OBAMA TO ISRAEL - "Pre-67 Borders, Suckers"....

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

* Breaking News *       Obama to Israel,"Pre - 67 Borders!"   ≈ ≈ ≈ WORLD LEADERS RESPOND   "Thank you brother Obama for your strong moral leadership"   Khalid Mashal, HAMAS, Chief of the Political Bureau     "May Allah continue to lead you President Obama to defeat the Zionist occupiers"    Mousa Abu Marzook, HAMAS, Deputy Chief of the Political Bureau     "The Angels are rejoicing in Paradise!"  Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, HAMAS, Founder (in absentia)     "You go Barack!"    Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority, Chairman   "I now forgive you my brother"    Emir Osama Bin Laden (in absentia)   "Finally, the world will be at peace"  The United Nations "Finally, the world will be at peace"  Organization of the Islamic Conference      "Shariah, Shariah, Shariah"  Mohammed Badie, Supreme Leader, Muslim Brotherhood   "Damn, I'm missing all the fun!"  Adolph Hitler, National Socialist German Worker's Party (in absentia)       ≈ ≈ ≈   Hang on folks...it's about to get bumpy   Tom Trento         (CLICK TO VISIT OUR WEB SITE)       JOIN TOM ON FACEBOOK

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

He Is Satan's Seed!

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING IN AMERICA

Media Misreport Obama Reference to '67 Lines
May 19, 2011

IN BRIEF

AttentionCAMERA E-Mail Team:

In a policy speech this afternoon, President Barack Obama, referring to the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, said the "1967 lines" should be the basis
of a future border between Israel and Palestine. Major media organizations,
however, are now wrongly announcing that Obama referenced "1967 borders."
The difference between the two terms - borders and lines- is extremely
significant.

In short, the word "border" implies legality, political significance and
permanence that does not apply in this circumstance. (See more details after
the Action Items.)

President Obama was accurate about the terminology, and journalists must be,
too.

ACTION ITEMS

Please use the information in the alert as background for your own letter.
Do not copy and paste directly from the alert and do not forwardÝit to the
media.

Contact national and local newspapers, online news sources and wire
services if the misreported President Obama's reference to "1967 lines" as
"1967 borders."

If you see an error in an online story, please follow instructions on the
site for submitting comment and corrections.

Below is a partial list of contact information for major news organizations,
many of which misreported the speech.

New York Times: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Wall St. Journal: [e-mail]
Washington Post: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Los Angeles Times: [e-mail]
Boston Globe: [e-mail]
Chicago Tribune: [e-mail]
Philadelphia Inquirer: [e-mail]
Associated Press: [e-mail]
Reuters: http://reuters.zendesk.com/anonymous_requests/new
PBS: [e-mail]
NPR: Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard [e-mail]
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346
CBS: http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php
NBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

Please send blind copies (bcc) to [e-mail]
IN DETAIL

Although President Obama correctly used the term "lines" to describe what
was the frontier between Israel and the Jordanian-occupied West Bank between
1949 and 1967, major media organizations, including some Jewish and Israeli
sources, are now wrongly announcing that he referenced "1967 borders."
Obama actually said: "We believe 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."

An Associated Press headline, typical of the widespread misreporting of the
speech, inaccurately claims that "Obama urges Israel to go back to 1967
borders."

And a New York Times online headline currently reads: "As Obama Endorses '67
Borders, Netanyahu Objects."

The difference between the two terms - borders and lines - is extremely
significant.

The Green Line, to which the president was referring, served as an armistice
demarcation line between Israel and Jordan. The armistice line was
established April 3, 1949 by Article III of the Israel-Jordan Armistice
Agreement and was never the "border" between Israel and the West Bank.
On the contrary, the agreement specifically notes that the lines are not
borders: "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of
this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future
territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party
relating thereto."

In short, the word "border" implies legality, political significance and
permanence that does not apply in this circumstance.

Lord Caradon, the British representative to the United Nations during the
1967 Six-Day War, made this very point when discussing UN Security Council
Resolution 242, which calls for a peace agreement based on territorial
concessions and recognition of countries' right to exist in peace and
security. Explaining the meaning behind Resolution 242, which he drafted, he
noted that

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4
June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After
all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the
day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why
we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right
not to ... (emphasis supplied)

In The New York Times, reporter Ethan Bronner also wrongly claims,
Mr. Obama said that the solution should be based on the 1967 lines with
mutually agreed land swaps, meaning that if Israel, as expected, held onto
some close-in settlements, it would have to yield an equal amount of land to
the future state of Palestine from within its borders.

Bronner here replaces Obama's actual language with the Palestinian
negotiating position. Nowhere did the president say anything about "an equal
amount of land.î Palestinians demand one-to-one land swaps, but Israeli
negotiators have offered Palestinians some land within Israel in exchange
for Israeli annexation of a larger area of West Bank land.

President Obama was accurate about the terminology, and there's no reason
why the media should accept less precise, misleading and inaccurate
language. Especially when it comes to politically sensitive language and
issues, journalists have a responsibility to avoid paraphrasing a major
policy speech in a way that misrepresents the president's actual words.

With thanks,
CAMERA Staff