Thursday, May 19, 2011

Which Way Does the NYT Want Israel to Go?

From the NYT: -

Mr. Obama, who is set to address Americans — and, more significantly, Muslims around the world — from the State Department on Thursday morning, may yet have something surprising up his sleeve. One administration official said that there remained debate about whether Mr. Obama would formally endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state, a move that would send an oratorical signal that the United States expected Israel to make concessions.

Wait. What do they mean by starting point? From 1967 to earlier, 1947 borders or to the current borders? Is what is implicit is that Israel will include post-1967 areas?  That the Clinton parameters are off? 

And what concessions do the Arabs make? After all, isn't "territorial compromise" something for both sides to engage in?

But there's this there:

it remained unclear if he would even endorse a Palestinian state on pre-1967 lines

Stay tuned.



Foreign Languages Made Easy said...

How can we become united, if there are always issues like this.

Craft For Cash said...

This may get me in trouble with people who otherwise would ordinarily agree with me, but:
I’ll sign off on the Palestinian state (something that’s taken me a while to come around to) and I’ll sign off on the ’67 borders with some exceptions — not for large settlements of right-wing extremists, but if there are a few little bumps on the map here and there that would make Israel more militarily defensible. I would hope to see those as last-minute inclusions in the negotiating process.
Assuming there is going to be a negotiating process, of course.