Obama does not state the 1967 border should be returned...

[Too Tall]

I posted a map and reasoning, your problem now is, you have pigeon holed the argument and I no longer care.

frankly it matters not what bush and Sharon exchanged in 04.....get the hint dopey?

anyway, obama was clearly referring to pre 67....logic is not your friend.

ttfn

And you are a liar. You cannot show me the word PRE in Obama's speech. You should get a job with FOX, since you are so talented at lying. Maybe Hannity can hire you to detail his waterboarding that never occured,

Is it your contention that the borders Obama referred to were the POST 67 borders?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I posted a map and reasoning, your problem now is, you have pigeon holed the argument and I no longer care.

frankly it matters not what bush and Sharon exchanged in 04.....get the hint dopey?

anyway, obama was clearly referring to pre 67....logic is not your friend.

ttfn

And you are a liar. You cannot show me the word PRE in Obama's speech. You should get a job with FOX, since you are so talented at lying. Maybe Hannity can hire you to detail his waterboarding that never occured,

Is it your contention that the borders Obama referred to were the POST 67 borders?

They can't get past the pre word. sure let's go with the post 67 borders

 

[Too Tall]

If by "hes" you mean Obama, then you are lying!

And by "them" I'm guessing you mean the Palestinians. Yes?

he as in Abbas...you know the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.

This is what CNN has to say about the borders Obama referred to in his speech. Perhaps you can figure out that PRE 67 borders means the borders that existed before the ME war. Would you prefer that they return to the post 1967 borders?

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
By Tom Cohen, CNN
May 20, 2011 -- Updated 0053 GMT (0853 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

 

[Sallow]

Land for peace has always worked SO well in the past

Then conflicts will continue, and that is okay with you. The settlements will not stop as long as BN is in charge. Let's throw some more money at it, that we don't have. That is also okay.

Why should they stop settling their land?

This sort of thing is indicative of the conservative approach to foreign policy for this country. Hubris and arrogance. Lately, nothing exists in the realm of the conservative psyche other then Israel and America. Which is why they fail so badly at even coming close to solving this problem. Both Clinton and Carter came close. Reagan, Bush I and 11 failed to even recognize this was even a problem. While Bush II did manage to wrangle out the Gaza Strip from the Israelis, it was handled so poorly it was shocking. The Israelis smashed up infrastructure before they left and built a plethora of walls and check points.

Nothing about Obama's speech or view is radically different from the two Presidents before him. It does differ from Bush's approach somewhat in that it wants to bring all players to the table as equals.

The Israeli economy is totally dependent on America. They recieve billions in aid to maintain what is..for the most part..a dangerously artificial state. And they have absolutely no incentive to deal with their neighbors who in turn, have very little incentive to deal with them. And this sore spot has hatched some pretty viral eggs in the form of terrorism

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then conflicts will continue, and that is okay with you. The settlements will not stop as long as BN is in charge. Let's throw some more money at it, that we don't have. That is also okay.

Why should they stop settling their land?

This sort of thing is indicative of the conservative approach to foreign policy for this country. Hubris and arrogance. Lately, nothing exists in the realm of the conservative psyche other then Israel and America. Which is why they fail so badly at even coming close to solving this problem. Both Clinton and Carter came close. Reagan, Bush I and 11 failed to even recognize this was even a problem. While Bush II did manage to wrangle out the Gaza Strip from the Israelis, it was handled so poorly it was shocking. The Israelis smashed up infrastructure before they left and built a plethora of walls and check points.

Nothing about Obama's speech or view is radically different from the two Presidents before him. It does differ from Bush's approach somewhat in that it wants to bring all players to the table as equals.

The Israeli economy is totally dependent on America. They recieve billions in aid to maintain what is..for the most part..a dangerously artificial state. And they have absolutely no incentive to deal with their neighbors who in turn, have very little incentive to deal with them. And this sore spot has hatched some pretty viral eggs in the form of terrorism

It's hard to negotiate with people who have one thing on their mind your extermination.

 

[Stephanie]

I think the Obama should reveal his true self and CUT OFF AID to Iseral. He seems to think that is the reason he can DICTATE what Iseral should do because of it.

it wants to bring all players to the table as equals.

And he wants all sides to come to the table, how the hell do you come together with people who want to see you wiped off the face of the earth.

You liberals will defend anything this idiot President does.

 

[Sallow]

Why should they stop settling their land?

This sort of thing is indicative of the conservative approach to foreign policy for this country. Hubris and arrogance. Lately, nothing exists in the realm of the conservative psyche other then Israel and America. Which is why they fail so badly at even coming close to solving this problem. Both Clinton and Carter came close. Reagan, Bush I and 11 failed to even recognize this was even a problem. While Bush II did manage to wrangle out the Gaza Strip from the Israelis, it was handled so poorly it was shocking. The Israelis smashed up infrastructure before they left and built a plethora of walls and check points.

Nothing about Obama's speech or view is radically different from the two Presidents before him. It does differ from Bush's approach somewhat in that it wants to bring all players to the table as equals.

