The Most Explosive Content Of Obama’s Mideast Speech

Much attention has been paid, as it should be, to President Obama’s call for a return to Israel’s 1967 borders as a basis for the formation of a new Palestinian state, but that may not be the most incendiary comment in his remarks. Here is the dramatic paragraph from the president’s speech:

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear:  a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  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.  The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

The most revolutionary assertion in this paragraph may not be the call for a return to the 1967 borders but the  demand of the penultimate word that the resulting Palestinian state must be contiguous. Take a look a the following map of Israel that shows the territory gained in the 1967 war with diagonal lines:

Can someone explain to me how Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights can form a new contiguous Palestinian state without both gutting Israel and turning it into a divided, non-contiguous state?

If President Obama did not “misspeak” or misread his teleprompter, this demand for the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders would do far more than simply “throw Israel under the bus,” as Mitt Romney claimed yesterday.


Yesterday was not the first time Obama has called for a “contiguous” Palestinian state, but no seems to have paid much attention when he said the same thing in a speech to the United Nations in September 2009:

The time has come — 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. And the goal is clear: 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. (Applause.) [Emphasis added]

This time, however, the demand has been noticed.


See Whites As The New Jews above.

Say What? (1)

  1. Kamloops May 23, 2011 at 1:14 pm | | Reply

    Thank you for making me feel smart today. I noticed Obama’s “contiguous territory” demand when I heard part of his speech on the radio, and regaled my wife and family about it over the weekend. Since I don’t suppose Obama (or at any rate, his speechwriters) are unaware that “contiguous” for the P.A. would likely mean “sundered” for Israel,* I think it likely that Obama wishes to impress Arabs and moslems with his own hatred of Israel.

    *Although, were the Caliphate to be restored or some other form of unity to overtake the Arabs, then I suppose an Arab moslem state could simply surround Israel and take in the P.A. territories on both sides.

Say What?