Obama: Pullback to 1967 Borders

[Pliny]

I used to be a big supporter of the UN regarding international law. Now I see it's rather useless in that regard.

I already say you that.

[DogOnPorch]

Um, North Vietnam was not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions until 1970. Israel signed in 1951.

ETA:

Another thing North Vietnam did not do:

an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

You're not serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields

The Viet-Nam War ended in 1975. There was horrific loss of life during and after North Viet-Nam's occupation and assimilation of the South (a real occupation unlike the Arab-Israeli version). All through-out Communist controled Indochina, infact.

UN 242 is Israel specific. In those days (1967) Israel was a defacto NATO ally while the main Arab states involved in attacking Israel were Warsaw Pact clients. The results of the 6 Day War were yet another event in the ongoing Cold War. In 1968, the PLO rejected UN 242, anyways. Only much later on, after further Arab attempts to eliminate Israel by force failed, were the so-called Palestinians* all keen on 242 because of what it demanded of Israel...a nulification of their brilliant victory over their Arab foes (that was in 1993!).

* There was no such thing as 'Palestinians' in 1967. Gaza was part of Egypt...The WB was part of Jordan. Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian.

Edited May 23, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

I guess it was a win-win situation for the Arabs. I honestly don't understand why the 'laws' are so rigidly applied in one instance and completely ignored in others.

Rigidly applied? Are you kidding me? Groups like the UN have done virtually NOTHING to enforce these laws against Israel. They have been given a COMPLETE PASS, besides a bunch of whining, pissing, and moaning. These laws have NOT been enforced AT ALL, and Israel has been allowed to keep millions of people in state of perpetual statelessness... not only preventing them from forming their own government, but excluding them from the Israel political process as well.

Rigidly enforced! See the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait for an example of "rigid enforcement". The UN approach to CONFLICT: DIRTFARM has been more akin to a battered wifes muted sobs of protest between beatings.

They have done literally nothing.

[Moonlight Graham]

*There was no such thing as 'Palestinians' in 1967. Gaza was part of Egypt...The WB was part of Jordan. Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian.

Palestinians are members of a nation, not just people who live in territory or a nation-state (as they were or wish to be). Of course they existed in 1967. And of course many of them would also claim that much or all of then-Israel was theirs too, however legitimate or not that claim is.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Pliny]

Rigidly applied? Are you kidding me? Groups like the UN have done virtually NOTHING to enforce these laws against Israel. They have been given a COMPLETE PASS, besides a bunch of whining, pissing, and moaning. These laws have NOT been enforced AT ALL, and Israel has been allowed to keep millions of people in state of perpetual statelessness... not only preventing them from forming their own government, but excluding them from the Israel political process as well.

Rigidly enforced! See the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait for an example of "rigid enforcement". The UN approach to CONFLICT: DIRTFARM has been more akin to a battered wifes muted sobs of protest between beatings.

They have done literally nothing.

The UN doesn't make laws. It makes up treaties that countries agree to uphold or, if it is too inconvenient, forget about, such as the Kyoto Accord.

The UN is a fairly useless agency.

[DogOnPorch]

Palestinians are members of a nation, not just people who live in territory or a nation-state (as they were or wish to be). Of course they existed in 1967. And of course many of them would also claim that much or all of then-Israel was theirs too, however legitimate or not that claim is.

Errr...no they didn't. Before Arafat 'made it so' you have the Nazi Grand Mufti with his pet project re: his clan and al-Aqsa. At least if you support the 'Palestinian Cause' post 1964 you're merely cheering on a terrorist. Before that, the 'Palestinian Cause' wore an SS uniform.

Edited May 23, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Moonlight Graham]

Errr...no they didn't. Before Arafat 'made it so' you have the Nazi Grand Mufti with his pet project re: his clan and al-Aqsa. At least if you support the 'Palestinian Cause' post 1964 you're merely cheering on a terrorist. Before that, the 'Palestinian Cause' wore an SS uniform.

I think that's a very inaccurate way to think of the Palestinian people, and their "cause". Most of them aren't terrorists, many wish no death to Jews nor want to push Israel into the sea.

More importantly, no organization, group, charter, agreement, or leader represents all Palestinian peoples or has any power to established when and whether they "exist" or not. They exist because they are a nation of peoples, similar to how Jews are nation of peoples, with or without any state.

[bush_cheney2004]

...More importantly, no organization, group, charter, agreement, or leader represents all Palestinian peoples or has any power to established when and whether they "exist" or not. They exist because they are a nation of peoples, similar to how Jews are nation of peoples, with or without any state.

So..like...it will be quite fashionable to ask if the Palestinian state has the right to exist, 60 years after it is created?

[DogOnPorch]

I think that's a very inaccurate way to think of the Palestinian people, and their "cause". Most of them aren't terrorists, many wish no death to Jews nor want to push Israel into the sea.

More importantly, no organization, group, charter, agreement, or leader represents all Palestinian peoples or has any power to established when and whether they "exist" or not. They exist because they are a nation of peoples, similar to how Jews are nation of peoples, with or without any state.

LOL...yeah, right. Me thinks you'd best read-up on the Grand Mufti and the al-Husseini clan. He and his nephew Yasser wanted only one thing from the Jews...their death. Yasser was Egyptian...not part of some mysterious "nation" that popped-up coincidentally after losing the 6 Day War. The main reason the Mufti wanted his own "country" was to promote his clan's position as the keepers of al-Aqsa and that he hated the Hashemites over in Jordan (assassinated their first King). But, facts are facts. The Palestinian Cause was dreamed-up by a Jew-Baiter and former SS man. I know it is PC to deny this connection as nobody wants to see themselves supporting National Socialism in its current modern form. But, we know that the Mufti worked for Hitler and was good friends with many top Nazis including Himmler and Eichmann. He is now thought to be personally responsible for the deaths of some 500-750,000 Jews in the Balkans.

Hamas and Hezbollah...and to a lesser extent these days Fatah (PLO et al)...still spout his dogma and hatred of all Jews. These are the folks Jews/Israelis are supposed to make nice with. I'd tell Obama to piss-off, too.

[DogOnPorch]

So..like...it will be quite fashionable to ask if the Palestinian state has the right to exist, 60 years after it is created?

Oh, we all know that's a Jews only rule at the country-club of nations.

[Bonam]

This is true now. But after the 1967 war, Israel occupied the West Bank (Jordan ruled), Gaza (Egypt ruled), Sinai peninsula (Egypt), and the Golan Heights (Syria).

The Sinai was returned to Egypt when it agreed to a peace treaty. Egypt doesn't want Gaza, and Jordan doesn't want the West Bank. In fact, Jordan had plenty of its own trouble with the Palestinians, killing more of them than Israel ever did.

As for the Golan Heights, any Israeli leader who gives those away will be one of the biggest idiots in Israel's history.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Sinai was returned to Egypt when it agreed to a peace treaty. Egypt doesn't want Gaza, and Jordan doesn't want the West Bank.

Agreed, i was just pointing out the situation following the Six Day War. As i said, agreements and events since them have left the above places in different hands or disputed/occupied claims.

[DogOnPorch]

Agreed, i was just pointing out the situation following the Six Day War. As i said, agreements and events since them have left the above places in different hands or disputed/occupied claims.

It should be noted that Israel 'occupied' these areas during the fighting...not as an after-thought.

[Bob]

It would appear that this disagreement between the USA and Israel was inevitable. Obama's have been making comments for quite awhile now suggesting that the settlement enterprise across the 1967 lines is one of the primary drivers of this conflict. This was a crucial strategic error for Obama, because if he would have had a better understanding of the conflict, he'd have known that certain settlement developments are essential and unstoppable. This is essentially true about the settlements in and around Jerusalem. They're an integral part of Jerusalem and of broader Israel. Obama acted tough, and Netanyahu (justifiably) rejected this demand. This makes Obama, and America, look weak. Obama damaged his credibility by staking out such a position.

Perhaps just as importantly, Obama seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins and ongoing drivers of the conflict. This conflict started lone before June of 1967. The conflict over this land began in late 20th century, with the first large scale violence occurring in the 1920s with the "Arab riots" where they engaged in mass murder of Jews in the Palestine Mandate. What was their beef at that time? This is almost half a century before the first settler or settlement. People need to understand this falsehood of the settlement enterprise as some sort of provocation that justifiably incites the Arabs is dishonest and dangerous. The violence against the Jewish people in this land began long before 1967. That needs to be understood.

Netanyahu was right to reject to 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations. The 1967 lines are indefensible. It's an unacceptable starting point for negotiations. This would be much easy for me to explain in person, or with a helicopter tour of the 1967 lines, as I'm sure people are wondering, "Why are this lines "indefensible"? Is that just Israeli rhetoric?" In the case of Jerusalem, the city is on the eastern edge of a corridor of the 1967 lines that pushes into the West Bank. Worse still, a large portion of Jerusalem is across the Green Line in three direction: North, East, and South. These lines are unworkable for Jerusalem. No city can naturally grow in some narrow corridor eastwards. There's also topography to be considered, as Jerusalem doesn't look like the Ottawa Valley, they're quite a bit of land that is very expensive to develop because of the hills. The 1967 lines are not some practical boundary that has long-term utility. Here's a cheesy couple video you folks may appreciate, it graphically outlines some of the security concerns associated with the 1967 lines.

Unfortunately the entire premise of "land for peace" is flawed, at least if it is defined by subscription to the 1967 lines as some sort of Holy Grail. This has been the flawed American approach to the peace process for quite awhile, with many saying it began with the "Clinton Parameters", although in truth the 1967 lines are somewhat (there's some language open to interpretation) described as the point of departure for negotiations within Resolution 242.

Despite these recent forceful statements, including Netanyahu's address to Congress that he's wrapping up right now, I am not optimistic about meaningful developments occurring in the short-term. The gaps between the two sides seem as wide as ever before, judging by the proclamations of both sides. Hopefully, if negotiations resume, Israeli and Palestinian leaderships will compromise on their public positions.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

Despite these recent forceful statements, including Netanyahu's address to Congress that he's wrapping up right now, I am not optimistic about meaningful developments occurring in the short-term. The gaps between the two sides seem as wide as ever before, judging by the proclamations of both sides. Hopefully, if negotiations resume, Israeli and Palestinian leaderships will compromise on their public positions.

Hear, hear.

[Bob]

Not sure I agree. I think that if Palestinians didnt resist the occupation, the territories would have been annexed a long long time ago. I dont see very many attacks on Israel coming out of the Golan Heights... but Israel hasnt given up that land either. The only reason the world even pays attention is because theres violence and bloodshed. There would be no popular outrage at all if palestinians stopped resisting the occupation, because there would be nothing in the news cycle.

If you really think that then you don't understand Israeli or Jewish sentiment. I think the Palestinians are paying the price for their track record of violence. They simply cannot be trusted with full sovereignty at this time, hence Netanyahu's demand for demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, as well as a military presence along the Jordan River. Israel has legitimate security concerns regarding a future Palestinian state, and the military and civilian cemeteries filled with young people in Israel who have been victimized by war and terror should be proof enough. Has the Palestinians adhered to a non-violent policy since 1967, things would've been different. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, enough of them maintained the same violent approach that they've held since the late 20th century, this leads to them not being worthy of trust with full sovereignty, and it is exactly why the West Bank is occupied.

Moonlight Graham is half right, but he holds the flawed perspective that Israel WANTS to seize land across the 1967 Lines just for the hell of it. The supposition is clear: Israel is an aggressive country that seeks to seize as much land as possible, so how can we stop it? If that was true, then what was behind the Arab invasion of 1948 to destroy Israel? Or 1956? or 1967? Moonlight Graham doesn't seem willing or able to accept that there is widespread opposition among Palestinians to Israel as whole. Their grievance isn't with Israel's borders, it is with Israel itself. This is why they "mourn" Israel's anniversary of independence. They view this land as entirely their own, and are unwilling to accept a Jewish state. The reality Israel's detractors often avoid is that Israel in in the West Bank by necessity and not by choice.

[Moonlight Graham]

Moonlight Graham is half right, but he holds the flawed perspective that Israel WANTS to seize land across the 1967 Lines just for the hell of it. The supposition is clear: Israel is an aggressive country that seeks to seize as much land as possible, so how can we stop it? If that was true, then what was behind the Arab invasion of 1948 to destroy Israel? Or 1956? or 1967?

Who is "we"? I'm not a Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Israeli. I'm a white Canadian with European roots who doesn't give a hoot whether the final deal ends up with Israel getting 90% of the land or 10% land, and for the Palestinians vice versa, as long as there's peace i'm happy. I'm just calling it as i see it based on the history.

I never said Israel wants "to seize land across the 1967 Lines just for the hell of it". Your words in my mouth, same with your claim of my "supposition". In 1948 & 1973 Israel was attacked. In 1967 they launched a pre-emptive attack against mobilizing Arab countries. Israel defended itself, moved into the occupied land. They remain where they are for both security reasons as you infer, and because much of the land they still occupy they see as part historical Israel. That's why they've build settlements in WB, Gaza, Golan Heights, yada yada. It stakes a claim on the area, making it harder for Palestinians to lay claim to it in any negotiations.

The Palestinians/Arabs want similar, at least in territory. Many Israelis would like most if not all of what they consider to be "Israeli land", and many Palestinians want most or all of what they see as "Palestine".

Moonlight Graham doesn't seem willing or able to accept that there is widespread opposition among Palestinians to Israel as whole. Their grievance isn't with Israel's borders, it is with Israel itself. This is why they "mourn" Israel's anniversary of independence. They view this land as entirely their own, and are unwilling to accept a Jewish state. The reality Israel's detractors often avoid is that Israel in in the West Bank by necessity and not by choice.

Israel is in WB partly for security reasons, yes, but to say it's not their choice to be there is illogical. They have free will. That doesn't mean i'm making a judgment call on the choice, heck i'd probably do the same were I them. But it seems clear why they're there.

I agree that many Palestinians wish all Jews to leave and to gain back the territory they once had, and it seems this sentiment is stronger (or in a greater %) among Arabs/Pals than of Israelis' wish to have all of what they once had thousands of years ago. Israelis, generally speaking (they're are many different viewpoints on both sides of course), seem more willing to share some of the land than Palestinians. But now both have to be realistic knowing neither is going away, and to cut a deal that all sides can live with. Tne biggest problem, IMO, are the radical "spoilers" on both sides who don`t accept any concessions, ie: Arab rocket fire from Gaza into Israel despite Israel conceding it to the Palestinians in 2005, + Arab/Pal terrorists, Israeli thugs etc.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Remiel]

The main reason the Mufti wanted his own "country" was to promote his clan's position as the keepers of al-Aqsa and that he hated the Hashemites over in Jordan (assassinated their first King).

In what I was reading yesterday, his self-aggrandizement went much further than that. Amin al-Husayni at one point attempted to make a bid for Caliph. The guy had serious delusions of grandeur.

But, facts are facts. The Palestinian Cause was dreamed-up by a Jew-Baiter and former SS man. I know it is PC to deny this connection as nobody wants to see themselves supporting National Socialism in its current modern form. But, we know that the Mufti worked for Hitler and was good friends with many top Nazis including Himmler and Eichmann. He is now thought to be personally responsible for the deaths of some 500-750,000 Jews in the Balkans.

Logically it does not follow just because something may have historically developed for one reason is necessarily maintains that same meaning over time. A mundane example of this would be of how the snowman is sometimes reported to have had its origin in anti-Semitism. But are you going to suggest that children everywhere are aiding the cause of the Nazis in this apparently subversive annual ritual? Somehow I doubt it.

The world is littered with nations that have their origin in leaders whos primary skill was killing people. In fact, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a major nation whose national mythology does not include connections to such people.

[DogOnPorch]

In what I was reading yesterday, his self-aggrandizement went much further than that. Amin al-Husayni at one point attempted to make a bid for Caliph. The guy had serious delusions of grandeur.

The gold covering on the Dome of the Rock was his doing via international Muslim donations...what was left over, he pocketed.

Logically it does not follow just because something may have historically developed for one reason is necessarily maintains that same meaning over time. A mundane example of this would be of how the snowman is sometimes reported to have had its origin in anti-Semitism. But are you going to suggest that children everywhere are aiding the cause of the Nazis in this apparently subversive annual ritual? Somehow I doubt it.

The world is littered with nations that have their origin in leaders whos primary skill was killing people. In fact, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a major nation whose national mythology does not include connections to such people.

That might be so...but Hitler is no longer glorified at least officially in Germany. The Mufti's nephew took over his dirty work...and Hamas and...well, let's face it, Fatah too...continue it to this very day.

[Michael Hardner]

G8 leaders fall in behind Obama:

France's Sarkozy:

Sarkozy also saluted as courageous U.S. President Barack Obama's recent keynote speech on the Middle East, singling out Mr. Obama's call for an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War. Sarkozy said the remarks responded to world expectations of an engaged America.

Harper also generally supports Obama's [whole] statement:

“President Obama emphasized that in a two-state solution, one of those states has to be a Jewish state and conceded to be a Jewish state, another is that the Palestinian state must be a demilitarized state, so I think these and other message are important messages to deliver,” he said. “And I say I think if you look at the statement in its totality, it was very balanced and it is certainly something that Canada can support.”

Also, the G8 has approved $20B for Arab states that opt for democracy. This is clearly an attempt to get ahead of events in Egypt that will change the landscape for future negotiations. All of this takes place with the previous negotiation positions being public knowledge, via wikileaks.

Egypt has announced that they will be reopening the Gaza border this Saturday:

AP

[bloodyminded]

Obama is making a common mistake that the left keeps repeating.

Lefties like Harper? (See MH's post above.)

[bud]

bib's many no's is an indication that he cannot be and does not want to be a partner in a real and just peace.

uri avnery said it best:

Now, with all the roads blocked, only one path remains open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine.

Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bud

[bush_cheney2004]

bib's many no's is an indication that he cannot be and does not want to be a partner in a real and just peace.

uri avnery said it best:

Now, with all the roads blocked, only one path remains open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation....

Well DUH! You'd think they could have figured this out over 40 years ago. What took so long?

[scouterjim]

Oh dear God! Somebody being somewhat critical of Israel? How can the American president do that to the country that controls the US?

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh dear God! Somebody being somewhat critical of Israel? How can the American president do that to the country that controls the US?

Yea...maybe it would be different if Israel had some softwood lumber! LOL!