As usual, Charles Krauthammer is a lone voice of truth and reason in the wilderness of international and media groupthink:
President George W.Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
#1 by Baruch Pelta on May 27, 2011 - 12:22 pm
Krauthammer thought Trump was running for president, and last I checked he thinks Ryan or Christie might jump in (despite their assurances that they’re not). Let’s face facts: The man’s lost his marbles.
Now onto the article: “’Mutually’ means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.” No. Then you don’t get an agreement. Krauthammer’s right that Bush said there shouldn’t be a return to the exact ’67 lines (which Obama also said), but he also said, “While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.” And that’s not “throwing Israel under the bus” when Obama’s statement supposedly is…how? Just a few of many problems with this article.