Final word on Obama’s 1967 borders suggestion…

“But Gladiator, going back to the 67 borders doesn’t mean Genocide” … Anyone who tells you that, even if it is a President, is either lying to you or simply has not studied the issue and/or been to Israel. That is not extremist talk, that is not a theory, it is the reality on the ground. We understand that many people reading this do not understand or could even fathom such a reality. The following short video shows exactly the how and why of  what we have told you, and what the Israeli government has maintained for many years.

Let us keep a few thoughts in mind that President Obama went to that “church” in Chicago which preached caustic antisemitism for many years. Antisemitic comments from Rev. Wright and Louis Farakhan are nothing new (Farrakhan was a frequent visitor) . Antisemitism is also in high fashion among the academic left which the other of Obama’s peer circles.

What I found amusing is that lie that came from the far left immediately after Obama’s speech is that “1967 borders have always been the policy of the United States so Obama isn’t saying anything new (so you must be racist because you are criticizing him for saying it)”. The truth must be put to this lie right now:

Via Bob Schneider (former Reagan Administration):

What Real Presidents, and their Secretaries of State, had to say about pre 1967 borders.

by Bob Schneider

Obama’s speech today took the peace process backward, instead of forward. Back when the USA had an adult in the White House, here is what they had to say about the Pre-1967 “Borders”

In an address delivered on September 1, 1982 President Ronald Reagan said:

In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again… So the  United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gazain association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations

Meanwhile Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. Security Council: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. “Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled the first time he heard someone invoke “the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders”. He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the flood of words used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. Kissinger said those “clashing perspectives” prevented any real bargaining and explained: “Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.”

However, speaking to Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon said “You and I both know they can’t go back to the other [1967] borders. But we must not, on the other hand, say that because the Israelis win this war, as they won the ’67 War, that we just go on with status quo. It can’t be done.” Kissinger replied “I couldn’t agree more”

Moreover, President Gerald Ford said: “TheU.S. further supports the position that a just and lasting peace, which remains our objective, must be acceptable to both sides.

So this is what adults, from both political parties, have had to say about UN 242, and pulling back to 1967 borders. Of all the Presidents, Gerald Ford said it best: it must be acceptable to both sides. Trying to jam a dead UN Agreement down the throats of Israel, sets the stage for another blood bath.

Mini-Update: The spin several days later is that the Obama proposal was similar to the former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert peace proposal. What the administration forgot to say is that when Olmert made this proposal the Israeli population was not pleased as it made a border that was completely indefensible; when Olmert made his proposal to the Palestinian Authority they did not even answer diplomatically, they attacked with mortar fire and rockets [keep in mind that this was the old “more moderate” pre-Hamas Palestinian Authority]. Prime Minister Olmert had to step down because he was indicted for corruption.

The Escape Hatch

Of course, as in most speeches made by politicians an out word or phrase is always inserted so as to make it easier to be securely on both sides of the issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity [Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech].  In the case of Obama’s speech it was 1967 borders “with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, after watching that video how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc? To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.

With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases [Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use them and even made a speech against their use.]

So Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out. One thing is strikingly obvious, President Obama was shocked by the push-back he received from some in his own party. Not only did almost every Republican condemn Obama’s remarks, but so did many Democrats. The simple truth is that most Democrats are not anti-Semites in spite of the fact that the racist “liberation theology” types and many on the academic left are.

Congressman Allen West (Florida-22) gave  a response that was representative of most Republicans:

Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid rebuked Obama on national televisionvideo

About Chuck Norton

I write about politics, education, economics, morality and philosophy.
This entry was posted in Israel, Obama. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s