Whether or not that is the case (I don't claim to know either president's stance), the evidence supplied (which is what I commented on) was vastly different. Again, I am only looking at the evidence provided. Because someone in a diplomatic cable says that Bibi supports land swaps doesn't make it so, even if he actually said it. Um, the borders were largely unchanged from 1949 to 1967. Look at any maps of the '49 and '67 borders and they are identical (or nearly so). That is because the major changes (what everyone talks about with regard to the peace process) were under the 1949 armistice agreement following the '48 war and then the 1967 war and it's aftermath. The security wall was built long after 1967. East Jerusalem was captured during the '67 war. Neither has anything to do with changes between '49 and '67.
Yes, the Palestinians have been under attack even before 1948 really. Israel started conflict after conflict in an effort to grab more land, and they have not upheld their peace agreements time and time again. I understand the frustration and fear on the part of Palestinians. What I think is going on with the whole 1967 borders non-issue was explained well by Lawrence O'Donnell last night. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc5141be" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43175693&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc5141be" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=43175693&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
Israel's nuclear program started in the early 60's and the nation had decent (albeit mostly French) weapons technology in '67, not counting their own. Shimon Peres, btw, was the point-man on that. Israel wasn't the pariah state it is now back then, but don't think it was a happy den of peace, love and harmony. US support of Israel had more to do with Cold War thinking then it did anything else, and to McNamara at the time it made reasonable sense, especially in light of the US involvement in Vietnam reaching a peak. Nostalgia has a way of romanticizing the past...but the reign of Labour before Begin included at least one pre-emptive war in 1956, laws that were very prohibitive of private enterprise, seizure of Arab property...and last but not least...banning the Beatles from playing here because it was considered hazardous to kids. Israel has always had elements of paranoia and a tendency to justify some very authoritarian reactions in the name of public safety. I'm not going to be naive enough to think that I could have made better decisions that David Ben-Gurion, especially since I have the advantage of half a century of time to look back and judge, but that's just the way it is.
Man this is bull****. Israel won that land fair and square. In the 21st century the military spoils is a perfectly CIVILIZED way to land grab. I mean come on if you bomb a lot of folks with military hardware and bulldoze a lot of homes you're won the right to keep that land. Did Hitler get to keep Poland? Yes he won that **** fair and square and even got a signed treaty. Did Saddam get to keep Kuwait? Yes. Did Milosevic get to keep Kosovo? Obviously yes. Seriously ppl, quit living in the 19th century. Get with the 21st and all proven the ISMS that improve the world (Zionism, racism, Fascism, Communism) Israel's security is dependent on being able to keep all the land it's able to grab using American military tech, support and $$$. You seriously think that in 2011 it's LOGICAL to assume that concessions, good faith and diplomacy is a better means to secure a country's welfare than tribalism, militarism and brinksmanship? I mean what's the freaking POINT of fighting its enemies if it's going to have to give back the land it wins? What message does that send? What kind of CIVILIZED democracy is that? Seriously? If Israel gives back that land, how do you expect to keep Kim Jong Ill motivated to keep training his million man army pointed at South Korea? You think he wants to keep going in a world where an EXPANSIONIST POWER cannot keep its own spoils of war. If this is where the world is going let me off.
Anybody else sort of embarassed by the Israeli Prime Minister coming to the US and lecturing the president and congress like school boys, while the congress at least kept saying: "yes sir. whatever you want" ?
I wasn't aware Poland was part of Germany or that Kuwait was part of Iraq. Go reread UNSCR242. Especially the part about acquiring territory through war.
I remember when all those Polish tank divisions lined up along the border with Germany in 1939. Boy was everyone shocked when the Luftwaffe managed to wipe out the Polish and French air forces while they were still on the ground, allowing their desperate defense of the German homeland to be so successful that they were able to occupy large areas of Poland and France. It wasn't as though Germany launched an unprovoked attack against a completely unprepared Poland that coined the term Blitzkrieg, right? Certainly it didn't follow a false flag operation by the SS in which they attacked a German target dressed as Poles in order to provide justification for the war. Seriously, could you have possibly picked a worse parallel for the Six Day War than the German invasion of Poland (or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for that matter)?
I find it irritating every day that the US (at least by Israelis) is seen as some sort of service provider for the Israeli right and if Obama (or Bush or Clinton) ever advocated making a move in the best interests of the US or international diplomacy, suddenly they were Amalek. "How DARE a US president be objective!" Bibi is the essence of all that is a neo-con and no one should be praising him unless one finds Cheney too soft and democratic and is looking for a more authoritarian upgrade. He's as disingenuous and sleazy as they come and he comes on like a used car dealer (and that's even among the crooks in the Knesset). How anyone can take him seriously after years of being exposed as a liar I can't guess other than that people are too lazy to keep up and/or have very very short political memories. Had it been 1937 and it been Franco that Congress was brown-nosing it would not be any more offensive.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uIEeiDjdUuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm so cautiously optimistic that it's not really even optimism anymore, but that does sound like a step in the right direction.
