All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I confess to having felt a pang of sympathy for President Obama this morning when I read that Hamas had attacked him (verbally, I hasten to add; their rockets don't reach that far) for clarifying his position on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations to AIPAC. Every time he opens his mouth on the subject, somebody clobbers him. Guy can't catch a break.
I've heard tell that Obama was urged before his Thursday night speech (the first one, the one that referenced the 1967 borders) to for God's sake keep his mouth shut about Israel and the Palestinians and stick to the promoting-change-in-the-Arab-world-hearkening-to-the-voices-of-the-people-as-they-defy-tyranny playbook, but that he insisted on wedging his oar in. Conversely, there's chatter that he didn't want to touch Israel with a ten-foot pole (to which his photo ops with Bibi would attest) but was strong-armed into doing so by Hillary Clinton, the video of which one hopes will show up one day on YouTube.
The response to the speech runs the gamut from "take it easy folks, nothing new here, move along" (the Berlinski view) to "Obama is Arafat incarnate" (the Danon view). So which is it, Ricochet readers? Who's right?
Let's work it out.
Claire is entirely correct when she says that Obama knows the significance of every word he uses; the selection of words like "contiguous" is therefore not sloppy or accidental. She contends, however, that the words are in fact empty of meaning, because negotiations under current conditions are impossible anyway. But if it's all just theater, why make the speech at all? Or if a speech must be made about the region, why bring us up? Or if we must be brought up, why deliberately select language that will undermine our position and embolden the other side to be even more intransigent?
It's true that the 1967 lines are not a new idea. What's significant about their mention in this context is the weight it gives to our purported obligation to be "bold" (that is, conciliatory) relative to the other side's obligation to demonstrate the sincerity of its desire to make peace with us. I found that emphasis disappointing in light of recent strategic decisions taken by the other side: Fatah's realignment with Hamas, its touting of a plan to unilaterally declare statehood at the UN in September, and the publication of an editorial by PA President Mahmoud Abbas in The New York Times in which he states explicitly that the Palestinians plan to use their newfound status to attack Israel more effectively, rather than forge a lasting peace.
Obama did mention the Fatah-Hamas realliance, via an allusion rather than a direct reference, and to his credit did state his opposition to the statehood declaration. He did not, however, state that Fatah needs to take any steps to repair the damage it has caused to the peace process. He acknowledged that we cannot reasonably be expected to negotiate with people who won't recognize our right to exist, but stopped short of saying that Fatah must therefore prove its good faith by divorcing itself from Hamas. The only action called for was demanded of us, not them.
Bear in mind that Obama knows full well how to use words to shove diplomacy in one direction or another. In May 2009, he surprised Israel by stating that he expected us to stop settlement construction in the West Bank. With that statement, he legitimized the Palestinians' use of a settlement freeze as a precondition for negotiations -- even though the sides had agreed to negotiate without preconditions. By bringing up the 1967 borders on Thursday night, even in the hedged way he did (viz., the reference to land swaps), he is enabling the Palestinians to make the 1967 lines the required starting point. It's not the Palestinians' policy; it's Obama's policy now.
But if all this is true, is Likud MK Danny Danon correct to say that Obama has adopted Arafat's plan for Israel's destruction in stages?
Not necessarily. Or, to be more precise: not intentionally.
Obama may well believe that the return of the territory taken in 1967 -- a reset, basically, that would push into irrelevance the Arab aggression that started the 1967 war in the first place and all their subsequent aggressions against Israel -- will cause peace to reign supreme. This would be a curious supposition, in light of the complete failure of the Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza to extinguish or even mitigate the jihadist fervor of her enemies, but Obama does appear, for better or worse, to be largely guided by ideals rather than realities.
The Europeans certainly support the land-for-peace extortion (sorry, formulation), but there is, shall we say, some reason to doubt their unanimous enthusiasm for the continued good health of the state of Israel. While their motives are suspect, I'd say there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that Obama too would welcome the complete dismantling of Israel. Call me naive, but I'm willing to accept that he is acting in good faith.
With that said, the premise of a 1967 reset could well lead, intentionally or otherwise, to Israel's destruction by slices. The best that can be said of Obama's speech, and I believe this is Claire's view, is that it was nothing more than political Kabuki -- that we all know negotiations are not possible right now anyway, so it doesn't matter what's said. The worst is that it's part of a plot to lop off enough of Israel to make her indefensible in preparation for the coup de grâce. My take: a few steps to the right of center between those two views. Which is fitting, now that I think of it: a downright Ricochetian position.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Judith, the short answer to the question "Why make this speech at all?" is, I think, that the speech was for domestic consumption. I have this feeling (not one I can back up with evidence) that the speech was designed to prove his solid pro-Israel creds. I imagine he's astonished that it failed to do so--shaking his head and saying, "Are you kidding? What's not to like?"
And to an extent, I think the Danon-camp reaction had nothing to do with the actual words, but a lot to do with, "Don't think we're going to let you get away with this whole 'I'm on Israel's side' act. We know deep down you're a dangerous, waffling naif who's completely out of his depth in this region, and we want you gone." That's fair enough, but it's an argument better made on its real merits, not on a manufactured controversy. If the argument is, "Stop lecturing us about bold peacemaking, we've tried that and it failed and we give up," make that argument. There's enough in reality to support that argument without attacking a straw man.
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Judith, wonderful distillation of rhetoric vs. reality. Obama may indeed be acting in good faith. I believe Neville Chamberlain had the best of intentions too.
Nov '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I think it a mistake to credit this president with any concern for Israel, other than, perhaps, as a domestic political problem. I think that he may have some subterranean wish that Israel survive, but only as a means to avoid further disturbances on his watch.
Hillary Clinton always has been anti-Israel, in my view, and pushed, I feel sure, for a cutting blow to remind Israel of the need to respond to the Department of State's whip. These two speeches should be seen as the "gotcha" of the State Department Arabists to which Obama was either a willing or an uncaring accomplice.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 2:50pmMar '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I am not sure how anyone can think his speech was for domestic consumption. According to some reports, it was pushed by HRC, his Secretary of State. It smelled like another type of grand pronouncement like his unwise comments on Settlements. Now that the US has taken the overt position on the 67' armistice lines, I am sure that the Palestinians will demand that Israel accept the 67' lines before they come back to negotiate anything else including the "mutually agreed" land swaps. Shouldn't it be the US position that the Palestinians need to just come back to the table with no preconditions
Feb '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
A US President needs to say "Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist".
Then we can talk about negotiations.
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Steven Zoraster: A US President needs to say "Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist".
Then we can talk about negotiations. · May 23 at 6:14am
That's what he said. And at AIPAC, yesterday:
Oct '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Not acting in good faith? Quelle horreur! Obama has only one area of proficiency: To use his machine to get elected. In areas of policy, leadership, the executive and knowledge of how the world works he either has nothing to offer or has an adolescent understanding, which is the same thing. I would not do him the honor of elevating his buffooneries to the level of the misguided Chamberlain. Does that make me cynical?
Aug '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I see no evidence that Obama uses logic, empathy, or reason in his decision making. I see abundant evidence that he's an extreme ideologue who uses his Utopian-'progressive' vision as a guide for all he does. He's playing to all nations of the world, and thinks of himself as a "citizen of the world". He hopes to be head of the UN or some other global tyranny before his days end.
The citizenship issue has become apocryphal because he behaves as if he comes from a foreign country. Which is why he's called "the alien in the White House" by many.
He may think that he's acting for the good of mankind, but the net effect of everything he's doing is destructive. His agenda - whether he's conscious of it or not - is to sow chaos, anxiety, racial division, strife, and fear.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 4:14pmFeb '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
" The worst is that it's part of a plot to lop off enough of Israel to make her indefensible in preparation for the coup de grâce."
The worst is that Zippi Livni and friends decide to follow his lead.
Apr '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I assumed the purpose of the speech was to try to get in front of the "Arab Spring". He's been continuously reactive to revolutionary events in the ME. And, also to try to restart or recover from his earlier blunders (i.e. settlements). Time will tell, but I think he's failed in both purposes. Why we (USA) feel this constant need to make ourselves loved or even liked in the ME is beyond me.
I don't believe I'll ever recover (my respect for him) from his passivity in the face the first and subsequent Iranian demonstrations.
Thank you, Judith, for providing some context to this.
May '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
NPR was spinning this very aggressively all weekend. Apparently the speech was intended to anticipate his trip to Europe where the president intends to persuade the Europeans not to back the Palestinian application for statehood in the U.N. The reference to 1967 borders -- so says NPR and I believe White House talking points -- was intended to soften them up to stand firm in the UN. Thus it was actually a pro-Israeli gesture. Not advocating that, just introducing concept into the thread.
