Obama backs Israel plan with pre-1967 border

? ? ?

is everybody deaf? the above washington post headline to the contrary notwithstanding, obama said "based on" 1967 lines, not "with" and certainly not "identical with." what's wrong with "based on"? too subtle for you?

by the way, don't take my word for it. and if the following excerpt isn't close enough to the source for you, feel free to read the original:

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is 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; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and 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. 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 potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.

but what's that about a contiguous state? there's no way the gaza strip will ever be contiguous with the west bank.

but is it necessary? alaska and hawaii aren't contiguous with the rest of the US. it doesn't seem to bother us much.