Republican politicians and pundits have been screaming for days about how Barack Obama has undermined Israel, and AIPAC is in arms. But for Republican politicians and pundits, Obama is wrong by definition, and AIPAC does not represent most American Jews, having been largely taken over by Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians. Their reaction is grossly exaggerated. Reactions from inside Israel are far less intense.
On a fundamental level, Obama’s speech was good for Israel. He blocked the Palestinian initiative to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state. He condemned the Palestinian effort to delegitimize Israel. He came out against Hamas. He did not demand a total and immediate freeze on settlement construction. He did not embrace the Arab peace initiative. He showed that he has internalized Israel’s security problems and defense concerns. Above all, he adopted the two main principles of Israel’s peace doctrine: Israel as a Jewish state and Palestine as a demilitarized state.
Benjamin Netanyahu should have been pleased and proud. Obama’s speech at the State Department transformed his Bar-Ilan speech into an inalienable political asset. Thanks to Barack Obama, the Bar-Ilan principles are now a basic part of the international community’s position on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved.
But in one important respect, Obama’s speech was very bad for Israel. And very bad for the United States. And very bad for peace. The U.S. president made an egregious error in the way he introduced the principle of 1967 into his vision of peace. Instead of presenting the 1967 borders as the end of the process, Obama made them its start. Instead of tying them to the end of demands and the end of the conflict, they were tied to greater demands and continued conflict… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Ha’aretz>
Compared with all the things they like, the timing of introducing 1967 borders is a minor issue, unless Israel intends to violate their treaty commitment by taking more land. Ha’aretz usually reflects the Likud view. The more liberal Kadima opposition has no problem with it.
Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel’s opposition Kadima party, also backed Mr Obama’s two-state solution and accused Mr Netanyahu of putting Israel at risk in order to save his right-wing coalition.
"The prime minister has violated relations between Israel and the United States," she said, speaking after Mr Obama’s speech but before the Oval Office meeting. "He has endangered the security of Israel and its power of deterrence."
But Mr Netanyahu is assured of a warm welcome at AIPAC and again the next day when he will address Congress at the invitation of the Republican Speaker, John Boehner.
Potential Republican presidential candidates have been to the fore in backing Mr Netanyahu’s position… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Telegraph>
I think she’s probably correct, but I suspect the real reason for Netanyahu’s opposition is more devious than just saving his coalition.
He gave himself away with one statement. Speaking of the 1967 borders, he said, “They don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground.” What changes are those? The settlements, of course. Israel continues to occupy land promised to Palestine as quickly as they can build settlements. Netanyahu wants a one state solution, or at most, a tiny Palestinian state.
In my opinion, Obama’s policy for Israel is wrong. He should be supporting a Palestinian state, just as the US supported Israel in 1948, under very similar circumstances. He should not have come out against Hamas. He should have called on Hamas to recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders. He should demand an immediate freeze on settlement building. The Arab peace initiative should be on the table.
Obama is not undermining Israel at all. The opposite is true.
8 Responses to “Obama’s Israel Policy”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I disagree with you on this one, TC. Israel should go back to the 1947 borders and give the Palestinians back their land. He should have condemned Hamas, but say that the are working towards a 2 state solution. The settlements should be immediately ceased because they are doing that just to piss off the Palestinians. Israel has the whole bottom of the state to build settlements – why can’t they do it there? The Palestinians now only have a small strip of Gaza and intermediate parts of their original land.
They want their $300B a year? Then stop the building of settlements in Palestinian land, give all those houses that they built back to the Palestinians, evacuate completely from Palestinian land, give them back Gaza and the Golan Heights, tear down the walls they have built to keep the Palestinians from working in Israel, stop the checkpoints and start acting like a neighbor instead of an asshole. Otherwise we’re taking all our shit that we paid for (ships, planes, monitoring systems, nukes and whatever else) and we’re going home and you are going to let the International Inspectors for Nukes in and find all the other crap you’ve hidden from the rest of the world. Let’s see how long you survive then you fuckers. Remember you have Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and a whole bunch of Muslim countries surrounding you that would turn you into a glass parking lot in a minute for what you’ve done to the Palestinians already. The only thing saving your ass is us. Let’s just keep that in mind for our next negotiation process. Iran already has missles pointed at your ass, so I’d be careful about what I ask for. And Lieberdouche and AIPAC and everyone else can just cool their jets. The Christofacists are just waiting for you to go, so that they can be raptured. 😡
Lisa, in 1947 Israel did not exist. The 1967 borders are the 1949 borders shown above. Also, I believe they could defend themselves at this point without our help. On all three occasions that they have been at war with their neighbors, they have won. Now they have nukes and noner of the surrounding Arab stated do.
Otherwise we agree.
I meant 1967 borders – oops – I was only 20 years off. 😉
Palestinians should have had their own State back in 1948.
They should get their own State ASAP.
Then let that State take responsibility for any aggression against Israel.
As it is now, the situation only breeds terrorists.
If Palestinians freely elect Hamas as their leaders, we must deal with that as a result of a free election.
With Israel oppressing the Palestinians the way they do, it’s no wonder the people support the group (Hamas) that sees to it, that their families and children are fed and educated.
I agree, Tom. The status quo is the worst of worlds.
Help me out here, which country is in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”?
Which country receives hundreds of billions of our dollars to keep them in existence?
Which country time and again relies on a US veto in the UN Security Council to get a “pass” for its violations?
So when Mittens Romney tries to claim: “[The president] has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.”
… Well, let’s just take a look at which of our friends also support a two-state solution based on 1967 lines along with land-swaps: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan – just to name six off the top of my head.
Pretty clear that Pres. Obama is not violating this principle – he’s vindicating it!
I agree, Nameless, but I think he is giving Israel more support than what is wise.