[quote=BBC]
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected comments from US President Obama that a future Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders.
In a major speech to the State Department, Mr Obama said "mutually agreed swaps" would help create "a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel".
But Mr Netanyahu said those borders, which existed before the 1967 Middle East war, were "indefensible".
Mr Netanyahu is preparing to meet Mr Obama for talks at the White House.
An estimated 300,000 Israelis live in settlements built in the West Bank, which lies outside those borders.
The settlements are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
Seeking solutions
In Thursday's speech on the future of US policy in the Middle East, Mr Obama said the basis of the peace negotiations was to create "a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel".
"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine," he said.
"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."
[URL="http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2011/05/spoketguva190511.htm"]In a statement,[/URL] Mr Netanyahu's office said he appreciated Mr Obama's "commitment to peace" but that for peace to endure, "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state".
The statement called on Mr Obama to reaffirm commitments he made to Israel in 2004.
"Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines," it said.
"Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel."
The BBC's Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says that while Mr Netanyahu will be warmly welcomed in the US, he is coming under increasing international pressure to ease his objections to a Palestinian state following the unity deal signed between rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah earlier this month.
If the unity project holds, says our correspondent, Mr Netanyahu could find himself foundering while other countries embrace fresh Palestinian initiatives.
Israel's claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the Arab Spring anti-government uprisings, our correspondent adds.
The push for democracy began with the overthrowing of Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak was later toppled in Egypt, with demonstrators in Libya currently working to overthrow dictator Moammar Gaddafi.
Similar uprisings are also taking hold in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13465133[/url]
Unsurprising, to say the least.
of course, if it went down like that israel would sorta be getting the shaft compared to what they have now
This isn't a big surprise, to say the least.
After all, cutting off half of the country borders and giving them to palestine while there are people still living in them (Who hate arabs, ALOT.) wouldn't go well.
israel didn't care when they did the same except they were people that hate jews... ALOT
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29941688]israel didn't care when they did the same except they were people that hate jews... ALOT[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, no shit, that's the reason most palestinians ran out of the country, because they were actually going to agree upon splitting Palestine.
The irony hurts.
[QUOTE=loled;29941618]This isn't a big surprise, to say the least.
After all, cutting off half of the country borders and giving them to palestine while there are people still living in them (Who hate arabs, ALOT.) wouldn't go well.[/QUOTE]
....they wouldn't be losing a lot of land, that's the funniest part. They lose a bunch of shit they took in 2000.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29941742]....they wouldn't be losing a lot of land, that's the funniest part. They lose a bunch of shit they took in 2000.[/QUOTE]
That's the exact reason this conflict is hilarious.
(Untill they and us start bombing each other, that is.)
[QUOTE=loled;29941798]That's the exact reason this conflict is hilarious.
(Untill they and us start bombing each other, that is.)[/QUOTE]
I feel that is inevitable and oddly enough I'm rooting for both sides to fuck each other over because I'm tired of the arguing.
The amusing part is that any-one from Israel that I've spoken to and who isn't a complete tool is actually pretty cool with Muslims.
Hell, I have family in Israel, and the other side of their immediate family is Muslim, they get along just fine.
Netanyahu is a fascist.
[quote]In a major speech to the State Department, Mr Obama said "mutually agreed swaps" would help create "a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel".[/quote]
Is that all he said or did he explicitly say the 1967 borders? Did the media make a big stupid deal over a misinterpretation?
Also this is sensible.
[quote]"Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines," it said.
"Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel." [/quote]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;29941015]of course, if it went down like that israel would sorta be getting the shaft compared to what they have now[/QUOTE]
Except, what they have now is for a large part stolen from the Palestinians.
[img]http://www.a-w-i-p.com/media/blogs/news/Newsdirectory2/palestine_land_theft_2_jpg.jpg[/img]
How exactly would going back to the '67 borders mean Israel gets shafted?
[QUOTE=V12US;29943610]Except, what they have now is for a large part stolen from the Palestinians.
[img_thumb]http://www.a-w-i-p.com/media/blogs/news/Newsdirectory2/palestine_land_theft_2_jpg.jpg[/img_thumb]
How exactly would going back to the '67 borders mean Israel gets shafted?[/QUOTE]
Because Israel wants to wipe Palestine off the map, while simultaneously acting like they're the victim. This goes against that plan.
[QUOTE=V12US;29943610]Except, what they have now is for a large part stolen from the Palestinians.