The Israeli economy is totally dependent on America. They recieve billions in aid to maintain what is..for the most part..a dangerously artificial state. And they have absolutely no incentive to deal with their neighbors who in turn, have very little incentive to deal with them. And this sore spot has hatched some pretty viral eggs in the form of terrorism

It's hard to negotiate with people who have one thing on their mind your extermination.

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians. And their "sweeps" have landed thousands in jail with no charges. But the Palestinians have to get over that..and come to the table. It isn't going to work any other way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This sort of thing is indicative of the conservative approach to foreign policy for this country. Hubris and arrogance. Lately, nothing exists in the realm of the conservative psyche other then Israel and America. Which is why they fail so badly at even coming close to solving this problem. Both Clinton and Carter came close. Reagan, Bush I and 11 failed to even recognize this was even a problem. While Bush II did manage to wrangle out the Gaza Strip from the Israelis, it was handled so poorly it was shocking. The Israelis smashed up infrastructure before they left and built a plethora of walls and check points.

Nothing about Obama's speech or view is radically different from the two Presidents before him. It does differ from Bush's approach somewhat in that it wants to bring all players to the table as equals.

The Israeli economy is totally dependent on America. They recieve billions in aid to maintain what is..for the most part..a dangerously artificial state. And they have absolutely no incentive to deal with their neighbors who in turn, have very little incentive to deal with them. And this sore spot has hatched some pretty viral eggs in the form of terrorism

It's hard to negotiate with people who have one thing on their mind your extermination.

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians. And their "sweeps" have landed thousands in jail with no charges. But the Palestinians have to get over that..and come to the table. It isn't going to work any other way.

Why are you lying?

 

[Sallow]

It's hard to negotiate with people who have one thing on their mind your extermination.

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians. And their "sweeps" have landed thousands in jail with no charges. But the Palestinians have to get over that..and come to the table. It isn't going to work any other way.

Why are you lying?

Look..if you are going to ignore history..then the discussion is over. Far more arabs have been killed by Israelis then vice versa.

 

[edthecynic]

he as in Abbas...you know the Palestinian? do you know of any others who are lobbying the UN for same? again this is common knowledge, you are just flying by the seat of your pants here.....


QED, the pre 1967 'point' of yours , is inane.

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.

This is what CNN has to say about the borders Obama referred to in his speech. Perhaps you can figure out that PRE 67 borders means the borders that existed before the ME war. Would you prefer that they return to the post 1967 borders?

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
By Tom Cohen, CNN
May 20, 2011 -- Updated 0053 GMT (0853 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.

 

[Too Tall]

I know Obama is NOT lobbying for PRE-1967 borders, contrary to FAUX and the GOP spin machine and the majority of CON$ervative parrots on this board, so my PRE-1967 point is quite relevant.

This is what CNN has to say about the borders Obama referred to in his speech. Perhaps you can figure out that PRE 67 borders means the borders that existed before the ME war. Would you prefer that they return to the post 1967 borders?

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
By Tom Cohen, CNN
May 20, 2011 -- Updated 0053 GMT (0853 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.

At last we are making some progress. Are the lines Obama referred to before (pre) the 1967 war or after (post) the 1967 war? The maps shown on this thread show Israel in control of the entire area, all the way to the Suez Canal after the war. I am sure that is not what he was referring to, so common sense dictates that he meant the lines before (pre) the war. The fact that he didn't use the word 'pre' means nothing.

Would you mutually agree with someone that has vowed before their God to kill you?

I do find it rather amusing that anyone would refer to CNN as conservative.

 

[Sallow]

This is what CNN has to say about the borders Obama referred to in his speech. Perhaps you can figure out that PRE 67 borders means the borders that existed before the ME war. Would you prefer that they return to the post 1967 borders?

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
By Tom Cohen, CNN
May 20, 2011 -- Updated 0053 GMT (0853 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.

At last we are making some progress. Are the lines Obama referred to before (pre) the 1967 war or after (post) the 1967 war? The maps shown on this thread show Israel in control of the entire area, all the way to the Suez Canal after the war. I am sure that is not what he was referring to, so common sense dictates that he meant the lines before (pre) the war. The fact that he didn't use the word 'pre' means nothing.

Would you mutually agree with someone that has vowed before their God to kill you?

I do find it rather amusing that anyone would refer to CNN as conservative.

CNN is pretty conservative in terms of it's editorial views. It's also very America centric.

CNN international shows a bit more objectivity.

 

[edthecynic]

This is what CNN has to say about the borders Obama referred to in his speech. Perhaps you can figure out that PRE 67 borders means the borders that existed before the ME war. Would you prefer that they return to the post 1967 borders?

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
By Tom Cohen, CNN
May 20, 2011 -- Updated 0053 GMT (0853 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders - CNN.com

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

Full transcript of Obama's Middle East speech - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.

At last we are making some progress. Are the lines Obama referred to before (pre) the 1967 war or after (post) the 1967 war? The maps shown on this thread show Israel in control of the entire area, all the way to the Suez Canal after the war. I am sure that is not what he was referring to, so common sense dictates that he meant the lines before (pre) the war. The fact that he didn't use the word 'pre' means nothing.

