As I watched Obama's Middle East speech, the word "contiguous" jumped out at me. How could the new Palestine be "contiguous"? Gaza to join up with the West Bank -- with what? a land bridge? And that would make Israel non-contiguous.
But then I read his words later and he said that the new Palestine should be have borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt. But Israel should have "borders with Palestine".
And this was "1967 borders"?? Not that I recall, even without googling....
And why didn't the commentators jump on this one right away? It was not mentioned by one of the commentators -- and I went to BBC for the leftie (ok, centrist, if you must) view and Fox for the rightie view and CNBC in the gaps. None mentioned what seemed to me to be a significant new demand on Israel.
BTW: the theory of good negotiation is that if you have a number of issues to agree, you work to get basic agreement on all of them, before you sign off on any one and before you seal the deal as a whole. You most certainly don't -- you absolutely don't -- give away THE major issue at the outset. Not if you care about getting some of what you want.
Obama gave the key issue away, and there was nothing, nothing, in demands for "Palestine" to meet the demands of Resolution 242 - which requires specific, guaranteed, security for Israel and acceptance of its statehood. But enough of that; my main gripe here was "contiguity"...
But then I read his words later and he said that the new Palestine should be have borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt. But Israel should have "borders with Palestine".
And this was "1967 borders"?? Not that I recall, even without googling....
And why didn't the commentators jump on this one right away? It was not mentioned by one of the commentators -- and I went to BBC for the leftie (ok, centrist, if you must) view and Fox for the rightie view and CNBC in the gaps. None mentioned what seemed to me to be a significant new demand on Israel.
BTW: the theory of good negotiation is that if you have a number of issues to agree, you work to get basic agreement on all of them, before you sign off on any one and before you seal the deal as a whole. You most certainly don't -- you absolutely don't -- give away THE major issue at the outset. Not if you care about getting some of what you want.
Obama gave the key issue away, and there was nothing, nothing, in demands for "Palestine" to meet the demands of Resolution 242 - which requires specific, guaranteed, security for Israel and acceptance of its statehood. But enough of that; my main gripe here was "contiguity"...
