Wednesday, May 25, 2011
His name, was George W. Bush:
Found via Twitter
and 57% of Israelis agree with Obama over Bibi. But yet, the conservatives know best lol
It has been the basic position of the US since Clinton. And while that may seem to some of us like just the other day, we are talking a couple of decades at this point.
Not only that but as I think you’ve said it is the only logical position. The Palestinians just happen to be located in the territory that was conquered in the 67 war. Any peace plan that results in a two-state solution is going to have to include a Palestinian state that is made up of some portion of that territory.
I will say that the Palestinians can’t be all that thrilled with the idea of having a country that’s divided between the West Bank and Gaza, especially with Gaza’s penchant for radicalism. In fact, I’m not sure anyone really wants Gaza.
Club Med — Gaza!
A point I’ve made before.
I don’t quite get the video’s “pre-1949” statement. First, that’s not what President Bush said (no “pre-“), and secondly, the borders we’re discussing existed from 1949 to 1967 before the war, right? Or is my history off?
LISTEN to what GW actually said, people!!! He SAID that they would need to start with mutually agreed adjustments to the Armastice lines of 1949 and reflect current realities. The only thing he said about 1967 was concerning the fact that Israel has been occupiers since that date. Barack Obama, on the other hand, said that the borders should be based on 1967 boundaries. So just because GW makes a reference to 1967, ABC News decides to play “gotcha”. JUST HOW STUPID IS CHRISTIANNE AMANPOUR ANYWAY???? DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!
Valerie, could you please point out to me the difference between Israel’s borders in 1949 and 1967 before the war?
@Doug – Over a million people live in Gaza. I suppose THEY want to live there if their lives can be ‘normal,’ whatever that means. I don’t think the people of Gaza have “a penchant for radicalism.” Recall it was the US that pushed for free and fair elections in the Palestinian Territories when Condie Rice was Sec State. Were we surprise when Hamas won, and we discounted the Gazan’s total rejection of Fatah’s corrupt style of government. It was ‘all politics are local’ again. They voted for Hamas because they felt it was the lesser of two evils compared to Fatah (that’s saying a lot about Fatah in that they could lose to a party mostly known for its suicide bombers) in that Hamas was scrupulously honest and can run a clean government. It had nothing to do with Israel as far as the Gazan voters were concerned. Right now Gaza and Likud have a kind of mutual suicide pact as they both really need each other to justify their respective holds on power.
That last sentence should read “Hamas and Likud.”
The “pre-1967” boundary is the Armistice line of 1949 (also referred to as the Green Line). The boundary in question was in place from 1949-1967. To speak of the “pre-1967 line” is to speak of the line established in 1949. Those boundaries changed when Israel invaded Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai.
But don’t take my word for it, or that of the dreaded liberal media. You can consult the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: click.
I would recommend the primer that I posted a few minutes ago: click
To Boyd and Steven:
You are missing my point. The RELEVANT words expressed by GW were: “mutually agreed adjustments. . . .to reflect current realities.” GW’s statement actually is comparable to what Netanyahu said, rather than what Obama said. Get it? Or are you unable to see beyond your BDS? Leave it to Amanpour/ABC News to jump to incorrect conclusions simply because GW says the words “1967” and “boundaries” in the same speech. Give me a break!
You mean like “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps”?
You’re still missing Valerie’s point. Quite simply, it’s IOKIYAR.
Valerie has you on this one. GW’s clear intent was starting with what exists today, whereas BO’s is to swap sets of land.
Also, while it really complicates things, I am always at a loss that the whole Palestinian problem is thrown at the state of Israel (actually it confirms the truth, that this is about religious intolerance and hate, as opposed to a homeland) instead of including Jordan and Syria in giving up land (as don’t the Palestinains have a claim to territories that exist under their borders as well?).
The Palestinians are puppets in the continued show of religious hatred.
GW’s clear intent was starting with what exists today, whereas BO’s is to swap sets of land.
The reason you need land swaps is because you have to start with what exists today.
While an actual agreement is hard to achieve, understanding the basics of the situation should not be this difficult.
They are saying the same basic thing.
No, no, no. Everything Obama does is evilhitlernazimuslim, so there must be some difference, and any amount of purposeful ignorance and handwaving is entirely appropriate.
Or are you unable to see beyond your BDS?
Or are you unable to see beyond your BDS?
Now that’s funny right there!
@ mantis and seamusmeboy Thank you.
p.s. Thank you, Mr. Netanyahu, for sticking around to romance us while our prez skipped town. It was heavenly!
Wow, she can’t even tell when mantis is making fun of her.
You are right. I missed that one. So much for being gentlemen. You must be so proud of yourself for yukking it up at my expense. Had any meaningful relationships lately?
Out of curiosity, why are you invoking BDS? No one in this thread is criticizing Bush. How is BDs even relevant?
ABC News invoked BDS with that segment and outsidethebeltway did, too, by suggesting that Bush had said the same thing as Obama. Despite what first class guys like mantis and Boyd may say about me, I am the only one who has called that report for what it is…. liberal media stupidity. They are still peddling it, but Americans are no longer buying it. This is an exciting time in which we live. Now if we can only get educated people to actually use their brains.
