Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
I'm baffled by the suggestion that Obama called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders or advanced a radical departure from the stance, or even the language, of previous administrations. What he said was this:
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 [my emphasis].
There is a universe of difference between "go back to the 1967 lines" and "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure borders are established." The first would be big news, the second is basically what everyone has always said and means nothing. The devil, as everyone knows, is in the details; if you insert the words "mutually agreed," and do not specify what swaps, exactly, we're talking about--but do specify that they must be "secure"--you are not calling for a return to the 1967 borders. The 1967 borders were not secure, and no Israeli negotiator would agree to return to them. So they couldn't be "mutually agreed."
This part is more important:
Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
Although even that is a bit vacuous.
The speech is something of a Rorschach test: The language was sufficiently vague that people heard what they expected to hear. But I simply don't see how anyone can get "Go back to the 1967 borders" out of those words. Comments such as Mitt Romney's to the effect that Obama "threw Israel under a bus" or "disrespected Israel" are disingenuous.
Nor did I see Netanyahu's response as "bristling" or "outraged," as is being widely reported. What he said was compatible with what Obama said--basically, that the 1967 borders were indefensible, so there must be "mutually agreed swaps" that result in "security."
What everyone knows, and has been left unsaid, is that there will be no "mutual agreement" about anything if Israel's negotiating counterparts don't recognize Israel's right to exist. This is so far from being the case right now that the discussion is just a bunch of vapor.
There was much to criticize in that speech (how did he avoid mentioning Saudi Arabia while stressing women's rights, for example?), but that part just isn't worth the handwringing.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
It's a puzzle why the President even used the phrase "1967 borders."
May '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Sounds like the best possible spin that can be put on Obama's speech is that once again he voted present. Maybe so, but pretty inartfully.
As far as bristling. The photos of Netanyahu and Obama after their meeting didn't look like they had agreed to be new BFFs.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
I lived on a kibbutz for about four months in 1988. Just about everyone on kibbutz Ga'led was convinced that land for peace was the answer. Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza proved otherwise. Suggesting that this time is different is just so much nonsense. Unless you believe the boast from Obama that "this time you have me."
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
The speech is something of a Rorschach test: The language was sufficiently vague that people heard what they expected to hear.
And that, of course, is how Mr Obama came to be President of the World, um, I mean, the USA.
This time, he has been hoist with his own petard - it seems that everyone heard him say the 1967 borders (actually, I think 1949 borders would be a less confusing term), without the nuances. He, like Claire, thought he was simply re-stating the standard US position, but he was forgetting (or may never have read) Mr Bush's 2004 letter to Gen. Sharon, which lays out the US position with perfect clarity (remarkably so, for such a stupid President).
Basically, Mr Obama is clueless about Diplomatic negotiations - he is giving everything away before the negotiations start, with nothing left to bargain with. Mr Netanyahu gave him a polite, but firm, public schooling in Diplomacy. It's unfortunate that we all have to pay for Mr Obama's education.
For Israel, it could be fatal.
Edited on May 22, 2011 at 2:46pmMar '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
You miss the point. The borders should be negotiated as part of a final settlement and not have a predetermined outcome. The President said the exact the exact opposite. He said that Israel must agree to territorial concessions as part of an interim step to build up trust. Israel has made these steps over and over and has been greeted with rockets and bombs.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire what about the rest of Netanyahu's response? After "indefensible" he said, "That's not going to happen."
Thats a far cry from agreeing. Is that not a rejection of the idea of "the 1967 boarders and swaps?"
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Did he?
In fact, he did not. Here's the text of the speech.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Did he?
In fact, he did not. Here's the text of the speech. · May 22 at 5:45am
If I may quote one Claire Berlinski:
"The speech is something of a Rorschach test: The language was sufficiently vague that people heard what they expected to hear."
Edited on May 22, 2011 at 3:00pmRe: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
What he actually said:
There's nothing here that's a commitment to anything. What's an "outline?" What's a "demonstration?" What's "robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism?"
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
There's nothing here that's a commitment to anything.
