Obama asks for 1967 border as 'basis' for peace between Israel and Palestine

[tpfkaw]

The US is much more of a client state of Israel than Israel is a client state of the US.

(That is to say, the Israeli government can influence US politics more than the US government can influence Israeli politics).

[Insula Dei]

The US is much more of a client state of Israel than Israel is a client state of the US.

(That is to say, the Israeli government can influence US politics more than the US government can influence Israeli politics).

Hence the 'gone sour'.

[tpfkaw]

Well, you were comparing it to the North Korea-China relationship - surely China has far more influence over North Korea than vice versa.

[Insula Dei]

Well, you were comparing it to the North Korea-China relationship - surely China has far more influence over North Korea than vice versa.

Occasionally one does wonder,... I wouldn't be too surprised if the higher echelons of the People's Republic aren't particulary charmed by some of the North Korean shenanigans.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the 67 borders are not acceptable by either side.   duh!

[danny]

Has there ever been given any thought to making Old Jerusalem an independent city-state status (like Vatican) separate from the conflict and controlled by neither side? Obviously, there is more to this conflict that than that, but still...

There has. See 'Corpus separatum'. Under international law things are actually so unbelievably messed-up that Jerusalem is technically still part of Mandatory Palestine.

In fact, not only the Old City and not only the East Jerusalem, but, technically, the entire Jerusalem, including its Western section: very few countries, if any, have recognized Israeli sovereignty over any of it (US tries to be ambiguous, but, say UK carefully explains this point on official government websites). Of course, as far as West Jerusalem is concerned, this is, mostly, an attempt to exert extra pressure over Israel - nobody envisages Israel actually giving up sovereignty over that.

And Betlehem for that matter, but while the "67" borders were at least in place for 19 years, the UN partition plan wasn't in effect for a single day, and was never even accepted anyway.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Has there ever been given any thought to making Old Jerusalem an independent city-state status (like Vatican) separate from the conflict and controlled by neither side? Obviously, there is more to this conflict that than that, but still...

There has. See 'Corpus separatum'. Under international law things are actually so unbelievably messed-up that Jerusalem is technically still part of Mandatory Palestine.

In fact, not only the Old City and not only the East Jerusalem, but, technically, the entire Jerusalem, including its Western section: very few countries, if any, have recognized Israeli sovereignty over any of it (US tries to be ambiguous, but, say UK carefully explains this point on official government websites). Of course, as far as West Jerusalem is concerned, this is, mostly, an attempt to exert extra pressure over Israel - nobody envisages Israel actually giving up sovereignty over that.

And Betlehem for that matter, but while the "67" borders were at least in place for 19 years, the UN partition plan wasn't in effect for a single day, and was never even accepted anyway.

exactly, things sure were peaceful when those 67 borders were in place...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Topic title changed; excessive hyperbole.

title-nazi, as you can see from the responses of Israel and the PA, Obama has simply inflamed the situation, hence my title of "Obama clears path for next ME war"...see you this summer when you and I both will be watching you eat your self-imposed title, at which point I will lead a mutiny, buzz your tower, and raise the flag of my original title once again.  until then - no soup for you!

[ag]

I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

And you serious believe that a peace deal is going to be possible if a population comparable to Israeli is squeezed into a few disjoint pockets with much less than 1/4th of the land area of Israel? I am afraid, saying anything else is just giving Israelis an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like. Which, frankly, pretty much all Israelis know: that is why so many of them, including the members current government, have consciously decided that they don't want a peace deal.

BTW, though I don't read Hebrew, I do read Russian. At least among the Israeli "Russians", the thing that really and truly scares them most is that there, G-d forbid, might be peace. They are quite vocal about preferring the status quo (except, of course, for those who advocate either mass deportation or extermination).

[bgwah]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

Who said anything about including the Golan Heights in Palestine? That dispute is with Syria, no?

[Verily]

Well, you were comparing it to the North Korea-China relationship - surely China has far more influence over North Korea than vice versa.

Occasionally one does wonder,... I wouldn't be too surprised if the higher echelons of the People's Republic aren't particulary charmed by some of the North Korean shenanigans.

I think wormy's point was that, as much as China may from time-to-time be dragged along after some harebrained scheme of the North Korean government, one does not have to pay lip service to North Korea in order to rise in the Chinese government the way such lip service to Israel is often required in the United States.

This would probably be different if China were a democracy. Of course, if China were a democracy, I doubt anyone in China would support propping up North Korea, so it kind of goes both ways.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

Who said anything about including the Golan Heights in Palestine? That dispute is with Syria, no?

and the West Bank was previously Jordan, no?

[The Mikado]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

Who said anything about including the Golan Heights in Palestine? That dispute is with Syria, no?

and the West Bank was previously Jordan, no?

Among many other differences, Syria actually wants Golan back, while obtaining the West Bank is the stuff of Jordanian nightmares.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Among many other differences, Syria actually wants Golan back, while obtaining the West Bank is the stuff of Jordanian nightmares.

granted, but what gives warring nations the right to ask for land back it lost due to its REPEATED attempts to destroy another nation?  "We want to destroy you, but if we lose, we want our land back!"

[bgwah]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

Who said anything about including the Golan Heights in Palestine? That dispute is with Syria, no?

and the West Bank was previously Jordan, no?

This thread states that this is about the border between Israel and Palestine. I'm just not sure why Shua mentioned the Golan Heights, as that is between Israel and Syria. Do any Palestinians actually claim the Golan Heights anyway?

And Jordan does not even want the West Bank back...

[hawkeye59]

My idea would be to have the border be at the ends of the Western Wall/Dome at the Rock and have the Wall/Dome be a sort of neutral zone, governed by both. Palestine gets what is past the Western Wall in the West Bank, and Israel gets the rest of the West Bank. However, I am unsure who would get the north and the south parts of the West Bank.

[Bacon King]

Among many other differences, Syria actually wants Golan back, while obtaining the West Bank is the stuff of Jordanian nightmares.

granted, but what gives warring nations the right to ask for land back it lost due to its REPEATED attempts to destroy another nation?  "We want to destroy you, but if we lose, we want our land back!"

Egypt got the Sinai back, no?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

granted, but what gives warring nations the right to ask for land back it lost due to its REPEATED attempts to destroy another nation?  "We want to destroy you, but if we lose, we want our land back!"

Egypt got the Sinai back, no?

only through the grace of Israel, which in the coming years will prove to be a HUGE mistake on Israel's part, because now Egypt has 1200-2000 (cant remember the exact total) M1 Abrams tanks and 240 F-16s.

[The Mikado]

To be honest, the Golan dispute is one that I see "remaining unresolved" as being in everyone's best interests for the time being, and I would separate it from the West Bank/Gaza issue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To be honest, the Golan dispute is one that I see "remaining unresolved" as being in everyone's best interests for the time being, and I would separate it from the West Bank/Gaza issue.

yeah, cant see the Golan ever being resolved, same with the Jordan river - no Israeli government is going to allow foreign troops and tanks to be on the Golan or west of the Jordan.  The Golan and Jordan provide natural barriers to the movement of foreign armies.

Also, in the south, if Egypt starts moving a lot of tanks into the Sinai, expect Israel to strike first

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

the key phrase here is 'land swaps'.  any map that stands a chance of being acceptable to a large portion of Israelis is going to be as much land swaps as it is 67 borders, but anything is going to be a tough sell.  I can't believe they would let the country be so thin at Tel Aviv or give up the Golan Heights.  I'm afraid this is just giving Palestinians an unrealistic idea of what a peace deal would be like.

Who said anything about including the Golan Heights in Palestine? That dispute is with Syria, no?

Obama's speech referred to the 1967 borders. With reference to a Palestinian state, Obama didn't mean to include Golan, but the confusion I had was that a Palestinian state didn't exist in 1967, so I was thinking just in terms of Israel's borders then. I don't know how the Arab world interpreted it.
 
The Palestinian people need a home, but I don't see what use the 1967 borders are at this point.

[Sbane]

This is probably the best solution. Of course the Israeli right won't stop until there are no people living in Gaza and the West Bank anymore and Hamas/Hezbollah won't stop till Israel is in the sea.

So yeah..nothing will come off this. But hey, at least we aren't acting completely like Israel's bitch. That's a positive step,no?

[Sbane]

Maybe he's just trying to make clear his real interests to those who seem not to yet understand it (and you'd have to be blind, dumb and deaf not to, but still...)

Damn Sam, you're so smart. You really should start charging people for the opportunity to read your posts.

In short, the Israelis will never agree to these lines because it makes Israel almost indefensible, and the Palestinians will never agree to these lines because they want pre-1946 lines.

The trick is to figure out what to do about those minorities.

Put them all in the same room, lock the doors, and give everyone a knife?

[danny]

My idea would be to have the border be at the ends of the Western Wall/Dome at the Rock and have the Wall/Dome be a sort of neutral zone, governed by both. Palestine gets what is past the Western Wall in the West Bank, and Israel gets the rest of the West Bank. However, I am unsure who would get the north and the south parts of the West Bank.

In what direction? I ask because I don't think you understand how the West Bank borders are like, they are not at all straight so you can't just say past a certain point.