Posted by: CS | May 19, 2011

LOL: Obama Says Palestine Must Be Based On 1967 Borders

By CanSpeccy

Creation of the Palestinian Archipelago

According to AP

President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

This sounds like a fundamental change in US ME policy. But more likely just one of those standard tricks of perceptual manipulation.

It involves a big promise, which serves to get the headlines, and which is then quietly followed by a trivialization of the promise to the point of insignificance, negation or complete inversion.

David Cameron, whose preparation for the UK premiership included a stint as a corporate PR flack, and who is turning out to be a better liar even than Tony Blair, routinely exploits this technique. Thus, for example, his election campaign assertion that the problem of mass immigration to Britain needed to be “gripped” was followed by the recent lame statement that this was merely an “aspiration, not policy.” Then there was his promise the other day to pull British troops out of Afghanistan, which according to the media, prompted hand-wringing in Washington and anguish among British military brass. But within days, it turned out that during the next year Britain will pull out no more than about 400 troops of a total Afghanistan contingent of ten thousand — a promise surely to be followed in a few months by the revelation that Britain has sent hundreds of advisers, trainers, civilian aids, mercenaries, whatever to Afghanistan and that the total numbers of Brits propping up the Karzai Kleptocracy is more, not less, than today.

So how will Obama bin Lyin’s promise be turned to rat shit? Easily enough. Just a quiet statement when no one is paying much attention that the terms for the creation of a Palestinian state must be subject to full and free negotiation between the parties. And since a return to the 1967 borders is not a matter for negotiation so far as Israel is concerned, O’Bomber’s demand that “Palestine must be based on the 1967 borders,” becomes”non-operative”, to quote Richard Nixon’s late, great and perhaps even lamented spin-master, Ron Zeigler.

I could be wrong. But when we have come to understand that bombing is “humanitarian,” that Bin Laden had nine lives of which he may not yet have expended the last, that Fukushima, the greatest man-made environmental catastrophe of all time, is to be hardly mentioned in the MSM and that we must live in ignorance of how much radio-active material we are eating and breathing, it would throw the entire World into confusion for Obama to to be scripted with anything other than the slickest and most brilliantly polished lies.

And Now the Pushback

Netenyahu to Obama: Take It Back
Israel PM Slams Obama

And, Horror of  Horrors

Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel: We own the Presidency, and don’t you forget it.

Wow, how brave O’Barmy looks, standing up to his paymasters. How long will he hold out? Forty-eight hours? A week? Two weeks? Perhaps he’ll stick it out until Christmas. After all, what ‘Barmy says won’t alter the facts on the ground in the slightest.

But the word was scarcely uttered before it was taken back

In this report we see that Obama “called for a negotiated solution based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War.” This embodies a blatant self contradiction, since we know that the 1967 border are not open to negotiation.

So now we know it: Obama lacks the balls to challenge Israeli dominance for more than a split second. Neverthelss, he’ll have fooled a bunch of folks who may not experience the bitterness of disillusionment for months.

And the latest:

Obama ‘Clarifies’: 1967 Borders Didn’t Really Mean 1967 Borders

Jason Ditz, May 22, 2011: Speaking today at the AIPAC annual conference, President Barack Obama addressed the controversial suggestion he made that the peace process between Israel and a prospective Palestinian state start with the pre-1967 borders, before Israel occupied Palestine.

The only thing more furious than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the backpedalling done by Obama at the speech, where he was quick to insist simultaneously that the reference to 1967 wasn’t new and that he wasn’t really serious about it.

Rather Obama insisted that the “1967 lines” would need to be revised to account for what he referred to in the speech as “demographics changes” but what most people in the world refer to as the construction of settlements in the occupied territories. …

Read more

Rahm Emanuel: A Return To 1967 Borders Does Not Mean a Return To 1967 Borders

U.S. President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, attempted to assuage Israeli fears that the U.S. administration expects Israel to return to 1967 borders, clarifying that this was never Obama’s policy …

Emanuel added that 1967 borders are the starting point and not the end point for negotiations.

“That statement does not mean a return to 1967 borders,” Emanuel said, adding that “no workable solution envisions that. Land swaps offer the flexibility necessary to ensure secure and defensible borders and address the issue of settlements.” …

(Like, the West bank will continue to have the appearance of severely vacuolated Swiss cheese, but in addition to the totally barren and worthless areas we didn’t steal, you can have some rubbish land in Israel, exchanged at a rate of, say, one square kilometer of barren desert for ten square kilometres of the better West Bank land we’ve already built on.)

Read More



  1. Best to go back to the 1946 situation?- Aangirfan

  2. A settlement that fails to compensate Palestinians dispossessed since 1946, and who have suffered the hardship of exile, the loss of relatives killed in the occupation, etc. will never be accepted by most Palestinians. But short of requiring the Israelis to return whence they or their parents came — a remote possibility, I should think — the best hope may be for a partial restoration of Palestinian land plus the transfer of ownership of all improvements made thereon, plus cash for the development of the Palestinian state. A couple of hundred billions contributed by Israel/US, and the wealthier Arab states should do it. Thereafter, Palestinians and Israelis might prosper, no longer having need to devote most of their energies to the task of mutual extermination.

  3. So how did the palestinians lose all that land in the first place? I'm sure it wasn't blood lust or greed that turned around and bit them in the butt. However, i'd be more than willing to give 2 out of 3 of the bedrooms in my house up to someone whose sole reason for living was to kill me. Wait, no I wouldn't.

  4. "However, i'd be more than willing to give 2 out of 3 of the bedrooms in my house up to someone whose sole reason for living was to kill me. Wait, no I wouldn't. "You seem to be something of an exception:70 Percent Of Israelis Say Israel Should Accept U.N. Recognition Of Palestinian State.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: