There was absolutely nothing about President Barack Obama's Middle East speech to get excited about (and even less in his statement following Friday's meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu). The president did not even attempt to set out an action plan; he offered broad principles, ones that have been offered before by five previous presidents.
He delivered the speech in an effort to get the jump on Netanyahu who is in town to address Congress and AIPAC. Bibi's goal is to mobilize his followers against any U.S. efforts to promote an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Netanyahu, who grew up in the United States, is a de facto Republican and, as in 1998 when President Clinton was in office, he wants to strengthen the GOP vis a vis the Democrats.
Delivering the speech was probably a mistake. But Obama felt that he had to deliver it -- to preempt Netanyahu's war-mongering with some good pro-Israel boilerplate and to neutralize some of the opposition to U.S. policies toward Israel that is weakening our standing with the evolving Arab democracies.
For obvious national security reasons, the United States cannot afford to have a new generation of Arab democrats in nations as significant as Egypt hating us because they view America as being in Israel's pocket. A strong rhetorical endorsement of peace would both help neutralize Netanyahu's demagoguery and defuse opposition to both America and Israel in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, it would please Netanyahu's followers.
In the end, it didn't turn out that way. As the Wall Street Journal reported in an article called "Jewish Donors Warn Obama on Israel," a tiny (but incredibly well-heeled) group of donors told Obama in advance that any deviation from the line laid down by Netanyahu would cost Obama campaign contributions. The article quotes a bunch of fat cats, unknown to most Jewish Americans who essentially threatened Obama.
It's crazy. In 2008 78% of Jews voted for Obama. According to the definitive American Jewish Committee poll, Israel ranks 7th on the list of issues on which Jews cast their votes with 3% citing it as the top concern. 54% mentioned the economy, and many more cited health care, energy and a host of other issues.
But the self-appointed fat cat representatives of the Jewish community tell the White House that our #1 concern is Israel. And, for the AIPAC directed donors, it probably is.
And that is why President Obama delivered a speech on Thursday that was utterly innocuous. There was nothing in it that has not been said before by a host of previous presidents. Virtually all his empathy was directed at Israel while he offered a little sympathy, and nothing else, to the Palestinians. He did what he thought he had to do: appease AIPAC and Netanyahu while pleasing Arab democrats too.
But he failed. Arabs saw the speech as a bunch of empty words. And the Israeli firsters went ballistic. Why? Because of one paragraph.
The president said:
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.And suddenly all hell broke loose. But not immediately. Initially, the right-wing of the "pro-Israel" claque praised Obama for not saying anything that challenged Netanyahu but then Netanyahu, said that he was outraged by the reference to the 1967 lines.
But then the robotic Israel-firsters switched their line as quickly as Red 1930s folk singers changed their lyrics when Moscow complained of deviation. (Stop bashing Nazi Germany; we just signed a pact with it).
This is beyond ridiculous. Obama did not say that Israel would have to go back to the 1967 borders; he said that the "borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines..."
That means that Israelis and Palestinians would sit down with a map that dated back to 1967 and decide what would be Israel and what would be Palestine. What other "lines" could a deal be based on? The border between China and Russia?
As far back as the 1967 United Nations Resolution 242, which Israel signed, it has been the stated policy of the entire world (including Israel) that Israel would return to the '67 borders, with alterations made, as necessary, to guard Israel's security. Every American president has said that and every Israeli government has accepted it. Even AIPAC supports the "two-state solution," which means a Palestinian state in the territories captured by Israel in 1967. Where else?
So what are these people up to when they suddenly decide to descend into faux-rage when Obama says what they have been saying all along?
The answer is simple. The Israel-first crowd has decided on two things: (1) They do not want Israeli-Palestinian peace, period. They want Israel to keep all the land. And (2) they want to see President Obama defeated in the next election, hoping against hope that they can drive the Obama Jewish vote, and especially campaign contributions, way below 2008 levels. They don't trust him. They suspect (hopefully, rightly) that in his heart he does not believe the staus quo loving nonsense Dennis Ross is feeding him.
Obama's mistake is to think he can appease these people by going to AIPAC (as he will do next week) or to Israel (as he probably will this summer) and trying to explain himself. Unless he is prepared to tell AIPAC and right-wing Israelis that he supports both settlements and the permanent disenfranchisement of Palestinians, he will not win over these people. They are not potential friends, not of him or of U.S. interests. Or, frankly, of Israel's. (They seem to prefer the West Bank over Israel itself).
Instead, he should mobilize Americans, pro-Israel Jews and non-Jews, like those of J Street who support the two-state solution and territorial compromise. He should reach out to Palestinians who are prepared to live in peace with Israel (including Hamas, if it will permanently end violence against Israel). And he should support moderate Israelis (still a sizable percentage of the population) who hate the occupation and are desperate to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
Trying to appease Netanyahu and AIPAC empowers the right and cuts moderates off at the knees. It's time for Obama to treat these people as what they are: enemies of everything he aspires to do. Why would the president think he can possibly find friends on the right? He can't.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Jerusalem IS Israel. Jews have not been saying "Next year in Tel Aviv" for 2000 years.
MJ, maybe when you are not being paid by George Soros, or you actually come to grips with your own Judaism we might take you seriously. Until than you are just one of those useful.... well, you know the rest.
That's not true. Jews were certainly allowed to visit those holy site between 1948-1967. Israel and Jordan were at war, so all Israelis (Jewish, Christian and Msulim) were denied access.
West Jerusalem is accepted to be part of Israel, not East Jerusalem.
>> Jews have not been saying "Next year in Tel Aviv" for 2000 years.
And Christians have been waiting for Christ to return for at least that long. Even Jews in Jerusalem are still saying "Next year in Jerusalem".
There is religious delusion wherever you look.
Um, no. I was in Jerusalem for Passover and they didn't say that.
False:
Reality:
"In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. While Christians, unlike Jews, were allowed access to their holy sites, they too were subject to restrictions under Jordanian law."
This paper provides a detailed analysis of this NGO strategy.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/rule_of_law_and_due_process_ngo_campaigns_to_discredit_the_israeli_justice_system
Yuo might want to get up to speed with UNSC 242 which outlines the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."
UN resolutions are not law, thank goodness. Most UN resolutions on the Middle East have no regard for the security and future of Israel other than to make it certain another Arab invasion will take place.
It also sets out parameters. In addition, the writers of the resolution have frequently discussed it's meanings and they specifically said that the previous borders were indefensible.
As to 1948 which is what is REALLY meant when Obama says the '67 borders, the Jordanians immediately ignored it, and closed Jerusalem to all but Muslims, destroying almost all of the Jewish holy sites, and desecrating most of the Christian.
Ever been in the church of the last supper? See that graffiti on the walls? It's not hebrew.
And no, his stance has never been taken by ANY administration, Republican OR Democrat. No administration has ever required Israel to start by giving up Jerusalem.
In fact, his position is in specific violation of US Law, which states unequivocally that Jerusalem is the UNDIVIDED capital of Israel. And guess who sponsored that law? Senator Joe Biden.
You and I obviously disagree on what previous Administrations have said or done. As for Joe Biden, I can have an opinion of my own!!!
Hamas=Not
Let's start with that and go from there.
This is not a relationship we have with Hamas
Hamas = On someone else's bank roll and someone else's problem
And it is in their written charter, to end Israel.
So how this author could make the leap toward the end that Hamas can be reached out to if they are prepared to live in peace with Israel is a strawman.
Because they are not. They have said so publicly, and they have mandated it in their written charter.
The Israelis aren't the ones who need their behavior moderated. They are the ones acting civilized.
Why isn't this appropriate when talking about the War on Terror, or Illegal Immigration or giant mosques at Ground Zer0?
It is time for a new approach and direction.
The majority and those in power determined policy in those Arab countries. The same rules apply in Israel.
Netanyahu has support of way more than 20% of the population. His coalition clearly has a majority in the Israeli knesset and represents at least 50% of the Israeli population. The Israeli people have expressed their position on why it is taking so long to get peace - they do not trust the Palestinians to want peace. The Palestinians electing Hamas in the last election might have had something to do with that. The rockets flying from Gaza also helped.
I am an atheist and I have a problem with this position. Enjoy your generalisations.
See here > http://wp.me/p1jTK0-7w - for a detailed review of his speech. Note
This is sarcasm, yes?
Just another example of BHo's arrogance. That little statement is going to follow him for a long, long time.
Sarcasm.
Yeah. Israel's really gonna give us what for when they force us to keep some of the $3.5 billion plus extras we give them every year. That'll really teach Obama a lesson.
Peace will not happen in the near future because the Israelis have moved on and embrace the status quo. Their aggressive policies of suppression of the Palestinians have succeeded and they now live prosperous lives in substantially less physical danger than at any past time in their history. They will not go back. There is no known force in the world that can change this. Diminished American power cuts both ways. It is stupid to think that the Israelis would listen to us any more than the muslim countries do. Obama is irrelevant to the fate of the middle east. So is the Huffington Post.
Again, this is a false and hateful analogy.
In its opinion the court wrote:
"Recalling that the Security Council described Israel's policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law."
U.N. Security Council Resolutions
Resolution 252, passed on 21 May 1968, demands that Israel reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem
Resolution 446, passed on 22 March 1979, demands that Israel cease building Jewish settlements in the territories it has occupied since 1967, including in East Jerusalem, and that it remove those already built.
Resolution 497, passed on 17 December 1981, demands that Israel reverse its annexation of the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in June 1967
If you want to defeat Hamas, you have to show the Palestinian people that international law is there to protect everyone. There is no international body or legal Authority that accepts the the Jewish settlements in occupied territories as legal.
Any peace agreement between the Palestians ans Israel should be in accord with international Law, which means that the settlements must be removed.
Hamas cares little for international law. The idea that you are going to weaken terrorist groups by causing Israel to surrender territory is questionable. Israel withdrew to the international border in Lebanon. It only caused Hezbollah to become more powerful and more aggressive. They found other reasons to attack Israel.
Actually according to the NY Times reality was a bit different to what Rosenberg states in his article:
"It was a quietly delivered speech that lasted 20 minutes, and at the end, the packed hall of at the Washington Convention Center stood up for Mr. Obama and clapped — some even cheered. There were no boos or hisses, as some of the president’s allies had feared. " (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/world/middleeast/23aipac.html?hp)
Its an American election. The American people will be electing their leaders based on whats good for Americans. Not random ethnocentric states of your choosing 5000 miles away.
Contrast the speech Obama gave with that of Canada's stalwart Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, last November with Obama's (peace be upon him) recent betrayal.
I will defend Israel "whatever the cost."
"Demonization, Double Standards, Deligitimization, the three D's it is our responsibility to stand up to."
"There are, after all, a lot more votes -- a lot more, in being anti-Israeli, than in taking a stand. But as long as I am Prime Minister, whether it's at the United Nations, the Francophonie, or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand -- whatever the cost."
He made these statements when he knew he would soon be heading into an election.
UPDATE: The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.
He. is. the. man.
So bare the fangs and chow down some more. Eventually the ordinary American citizen will get the message
This is truly laughable! The demagogue improbable thug slug is now a master "statesman"? May be in your mind, but not for much of the world (and even for many Israelis).
What a disgusting comment. Clearly Bibi is not a war monger or an enemy of the US and should be treated as such. Hamas on the other hand are an enemy of the US and have no intentions of peace with Israel so why are they getting what they want. Believe me if Israel falls, Europe and the US are next.
Do you have some link to Hamas' plan to invade Europe? I'm sure Geert Wilders would love to hear it.