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then.”

but what do these amateurs know?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM

but what do these amateurs know?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM

It doesn’t matter. They’re not Prime Minister of Israel.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I would accept the 1967 borders if Jordan and Egypt will. I doubt the Pallies would like them though.

Dawnsblood on May 24, 2011 at 1:44 PM

From the Nile to the Euphrates… for starters.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Let’s make it from Morroco to the Black Sea.

trigon on May 24, 2011 at 1:46 PM

It doesn’t matter. They’re not Prime Minister of Israel.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:43 PM

except bibi, see first quote. anyways, do they say anything different from obama’s statement, and if not, does that make them “all wet” or anti-israel?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Only two people in this world agree, Obama and Andrea Mitchell…

right2bright on May 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Such a reasonable people.

John the Libertarian on May 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Simply Liberal. From time.com:

He is a former leader in the rightist Likud Party who for decades staunchly believed that the West Bank and Gaza Strip belonged to the Jewish people and that the territories, along with the Golan Heights, should remain part of Greater Israel forever. Along with former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert gradually came to understand that this was a fantasy. They broke away from Likud and created the centrist Kadima (“Onward”) Party three years ago. Now, as Olmert hands the reins to Tzipi Livni and leaves office amid a corruption scandal, he’s made a series of stunning departure statements that form a swan song of historical importance. Peace advocates, Israeli dreamers, Arab skeptics and U.S. mediators in a future McCain or Obama Administration should read his words carefully and take note.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM

If the Arabs wanted the 1948 borders, then they shouldn’t have invaded Israel.

Duh.
Don’t like it? Stop invading people!

We really need to go back to PRE-islam borders.

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM

but what do these amateurs know?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM

….ummmm you don’t see anything different? Really, are you that naive?
First, do you know what the swaps were?…I didn’t think so.
Notice the little line about a Jewish state and secure and recognized borders? I didn’t think so…
Just a few pieces to the puzzle that has eluded the “negotiations”.
You see, Hamas wouldn’t be Hamas, with these couple of extra lines…you didn’t know that? I didn’t think so…

the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

right2bright on May 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Israel whould teach these animalistic savages a lesson and ADD 500 miles to their border. Maybe then the terrorist in the White House will get the message too.

LODGE4 on May 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I’m pretty sure Hamas wants the 1946 borders.

Vashta.Nerada on May 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Should, not whould

LODGE4 on May 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I’m pretty sure Hamas wants the 1946 borders.

Vashta.Nerada on May 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM

More like the 1933-1945 borders.

mankai on May 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I think we should go back to the 2500 BC borders
ConservativePartyNow on May 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM

The Exodus from Egypt was 1450 BC, dood…

Akzed on May 24, 2011 at 2:03 PM

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM

ok, ignore the joint statement by bibi and clinton, and ignore ariel “butcher of beirut” sharon’s chief of staff.

is olmert anti-israel?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM

….ummmm you don’t see anything different? Really, are you that naive?
First, do you know what the swaps were?…I didn’t think so.
Notice the little line about a Jewish state and secure and recognized borders? I didn’t think so…
Just a few pieces to the puzzle that has eluded the “negotiations”.
You see, Hamas wouldn’t be Hamas, with these couple of extra lines…you didn’t know that? I didn’t think so…
the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

right2bright on May 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was plagued during his three years in office by a string of corruption scandals, which played a major part in his eventual resignation. In August 2009, he was indicted in three of the main cases. Police have closed two others. In April 2010, he became embroiled in the Holyland Affair. Mr Olmert denies all wrongdoing and says he his confident he will prove his innocence in court.

This.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:11 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Retreat exposes your backside. It isn’t a pretty sight.

a capella on May 24, 2011 at 2:13 PM

“Obama has done what no world leader has ever done. He has united Israel and Palestine.”

-The press

Chuck Schick on May 24, 2011 at 2:13 PM

The Exodus from Egypt was 1450 BC, dood…

Akzed on May 24, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I know that. I was referencing the Abrahamic covenant, which would include all of Israel, part of Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria

ConservativePartyNow on May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM

….ummmm you don’t see anything different? Really, are you that naive?
First, do you know what the swaps were?…I didn’t think so.

i likely have a better idea than you. none of these statements specify them, though.

Notice the little line about a Jewish state and secure and recognized borders? I didn’t think so…

here’s what obama said:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states. .. As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.

notice the little line about secure and recognized borders? i know it’s difficult, but try.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I don’t care. Obama is awesome.

mechkiller_k on May 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM

This.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:11 PM

so olmert’s corruption scandal means he wants the destruction of israel, like what you’re accusing obama of?

wingnuts.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Well, it sure proves that he cares more about his own interests than he does of his people’s, now doesn’t it, nutroot?

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Well, it sure proves that he cares more about his own interests than he does of his people’s, now doesn’t it, nutroot?

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:23 PM

ok, whatever, let’s move on. next up: bibi’ joint statement.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, etc.

when you’re done discrediting bibi, you may want to address these too:

“What did Obama say?” wrote Ofer Shelah, a columnist in the Maariv newspaper. “That any agreement with the Palestinians, if and when it is signed, must be based on the 1967 lines with border adjustments. Is there any Israeli or Palestinian who doesn’t know that this is what will happen? It’s the only game in town.”

Dov Weisglass, who was chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in a radio interview that “anyone here deluding himself . . . that the drawing of the new map will be based on any reference point other than the 1967 boundaries is simply disconnected from reality.”

need a time out?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM

because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

So what? The people are there, either keep occupying them or give them a vote.

ernesto on May 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: “We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then.”

but what do these amateurs know?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Your first link is from a story that’s from 2008.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Your second link is from a newspaper that endorsed O’bama.

Del Dolemonte on May 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Regarding that joint statement, nytimes.com reported:

Whether the Palestinians return to the bargaining table hinges on whether the two sides can resolve an impasse over Jewish settlements. Israel has declined to extend a 10-month partial moratorium on building that expired in September; the Palestinians have refused to resume discussions unless it does.

There was no indication whether the United States had persuaded Israel to compromise.

No knock against Bibi. Pure propaganda from the Obama Sate Department. I’m shocked.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM

And Obama wants to negotiate with capitulate to those barbarians confederates.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

FIFY

Lily on May 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Ditto.

Axeman on May 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM

because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

So what? The people are there, either keep occupying them or give them a vote.

ernesto on May 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM

What part of “return” is confusing you?

Axeman on May 24, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Not very goop optics at all.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011

Nice Freudian typo. Actually I think they ARE very goop optics.

JonPrichard on May 24, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Update:

that doesn’t even make sense. the joint statement by clinton and netanyahu also makes the 1967 border an explicit foundation and also lacks clarity on whether they mean the border before or after the six day war.

your headline says ‘hamas rejects the 1967 borders, too.’ who else rejects it? evidently, bibi and most israelis don’t.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Your second link is from a newspaper that endorsed O’bama.

Del Dolemonte on May 24, 2011 at 2:35 PM

they’re direct quotes, moron.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM

It boggles my mind that through one admin after another throughout my entire life we have had one president after another even attempt to broker a peace involving the Pallies. It is not as though they have ever indicated in any meaningful way that they want or would accept anything but a Carthaginian peace. They have been completely consistent and have never shown the slightest willingness to compromise on the one demand that Israel can never accept. That of course being the mythical right of return, which is nothing other than a stratagem to destroy Israel.

Allow Israel to do what they need to do. Give them our diplomatic support in their efforts to defend themselves. Work with them to advance theirs and our strategic interests. And give up on this Quixotic insanity of a “peace process” that will never be.

MJBrutus on May 24, 2011 at 2:45 PM

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM

i can’t see how your quote is relevant to the faux controversy over the 1967 borders.

are you suggesting that state released a joint statement in bibi’s name without his approval and consent?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:46 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:46 PM

From bloomberg.com

About 500,000 Jews have moved to the West Bank and Jerusalem since Israel captured the territories in the 1967 Middle East war. The UN says the settlements are illegal, and the International Committee of the Red Cross says they breach the Fourth Geneva Convention governing actions on occupied territory.

Israel says the settlements don’t fall under the convention because the territory wasn’t recognized as belonging to any country before the 1967 war, in which Israel prevailed, and therefore isn’t occupied.

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM

“So what? The people are there, either keep occupying them or give them a vote.”

ernesto on May 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM

It worked out so well with the illegals in Southen California…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on May 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM

the purpose of the swaps is to account for demographic changes. hence, ‘based on 1967 borders with swaps,’ not ‘the 1967 borders.’ do you need me to explain further the distinction?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Nope. Just tell me…if Bibi was okay with it…why hasn’t it happened?

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Nope. Just tell me…if Bibi was okay with it…why hasn’t it happened?

kingsjester on May 24, 2011 at 2:59 PM

was he not okay with it? have the israelis themselves not told you that you’re delusional?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Surprise!!!!!!!!

Hening on May 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Ya know, a crusade is looking mighty attractive. Just sayin!

faol on May 24, 2011 at 3:26 PM

was he not okay with it?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM

You’re pretending that the agreement between Bibi and Hillary last year was the same in all respects as Obama’s latest speeches on the subject. Obama has decided that Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be used as the starting point in negotiations, with any additional Israeli territory to be retained only by swapping territory already held by Israel in 1949. He also thinks that the borders of a “Palestinian” state must be contiguous, which would mean that Israel would be divided. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear in his remarks at the White House and in his speeches before AIPAC and Congress that it’s unacceptable to use Israel’s pre-1967 borders as a starting point in negotiations and that he expects the United States to uphold its previous commitments to Israeli security.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, the issue with Obama’s speech on Thursday was making the 1967 border an explicit foundation, not the use of the border itself

Sigh.

ED!!!! Not a border in 1967 – ceasefire lines from 1949!!!!

ProfessorMiao on May 24, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Obama has decided that Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be used as the starting point in negotiations, with any additional Israeli territory to be retained only by swapping territory already held by Israel in 1949.

and why is this controversial, when the same idea is promoted by no other than bibi, along with a number of other Israeli officials?

He also thinks that the borders of a “Palestinian” state must be contiguous, which would mean that Israel would be divided.

you probably pulled this out of your arse , because he did not say that. what makes you think so?

he expects the United States to uphold its previous commitments to Israeli security.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 3:40 PM

he ‘expects’, really? wtf is he? they get $3 billion of our money each year, and our support in the UN is absolutely critical for them, especially when the palestinians declare their statehood in september. he’s an arrogant dick.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Update: Lest anyone get the wrong impression, the issue with Obama’s speech on Thursday was making the 1967 border an explicit foundation, not the use of the border itself (“with swaps”, the consistent American position), and a lack of clarity on whether he meant the border before or after the Six Day War. This just points out that Hamas won’t even engage on that basis — which makes Obama’s decision to get explicit a waste of time.

The speech was not intended to tempt Hamas. Per the same speech Obama was explicit in saying that Israel wasn’t even expected to negotiate with Palestinians if they included Hamas. The real audience for the speech was the rest of the Arab Middle East. Israel’s long term future and security is dependent on its relations with the Arab world and not merely with stateless Palestinians. To that end the 1967 lines are important with regard to an overarching peace which normalizes relations with countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and others as envisaged in the Arab Initiative which Israel never formally responded to. The Likud and Hamas have more in common than their rejection of 67 lines.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 4:18 PM

and why is this controversial, when the same idea is promoted by no other than bibi, along with a number of other Israeli officials?

He also thinks that the borders of a “Palestinian” state must be contiguous, which would mean that Israel would be divided.

you probably pulled this out of your arse , because he did not say that. what makes you think so?

he ‘expects’, really? wtf is he? they get $3 billion of our money each year, and our support in the UN is absolutely critical for them, especially when the palestinians declare their statehood in september. he’s an arrogant dick.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM

You’re projecting your own personality onto Prime Minister Netanyahu. Both Israel and the United States receive benefits from their friendship (something always ignored by Israel-bashers), and just as the United States wouldn’t consent to being dictated to, even by an ally, so Israel’s leader will not idly stand by while Obama promotes policies that would lead to Israel’s destruction. Despite your bloviating in this thread, you evidently have not read Obama’s remarks on this subject, where he called for a “contiguous state” for the “Palestinian people”. Even the Washington Post understands that Obama’s remarks are a departure from previous US policy regarding border negotiations, where Israel would be assumed to retain critical territory in the West Bank, and this would be the basis of negotiations rather than the 1949 borders. You’ve presumed to lecture others in this thread without exhibiting any grasp of the issues involved.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Using the 1967 as a basis for a permanent settlement between Israel, its neighbors, and the Palestinians will not destroy Israel. Bibi and Likud want to annex the land without taking on the people attached to the land. That is far more dangerous than a sustainable Jewish State with internationally recognized borders.

