"Starting at 1967 Lines"

If will recall, and if not, go here, I raised a red flag over the use of "starting at the 1967 lines" in Obama's speech.

It was used as a headline in many outlets, like this:

Mideast peace talks should start with 1967 borders, Obama says

I wrote:

This phrase - "[the] position that 1967 lines should be the start of negotiations" - is unclear.

If it is the start, does that mean that either Israel goes backwards or is it permitted to go foward territorially/geographically from those armistice lines fixed in 1949 after the first Arab invasion? Or is there to be only Israel that has to pay a price of "territorial compromise"? Isn't what Obama meant is that those are the final borders except from some "swaps"?

Some people thought I was being too fault-finding and persnickety.

Well, read on:

Zahar: Palestinians should not settle for 1967 borders

Hamas leader says 1967 borders not enough, asks Obama why he wouldn't be willing to discuss 1948 borders

Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Monday that it was clear that US President Barack Obama's platform was not so different from the one adopted by former US president George W. Bush. According to Zahar, the 1967 borders, while "sacred," were not the final borders on which the Palestinians should settle.

Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked "Why won't we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won't we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?"

Now you understand my concern.

^