Would you mutually agree with someone that has vowed before their God to kill you?

I do find it rather amusing that anyone would refer to CNN as conservative.

Clearly it is post 1967, and clearly only involving Palestinian land. The land up to the Suez Canal was Egypt's.

Here is a map that shows what land would be involved in a return to 1967 borders.

 

[Trajan]

interesting, apparently we aren't the only ones whom have been "duped".



Obama wants Cameron to back Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders

US president will use visit to London to keep pressure on Israel for Middle East peace deal


Barack Obama will seek a joint Middle East agreement with David Cameron, insisting that a Palestinian state should be based on pre-1967 borders – a proposal rejected by Israel's prime minister as "unrealistic" and "indefensible".

The issue will be raised in private talks between the two men during the state visit by Obama and his wife to London, only the third by a US president in 100 years. Afghanistan, Libya, relations with Pakistan and the global economy – as well as the vacancy for the top job at the IMF – will also make up the agenda.

Despite the outright rejection by the Israeli premier, Binyamin Netanyahu, of a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the Six Day War, when Israel captured and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, Obama has already secured the political backing of the United Nations, European Union and Russia who, with America, are collectively known as the "quartet".

Signalling his determination to keep up pressure on Israel, Obama will be looking to enlist the public support of the UK prime minister. The aim is, in large part, to persuade the Palestinian leadership not to go to the UN in September seeking symbolic backing for an independent state.

Obama wants Cameron to back Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders | World news | The Observer


Oh and Murdoch doesn't appear to own the Guardian...

 

[Too Tall]

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

At last we are making some progress. Are the lines Obama referred to before (pre) the 1967 war or after (post) the 1967 war? The maps shown on this thread show Israel in control of the entire area, all the way to the Suez Canal after the war. I am sure that is not what he was referring to, so common sense dictates that he meant the lines before (pre) the war. The fact that he didn't use the word 'pre' means nothing.

Would you mutually agree with someone that has vowed before their God to kill you?

I do find it rather amusing that anyone would refer to CNN as conservative.

Clearly it is post 1967, and clearly only involving Palestinian land. The land up to the Suez Canal was Egypt's.

Here is a map that shows what land would be involved in a return to 1967 borders.

And here is a map showing the land controlled by Israel after the 1967 war.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...AD4I/T2nWfRAv2dA/Israeli+land+concessions.jpg

 

[Trajan]

obama will be speaking to AIPAC today, I am sure by the end of the speech we'll know what his intentions were or are.

 

[Jack Fate]

Bibi and BO in their early 20's. Place your own caption.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

True. The Israelis have done some pretty nasty things in the past like massacre entire towns of Palestinians. And their "sweeps" have landed thousands in jail with no charges. But the Palestinians have to get over that..and come to the table. It isn't going to work any other way.

Why are you lying?

Look..if you are going to ignore history..then the discussion is over. Far more arabs have been killed by Israelis then vice versa.

One of us is ignoring history. IT AIN'T ME.

 

[edthecynic]

obama will be speaking to AIPAC today, I am sure by the end of the speech we'll know what his intentions were or are.

Obama has already made his intentions clear, you Obama haters just can't accept them.

Here is his interview with the BBC following his speech.

BBC News - Transcript: Andrew Marr interview with President Obama

BBC: You can't have a little archipelago of Palestinian territory?

OBAMA: No. You're going to have two states. And the basis for negotiations will involve looking at the 1967 border, recognising that conditions on the ground have changed, and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides. That's on the one hand.


On the other hand, and this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel's going to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank. And that the security element is going to be important to the Israelis. They will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory, particularly given what they've seen happen in Gaza, and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.


So our argument is let's get started on a conversation about territory and about security. That doesn't resolve all the issues. You still end up having the problem of Jerusalem, and you still end up having the problem of refugees. But if we make progress on what two states would look like, and the, a, reality sets in among the parties this is how it's going to end up, then it becomes easier for both sides to make difficult concessions to resolve those two other issues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The CON$ervative News Network clearly got it wrong. Here are Obama's exact words, please highlight the "pre-1967 borders" part.

At last we are making some progress. Are the lines Obama referred to before (pre) the 1967 war or after (post) the 1967 war? The maps shown on this thread show Israel in control of the entire area, all the way to the Suez Canal after the war. I am sure that is not what he was referring to, so common sense dictates that he meant the lines before (pre) the war. The fact that he didn't use the word 'pre' means nothing.

Would you mutually agree with someone that has vowed before their God to kill you?

I do find it rather amusing that anyone would refer to CNN as conservative.

Clearly it is post 1967, and clearly only involving Palestinian land. The land up to the Suez Canal was Egypt's.

Here is a map that shows what land would be involved in a return to 1967 borders.

Of course a liar such as yourself knoiwningly and willfully use a lying source to push their own lie

Do not use that map anymore

The map that lies - and one that doesn't
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.

Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:


Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. ...If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
Elder of Ziyon: The map that lies - and one that doesn't

This map is a lie.

This one doesn't lie.