You want some pro-views of the speech, see Roger Cohen's "Obama draws the line". I was, as usual, dismayed by Cohen's views (though occasionally, I like him). I recall him being on a debate, Intelligence Squared, I think it was, in which the topic was Israel-Palestine. He was on the pro-P side, of course. He managed to get through the whole debate without once mentioning Hamas. How could that be? Rather like analysing the Second World War and failing to mention that Nazis had something do to with it....
In the article above, Cohen says that the "1967 lines are not "indefensible'". That's it, an ipse dixit statement. No why's or how's, no logic, no argument; just that they are "not 'indefensible'". Tell us how they are not, Roger.
I meant to write something, but the "elder of ziyon" beat me to it, in "Today's idiocy from Roger Cohen".
On some less rosy-hued views of the speech, see "Other people's thoughts on Obama's Israel speech".
UPDATE: Legal Insurrection: "Palestinians: Pre-1967 Borders sound good, just like Obama said".
In the article above, Cohen says that the "1967 lines are not "indefensible'". That's it, an ipse dixit statement. No why's or how's, no logic, no argument; just that they are "not 'indefensible'". Tell us how they are not, Roger.
I meant to write something, but the "elder of ziyon" beat me to it, in "Today's idiocy from Roger Cohen".
On some less rosy-hued views of the speech, see "Other people's thoughts on Obama's Israel speech".
UPDATE: Legal Insurrection: "Palestinians: Pre-1967 Borders sound good, just like Obama said".
