Obama’s plans for Israel: “two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. … The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem.”
QUESTION: Contiguous? How do you make the West Bank and Gaza contiguous without making Israel unconnected?
QUESTION: “Occupation that began in 1967”? As far as I recall, the 1967 war was a war of aggression begun by the Arabs and won by Israel. I lived through it.
Obama: “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
Well, then, if “America” objects, then that’s all there is to it.
QUESTION: Why bring up “borders, refugees and Jerusalem” if the POTUS’ goal is not to get Israel to go back to the 1967 line, absorb self-styled Palestinian refugees (“right of return”), and divide the Jewish Capital?
All the stuff Obama liked about “Abdullah’s Plans for Israel.”
Update (Sept. 24): Conversely, I imagine that there are many countries that receive USAID but are not told what to do by Rome. The Arab countries, for example. Other than the staple stupidity about the need to democratize (and thus empower the Jihadi Muslim Brotherhood), I have never heard the US insist Egypt do this or the other. And why is aid to Israel always depicted in a different light than aid to other nations? Foreign aid is bad when given to Israel and to Egypt.