PM slams Obama call for ‘Palestine' Based on 1967 Lines

From: Jerusalem Post

A day before their scheduled meeting in Washington, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama staked out dramatically conflicting positions Thursday as to the path for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Netanyahu issued a quick, bitter response on Thursday night to Obama’s landmark Middle East speech, saying that the establishment of a Palestinian state could not come “at Israel’s expense.”

“The Palestinians, and not only the US, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people,” he said.

Obama, in his address earlier in the day on the changes sweeping the Middle East, called for a demilitarized Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps.

While thanking Obama for his commitment to peace, Netanyahu said he “expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004 that received wide support in both houses of Congress.” This was a reference to a letter from president George W. Bush to prime minister Ariel Sharon that did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and that recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground – a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that it would hold on to the large settlement blocs.

The Bush commitments, said Netanyahu, “deal with Israel not being asked to withdraw to the 1967 lines, which are not defensible, and which place large population centers in Judea and Samaria outside of these borders.”

Netanyahu’s statement also said that the Bush letter made clear that Palestinian refugees would be absorbed in a future Palestinian state, something that was not explicitly mentioned in Obama’s speech.

“Without a solution to the refugee issue by settling them outside of Israel, no territorial concessions will end the conflict,” the statement read.

In a wide-ranging address at the State Department, Obama devoted considerable attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, whose peaceful resolution he called “more urgent than ever,” and pushed back against those who have said the current tumult precluded a serious peace process.

“While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel,” the president declared. “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Though he stressed that the United States can’t impose a solution, “what America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows – a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Obama fleshed that out further by saying that Palestinians should have “a sovereign, nonmilitarized state” and that there must be provisions for stopping terrorism and weapons smuggling, and ensuring border security. He called for a “full and phased withdrawal” of the IDF to be coordinated with the Palestinians during a transition period with a clear duration and demonstrated security effectiveness.

“These principles provide a foundation for negotiations,” Obama said. “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.”

He pointedly skipped making any prescriptions on the “wrenching and emotional” issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees but argued that “moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair.”

Obama’s comments codify long-standing American policy in a more explicit and detailed format than his predecessors offered. George W. Bush was the first to call for a Palestinian state, and later referred to “mutually agreed changes” to the 1949 armistice lines as its basis, in the 2004 letter to Sharon.

The greater significance of Obama’s comments is likely to come in how they are perceived by both parties, as well as what they indicate about the United States’ intentions on shepherding the peace process.


Though the US has not been engaged in active diplomacy since the Palestinians left the talks last year, this could signal an effort to raise the profile of US involvement in the issue.

It comes at a time when the Palestinians are threatening to go to the UN with a unilateral declaration of statehood, a move that concerns Israel and is sure to be a subject of discussion when Netanyahu arrives at the White House on Friday.

Obama strongly rebuked the Palestinians for this tactic on Thursday, saying, “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.”

He warned Palestinians that “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure” and that they would “never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

He chastised both sides for taking steps that don’t help the peace process.

Horowitz and Intellectual Terrorism at UCLA

From: Front Page Magazine

Last Wednesday, evening the Freedom Center’s David Horowitz gave a much anticipated and ferociously opposed presentation before a crowd of more than 300 people at Moore Hall at the University of California at Los Angeles. The event was hosted by the Bruin Republicans, self-described as “the only officially right-of-center organization on the UCLA campus” – which is a good, albeit disheartening, indicator of the very issue Horowitz has been addressing on hundreds of campuses across this country, and which was the evening’s topic: the fact that our institutions of supposedly higher learning are utterly dominated by intolerant progressive academics who are ill-serving and mentally straight-jacketing their students.

Horowitz’s speech was as blunt as the title of his presentation – “Intellectual Terrorism: The Left’s War on Free Speech.” Pacing back and forth at the front of the hall, he was revved up right out of the gate and became even more impassioned as he went on. He began the wide-ranging, forty-minute speech with a condemnation of academics who indoctrinate rather than teach (“The students who suffer most are those of you who are on the left, because your assumptions are never challenged.”) Among other topics, he went on to decry campus anti-Semitism and to identify Islam as the greatest oppressor of women and gays in the world today. He delivered a myth-busting history of “Palestine” and a concise explanation of his opposition to slavery reparations a hundred years after the fact. And he attacked the Muslim Student Association, ubiquitous on major college campuses, as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas and the sponsor of Israel Apartheid weeks across the country.

He was flanked throughout the speech by very visible security – a tragic necessity for Horowitz, who is a lightning rod for some of the most bilious hatred that has ever been directed at a conservative public figure. He regularly receives threats prior to speaking engagements and has in fact been physically attacked. This is the inevitable result of his having once been a radical leftist himself, for the Left is only marginally more forgiving of its apostates than fundamentalist Muslims are of theirs.