Pro Bibi is not pro-Israel.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Using the 1967 as a basis for a permanent settlement between Israel, its neighbors, and the Palestinians will not destroy Israel. Bibi and Likud want to annex the land without taking on the people attached to the land. That is far more dangerous than a sustainable Jewish State with internationally recognized borders.

Pro Bibi is not pro-Israel.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM

You’re correct in your first sentence; maintaining the 1967 borders in which Israel possesses the entirety of Cisjordanian Palestine would not destroy it. However, what you mean is forcing Israel to return to its 1949 ‘Auschwitz’ borders, refusing to allow the Arabs any loss whatsoever for their multiple wars of aggressions and campaigns of terrorism since 1949. This would reward the terrorist groups seeking Israel’s destruction and give Israel narrow, indefensible borders that would never result in a sustainable peace or a permanent settlement. It would merely be a prelude to further warfare and either the destruction of Israel or a replay of the Six-Day War that would see Israel regaining the territory it now controls. People aren’t literally “attached” to land, and border adjustments make sense in the former colony of Palestine after 1967 just as they did in Europe after 1945.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

“He also thinks that the borders of a “Palestinian” state must be contiguous, which would mean that Israel would be divided.”

you probably pulled this out of your arse , because he did not say that. what makes you think so?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Oh, IDK, maybe because he said so! Quoth PBHO:

The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

So you tell me how that works. How can both Palestine and Israel possess contiguous states?

MJBrutus on May 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Both Israel and the United States receive benefits from their friendship (something always ignored by Israel-bashers), and just as the United States wouldn’t consent to being dictated to, even by an ally, so Israel’s leader will not idly stand by while Obama promotes policies that would lead to Israel’s destruction.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM

only in your feeble mind would they lead to israels’ destruction. do you really think that the arab states will launch a full frontal attack against israel? in what age do you live in? the greatest threat to israel is demographics, not losing control of the golan.

you’re a pathetic propagandist (‘auschwitz borders,’ really?) and a sycophant of bibi and likud.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM

What they will do, is what they are currently doing. They will arm the terrorist Pallies in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. They will provide them with ever more deadly and longer range missiles. They will continue to kill in other ways, suicidal and otherwise as their imaginations and opportunities permit. In short, they are not and never have been interested in peace. They have shown a consistent, determined, blood thirsty single-minded will to kill all the Jews in Israel.

MJBrutus on May 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Until Islam ends, there is no possiblity of any peace.

Let’s stop play the fool’s game of Hudna Hudna Hudna.

profitsbeard on May 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

A lasting peace is not built on punitive land seizures or depopulation. Hanging on to the Sinai did not promote peace with Egypt. Hanging on to the Golan and the West Bank and East Jerusalem (which you think should be depopulated) will not bring peace any more than the punitive ‘peace’ that emerged after WWI. Stalin and Hitler were big fans of transplanting populations.

If the 1967 are indefensible then Israel wouldn’t exist today. With technology and the fact that Israel is stronger than it ever makes those lines easy to hold for Israel. The notion of ‘Auschwitz borders’ is pathetic nonsense. Israel is a strong country able to defend itself and it will be stronger if takes up the Arab Initiative and normalizes relations with its neighbors rather than taking more land and sending those neighbors more refugees.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

only in your feeble mind would they lead to israels’ destruction. do you really think that the arab states will launch a full frontal attack against israel? in what age do you live in? the greatest threat to israel is demographics, not losing control of the golan.

you’re a pathetic propagandist (‘auschwitz borders,’ really?) and a sycophant of bibi and likud.

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM

What you term “pathetic propaganda” that could be expressed only by a “sycophant” of the Likud party was in fact the widely-known creation of the Labor party’s Abba Eban, who served as Israel’s US ambassador from 1950-9 and Foreign Minister from 1966-74. This again exposes your ignorance despite your hectoring tone.

As for the dangers of Arab states launching a full attack, this is indeed a not-insignificant risk, but as you might have noticed the Arab states have long preferred to instead back terrorist groups that engage in suicide bombings, murderous raids, airplane hijackings, rocket attacks, etc. An Israel reduced to its 1949 borders would be even more perilously exposed to rocket attacks than it was from 1949-1967. The notion that the greatest threat to Israel is demographics is nonsense put out to distract from the real, present, tangible threats of terrorism and conventional warfare.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

A lasting peace is not built on punitive land seizures or depopulation.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Every known country in existence begs to differ.

profitsbeard on May 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM

I know how we can settle this so liberals & all of islam will be happy.
Let’s have another Holocaust.
Bcs the 1st one was so successful.
If we let all of those islamic Palestinians into the ancient Israeli homeland, they’ll take care of them in no time.
Bcs who needs the Jews anyway?
It’s not like they should be able to reclaim their ancient homeland after wandering the Earth for so long.
/////////////eleventy

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM

A lasting peace is not built on punitive land seizures or depopulation.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Is your head really up your a$$ that far?
Lasting peace is usually at the end of a big stick/gun/war.
It’s astounding you are that ignorant about the history of mankind.
Even individuals who have had their own conflicts know this.
You kick someone’s a$$ who’s messing with you & take their stuff, guess what?
They don’t f$%^ with you anymore.

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM

They don’t f$%^ with you anymore.

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM

And if they do-you keep doing it till they can’t f$%^& with you anymore.
Problem solved.

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM

profitsbeard on May 24, 2011 at 6:18 PM

The principle of self determination has resulted in most of the new nations created in the postwar period.

lexhamfox on May 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM

What you term “pathetic propaganda” that could be expressed only by a “sycophant” of the Likud party was in fact the widely-known creation of the Labor party’s Abba Eban, who served as Israel’s US ambassador from 1950-9 and Foreign Minister from 1966-74. This again exposes your ignorance despite your hectoring tone.

As for the dangers of Arab states launching a full attack, this is indeed a not-insignificant risk, but as you might have noticed the Arab states have long preferred to instead back terrorist groups that engage in suicide bombings, murderous raids, airplane hijackings, rocket attacks, etc. An Israel reduced to its 1949 borders etc.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 6:10 PM

what does it matter who coined the phrase? it’s an obvious propaganda slogan.

which part of ‘based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps’ do you not understand? nobody’s suggesting that israel has to withdraw to those borders.

also, regarding the contiguity you mentioned before, did you really think we was suggesting a unified west bank and gaza? are you at all aware of the reality on the ground in the west bank?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

we he was

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM

That beady-eyed dude in the photo is wearing a scarf manufactured in China and printed in Berkeley. Good machine stiching but cheap materials with nasty threads dangling.

Cuz they can`t make a damn thing but terrorists in the Islamic states.

And other than Israel they are all Islamic states.

Sherman1864 on May 24, 2011 at 11:23 PM

what does it matter who coined the phrase? it’s an obvious propaganda slogan.

It mattered to you when you decided it was a “Likud” phrase. In fact, it was used by the representative of a Labor-led government not too long after the Six-Day War, expressing Israel’s unwillingness to return to the borders that invited war. Granting that amount of territory to genocidal antisemites is merely a recipe for continued bloodshed.

which part of ‘based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps’ do you not understand? nobody’s suggesting that israel has to withdraw to those borders.

Obama’s press secretary clarified that he meant the pre-1967 borders would be used as the starting point of negotiations, with any Israeli gains from that position to come at the expense of other Israeli territory, while the “Palestinians” would start negotiations with all the territory held by Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967. This differs from the position of any previous US administration as detailed in the Washington Post article I linked to earlier. Though I suppose the Washington Post must be guilty of spreading pathetic sycophantic Likudnik propaganda, just like the rest of us who disagree with you.

also, regarding the contiguity you mentioned before, did you really think we was suggesting a unified west bank and gaza? are you at all aware of the reality on the ground in the west bank?

sesquipedalian on May 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Are you suggesting that Obama is unaware of what “contiguous” means? The territory currently under the control of the PA in the West Bank is far less than the territory that has repeatedly been offered it, and it has never been the case that the West Bank would be divided into non-contiguous territories after a peace deal. But, hey, at least you now admit that Obama said a Palestinian state must be contiguous.

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Are you suggesting that Obama is unaware of what “contiguous” means?…

DKCZ on May 24, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Actually, he may not know what contiguous means. This guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

slickwillie2001 on May 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM

The stupidity of the Palestinians not willing to accept the nation on Israel is just frigging incredible. It almost won’t me to go back to the Ottoman Empire.

SC.Charlie on May 25, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Zahar, you said this, “Why won’t we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won’t we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?”

OK, let’s talk about the internationally recognized partition plan – of 1923. Jordan vanishes. The entire thing is the Palestinian Mandate with the Jews in control. THEN start negotiating you asshole.

{^_^}

herself on May 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM