Rod Kaufman said:
Obama says his idea of embracing pre-1967 borders reflects "long-standing US policy". What!? Where does he get that stuff?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama
I'm not sure why this concept is so surprising and comes as a shock to so many people:
2000: Camp David-- Barak offers Arafat 95% of Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over east Jerusalem. Arafat eventually rejects the offer, and inexplicably, never proposes a counter offer.
2001: Taba Summit-- Both sides agreed the "basis" for borders would be the 1967 lines outlined in UN Sec. Council Res. 242. The Israeli proposal would have given 97% of the land area in the West Bank to the Palestinians. The summit was eventually derailed by the upcoming Israeli elections.
2002-2010: Road Map for Peace-- A framework where the final status is a two state solution.
2007: Annapolis Conference-- Two state solution was agreed upon as the ultimate goal of the conference. Olmert was willing to give up parts of east Jerusalem.
Any two-state solution will include borders that are closer to 1947 and pre-1967 than they are to post-1967. Hence the term "basis" of borders, and the inclusion of terms like land swap. The peace process is unbelievably complicated, yet I fail to understand why this point is so difficult to understand.
Rick