Indeed - typical Mr Obama speech :-)
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Tommy De Seno: Claire what about the rest of Netanyahu's response? After "indefensible" he said, "That's not going to happen."
Thats a far cry from agreeing. Is that not a rejection of the idea of "the 1967 boarders and swaps?" · May 22 at 5:44am
Tommy, my point is that once you include the words "and swaps," you're not saying a thing--unless you specify what "swaps" means. Netanyahu is saying, "Whatever we swap, we're not going back to being a nine-mile-wide country. That's indefensible." Obama said "defensible." "1967 border" and "defensible" are a contradiction in terms; from a contradiction you can derive anything--but he didn't say "1967 border." He said "1967 border plus or minus anything." And the predicate is "mutually agreed," which at this point is like saying, "When the Venusians arrive." None of this means anything.
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
What, political people trying to take out of context remarks of an opposition politician to score political points? How shocking!
My problem with all of this is that you will have a bifurcated Palestinian state in the vague solutions that are proposed. Creation of bifurcated states are simply a prescription to later wars whether with Pakistan after 1947 or Germany after Versailles. Why bother with an agreement that seems doomed from the beginning?
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
All of this discussion is ridiculous kabuki theater. The situation is so far off what would be required to hold serious negotiations that we may as well be talking about settling the issue by colonizing Mars. It all amounts to, "If, in a fantasy world, everyone were to sit down and talk, a fantasy outcome might look like this!" But no one in this region is really thinking, "Let's think about what might happen five years from now." They're thinking "We need to survive the next five days." Obama's speech was for domestic political consumption; it means nothing in reality.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Apparently Netanyahu missed the nuance and subtlety of the Obama speech as well. Perhaps Obama should have simply said that "the borders of a Palestinian state need to be clearly defined so as to ensure the safety and security of Israel." and left it at that. By mentioning 1967 borders did he think there would be no reaction?
It seems to me that the qualifier of "mutually agreed" is pretty weak and ineffectual when linked to a specific mention of the 1967 borderline that Obama and the State Department officials, who no doubt contributed to the speech (since it was wide-ranging policy document about current events in the Middle East), should have been aware would have been met with a blunt reaction from Netanyahu. Which begs the question whether anyone at State bothered to float the language by any of their counterparts in Israel to gauge their reaction before the speech was delivered - - or perhaps they did but decided to move forward with it anyway.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
If the media and the pundits and the populace are interpreting the president's words incorrectly, then why no "clarification" from the White House? Unless they welcome the obfuscation.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Obama's speech was for domestic political consumption; it means nothing in reality. · May 22 at 7:05am
Again, I guess Netanyahu didn't get that memo. "No need to comment on it, sir, it's really just for domestic political consumption and tell your friends in the Kinnesset not to get so hot and bothered about that reference to the 1967 borders. You see, the President is just running for re-election."
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Netanyahu would have been smarter to say, "We are pleased by this outstandingly clear statement about Israel's legitimate need for recognition, secure borders, and Palestinian de-militarization." By focusing on something Obama did not say, he himself has contributed to the idea that this is now US policy.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Netanyahu would have been smarter to say, "We are pleased by this outstandingly clear statement about Israel's legitimate need for recognition, secure borders, and Palestinian de-militarization." By focusing on something Obama did not say, he himself has contributed to the idea that this is now US policy. · May 22 at 7:50am
Yeah, far be it from me to give advice to Bibi Netanyahu on what he should have or should not have said. Perhaps given the earlier treatment he received by Obama he was a tad testy.
Jul '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
But there's a fundamental problem with the President's clumsy phrasing. Everyone in the region (please correct me if I'm wrong) will take him to mean "negotiations should begin from the borderline prior to the Six Day War". From there the Israelis will have to ask very nicely if they can keep just a wee bit of the land they took over during that war, land from which they were repeatedly threatened and attacked. To which the answer, of course, will be a firm "No".
Framing the issue this way, evening using the phrase "1967 lines", was, at the very least, needlessly provocative. Since the President has already won a reputation for coddling our adversaries while poking our friends in the eye, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Interpretations of his speech may be a bit overheated, but I for one don't blame anybody for assuming the worst.