Oh, it doesn’t help when the leading opposition party in Israel shoves the same knife Obama is wielding even further into the back of Israel. Dippy Livni slobbers over the speech, says it’s … pro-Israel. Hopefully that woman never reaches the top spot, or Israel is through.
H/T: Weasel Zippers
Obama’s Israel Policy
(Weekly Standard) — Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post goes over the history of America’s Israel policy and the significance of President Obama’s declaration yesterday that “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.” Historically, Kessler finds, “until Obama on Thursday, U.S. presidents generally have steered clear of saying the negotiations should start on the 1967 lines.”
Indeed, Obama’s formulation is more radical than all presidents from Lyndon Johnson to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush:
“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”
— President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”
— Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988
“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli’s security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.”
— President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001
“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.”
— President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002
Well! Wadda ya know! The news media LIED.
This morning, President O’Bama addressed the AIPAC policy conference. It contained statements that were insincere and untrue, but one thing he made certain: He did not use the words “1967 borders”. He used the words “1967 LINES” [emphasis mine] in his speech last Thursday.
I haven’t read an exact transcript of last Thursday’s speech, but I’ve listened to President O’Bama’s speech this morning to AIPAC and believe he stated his words exactly as he made them on Thursday.
OK. That’s the good news. The bad news is that President O’Bama continues to call for a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders”. I think we know what that means. This condition was unilaterally INSERTED by the Bush Administration and was never agreed to by the Israelis. Certainly, arraignments for travel between Gaza and the West Bank were discussed during the Clinton Administration, but a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders” was never an ingredient in U.S. Policy until the Bush Administration. I believe this element has stalled peace talks more than any other American policy.
Lastly, the statement in President O’Bama’s AIPAC speech that he will prevent Israel from being “singled out at the U.N. or any other international forum” is a bold-faced LIE. Time and time again, this President has singled Israel out as the soul source of failure in peace talks. The constant harangue that “Israel must act boldly to advance a lasting peace” is the routine line. After numerous bold acts by Israel, with no reciprocation, end-of-violence, end of incitement, or even continuing negotiations, lead us to the obvious conclusion that these are demands for one-sided concessions.
And frankly, I’ve grown tired of people who are not Israeli citizens routinely saying that “Israel should….”, or worse, “Israel must….”.
As an American, I believe my President needs to stop making policy statements that he knows (darn well) the news media will deliberately interpret as demands on Israel, one-sided or otherwise. The news media clearly mis-reported his speech. Public opinion drives public policy. News reporting shapes public opinion. If the President stops making these kind of policy statements, few will question his claim of support for Israel.
HI TINSC,
I said as much right from the very beginning, that he used 67′ lines, that said, we all know what he really means. You hit the nail on the head about his AIPAC speech.