Obama Endorses 1967 Border For Palestinian State

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Is this U.S. support for the 1967 border some kind of new policy?

It is tragic how little people know about the issue 67 border.

Well yes and no. Other former U.S. presidents have basically supported the idea in the past or some variation, but haven't made it U.S. policy. From what I understand, Obama has set precedence here by publicly stating this is U.S. policy going forward.

Personally, I don't see how we can say we're extending an olive branch to the Arab world when we're constantly partial to Israel in almost every circumstance.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Well yes and no. Other former U.S. presidents have basically supported the idea in the past or some variation, but haven't made it U.S. policy. From what I understand, Obama has set precedence here by publicly stating this is U.S. policy going forward.

Personally, I don't see how we can say we're extending an olive branch to the Arab world when we're constantly partial to Israel in almost every circumstance.

Agreed. While I support the Israeli state and don't believe we should just cut them loose, to often it seems to be the tail wagging the dog of US middle east policy.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Agreed. While I support the Israeli state and don't believe we should just cut them loose, to often it seems to be the tail wagging the dog of US middle east policy.

That will never happen; Too much money and the Israel/Jewish lobby has an enormous amount of power and influence in American politics. As miuch as Obama has ruffled feathers, he'll only take it so far.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

That will never happen; Too much money and the Israel/Jewish lobby has an enormous amount of power and influence in American politics. As miuch as Obama has ruffled feathers, he'll only take it so far.

Yup. I understand that. Hence the tail wagging the dog. The more I think about it the more I back Obama's statement.

Again, the creation, boundaries and existence of the Jewish state in the Middle East really is a tangled web of pre/post WWI European power struggles and emergent Arab nationalism (and factionalism) topped off with some good ole' Cold War surrogatism (yes, I just made that up).

Until the arabic countries formally accept & acknowledge Israel's right to exist, however, whether the '67 boundaries are used or not, there will not be peace. I think that, unlike 20-30 years ago, most of the arab world is ready to acknowledge the fact that Israel is there and is not going away.

[JoeRedskin]

[Deleted as double post]

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

That will never happen; Too much money and the Israel/Jewish lobby has an enormous amount of power and influence in American politics. As miuch as Obama has ruffled feathers, he'll only take it so far.

But since Obama’s made these statements doesn’t that give credibility to any war launched by any arab nation backing Palestine fighting for the lost 1967 borders? Its no big deal if Palestine wants to try and take back their lost land but if Pakistan, Iran, a hamas group, or whatever comes out of Egypt, Syria or Labia (democratic or not) if several of those powers decide to join in at some point to help reclaim some land for Palestine does the US just stay neutral and provide zero support (including humanitarian) to either side?

Whenever I tried to read into this subject I realize its wayyyy to complex and not so cut and dry, so Im like I don’t feel like spending a significant amount of time trying to understand it. So this may be a ignorant statement: I feel like Palestine has never been capable of governing themselves. I feel like they have given plenty of opportunities to create a government and become independent and they always blow it. The land they have held before though and want back is extremely valuable for several reasons though; namely religious, economically and military. So I feel like with all the uprisings and change going on in the middle east they are prime to get exploited by the likes of several countries that could give Israel a decent fight, particularly if someone decides to use nuclear wepons if things get that far. I feel like given the Presidents words he basically said if the arab world wants to try and take back its land; its fair game. As long as it looks like its in Palestine’s interest the US and UN aint gonna step in. We will just let it play out, hopefully nothing really bad happens.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But since Obama’s made these statements doesn’t that give credibility to any war launched by any arab nation backing Palestine fighting for the lost 1967 borders? Its no big deal if Palestine wants to try and take back their lost land but if Pakistan, Iran, a hamas group, or whatever comes out of Egypt, Syria or Labia (democratic or not) if several of those powers decide to join in at some point to help reclaim some land for Palestine does the US just stay neutral and provide zero support (including humanitarian) to either side?

Whenever I tried to read into this subject I realize its wayyyy to complex and not so cut and dry, so Im like I don’t feel like spending a significant amount of time trying to understand it. So this may be a ignorant statement: I feel like Palestine has never been capable of governing themselves. I feel like they have given plenty of opportunities to create a government and become independent and they always blow it. The land they have held before though and want back is extremely valuable for several reasons though; namely religious, economically and military. So I feel like with all the uprisings and change going on in the middle east they are prime to get exploited by the likes of several countries that could give Israel a decent fight, particularly if someone decides to use nuclear wepons if things get that far. I feel like given the Presidents words he basically said if the arab world wants to try and take back its land; its fair game. As long as it looks like its in Palestine’s interest the US and UN aint gonna step in. We will just let it play out, hopefully nothing really bad happens.

There are definitely a lot of moving pieces here, but in the context of the speech he gave yesterday Obama was simply trying to reframe and restart peace negotiations between the Israel and Palestine. He was in no way distancing himself from Israel or endorsing military aggression by the Palestines or any other Arab nation, for that matter. Israel is the number one recipient of foreign aid from the United States and that's not changing anytime in our lifetimes. Egypt, the other nation involved in the 1967 war, which is Arab, is the number two recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Between the two of them they receive a one third of all foreign aid and yesterday the Obama committed another $2 billion to Egypt. Also consider that both countries are our two biggest allies in the region, so no I don't see this speech being misconstrued by any Arab nation, or any other group, to get too full of themselves.

Also keep in mind that Libya, Egypt, and Syria are significantly weaker politically because of the Arab spring and the push to topple the current regimes. These countries have little interest in running to the defense of the Palestinians, especially now that they have so much turmoil going within their own borders and the leadership remains a big question mark. This is why the president is speaking out now because there is a small window of opportunity to get the ball rolling on peace talks again.

By referencing the 1967 war, if that's what you want to call it, President Obama is saying why don't you two consider a land exchange, that was previously agreed upon, as a starting point for negotiations.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

... Also keep in mind that Libya, Egypt, and Syria are significantly weaker politically because of the Arab spring and the push to topple the current regimes. These countries have little interest in running to the defense of the Palestinians, especially now that they have so much turmoil going within their own borders and the leadership remains a big question mark. This is why the president is speaking out now because there is a small window of opportunity to get the ball rolling on peace talks again.

By referencing the 1967 war, if that's what you want to call it, President Obama is saying why don't you two consider a land exchange, that was previously agreed upon, as a starting point for negotiations.

Yup. I think this is his point. It is such huge concession by Israel at this point, they have invested so much political capital in a unified Jerusalem and protection of the WB Settlements. Whereas, 20-30 years ago, you could say reasonably say that arab aggression and a determination to literally wipe Israel off the map was the real obstruction to peace, I think it is now Israel's dogged committment to Jerusalem and the WB Settlements that stands in the way of a lasting peace.

12th - Do you think the Arab world, as a whole, has come to accept the existence of Israel and, as a practical matter, no longer seeks its obliteration as a national entity? Is Arab factionalism over or is the Arab Spring just a replay/repackaging of Arab nationalism from the 50's and 60's? If not, what do you see as the main differences - how will the Arab world avoid the factionalism that destroyed the original "Arab Spring" (which created most of the regimes now being subject to popular protests)?

It's been two or three (four?) generations since the Jews essentially did a land grab (yes, yes, an incredible oversimplification, I know - but the Brits left 'cause they couldn't/wouldn't resolve the Arab/Jewish question in Palestine Mandate and, once they did, the Jews resolved it for them - with guns). Is that enough time for wounds to heal and reality to set in? Are the people behind the Arab Spring looking forward with an acceptance of Israel? Unlike the prior nationalistic movement of the 50's & 60's, I just don't see the Arab world rallying 'round the poor displaced Palestinians.

Ultimately, I think a corner has been turned in the Arab world. The question to me is whether or not Israel will get past its well earned paranoia/ skepticism about peaceful intentions from the Arabic world and find a way to w/draw from the West Bank entirely.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup. I think this is his point. It is such huge concession by Israel at this point, they have invested so much political capital in a unified Jerusalem and protection of the WB Settlements. Whereas, 20-30 years ago, you could say reasonably say that arab aggression and a determination to literally wipe Israel off the map was the real obstruction to peace, I think it is now Israel's dogged committment to Jerusalem and the WB Settlements that stands in the way of a lasting peace.

12th - Do you think the Arab world, as a whole, has come to accept the existence of Israel and, as a practical matter, no longer seeks its obliteration as a national entity? Is Arab factionalism over or is the Arab Spring just a replay/repackaging of Arab nationalism from the 50's and 60's? If not, what do you see as the main differences - how will the Arab world avoid the factionalism that destroyed the original "Arab Spring" (which created most of the regimes now being subject to popular protests)?

It's been two or three (four?) generations since the Jews essentially did a land grab (yes, yes, an incredible oversimplification, I know - but the Brits left 'cause they couldn't/wouldn't resolve the Arab/Jewish question in Palestine Mandate and, once they did, the Jews resolved it for them - with guns). Is that enough time for wounds to heal and reality to set in? Are the people behind the Arab Spring looking forward with an acceptance of Israel? Unlike the prior nationalistic movement of the 50's & 60's, I just don't see the Arab world rallying 'round the poor displaced Palestinians.

Ultimately, I think a corner has been turned in the Arab world. The question to me is whether or not Israel will get past its well earned paranoia/ skepticism about peaceful intentions from the Arabic world and find a way to w/draw from the West Bank entirely.

I think it's a good question and an open question. No one really knows for sure and it places an already paranoid Israel in a precarious position. The situation completely has us formulating foreign policy on the fly too. The truth is we don't know how this is going to play out. It's one thing to deal with brutal dictators that use propaganda and repression to manipulate and control the masses, we know how to approach that. But it's another thing when you have organic revolutions from citizens in their 20s and 30s, educated lawyers and doctors that use facebook and twitter to organize; that want a voice and be able to choose their government and elect their leaders. If you look at the Arab spring they have been peaceful demonstrations, for that most part, absent of any real animosity towards the West or Israel.

Whether or not this new wave of democratic protesters will consider Israel as national entity or not, who really knows. My gut tells me they are less likely to be hostile towards Israel though. While they do have a deep sense of national pride, they don't harbor the same grievances as their forebearers from the 50s and 60s. But Israel, too, has to play their part. They have to be bold and make some forward looking and risky decisions and not be so reactionary to the world around them. They face a new Arab world and that's a new political reality.

I think Arabs will always remain inherently suspicious of the U.S. because of our relationship with Israel and the events since 9/11 (and before), but I'm hopeful they can separate those issues from their own pursuit of democracy and freedom.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yup. I think this is his point. It is such huge concession by Israel at this point, they have invested so much political capital in a unified Jerusalem and protection of the WB Settlements. Whereas, 20-30 years ago, you could say reasonably say that arab aggression and a determination to literally wipe Israel off the map was the real obstruction to peace, I think it is now Israel's dogged committment to Jerusalem and the WB Settlements that stands in the way of a lasting peace.

12th - Do you think the Arab world, as a whole, has come to accept the existence of Israel and, as a practical matter, no longer seeks its obliteration as a national entity? Is Arab factionalism over or is the Arab Spring just a replay/repackaging of Arab nationalism from the 50's and 60's? If not, what do you see as the main differences - how will the Arab world avoid the factionalism that destroyed the original "Arab Spring" (which created most of the regimes now being subject to popular protests)?

It's been two or three (four?) generations since the Jews essentially did a land grab (yes, yes, an incredible oversimplification, I know - but the Brits left 'cause they couldn't/wouldn't resolve the Arab/Jewish question in Palestine Mandate and, once they did, the Jews resolved it for them - with guns). Is that enough time for wounds to heal and reality to set in? Are the people behind the Arab Spring looking forward with an acceptance of Israel? Unlike the prior nationalistic movement of the 50's & 60's, I just don't see the Arab world rallying 'round the poor displaced Palestinians.

Ultimately, I think a corner has been turned in the Arab world. The question to me is whether or not Israel will get past its well earned paranoia/ skepticism about peaceful intentions from the Arabic world and find a way to w/draw from the West Bank entirely.

I wanted to add one more thing: I do not think that the Arab world, as a whole, will recognize Israel's right to exist as sovereign entity, but so what. There will ALWAYS be extremist and fundamentalist that deny Israel of the right to exist.

I wouldn't understimate the power of the internet and the use of facebook and twitter. It may sound corny, but I think the internet has made the idea of freedom and democracy more accessible and attainable. The idea of a state controlled media is outdated and can no longer be used to brainwash and manipulate people. I believe a diversity of ideas, opinions, and political views have emerged as a result of this.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But since Obama’s made these statements doesn’t that give credibility to any war launched by any arab nation backing Palestine fighting for the lost 1967 borders? Its no big deal if Palestine wants to try and take back their lost land but if Pakistan, Iran, a hamas group, or whatever comes out of Egypt, Syria or Labia (democratic or not) if several of those powers decide to join in at some point to help reclaim some land for Palestine does the US just stay neutral and provide zero support (including humanitarian) to either side?

Whenever I tried to read into this subject I realize its wayyyy to complex and not so cut and dry, so Im like I don’t feel like spending a significant amount of time trying to understand it. So this may be a ignorant statement: I feel like Palestine has never been capable of governing themselves. I feel like they have given plenty of opportunities to create a government and become independent and they always blow it. The land they have held before though and want back is extremely valuable for several reasons though; namely religious, economically and military. So I feel like with all the uprisings and change going on in the middle east they are prime to get exploited by the likes of several countries that could give Israel a decent fight, particularly if someone decides to use nuclear wepons if things get that far. I feel like given the Presidents words he basically said if the arab world wants to try and take back its land; its fair game. As long as it looks like its in Palestine’s interest the US and UN aint gonna step in. We will just let it play out, hopefully nothing really bad happens.

I don't get that at all. I have no doubt that any attack on Israel to "regain" the '67 borders would be viewed as an attack on a US ally. Sure, he supports a w/drawal to those borders but he most certainly did not renounce the US/Israel alliance. As 12th said, it's a small step towards a more balanced approach to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Key being, "small".

As to Jerusalem, my own personal opinion, is that it should be an undivided international city. Israel, of course, would never, ever agree to that. I would suppose they are more likely to give up the West Bank settlements than agree to yeild even an inch on Jerusalem.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But since Obama’s made these statements doesn’t that give credibility to any war launched by any arab nation backing Palestine fighting for the lost 1967 borders? Its no big deal if Palestine wants to try and take back their lost land but if Pakistan, Iran, a hamas group, or whatever comes out of Egypt, Syria or Lybia (democratic or not) if several of those powers decide to join in at some point to help reclaim some land for Palestine does the US just stay neutral and provide zero support (including humanitarian) to either side?

I believe the Palestinians wants nothing to do with these countries, especially since they (Syria, Egypt, and Jordan) are the reason the Palestinians lost the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and East Jerusalem).

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Whenever I tried to read into this subject I realize its wayyyy to complex and not so cut and dry, so Im like I don’t feel like spending a significant amount of time trying to understand it. So this may be a ignorant statement: I feel like Palestine has never been capable of governing themselves. I feel like they have given plenty of opportunities to create a government and become independent and they always blow it. The land they have held before though and want back is extremely valuable for several reasons though; namely religious, economically and military. So I feel like with all the uprisings and change going on in the middle east they are prime to get exploited by the likes of several countries that could give Israel a decent fight, particularly if someone decides to use nuclear wepons if things get that far. I feel like given the Presidents words he basically said if the arab world wants to try and take back its land; its fair game. As long as it looks like its in Palestine’s interest the US and UN aint gonna step in. We will just let it play out, hopefully nothing really bad happens.

This is really not the case. I think everyone wants a two-state solution, but Israel is too paranoid to let a Palestinian state right next to them (and not to mention the many Israeli settlements in Palestinian lands). Now the sticking point is the involvement of Hamas in Palestinian politics, which I find it ironic since the Jewish terrorist group known at the Stern Gang (officially known as Lehi) in the 1930s and 1940s eventually became part of Israeli politics.

To me it seems that our role in the mid-east peace negotiations has always been to put pressures on the Palestinians. It seems that finally we are putting pressure on Israel. Personally, the quicker this gets settle the better it will be for us. We spend a ton of money supporting Israel, and our foreign relations with many countries is affected because of this alliance. I think it is right that the US is putting pressure on both the Palestinians and the Israelis to settle this issue once and for all.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

... Now the sticking point is the involvement of Hamas in Palestinian politics, which I find it ironic since the Jewish terrorist group known at the Stern Gang (officially known as Lehi) in the 1930s and 1940s eventually became part of Israeli politics.

Well, sort of, initially the newly independent Israel banned them for their terrorist activities. Despite this, they won one seat in the Knesset '49 and none in '51. After being granted amnesty they disavowed the use of violence and essentially disbanded as a political organization shortly after the '51 election - though several of their former members played prominent roles in Israeli politics for many years.

The Hamas, however, retains its coherent political organization and has, of yet, to disavow violence or: those portions of its charter calling for the destruction of Israel; the denial of the Holocaust; and the claim that the Protocols of Zion are an accurate depiction of an international Jewish plot.
If I were an Israeli, I too would be nervous at having these violent crackpots as my next door neighbor.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

To me it seems that our role in the mid-east peace negotiations has always been to put pressures on the Palestinians. It seems that finally we are putting pressure on Israel. Personally, the quicker this gets settle the better it will be for us. We spend a ton of money supporting Israel, and our foreign relations with many countries is affected because of this alliance. I think it is right that the US is putting pressure on both the Palestinians and the Israelis to settle this issue once and for all.

Not much pressure, but some and, I agree, that is a good thing.