Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Palestinians: Pre-1967 Borders Sound Good, Just Like Obama Said

    Palestinians: Pre-1967 Borders Sound Good, Just Like Obama Said

    If you needed proof that Obama’s Middle East speech was a mistake and simply would embolden Palestinians to pocket the territorial victory, you didn’t need to wait long:

    Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Sunday said that he agreed with US President Barack Obama’s assertion that the 1967 borders should be the basis for negotiations with Israel, but that it was more important that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accept this premise.

    “Once Netanyahu says that the negotiations will lead to a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, then everything will be set,” Palestinian news agency WAFA quoted Erekat as saying. He added that until that happened, negotiations with Israel would not resume.

    Note that Erekat says “a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.”  Not with the post-script “with land swaps” as proposed by Obama.  Because the land swap idea already was rejected by the Palestinians when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert floated the idea as part of an overall settlement of all issues.

    Perhaps Obama could offer a clarification which would induce the Palestinians to be more serious:

    “When I said the 1967 border plus land swaps, what I meant was the June 10, 1967 border plus land swaps.”

    If that were the American position, we might actually have a chance for peace because the Palestinians would have something to lose by waiting.  As of now, waiting is working just fine for them.

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Nuance by the “greatest orator of our time” …

    WASHINGTON — 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.”

    I wouldn’t want this guy to negotiate a deal on a dog house.

    IF that were the American position? William, it has been the stated American position since 2004, and the unstated American position for years longer. Erekat was being disingenuous because he added his own conditions. Quote: "PLO Executive Committee member Hana Amira was quoted by Israel Radio on Sunday as saying that the Palestinians would cancel plans to go to the UN with a unilateral declaration of statehood in September if Israel would agree to negotiations based on the 1967 lines AND freeze all building in West Bank settlements AND east Jerusalem for a period of three months."

    It is unclear whether the Palestinian side, especially now that Hamas-Fatah have reconciled, would recognize Israel's right to exist. That is a vital pre-condition.

    Second thing. Obama said pretty much the same thing at AIPAC as he did in his Cairo 2.0 speech. The transcript is here:
    http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2011/05/22/transcript-obama-aipac-speech-may-22-2011/

    That he repeated his position in a two-day period says less about him and more about his opponents who have serious reading comprehension problems. FTR, I voted for McCain in the last presidential election.

    Obama, if he wants peace in the Middle East, is naive on a grand scale. One, Israel must have fully densible borders – and that is not the 1948 borders. Two, Iran, the entity most responsible for flaming the Palestinian Israeli conflict, must experience regime change. Three, those who would attack Israel – i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah, must be vilified and attacked at every turn until they are destroyed or beaten into submission, whether by force or by economic pressure. Then perhaps peace will be possible. Without those three conditions being satisfied, what Obama proposed in his speech is naught but war and perhaps genocide, regardless of his intentions.

    Here's why any settlement with the Arabs is problematical:

    http://rightscoop.tv/palestinians-should-massacre-jews-like-we-massacred-them-in-hebron/

    With insane attitudes like this going on it is simply impossible to come to any kind of agreement that won't be promptly broken by the Arabs. Rational people don't fire rockets indescriminately into civilian areas. There is no such thing as the win/win scenario in these people's minds. Unless and until the religious leaders in the Arab world preach otherwise, hating anyone not Muslim whether that be Jew, Christian or otherwise is the central mindset of these people. The problem is that kind of solution would fundamentally change the character of Islam and they aren't about to do that. The whole premise of their religion is to dominate others by force or through intimidation.

    I blame the UN and the US for perpetuating this situation by funding the so called refugee camps. These people should have been dispursed to the neighboring Arab countries thus eliminating the idea of "Palestinians". They created and supported this fiction.

    Land swaps are sounding pretty good to me. We'll give the Palistinians Berkeley CA, and San Francisco, and in exchange the Israelis get the West Bank and Gaza.

    A Win-Win solution. And we'll never even notice the difference in rhetoric coming from the West Coast.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend