Once you buy into the narrative of exclusive Palestinian victimization, once you take the Helen Thomas view which is widely accepted in many circles that Israel is an alien European implant, once you view the desire to placate the Arab world as the fundamental U.S. interest...
If Obama had proposed the original 1947 U.N. partition plan and 1948 borders as the starting point, plus land swaps, would it be disrespectful to "my President" for Bejamin Netanyahu to explain why that could not and would not happen?
Would the domestic U.S. opposition merely be another occasion for Glenn Greenwald to denounce the Israel Lobby and the Israel-firsters? Would Andrew Sullivan, while reiterating his Zionist credentials, blame Israel for whipping up the domestic opposition?
Really, if you are going to buy into the Israel Apartheid narrative of law professor George Bisharat, the descendant of settlers in Jerusalem, why not have the intellectual honesty to admit that there is no line in the sand, there is no Israeli right to exist as a Jewish state, there is no reason to do anything other than placate the Arab street?
Don't think it's far-fetched. Hamas is making the point that if 1949/1967, why not 1948 (emphasis mine):
Senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Monday that it was clear that US President Barack Obama's platform was not so different from the one adopted by former US president George W. Bush. According to Zahar, the 1967 borders, while "sacred," were not the final borders on which the Palestinians should settle.
Speaking to Al-Emirate Al-Youm, Zahar asked "Why won't we talk about the 1948 borders? Why won't we discuss the partition plan which was internationally recognized?"If you didn't know that the quote was from a Senior Hamas leader, would you be surprised to hear it from the chorus of domestic Israel critics?
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!