Obama’s big Mideast speech

By his headlines he shall be judged:

Obama tells Israel: Go back to 1967 borders

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders

Netanyahu: 1967 borders can’t be defended

Obama Backs Deal Based on 1967 Lines

Netanyahu says ‘No’ to 1967 borders

Hamas: Obama speech a complete failure

And some analysis by Jackson Diehl: The steel in Obama’s Mideast speech

The full text.

This entry was posted in Israel, Middle East, palestinian politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Obama’s big Mideast speech

  1. long_rifle says:

    Wow….

    Just… Wow.

    I bet the Jews that voted for him are happy now…

    … I wonder how AWESOME his second term will be.

    This is exactly what everyone was afraid of, or what I’m sure most of the world was hoping for. “Screw the Jews. We’d rather have a bunch of murderous Muslims to deal with in the middle east.”

    If the President gets a second term America is screwed, and Israel; well I know Israel can take care of herself, but it’s always nice to have another in your corner. I wonder if America will vote yes when the issue of Pali statehood comes up in the UN…

  2. Sabba Hillel says:

    Actually the term “1967 borders” is incorrect. It should be the 1949 truce line. This also calls for the reenactment of the Gush Etzion massacre and the destruction of cities that until now the Arabs admitted would go to Israel.

    Would this mean that Egypt must now turn over the Sinai to Israel and Hamas must return Gush Katif?

  3. Russ says:

    So… why doesn’t “1967 borders” mean the land Israel controlled after the 6 day war in 1967? That sounds reasonable to me.

  4. Cynic says:

    Russ,

    Can’t have that because then one could not use the word “occupier” and imply that Israeli Jews are colonials because it would mean admitting the illegal occupation through violence by Jordan and Egypt, with the help of Iraq, Syria and other Arabs, of the UNSC partition of Palestine in 1948.
    By using the “1967 borders” instead of the correct “1949 Armistice lines” they also imply internationally recognized borders which would be more difficult to discredit in negotiations.
    If only people were aware of the decisions of the San Remo Convention, the Sèvres Conference and UNSC resolutions 242 and 338
    Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith.
    it would be more difficult for politicians to pull this stunt of reneging on International agreements.

Comments are closed.