.
President Barack Obama was reading the headlines from the letter sent by George W. Bush to PM Sharon in 2004. Because Bush gave Israel what it wanted, the letter was kept secret until leaked by the Israelis to keep the US on its promise. Today the speechby Obama with same words has been rejected outright by Israeli PM Netanyahu.
Letter from U.S. President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, April 14, 2004 [Excerpts]
Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.
The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap.
The PM with a tantrum may have underestimated Obama’s stronger position at home since the raid on Abbottabad. Opinion piece by the Jerusalem Post: PM slams Obama call for ‘Palestine’ based on ’67 lines.
Re. settlement policy, it goes beyond GWB back to the Johnson presidency:
Statements on American Policy toward Settlements by U.S. Government Officials – 1968-2009
By Matt Skarzynski, Jonathan H. van Melle, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Holly Byker, Churches for Middle East Peace
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/analysis/israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-territories
On the 1967 borders I thought Obama had broken new ground but it was an existing position I guess. Obama did stir things up by spelling out the U.N. Resolution 242. Actually hearing the words 67 borders from a U.S. president is pretty cool and getting Netanyahu all pissed off is righteous on its own.
Oui, thanks for bringing this issue up at Booman. Your thesis that Obama’s stance is nothing new as it was also Bush’s policy is correct. At Daily Kos, another diary informs about the long history of consistent American foreign policy regarding settlements and the colonization of Palestinian lands.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/21/977721/-US-Presidents-and-Israeli-Prime-Ministers?via=sider
ecent
And from FireDogLake, Edward Teller provided another summary of US-Israel relations based on the article above, which informs that Obama’s stance in nothing new. It is Bibi who is attempting to single out Obama as being uniquely anti-Israel. It is hogwash.
More Lies From Palin and GOP Hacks on Obama’s Reference to the ’67 Borders
http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardteller/2011/05/19/more-lies-from-palin-and-gop-hacks-on-obamas-refer
ence-to-the-67-borders/