Will Obama's "1967 borders" for Israel comment hurt him with Jewish voters?

[joeydb]

Not should it discredit him with Jewish voters, but will it?

I'm curious to see whether he walks back this comment over the next couple of days, or clarifies after his meeting with Netanyahu today.

[Duvalier]

I'm politically unaware...I'll wait for you to tell everyone what the right answer is.

[MaTH716]

He's going to either win or lose the election based on what goes on in this country alone.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not should it discredit him with Jewish voters, but will it?

I'm curious to see whether he walks back this comment over the next couple of days, or clarifies after his meeting with Netanyahu today.

Joey..that poll is like asking if George Wallace could count on the black vote..of course it will hurt him. But he is doing what he thinks is correct regardless of the fallout. Not many pols do that. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it...need to read more.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Joey..that poll is like asking if George Wallace could count on the black vote..of course it will hurt him. But he is doing what he thinks is correct regardless of the fallout. Not many pols do that. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it...need to read more.

Fair enough.

I guess the interesting part to me, like your Wallace comparison, is the question of what threshold of an unusual or apparently contradictory action, does the "lock" of single-issue voters break down?

Maybe this doesn't rise to that level. But in TV reports I saw this morning, if you interpret that Gaza and the West Bank would be made contiguous as has been said, that would essentially split Israel in two, or confine them to the northern part of today's country. That's pretty severe, especially for a country that is surrounded by hostile opposition and is already geographically small.

Plus, the 1967 gains in territory were due to a successful defense of their country back then, not due to aggression on the Israeli's part to gain land.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fair enough.

I guess the interesting part to me, like your Wallace comparison, is the question of what threshold of an unusual or apparently contradictory action, does the "lock" of single-issue voters break down?

Maybe this doesn't rise to that level. But in TV reports I saw this morning, if you interpret that Gaza and the West Bank would be made contiguous as has been said, that would essentially split Israel in two, or confine them to the northern part of today's country. That's pretty severe, especially for a country that is surrounded by hostile opposition and is already geographically small.

Plus, the 1967 gains in territory were due to a successful defense of their country back then, not due to aggression on the Israeli's part to gain land.

I will admit that I have always been confused about exactly what transpired and how they ended up where they currently are. It is very difficult to find objective commentary on that part of the World because there is no grey area to the participants and seemingly no acknowledgement that either side should budge an inch on their views.

Obama's statement sure came out of left field though..no pun intended.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Joey..that poll is like asking if George Wallace could count on the black vote..of course it will hurt him. But he is doing what he thinks is correct regardless of the fallout. Not many pols do that. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it...need to read more.

I agree with it. If I was a palestinian I'd be pissed if someone just moved the borders of my homeland.

The majority of our Middle Eastern troubles have started since the land was partitioned in 1947.

[dellinger63]

I don't think this will hurt him much at all (with the Jewish community that is) as he came into office praising the great Muslim accomplishments and music in his Cairo speech. Everyone knew where he stood then.

However his newest over inflated aid package for the mideast and Africa may be hard to comprehend to constituents who believe him when he says the economy and debt are his main focus. At least I hope so.

[somerfrost]

It will not play well among Jewish voters but it's the right thing to do...he's asking for compromise and that is the only path to peace in the region.

[Riot]

From what I've read: this has been the private negotiating position of every one of our Presidents since 1967 (edit: looks like W was the exception) Obama is just the first one to state it in public. Will it hurt? Doubtful, as in the same speech he strongly put Palestinians on notice that Israel is completely justified to walk away if they pull their normal bs.

According to the punditry, no real new news or positions here, Obama just stated publicly the position we've always taken.

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's prime minister on Thursday gave a cool reception to President Barack Obama's Mideast policy speech, warning a withdrawal from the West Bank would leave Israel vulnerable to attack and setting up what could be a tense meeting at the White House.

In his speech, Obama endorsed the Palestinian position on the borders of their future state, saying it should be based on Israel's lines before the 1967 Mideast war. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the fighting, and the Palestinians claim those areas for their state. <snip>

The U.S., the international community and even past Israeli governments have endorsed a settlement based on the 1967 lines, but Obama was far more explicit than in the past. His position appeared to put him at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not accepted the concept.

Reacting to Obama's speech, Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a full withdrawal from the West Bank, saying the 1967 lines were "indefensible" and would leave major Jewish settlements outside Israel. Netanyahu rejects any pullout from east Jerusalem.

Netanyahu heads to the White House on Friday and said he would seek clarifications.