LOL Valerie, it’s not a ABC News segment, it’s something I found on Google and YouTube after typing in “George W. Bush 1967 borders” which uses video from ABC and another source…
I would submit that just like you don’t understand the boundary situation under discussion, you don’t understand what BDS is, either (or, even, the sources of the video).
If you are going to be confrontational, it seems to me that you should at least attempt to know the definitions of the terms you are using.
As I noted in in a linked piece above, the notion that the pre-1967 boundaries would be the basis of negotiation is not only logical, it has been the basis for US policy for some time. And, further, it has been the position of several Israeli governments. And, further, PM Netanyahu issued a joint statement with Sec of State Clinton in November of last year with similar language,
As such, your position makes no sense.
Liberals just love to qualify. Can’t admit when you are wrong, but the ears do not lie. Bush did not say what Obama said. There is no way to get around it.. . .unless you are a liberal.
The problem is, you haven’ actually made your case. Assertion is not argument.
You haven’t shown, for example, that you understand the significance of the dates 1949 and 1967 and how they apply to the boundaries.
Further, you never explained how BDS was relevant.
None of this, btw, has anything to do with liberal or conservative, but rather with logic and language (and the appropriate deployment of both).
And you don’t even know anything about the people you rail against as liberals, Valerie. I’m sure all of the real liberals here (and the left-of-center leaners, as well) are picking themselves up off of the floor to hear you accuse me of being among their number.
But all that isn’t pertinent to the point at hand. You say, “Bush did not say what Obama said.” President Bush called for “mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949.” President Obama stated “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
The only substantive difference between these two statements is the year. So, what are the differences between “the armistice lines of 1949” and “the 1967 lines,” Valerie? What would the Israelis be giving up by using the 1967 lines instead of the 1949 lines? How much acreage or square mileage would they be giving up?
Okay, I’ll go easy on you, and point you to the answer: None. Zero. Zilch. The borders were set in 1949 and remained static until the Six Day War in 1967.
Now, like many others here, if I’m incorrect, I’m happy to look at the evidence of that and will swiftly confess my mistake and change my position. So, can you point to any facts that show the above information is wrong?
I’m sure all of the real liberals here (and the left-of-center leaners, as well) are picking themselves up off of the floor to hear you accuse me of being among their number.
I can…. barely… reach (gasp,gasp) th..e… keyvboard….
Boyd, thanks for again demonstrating the difference between a principled conservative and an ideologue by being the former (and calling out the latter). That’s one of the reasons I always look forward to your comments. Well that and the way you manage to wear a Stetson (versus letting the Stetson wear you).
Valerie, facts, again, don’t have a conservative or liberal bias, they have a non-ideological one. And what you’ve been writing has far more to do with ODS than BDS.
Thanks for the acknowledgment, matt. While there’s no shortage of reality-free partisans ’round these parts, OTB has traditionally been a cradle for rational discussion by the intellectually honest, and it’s good to have folks from all over the political spectrum populating the comment gallery. Participation by you and others helps folks like me to actually learn things sometimes!
I simply pointed out that the assertion made by the news story did not agree with the statements made by GW. No one has proven me wrong yet. Bush did not say that Israel should return to the 1967 borders. Obama said it. Bush said that negotiations should be based upon mutually agreed adjustments to reflect current realities. That is what Netanyahu is saying. He also said that Obama’s proposal is indefensible. . . .which it is! No ODS here. Just the facts!
You still haven’t pointed out the difference between “mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949” and “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Valerie.
How are they different? Is it because you believe the armistice lines of 1949 are different from the 1967 lines? Or is it because you believe that “mutually agreed adjustments” is different from “mutually agreed swaps?” Or something else entirely?
That Valerie chick is hilarious. Spot-on parody of the anti-reality GOP idiots like the Catholic Rep. Joe Walsh crawling out of the woodwork to condemn Obama’s anti-Semitism while chiding American Jews for not being pro-Israel enough. It’s just not possible to have a rational discourse with people when you can’t even agree that “pre-1967” and “post-1949” refer to the same time period.
Hey boys, perhaps you have not noticed, but I never mentioned 1949. You all seem to want to mock me rather than just admit I am right. The video and headline upon which these discussions have been based are gross distortions aimed at attacking Bush and letting Obama off the hook. Plain and simple. I also would like to add that it is now pretty clear that a Stetson does not a man make! 😉
Hey, Valerie, perhaps you have not noticed, but President Bush is the one who mentioned 1949. If you’re talking about something else, then you’re not talking about what President Bush and President Obama were talking about. Thanks for playing, though!
Oh, and your ad hominem is wasted on us. We’ve got lots of practice toying with folks who can’t discuss anything of substance, so they sink into insulting others. Your efforts so far don’t even begin to faze us.
Make a one-time donation
President George H.W. Bush Dies At 94
Barbara Bush, Wife And Mother Of Presidents, Dies At 92
Jeb Bush Faces The End Of The Road In South Carolina
The End, At Least For Now, Of The Bush Dynasty
George H.W. Bush Highly Critical Of Rumsfeld And Cheney In New Book