US Presidential Positions On Israel and PalestineThree main questions:

1) Which was the first U.S. administration that explicitly called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state? 2) Has any previous U.S. administration spoken about a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders?3) Has this "mutually agreed swaps" deal ever been mentioned before?

Results

1. Bill Clinton said that the conflict between Palestinians and Israel could only be resolved with "a sovereign, viable Palestinian state." He madethis speech on Jan. 7, 2011, two weeks before he left office. It is sometimes erroneously reported that George W. Bush was the first USSourcepresident to call for an independent Palestinian State. Example

Sort of. What previous administrations have done is say that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 should be the basis for a2. permanent peace settlement. UNSC 242 was from 1967 and calls for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in therecent conflict." President G.W. Bush said in a letter to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004 that "Israel must have secure andSourcerecognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 [whichbasically just restates UNSCR 242 after the 1973 Yom Kippur War]." Source

Ronald Reagan supported some form of the 1967 borders, though not an independent Palestinian state, rather an autonomous one (distinction isnot totally clear). He said in a speech in 1982 that: The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give and take of negotiations. But it is the firm view of the United Statesthat self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just, andlasting peace. We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through negotiations involving anexchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in theCamp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation stone of America's Middle East peace effort. It isthe United States position that, in return for peace, the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West

Bank and Gaza. Source

3. Not that exact phrase, but a variation was used by G.W. Bush. He said that: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome offinal status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solutionhave 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." Source

Mutually agreed land swaps were a part of the failed 2000 Camp David Summit. Barak and Arafat could not agree on what should be exchangedfor what, though both seemed to accept the principle. Source

As a general note it is difficult to compare US presidential positions or peace proposals, because they are rarely outlined in detail, as Presidentsusually want the two sides to discuss the details. Bush's Road Map did not really contain specific proposals for what a final peace would look like,but rather conditions for conducting discussions. Source

The following is a good backgrounder to the various summits and what each side was arguing over, though it is from 2005 so developments afterthat are not covered. http://www.cfr.org/israel/middle-east-peace-plans-background/p7736