could also just mean 

We can throw out the time definition (that just makes no sense what so ever).  Which leaves the touching or close to.  Which then begs the question.  If he meant close to - why not say that?  Why use the word contiguous - which in geography is generally accepted to mean touching. One does not talk about the 49 contiguous states - only the 48 contiguous states or the 49 continental states.

Or in Obama's case - the 57 states.

I think I have to agree there is an underlying message in that speech or is just plain double talk. When responding to Israel it could mean time and when responding to Arabs it means touching. The perfect word 

LOL, could mean "I just a dumb hick that cant read a teleprompter" but I am pretty sure Obamas words are very carefully chosen for him and approved by many others.

That was one of the rare occasions when he was off Teleprompter.  Now, he even takes them into elementary class rooms when reading "Dick and Jane" to first graders.

I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out what Obama means as opposed to what he says ... so whatever he may be implying with the use of "Contiguous" ... it is just more imponderable Obama doing what he does best, read and orate.

They can also tell you what year it is - Mr. Teleprompter does not work when signing guest books either.

pass by^^

myfist0,

The map you posted is a lie.

Jerusalem was a Jewish-majority city already in the 1800s and the JNF alone owned much more land in 1946 that is marked as "Jewish land" in your map.

Also note that those maps tend to count all public land (i.e. land neither owned by Jews or Arabs) as "Palestinian" and hence Arab land. (The term "Palestinian" is also problematic, because before the 1960s, "Palestinians" included Jews.)

Plus your map does not include eastern Palestine ("Jordan") and does not show any Jewish land in the territory later controlled by Jordan. But the JNF bought land all over Palestine, not just at the coast.

You can find photographs of old blue boxes (used by the JNF to collect money) that show how much land the JNF had already bought. A 1946 blue box will show much more land as JNF-owned than your map as Jewish-owned. And to that you would have to add land owned by individual Jews, owned by other Jewish settler groups, and the lands owned by the Rothschild family's settlement project. But the people who made your maps don't care about history or land ownership, they care only about repeating lies about Jews.

You will also find that land sales to Jews in the past are now referred to as "being expropriated by the JNF" (as if the JNF had such power under British rule which supported Jordan's king) and are now illegal under penalty of death.

Land owned by Jews in the rest of the Middle-East was incidentally really expropriated by Arab governments and the Jewish owners fled or were expelled. They live in Israel now.

I assume they used 1946 for the map because that was the year Transjordan Palestine was granted independence (under Hashemite rule, not Arab Palestinian rule). That way they can claim that they showed a map of "all Palestine" without having to show to 70% of the land simply given to the Arabs without regard to landownership or nationality of residents (the Jews of Transjordan Palestine fled west).

The "Palestinian Case" (look up "Hajj Amin al Husseini" to learn about its first leader, Yasser Arafat's uncle) must have better arguments than fake maps, dubious choices of dates, and obvious racism in claiming public lands as naturally Arab land.

If they want contiguous states in the Middle-East, they could simply return Gaza to Egypt (the British drew the border quite artifically through the city of Rafah) and let Transjordan (Jordan) annex Arab regions in Cisjordan (Israel).

I don't see why anybody needs a 22nd Arab state before the Kurds, Aramaeans, Nilotes, Assyrians and Berbers have their own states.

That's also because the map is fake. Between 1949 and 1967 Gaza and the West-Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan (and were Jew-free). None of the land was then controlled by Palestinian Arabs at all.

Egypt under Sadat and Nassar did not want it.  Now?  I am sure the Muslim Brotherhood can see a use for it.

Who cares what anybody wants?

Here are a few things Palestinians want that their "friends" in the "international community" don't care about:

1. A majority of Arabs in Jerusalem want Jerusalem to remain part of Israel. And a majority of that group has said they would even move away from East-Jerusalem to remain in Israel if East-Jerusalem should be given to "Palestine".

2. Palestinians in Jordan want full citizenship rights. Instead Jordan, a part of Palestine, is ruled by Bedouins and a king imported from Arabia.

3. Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon want civil rights.

Culturally and linguistically the Gaza strip is part of the northern Sinai, not the hills of Judaea and Samaria or the Jordan valley.