- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Who said which:
“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. “
“Israel must have secure and rec…ognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949….”
And what is the difference between the two?
the end of the statement (the part you left out (i’ll even put it in bold) and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
nowhere does he suggest anything about going to 1967 borders and says Isreal and the Palestinians should work it out
HE WASNT A HOTSHOT THAT DECIDED TO DICTATE WHAT ISRAEL SHOULD DO
Charlie Hall: Please explain the refugee issue? I understand that Bush declared that Israel will not give major territorial concessions before Palestinians agree to resolve the refugee issue and recognize Israel right as a Jewish state. Obama has clearly stated that Israel should first recede to the ’67’ lines and only later address the refugee issue; which of course the Palestinians will never agree to compromise on, so there will never be peace.
Where in his speech did he say anything like that Israel should recede to 67 borders before there’s an agreement? He said the 67 borders should form the basis for negotiation and that that negotiation will need to resolve the refugee issue. If that issue is unresolvable, then the negotiations are as well, and it really doesn’t matter at all where they start.
Mosheemes: Obama did not call on the Palestinians to compromise on the issue of refugees/recognize Israel’s right as being a Jewish state, as a pre condition for negotiations on ’67’ borders, unlike Bush who had stated that in his Road map speech.
When did Bush ever say a resolution to the refugee issue was a precondition to negotiations?
Bush’s Road Map said:
was this part of what he said in the roadmap
“Israel must have secure and rec…ognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949….”
btw my original quote came from the scoop
and for the record (shows you how liberals construe the facts) this is the full text of what Charlie was quoting
A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors. The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations on the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah – endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit – calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbor living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement. This initiative is a vital element of international efforts to promote a comprehensive peace on all tracks, including the Syrian-Israeli and Lebanese-Israeli tracks.
if I have the Mods permission I’m posting the article from BBC which says the road map in it’s entirety
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm
and if not it’s reading pleasure for the mods anyway you can google my quote
Obama yesterday:
“Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away.”
Doesn’t sound like he thinks Israel can be dictated to at all.
Really, CharlieHall?
You write about Bush and 1967 borders:
…You can’t get much more categorical than that.
YES YOU CAN get more categorical than that. You can say what Obama did “The borders of Israel and Palestine SHOULD be based on the 1967 lines ..”
Bush never said anything close to that. The wording of the roadmap was chosen very carefully. It does say that “..the negotiated peace will be based on a foundation of …..”
The foundation is the idea of a land swap which Israel very well expects to do. The roadmap does not state that Israel will follow the instructions of King Abdullah regarding 1967 borders. The big thing that Abdullah brought to the table was the idea that the Arab Countries will recognize Israel and make peace with Israel. It is very notable that the document specifically does not state that the final negotiated peace will be based on 1967 borders. It states that the occupation of 1967 will end. This is because by definition the peace settlement means that the world and the palestinians will no longer consider the final Israeli borders that lie beyond the 1967 borders to be “occupied”.
I am no fan of Obama, but there are two other things fueling the flames here: 1) the main stream media are the ones who have turned Obama’s quote using the word “lines” (as in, armistice lines not intended to be final borders) into U.S. policy substituting “lines” for “borders” (implying the final borders between two sovereign countries being the armistice lines with no swapping for settlements).
2) The general public doesn’t know what the “1967 lines” are, and they still don’t know what it means when they hear it turned into “1967 borders” (courtesy of the MSM). Nor do they know that that it could mean either pre- or post-6 day war the way it reads.
thank you for posting it in it’s entirety
Charlie,
have nothing to say?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.