Obama to Israel, "Fuck you"

[lookout123]

Obama's plan for returning to pre-1967 borders is brilliant. Sure, those the expanded borders were the result of a failed attempt by Israel's neighbors to wipe the country off the map, but "hey there little country surrounded by people who want you all dead... it's your fault for existing in the first place".

He took "great pains" to speak to encourage Israel but at the same time took a swipe at something most in that nation consider to be non-negotiable. Obama has made it clear since taking office that his support for Israel is not as set in stone as it was with previous presidents, but I think this really screws them over.

[Happy Monkey]

How does this screw them over? They wouldn't even stop putting up buildings when we asked them to. What do they care where we think the borders should be?

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.

Hasn't this been the US proposal for a long time? Is the major shift in foreign policy that now we said it at a stronger level of diplomat-speak?

[Uday]

Obviously, I would like to see the Sinai returned to full Egyptian control. Nobody in their right mind wants Gaza. I have no opinion about the rest of the disputed territories. If you lose a war, losing territory is the least that can happen to you.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Obama's plan for returning to pre-1967 borders is brilliant. Sure, those the expanded borders were the result of a failed attempt by Israel's neighbors to wipe the country off the map, but "hey there little country surrounded by people who want you all dead... it's your fault for existing in the first place".

He took "great pains" to speak to encourage Israel but at the same time took a swipe at something most in that nation consider to be non-negotiable. Obama has made it clear since taking office that his support for Israel is not as set in stone as it was with previous presidents, but I think this really screws them over.

As a strong supporter of Israel, I would describe it as tough, certainly much tougher than Bush, who leaned too far the other way, but hardly a "Fuck You." In part, it was a result of Netanyahu's insistence on continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, when he and every observer recognized that his actions were not helpful (to put it mildly) to the peace process.

My reading of Israel sentiments is that the country is mixed on the best scenario to pursue peace and a legitimate Palestinian state. The West Bank, is negotiable, as is Gaza, to many, in return for an immediate end of Hamas attacks out of Gaza and a recognition of Israel's security needs.

Israel is still the largest recipient of US aid, to the tune of $3 billion/year and we can, and IMO should, be a little more demanding of Netanyahu.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Stop the money.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

...

Hasn't this been the US proposal for a long time? Is the major shift in foreign policy that now we said it at a stronger level of diplomat-speak?

The difference is that Obama is proposing it (pre-1967 borders) as a pre-condition for negotiations, along with pre-conditions on the PA and Hamas, whereas Bush and Clinton proposed it as a required outcome.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Uday

Obviously, I would like to see the Sinai returned to full Egyptian control.

I think it was, in 1979

[glatt]

Just went for a lunch time walk. There's a metric assload of security over at the White House today. I'm pretty sure I read that Netanyahu is in town today, so that would explain it. You know, to protect Obama from the pissed off PM.

Seriously, I've never seen that much security at and around the White House. But they have a spot right out in front where protestors are holding up signs calling for an end to aid to Israel.

[HungLikeJesus]

VP Biden was visiting my workplace today so I am working from home.

I just had a thought: I hope he doesn't come here, the living room is a mess.

[piercehawkeye45]

Obama's foreign policy style is much more pragmatic. I'm guessing he emphasized the pre-1967 border as the separation line between the two states because he believes that is the most realistic approach to a lasting peace. Israeli and Palestinian demands have very little overlap and the emotional level of the issue makes it nearly impossible to solve. It is obvious that neither side will be happy with any peace agreement so it must be expected that both sides sacrifice some "non-negotiable" demands for a realistic and legitimate compromise.

Both sides need to get their act together and the longer the issue is put on hold, the worse it is going to get for both states. Israel is demographic time bomb and the longer Palestinians are in their current position the more radical their "governments" will become.

[ZenGum]

I see it less as "Fuck you Israel" and more as "Israel, stop butt-fucking Palestine in the mouth".

I took the bit about the 1967 borders to be where negotiations should start, and any changes achieved by land-swaps.

Just my two shekels.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I think it was, in 1979

No, the area is under the United Nations Multi-national Force Observers. Egypt governs the area, but it is not actually under Egyptian control.

To put it another way, how would you feel if the UN had a military presence in Texas?

[Undertoad]

Just suddenly overnight for no reason?

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Uday

No, the area is under the United Nations Multi-national Force Observers. Egypt governs the area, but it is not actually under Egyptian control.

To put it another way, how would you feel if the UN had a military presence in Texas?

True. We send a battalion of National Guard troops for that mission. Usual rotation is for 6 months

[Rhianne]

Yes, it is true, along with several of my colleagues I was 'arrested' by them one time. I don't swear often, especially when typing, but the phrase 'fucking idiots' comes to mind.