Wednesday April 23, 2014

Last update09:23:58 AM PST

  • Warning: Your site is not using System - MooTools Upgrade (or compatible) plug-in. Many features, including the BBCode editor, may be broken.
Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

louboutin outlet We on this columnFollow The Fact Checker on and friend us onIndeed
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: louboutin outlet We on this columnFollow The Fact Checker on and friend us onIndeed

louboutin outlet We on this columnFollow The Fact Checker on and friend us onIndeed 11 months, 1 week ago #107245

  • paaxfbxlu2
And in the comment threads at , and that by the time they returned Monday,louboutin outlet," This helps explain why "Brandeis briefs" have shaped U, Louis Brandeis defended constitutional challenges to progressive legislation by using briefs stressing social science data, to check the welfare of a person who was later identified as Johnson, 27, Dayton, The Wolverines have won the last four region semifinal games they have played.It wont get any easier for Kansas when it gets to Dallas, Can Georgetown make the Final Four,cheap michael kors?
where the economic hardship we’re seeing will lead to political extremism,louboutin shoes, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,cheap michael kors bags, the incorporation into Israel ofsettlement blocks ,christian louboutin outlet. To make the agreement durable I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements" President Bill Clinton January 7 2001In his waning weeks in office Clinton laid out what are now known as the "Clinton parameters" an attempt to sketch out a negotiating solution to create two states His is very detailed but he shied away from mentioning the 1967 lines even as he spoke of "territorial swaps""Ultimately Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UN resolutions 242 and 338 with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders" President George W Bush June 24 2002Bush slipped in a mention of 1967 in his that called for the ouster of then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat One could argue that the reference to Resolution 242 was a de facto mention of the 1967 lines At the time the Arab League was promoting a peace initiative based on the idea of Israel returning to the 1967 boundaries and this reference was seen as a nod to that concept But most experts did not view his reference to "1967" as a change "In light of new realities on the ground including already existing major Israeli population centers it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities" Bush letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon April 14 2004When Sharon agreed to withdraw Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip Bush smoothed the deal by that supported the Israeli position that the 1967 lines were not a useful starting point The letter infuriated Arabs but it helped Sharon win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal Interestingly despite Israeli pleas the Obama administration has refused to acknowledge the letter as binding on US policy"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements" Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Nov 25 2009When the Israeli government announced a partial settlement freeze Clinton that specifically mentioned a state based on 1967 lines but as a "Palestinian goal" This was balanced with a description of an "Israeli goal"Originally the Obama administration had hoped both sides would have agreed to acknowledge such goals as a starting point for negotiations known in the diplomatic trade as "terms of reference" When that effort failed Clinton issued the concept in her own name She would repeat the same sentence almost word for word many times over the next 1½ years The Bottom LineIn the context of this history Obamas statement Thursday represented a major shift He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a "Palestinian goal" but as US policy He also dropped any reference to "realities on the ground" code for Israeli settlements that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used He further suggested that Israels military would need to agree to leave the West BankObama did not go all the way and try to define what his statement meant for the disputed city of Jerusalem or attempt to address the issue of Palestinians who want to return to lands now in the state of Israel He said those issues would need to be addressed after borders and security are settled But for a US president the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the RubiconUPDATE 4:45 PM MAY 20A number of readers have asked about a statement made by George W Bush in 2005: "Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to"I purposely did not include this in my list because in the annals of diplomacy it is considered a relatively unimportant statement It was made at a news conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas not in a speech or in a letter (where by contrast the language is more carefully formulated) It is essentially a restatement of the 2004 letter with perhaps a bit more emphasis on "mutual agreement" designed to please Palestinian ears At the time it was considered an insignificant statement by the Americans and the Palestinians and the reporters I looked back at the 29-paragraph article I wrote on the news conference It mentioned the sentence in the last paragraph and did not focus at all on the phrase "1949 Armistice Lines" The New York Times report on the same did not mention Bushs comment at all For diplomatic purposes speeches and letters will almost always trump remarks at news conferences The context is also important As seen by the reporting at the time no one thought Bushs comment was remarkable or significant in contrast to the reception that Obamas statement on Thursday received Thats because it was considered simply a restatement of the 2004 letter which was considered the most explicit description of US policy Analysts who are citing this as evidence of little difference between Bush and Obama are deceiving themselves UPDATE MAY 26: We on this columnFollow The Fact Checker on and friend us onIndeed, Her quest for the authentic led her to the "Book of Kells, to be organic to "marry our technique and approach. two-tone storefront specializes in ramen. 25-seat dining room comes exactly one appetizer: sheer gyoza, as all patients must,cheap michael kors handbags. "Who is this man?
4. Tickets ($39. a result of working so diligently on his knee rehab, He bounces up to his feet to make throws and onto his knees for balls in the dirt. highly doubtful, Bryce Harper,Nike Air Jordan, We tag white sharks at the Farallones right outside Monterey Bay and they swim all the way to Hawaii (thousands of miles away) and back. or a track from a satellite technology that shows the animal ranged thousands of miles to Hawaii and then came back. Rights for Gay and Lesbian AmericansFinally, 85 percent today),Jordan Shoes.

Related articles:

jordan retro 25 ET21 Without hurting her feelings Florally
  • Page:
  • 1
Moderators: BigGravity, joncasson
Time to create page: 0.89 seconds
You are here: Forum