One can only hope so, given current verbal agreements on all sides, seem hardly worth the paper they'rewritten on.
Personally, I think we'd likely have a better chance of finally getting the long touted two state solution done, if we made a deal with the devil; as opposed to getting Netenyama, to actually honor any such agreement!?
Q: Why do Jews always answer a question with a question?
A: What do you mean? Or, why shouldn't we?
All levity aside, I think there's a better chance of getting a deal finally done, if the commercial boycotts not only remain but are universally extended, well beyond the M.E, and into all of Europe and America!
Rhrosty.

Given that Obama, aided by a conga-line of Australian politicians, has enabled the Israelis to virtually occupy what little is left of Palestine and has thwarted every move by the Palestinians to end the occupation, I don't think Singer's bleating is going to fall on receptive ears.

The two Empires of Evil, the U.S. and Israel, have played merry hell with the Middle East and the lives of the Palestinians over decades. War crimes have been carried out with obscene regularity along with genocide. The most recent massacre cost more than 2,000 Palestinians lives and saw the almost complete destruction of the Gaza Strip.

Singer, you are a Judas. Your continual white-washing of Israel is pathetic given its war-crimes and yet still you claim that promises must be kept.

Israel has never kept any of its promises, much like the Americans did with the Native Indians!

Have you no shame, man?

More childishness from Singer. Little busy to give this my full attention but I will offer here Johnson's full quote rather than the selective tosh put forward in the article;

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved."

#SteeleRedux

Nice to see you are directly addressing something in my article.

Problem is that the PLO and Hamas have ignored Johnson's advice since it was issued by the President on 10 September 1968 - by demanding Israel withdraw from every inch of territory of the Land of Israel liberated by it in the 1967 Six Day War.

This rejectionism of course also spits in the face of Security Council Resolution 242 and has been a major factor in Oslo and the Roadmap facing the shredder.

Until Abbas and Haniyeh accept the advice proffered by so many American Presidents and the Security Council since 1967 - any hope of two independent Arab states being created in former Mandatory Palestine is a pipe dream.

Thanks for putting up Johnson's quote in full - which leads to a further comment.

Note that in 1968 Johnson was not talking about the "Palestinians" - only about Israel's "neighbours involved" agreeing to where the secure and recognized boundaries would be located.

Those "neighbours involved" were then Jordanians and held Jordanian passports and had done so for the previous 18 years - and they held on to such citizenship and passports until 1988.

Would the world fall in if some deal was done that restored those neighbours involved their Jordanian citizenship and the reissue of their passports by Jordan to those neighbours?

Note too that no President before Obama mentioned the idea of "land swaps".

I doubt that such a concept will get any oxygen whilst Islamic State is doing its best to wipe Iraq and Syria from world atlases.

Israel.
The worst terrorist state in the world.
Bar none.

Hi David,
I've read numerous articles from you since joining OLO a few months back and have always refrained from offering my opinion. The problem is that I don't know where to start.

Firstly, I want to quickly add my comments to the current article.
You say that past promises made by Bush were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of congress. I think that Bush was one of the most disliked presidents ever so it goes without saying that the US citizens (who are the real representatives of the US) probably didnt think much of his choices and they believed his choices didnt represent their own.
Next I want to ask why both houses of congress support Israel?
Why is it that even in this country both Labour and Liberal also support Israel?
If one bothers to take a look at the overwhelming number of documents and articles and proposed new laws that US senators advocate daily that are pro-Israel as well as their Israeli business and banking relationships and often Jewish family heritage, one wonders whether these past decisions really represent the views of the US people themselves.
Next I want to remind you that Bush isnt president anymore and the current democratically elected leader of the US people is Obama. Whether you like him or not or agree with the things he does, has the authority to determine what he thinks is right for the citizens of his country.

Honestly speaking there is plenty of things I could say to criticise Obama.

But all I can think of right now is that you are actively trying to undermine his leadership and the decisions he makes for his nation.

You care not about whether or not his decisions are generally representative of his people, but only care about what benefits Israel.