Behind the rhetoric, though, was the possibility of finding common ground. Obama said he would support agreed-upon territorial swaps between the Israel and the Palestinians, leaving the door open for Israel to retain major West Bank settlements, where the vast majority of its nearly 300,000 Jewish settlers live.

Netanyahu said he would urge Obama to endorse a 2004 American commitment, made by then President George W. Bush, to Israel. In a letter at the time, Bush said a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines was "unrealistic" and a future peace agreement would have to recognize "new realities on the ground."

Israelis have interpreted Bush's commitment as U.S. support for retaining the major settlement blocs. Earlier this week, Netanyahu said Israel would have to retain the blocs as part of any future peace agreement.

But Netanyahu also wants to keep other parts of the West Bank, including a strategic section of land along the Jordanian border that he believes is vital to Israel's security. The Palestinians oppose any Israeli presence in their future state.

Netanyahu said he would reiterate his security demands at Friday's meeting.

Netanyahu said he plans to raise other demands: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, guarantees that Palestinian refugees be resettled outside of Israel and condemnation of an emerging Palestinian government that is to include the anti-Israel Hamas militant group.

With peacemaking stalled for months, the Palestinians have said they will ask the United Nations to recognize their independence in September, with or without a peace deal.

In his speech, Obama rejected the U.N. push. "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.

It was not immediately clear whether Obama's statement on the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations – something the Palestinians have long sought – would be sufficient to persuade the Palestinians to drop their quest for U.N. recognition.

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler, president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington, said the speech had created a "moment of truth" for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

"No longer in earnest can President Abbas seek a United Nations resolution and say he's serious about the creation of a Palestinian state. And likewise, Prime Minister Netanyahu must determine whether he is willing to negotiate based on the 1967 lines with agreed-upon territorial swaps," he said.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

It will not play well among Jewish voters but it's the right thing to do...he's asking for compromise and that is the only path to peace in the region.

We have to show some kind of fairness for the Middle Eastern non-Israel regions to have any kind of respect for us.

We are so lopsided in our support for Israel, it doesnt even make sense to me. And its the main reason we are in the mess we are in now. When Bin Laden announced his jihad against America, it was not about the Muslim religion (that was a tool he used to recruit weak minded impoverished people). Bin Laden made it clear that his beef with America was about our foreign policy with regards to Israel.

Why must we blindly back everything Israel wants to do, without showing any type of fairness or compassion to the Palestinians?

Obama impressed me with his stance, and I agree with him completely and think its the best way to ever promote any type of peace in the region. How can we promote peace when we are not treating both sides fairly?

As long as we blindly support Israel, we will always have a violent problem with the other Middle Eastern regions. And I certainly dont want to throw Israel under a bus by any means, but we should have a little fairness in our foreign views.

Is it that difficult to understand the Paletinians position of being pissed off that they were kicked off their land?

I'm becoming more and more impressed with Obama's foreign policy and role as commander in chief by the minute.

And Dell, whats so wrong about praising Muslim accomplishments and music? Since when do we have to be haters of all things Muslim? I've made my stance very clear, I have no respect at all for the 10% of Muslims that are extremists that follow Sharia Law. I think they are despicable. But that doesnt mean we have to be dismissive of the other 90%.

[Riot]

Well said

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

We have to show some kind of fairness for the Middle Eastern non-Israel regions to have any kind of respect for us.

We are so lopsided in our support for Israel, it doesnt even make sense to me. And its the main reason we are in the mess we are in now. When Bin Laden announced his jihad against America, it was not about the Muslim religion (that was a tool he used to recruit weak minded impoverished people). Bin Laden made it clear that his beef with America was about our foreign policy with regards to Israel.

Why must we blindly back everything Israel wants to do, without showing any type of fairness or compassion to the Palestinians?

Obama impressed me with his stance, and I agree with him completely and think its the best way to ever promote any type of peace in the region. How can we promote peace when we are not treating both sides fairly?

As long as we blindly support Israel, we will always have a violent problem with the other Middle Eastern regions. And I certainly dont want to throw Israel under a bus by any means, but we should have a little fairness in our foreign views.

Is it that difficult to understand the Paletinians position of being pissed off that they were kicked off their land?

I'm becoming more and more impressed with Obama's foreign policy and role as commander in chief by the minute.

And Dell, whats so wrong about praising Muslim accomplishments and music? Since when do we have to be haters of all things Muslim? I've made my stance very clear, I have no respect at all for the 10% of Muslims that are extremists that follow Sharia Law. I think they are despicable. But that doesnt mean we have to be dismissive of the other 90%.

I think you are making the mistake of simplifying the situation due to your lack of knowledge about the events that led to the current borders.