[img_thumb]http://www.a-w-i-p.com/media/blogs/news/Newsdirectory2/palestine_land_theft_2_jpg.jpg[/img_thumb]
How exactly would going back to the '67 borders mean Israel gets shafted?[/QUOTE]
LOL, well well :) That map is a godamn piece of propaganda art. Let me just repost what I wrote about it in another thread:
The map, as you can see, supposedly describes the decrease of land owned by Palestinians and the increase of land ownership by Jews - obviously trying to lay across a message. This map purposely confuses ownership of land by everyday people, i.e. [b]private property[/b], and [b]land owned by political entities[/b]. I will explain why each map is incorrect by referring to each map as "stage X" [stage I, II etc'] chronologically, from left to right.
[u]Stage I:[/u]
This map refers to land Palestinians and Jews owned in the time of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine"]British Mandate for Palestine[/url]. At this stage, land ownership is by [b]private property[/b]. Now, lets get a legitimate, reliable map to contras that map:
[img]http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a/Body/0.246!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg[/img]
[url="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/90634f6f0dc8cd1b85256d0a00549202/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a?OpenDocument"]Source[/url], this map is a map composed by the UN.
As you can see, in some districts, such as the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beersheba"]Beersheba[/url] district, is mostly owned by the [u]state[/u], as in the British administration. In fact, the original map completely ignores the status of public property, and presents it as Palestinian [b]private property[/b] (i.e., land owned by private people who are of Palestinian ethnicity). This is just one instance of why this specific map, of Stage I, is unreliable and presents an incomplete and distorted picture of the situation back then.
[u]Stage II[/u]
Now, this one is just a joke. The map presents the outlines of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine"]United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine[/url]. It now presents land ownership of [b]political entities[/b] (the map implies private property=land owned by political entities). The major problem of this map is that it NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.
In 1947, the UN has voted for the implantation of the plan, and got an "aye" - but the Palestinian leadership declined the plan (the Jewish leadership approved) and thus the 1st stage of the Israeli War of Independence broke. So basically, map shows a never-occurred situation, yet is part of a "Palestinian loss of land" scheme. You can't lose what you don't have, duh!
[u]Stage III[/u]
Now it gets even funnier. In 1948, in the war of independence, Jordanian forces have [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem_by_Jordan"]occupied[/url] the West Bank and annexed it in 1951. In the very same war Egypt has [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt"]occupied[/url] the Gaza Strip. So, either now the map hops back to the classification of land by [b]private property[/b] - or it just lies. I would guess the latter, because otherwise it will form inconsistency by presenting Israel as entirely owned by Jews, because that wasn't the case (Arabs had and have private properties in the form of land in Israel, although almost all of the land is owned by the government.
So - this stage shows lands that aren't owned by any Palestinian political entity as "Palestinian land". That's a lie, historically speaking.
[u]Stage IV[/u]
And now, the map shows only lands that are directly [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Administration"]administrated[/url] by the Palestinian Authority as "Palestinian land". Remember, in stage III the entire West Bank was owned by the Jordanian kingdom, yet it was shown as "Palestinian land".
And that's why that map is [b]SHITTY[/b]. Hope that settles it.
P.S., I lol'd at the pictures, Arafat on the map of the partition map, Ahmad Yassin on the 1947-1967 map. Fucking lol'd, no historical context whatsoever.
P.P.S., Tel-Aviv are two seperate words, it's not "Telaviv", dear propagandist map makers.
[QUOTE=Omali;29945343]Because Israel wants to wipe Palestine off the map, while simultaneously acting like they're the victim. This goes against that plan.[/QUOTE]
Have you any proof of this other than what you perceive by yourself?
I've heard lots of Palestinians/Arabs saying they want to get rid of all of Israel but never an Israeli saying to get rid of all of the Palestinians.
Yea the US can go invading other stuff and occupy it and Israel cant?
Kinda unfair for them even though they are somewhat a dictatorship.
Israel isn't a dictatorship. And I disagree, might doesn't make right. In the 6 day war the West Bank was occupied from the Jordanian kingdom as part of the war.
There will be a joint statement with Obama and Netanyahu at 12:15 ET let's see what they have to say mkay?
That's around 5pm GMT right?
uh...
sure
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29945533]Israel isn't a dictatorship. And I disagree, might doesn't make right. In the 6 day war the West Bank was occupied from the Jordanian kingdom as part of the war.[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that the IDF response is proportional?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;29945841]uh...
sure[/QUOTE]
Well I'm brimmed with confidence.
[QUOTE=Contag;29946524]Do you believe that the IDF response is proportional?[/QUOTE]
While being at total war with 3 countries? Fuck yeah.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29946876]While being at total war with 3 countries? Fuck yeah.[/QUOTE]
I think he means currently.
ITT over defensive Israeli.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
