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
To me the baffling part was when he said that the Palestinian state had to be "contiguous". How is that possible, if it includes the West Bank and Gaza?
Dec '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
Exactly.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Oh, that's one of those endless points of discussion about this imaginary world where peace negotiations get somewhere. Again, what it means is completely ambiguous. It's been interpreted, historically, in a million ways--including, "There will be a road linking them" and "there will be no Israel between them."
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
But not a departure. Here's HRC in 2009, for example:
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Or compare the speech, for example, with this one--GWB, 2005.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
There has been, actually. Jay Carney immediately described the idea that this meant Obama was ordering a return to the pre-67 lines as a "crazy mischaracterization."
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
But not a departure. Here's HRC in 2009, for example:
May 22 at 8:39am
Doesn't this quote confirm that the the concept of borders based on 1967 lines (with agreed swaps) is the official Palestinian goal? The unofficial Palestinian goal is in Hamas' charter, and, I see now, re-phrased in Fatah's constitution : "12. Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."
I think it's kind of ridiculous to discuss giving land to a government that is sworn to your destruction.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire, your #24 supports my contention that Obama's speech was written by HRC and that she twisted his arm to force him to give it. As for the reaction, I agree that the particulars were basically nothing radically new in US policy, but I agree with two specific criticisms. Obama should not be making concessions on behalf of Israel - he tried that already with the settlement freeze. And as Netanyahu pointed out, to speak of 1967 borders with agreed swaps is effectively a concession: it will take more than agreed swaps to provide Israel with defensible borders that prevent another war of annihilation against her. I don't trust Obama on foreign policy, and, given HRC's warm embrace of Suha Arafat, I don't trust her either.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire, I defer to your judgment on the impact of this portion of the speech, but it still unsettles. Obama also inserted enough caveats regarding the health care law to let people hear what they wished, but emerging details are confirming earlier fears. Charles Krauthammer characterized the President's remarks as, “A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 line.”
Meanwhile, the President's remarks are similarly misunderstood in the Arab News which writes, “Predictably, Israel’s Netanyahu has lost no time in trashing President Barack Obama’s call for a 'viable Palestine' along the 1967 borders.” As if to call Obama's bluff, the piece continues, “The question is, how the US leadership deals with the obstinacy of its so-called ally and friend. We cannot believe that the reigning superpower is incapable of asserting itself vis-à-vis a rogue regime that survives on its aid and constant protection, if it puts its mind to it.” Pamela Geller writes, “The Muslim World Smells Blood.” I hope she's wrong, but Obama isn't exactly helping.
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
Stop selectively quoting the President. Quote the rest
"These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table."
This part of the speech explicitly says that the territorial question is to be made before final negotiations.
Jul '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: 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:
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.
I cannot even begin to agree with your interpretation on this. The 1967 borders were not an accidental or meaningless inclusion, Obama is demanding in this speech that they serve as the baseline of negotiations going forward, wiping away the consequences of subsequent Arab aggressions. In a rambling speech full of vagueries, this line is not at all vague in its willingness to throw Israel under the bus.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
AaronNYC
This part of the speech explicitly says that the territorial question is to be made before final negotiations. · May 22 at 10:40am
Aaron, I'm not understanding this comment, did you mean to write "the territorial question is to be raised?" Or "settled?" Look, how can we be reading this so differently? I read this paragraph as a masterpiece of non-explicitness. I see nothing to support the idea that he is saying Israel must unilaterally make territorial concessions as an interim step to build trust. What words do you think mean that, and why?
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
He just said this at AIPAC:
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Brian Watt: 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
Precisely. And he has given the Palestinians a presidential imprimatur to make the 67 lines a precondition, a point the Palestinians were quick to grasp. It's exactly the same maneuver Obama used about the settlements -- with words, he handed the Palestinians a presidentially-approved opening to make a settlement freeze a precondition for negotiations.
As an Israeli, I must say I find it astonishing to be urged (and hardly for the first time) to compensate the Arabs for their inability to win the wars they start against us. I've had about enough of being admonished to be "bold" in my peacemaking. Tell that to the side that just re-allied with the jihadist freakshow that's committed to my country's total destruction.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire, I am not the only one to read it this way. President Obama said Israel should make territorial concessions if their security concerns are somehow addressed. This happens before a final settlement. It is, by definition, an interim step. Don't take my word for it. Evelyn Gordon in Contentions makes the same argument. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/20/obamas-speech-endorses-palestinian-state-at-war-with-israel/
Edited on May 22, 2011 at 8:46pmJun '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
There has been, actually. Jay Carney immediately described the idea that this meant Obama was ordering a return to the pre-67 lines as a "crazy mischaracterization." · May 22 at 9:04am
My apologies. I must have missed the extensive coverage and reporting on the White House response to this "crazy mischaracterization." Maybe it doesn't fit the media meme. Some of all this feels like some sort of misdirection, though. Is there something important flying under the radar while the what-he-said-what-he-didn't-say grabs all the attention?
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Oh, that's one of those endless points of discussion about this imaginary world where peace negotiations get somewhere.
I don't think we can be quite this flip, Claire. The word "contiguous" is incredibly loaded in this context. Either it didn't occur to Obama what its significance was and how it would be heard, or he understood exactly what its significance was and said it anyway. Either possibility is unnerving.
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Judith Levy
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Oh, that's one of those endless points of discussion about this imaginary world where peace negotiations get somewhere.
I don't think we can be quite this flip, Claire. The word "contiguous" is incredibly loaded in this context. Either it didn't occur to Obama what its significance was and how it would be heard, or he understood exactly what its significance was and said it anyway. Either possibility is unnerving. · May 22 at 12:26pm
Of course he knew what it meant. But the word has been used since forever, along with "viable."
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
Judith, what you seem to be saying (I think) is that the Fatah-Hamas alliance demands a new policymaking response from the White House, viz., "We're not even going to talk about negotiations with this thing. Deal with that, then maybe we can talk." Is that right? And I think in fact he did suggest that in saying that you can't make peace with an entity that calls for your destruction. I sure don't see Hamas revising that stance anytime soon. But obviously the US president cannot come out now and say, "The US does not support any negotiations at all with these jihadi freaks." The US isn't going to go beyond Israel's position here, and the Israeli position is "We're eager for negotiation, but point A must be that you recognize my right to exist." Once you say "negotiation," you may as well use the boilerplate formula that's been used since forever.
Aug '10
Re: Obama's Speech, the 1967 Borders, and Media Distortion
I don't see that the Palestinians have anything to swap, so going back to the '67 borders with "swaps" is pretty meaningless. The only land they have more or less complete control over is Gaza, and the Israelis don't want a small, mostly urban hell-hole filled with 1.6 million of their enemies. What else do the Palestinians have to offer? Recognition of Israel's right to exist? Empty words. A promise not to attack in the future? More empty words.
Obama, like all our Presidents, seems to have accepted the need to appear at least somewhat even-handed between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why? Israel is our ally; the Palestinians are emphatically not. Isreal is a civilized country--the only real one in the region; the Palestinians live like barbarians. Since Israel cannot survive with a nine-mile waistline to defend, nothing will ever be settled until they declare at least a big chunk of the West Bank fully part of Israel, and make life miserable enough for the enemies who live there that they leave. They may have to fight a war to attain that, and we should be squarely on their side.