Just 5 or 6 years ago Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip to cede control back to the Palestinians and soon as they left, Hamas, a terrorist organization took control of the territory.

The idea that Islamic terrorists attack us because of support of Israel is foolish. It is simply political rhetoric middle eastern style.

The Palestinians have been treated like **** by Arabs for far longer than the US has been around. Don't forget that the entire country of Jordan was at one time considered Palestinian territory and I don't see them opening their borders. Egypt pimped the Palestinians after the creation of the state of Israel and don't forget that the territories that we are speaking about when talking of the 1967 borders were not in control of the Palestinians then and it is a joke to think that had the 6 day War not occurred that they would be in control of them now.

It is really a sad indication of how uneducated the US general public is on this area of the world when anyone can possibly bring up words like fairness and compassion considering how Israel is treated by its neighbors in the region.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The idea that Islamic terrorists attack us because of support of Israel is foolish. .

care to elaborate? It is by far the main reason.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

care to elaborate? It is by far the main reason.

It is simply political rhetoric. We give more support/aid/money/weapons to arab and Islamic countries than we do Israel.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think you are making the mistake of simplifying the situation due to your lack of knowledge about the events that led to the current borders.

Just 5 or 6 years ago Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip to cede control back to the Palestinians and soon as they left, Hamas, a terrorist organization took control of the territory.

The idea that Islamic terrorists attack us because of support of Israel is foolish. It is simply political rhetoric middle eastern style.

The Palestinians have been treated like **** by Arabs for far longer than the US has been around. Don't forget that the entire country of Jordan was at one time considered Palestinian territory and I don't see them opening their borders. Egypt pimped the Palestinians after the creation of the state of Israel and don't forget that the territories that we are speaking about when talking of the 1967 borders were not in control of the Palestinians then and it is a joke to think that had the 6 day War not occurred that they would be in control of them now.

It is really a sad indication of how uneducated the US general public is on this area of the world when anyone can possibly bring up words like fairness and compassion considering how Israel is treated by its neighbors in the region.

Well said

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I agree with it. If I was a palestinian I'd be pissed if someone just moved the borders of my homeland.

The majority of our Middle Eastern troubles have started since the land was partitioned in 1947.

As usual, Islam is the real problem, and all this other stuff is the result (or the symptom) of that cancer. Look at the leader of Turkey. His actions are 100% based on religion. If Israel attacks Hamas (Muslim Thugs,) he will cry like somebody intentionally ran over his dog. When Syria kills a thousand of it's own people (Muslims,) the guy has a totally different reaction. Antitrust, you will see that, no matter the appeasement given Muslims, they will never be happy. I am not against whatever is worked out over there, but if you think they will ever leave Jews alone, you are mistaken. Nothing (other than everyone sucking Mo's nut sack) will satisfy these people.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Keep in mind, Jews make up only about 2% of the American Population. If they have more voting power than that, it's due to the electoral college (same thing that caused Bush to get in with half a million fewer votes than Gore.) In other words, the poll is really about whether this will hurt Obama in Florida. America, at no point, treats Americans the same. There are all kinds of special rights for certain Americans. They will never give each American the same amount of voting power. Anyone who thinks it's a totally fair country is simply bent. If you have no internal sense of right n' wrong, then, you'll simply learn to accept this crap, and never have a problem with it. This is the majority of people's experience.

[AeWingnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yK0u-XH1M

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think you are making the mistake of simplifying the situation due to your lack of knowledge about the events that led to the current borders.

Just 5 or 6 years ago Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip to cede control back to the Palestinians and soon as they left, Hamas, a terrorist organization took control of the territory.

The idea that Islamic terrorists attack us because of support of Israel is foolish. It is simply political rhetoric middle eastern style.

The Palestinians have been treated like **** by Arabs for far longer than the US has been around. Don't forget that the entire country of Jordan was at one time considered Palestinian territory and I don't see them opening their borders. Egypt pimped the Palestinians after the creation of the state of Israel and don't forget that the territories that we are speaking about when talking of the 1967 borders were not in control of the Palestinians then and it is a joke to think that had the 6 day War not occurred that they would be in control of them now.

It is really a sad indication of how uneducated the US general public is on this area of the world when anyone can possibly bring up words like fairness and compassion considering how Israel is treated by its neighbors in the region.

it's probably hard for israel to deal with people who deny their right to exist at all. some countries over there are for the total annihilation of israel and its citizens. probably contributes a bit to the lack of a peace agreement.

besides, any compromise seems to be met by further demands. after all, the thinking process seems to be, if israel gives a bit-maybe they'll give a bit more.