Jan '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I distrust conspiracy theories. Having said that, I suggest the following (which, admittedly, is a real doozy):
Attempts to understand Obama by parsing or deconstructing his speeches must end in perplexity – one cannot, however serious the approach, anthropomorphize a puppet into a real person; the result may look like a real person, but it’s not – just can’t be done. Analyses would be much more fruitful if they focused on the puppet master, in Obama’s case, George Soros. It is reasonable to judge people by the company they keep, and Mr. Soros appears to me to be the principal gray eminence in the Obama administration.
How has Soros made his billions? What effect has Soros’ had on the economies of nations? What in Soros’ history suggests his social-political objectives? How does all of this relate to current circumstances in the global economy; specifically the U.S. economy? Once these are understood, I think Obama and his speeches will be less perplexing.
Aug '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Anon: I distrust conspiracy theories. Having said that, I suggest the following (which, admittedly, is a real doozy):
Attempts to understand Obama by parsing or deconstructing his speeches must end in perplexity – one cannot, however serious the approach, anthropomorphize a puppet into a real person; the result may look like a real person, but it’s not – just can’t be done. Analyses would be much more fruitful if they focused on the puppet master, in Obama’s case, George Soros. It is reasonable to judge people by the company they keep, and Mr. Soros appears to me to be the principal gray eminence in the Obama administration.
How has Soros made his billions? What effect has Soros’ had on the economies of nations? What in Soros’ history suggests his social-political objectives? How does all of this relate to current circumstances in the global economy; specifically the U.S. economy? Once these are understood, I think Obama and his speeches will be less perplexing. · May 23 at 7:59am
The evidence is abundant that Soros is a huge, corrupting player. He funds dozens of front organizations that influence domestic and world media, promoting a "one-world" global-government theme.
Dec '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
"Apparently the speech was intended to anticipate his trip to Europe where the president intends to persuade the Europeans not to back the Palestinian application for statehood in the U.N." Trace, given the demonstrations of President Obama's powers of persuasion at the Copenhagen climate change conference and on behalf of Chicago at the IOC, Israel would be much better off with the President staying out of European deliberations over Palestinian statehood.
Feb '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Steven Zoraster: A US President needs to say "Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist".
Then we can talk about negotiations. · May 23 at 6:14am
That's what he said.
Then I got what Obama meant wrong. But that statement did not make it into the lead news sentences. I may understand the media less well than I understand Obama!
Dec '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Claire, Obama needs to state US policy more clearly and actively, to wit: (1) The US will not recognize nor permit UN recognition of a Palestinian state that is unilaterally declared without its prior negotiation of a durable peace treaty with Israel. (2) The US does not expect or urge Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes a major faction sworn to the murder of Israelis and the destruction of the State of Israel as the homeland and nation of the Jewish people. (3) Therefore, unless and until Hamas rejects violence and recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist as the homeland and nation of the Jewish people on its current geographical location and with its capital in Jerusalem, the US position is there will be no negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian unity government and therefore there will be no progress toward the creation of an independent Palestine. The change in Hamas policy is a first and necessary precondition for negotiations.
Dec '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Besides, it makes Obama's life easier if he can simply put the Israeli-Palestinian question on hold until Hamas changes its tune.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 5:51pmJan '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Steven Zoraster: A US President needs to say "Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist".
That's what he said. And at AIPAC, yesterday:
May 23 at 6:27am
And then he said,
"And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option."
So...Israel can't be expected to negotiate with Hamas, but Israel must try to negotiate with Hamas?
President speak with forked tongue.
Nov '10
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
I think that Caroline Glick is an astute and perceptive observer of Near Eastern events. Her impression of the speech is here, and is worth reading by all of us, I believe:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 6:06pmMar '11
Re: All Right, Let's Get This Obama-Israel Thing Sorted Out
Thanks Judith, for a very clear distillation.
I'm afraid I don't agree with Claire, but I wouldn't go quite so far as Danon.
I know Liberals who think that peace will come to the Middle East simply if Israel returns to the 1967 borders (with land swaps thrown in - btw, this suggests that the area of Israel would be equal to that of the 1967 borders, which doesn't seem practical...). Not sure about the Liberal position on right-of-return (maybe thats why Mr Obama didn't mention it).
So, it is simple naivety. Mr Obama is just a typical Liberal. Yes, the Chamberlain of our times.
Plus, these same Liberals have a Soros-like view of a One World with free movement across open borders, so Israel to them is an anachronism that doesn't fit their world view. So, yes, my guess is that they do support the right-of-return, but wont say so, explicitly - tis implicit.
Anyway, I think the speech was intended to kick the can down the road, while not losing his Jewish voters. Probably Mr Obama would have preferred the 10 foot pole... he just wants to transform America.