The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Re: Obama & Israel

Text Size

Quin: You're wrong about the subtext of Obama's remarks on Israel. Read again: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps": This is the Israeli position. He explicitly rejected the Palestinian effort to seek UN recognition for a state on the '67 borders, which is why many pro-Palestinian commenters are upset with him. Obama has palpably shifted away from his habit of picking fights with the Netanyahu government, and it's churlish not to recognize this.

UPDATE: More from David Frum on Obama's message to Mahmoud Abbas.

View all comments (23) | Leave a comment

simon templar| 5.19.11 @ 2:51PM

So you say this is the Israeli position? Odd..
Just read this in the news: Israel‘s prime minister has rejected a key aspect of President Barack Obama’s policy speech, saying that a return to his country’s 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish state.
In a statement released late Thursday, Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines “indefensible.”
The tough stand could set the stage for a tense meeting Friday when Netanyahu goes to the White House.
Tabin, how do you explain this?

2Anglico| 5.19.11 @ 2:54PM

The 1967 lines include a DIVIDED Jerusalem, a non-starter if there ever was.

Mike| 5.19.11 @ 3:34PM

A non starter according to who?

Al Adab| 5.19.11 @ 4:41PM

According to the folks who won, not the folks who started, the war.

NoBama| 5.19.11 @ 10:07PM

According to anyone who treasure western civilization, moron.

2Anglico| 5.20.11 @ 10:33AM

Mike, if your question was serious I might answer. However, after reading a couple of your smart alec remarks below, you are not worth the energy required to move my fingers across the keyboard.

2Anglico| 5.20.11 @ 10:45AM

Obama himself in an earlier speech called for "an undivided Jerusalem". Or was he lying then too?

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 2:55PM

Assume that Obama is a swine. When has he ever not been an oblivious scumbag? He should be cutting aid to the PA because they are working with hamas.

Mike| 5.19.11 @ 3:33PM

Assume that Occam is an a**hole. Oh wait, we don't have to assume. We have definitive proof.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:41PM

Dear Mike,

I am proud that you consider me an asshole. A man is known by his enemies.

Al Adab| 5.19.11 @ 4:46PM

If you are to be judged by your enemies, rest content OT. Some people forget who started and who won, that particular war. In fact it was the Israeli commander on the scene who prevented the demolition of the Al Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock, after the army took the temple mount.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:28PM

Also by his friends. Thanks, Al and Margie.

Margie| 5.19.11 @ 7:24PM

Sounds like Toddard to me. Then again, several of his despicable haughty know-it-all scumbag pals sound exactly like him.

Change the name maybe, but the spirit is unmistakable. Disgusting snake.

O.T. is the best friend of Christian and Jew alike.

"For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the Name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward." Mk. 9:41.

And this I know he would do.

God bless you, O.T.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:27PM

Margie, you are a sweetie. After the day I had, thanks.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:44PM

Dear Mike,

just after I responded to you, my copy of ProPigAnda Drawing the Line Against Jihad by Bosch Fawstin arrived. Tell me, Mike, when you are catamiting your terrorist master, is there a particular position you prefer?

Mike| 5.19.11 @ 4:18PM

Dear Occam,

It has always been clear that the "tool" you think with is the little head. You just confirmed with this post. But, nice SAT word. I'm sure it sent several AmSpec readers to their dictionaries.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:26PM

You must have me confused with Clint, dear boy---funny, since you remind me of him.

Catamite is what you are. terrorist is the definition of your employer as catamite.

Mike| 5.19.11 @ 4:28PM

Old Quin Hillyer hasn't been this amusing since the time a couple of months ago when he just couldn't figure out what the party line was going to be concerning using air power in Libya.

Oldefarte| 5.19.11 @ 5:12PM

[Mike| 5.19.11 @ 3:34PMA non starter according to who?]. According to anyone with INTELLIGENCE, which apparently leaves you out. Oh, and for everyone information that is currently unaware of your asinine posts, the only """a**hole""" here is WHO I'm responding to presently!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.19.11 @ 5:16PM

PS: No I apologize for insinuating that you're an ''''a**hole''''. I completely misspoke.....YOU ARE A MORON [since it's possible for the former kind of human being to have intelligence]!!!

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 6:21PM

At what point does Obama return to the 1947 borders? See how this works.

Tish| 5.19.11 @ 7:44PM

I'd suggest that someone hand Obama a topographic map and any book on military tactics, but I don't judge His Oneness competent to grasp that indefensible borders are worse than no agreed borders.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:55PM

This is the same rhetoric that has been danced around for decades involving the Israelis and the Palestinians. The US should make it clear that it will do everything in its' power to defeat the Palestinians' desire for statehood, both before the UN and the world, UNLESS it agrees to first signing a declaration - in Jerusalem - of Israel's right to exist. Respective borders can be negotiated - fairly - later. What's critical, and non-negotiable, is the requirement that Middle Eastern nations, along with the UN, recognize Israel's right to exist.

If you're truly interested in peace, you'll first recognize the need to agree to your enemy's right to exist as a sovereign nation before signing any peace agreement.

Until that Rubicon is crossed, demonstrating the Palestinians' true intent, there's no need for the Israelis to discuss anything with anyone - including Obama.