Many in the media in the US and Israel had been highly critical of Obama's State Department speech, with a general sense that to accept the '67 borders as a final definition was unacceptable. Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu called it "indefensable" and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination said, "Obama threw Israel under the bus."
Odd that Obama didn't remotely suggest that Israel accept as permanent the '67 borders. Former Special Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell clarified on ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour,
“The president didn't say that Israel has to go back to the '67 lines. He said 'with agreed swaps.' Those are significant,” Mitchell said. “Swaps means an exchange of land intended to accommodate major Israeli population centers to be incorporated into Israel and Israel's security needs.”
"Agreed means, through negotiations, both parties must agree. There's not going be a border unless Israel agrees to it, and we know they won't agree unless their security needs are satisfied, as it should be.”
Shortly after Mitchell's comments on network television, President Obama reprised his speech at AIPAC. He acknowledged it:
I know that stating these principles -- on the issues of territory and security -- generated some controversy over the past few days. (Laughter.) I wasn’t surprised. I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a President preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy.
After which, he restated his main concept from his Thursday speech:
"...since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people -- each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. "
Which he then followed with, perhaps the most compelling line of the speech:
"If there is a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. "
Clearly there is at least one adult in the room.
There have been those in the media who claimed those in the audience did not receive the Presidents comments very well. That in fact, the speech made things worse. I don't agree. Having watched the speech once, listened to it twice and read the transcript one piece of trivia stood out to me. Obama spoke for twenty five minutes. During those twenty five minutes, Mr. Obama was interrupted by applause forty-one times.
Obama has increased Foreign Aid dollars to Israel, and also helped provide special funding for the Iron-Dome anti-rocket system. Obama has announced his intention to have the United States veto any attempt by Palestine in the Fall to have a United Nations vote for statehood. Obama has also said Hamas must accept Israel's basic right to exist. Obama has also said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is of critical importance.
For anyone to suggest that President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, is laughable and probably partisan.
There are those in Israel who feel PM's Netenyahu's position is too extreme. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni agrees with Presidents Obama, GW Bush, Clinton and Reagan that the 1967 borders are a reasonable "starting place" for negotiations. There are even Israeli servicemen in the IDF who have signed a petition and support not using military force beyond the 1967 borders. There are many opinions in Israel on how peace should be obtained.
This is a long running issue that appears no closer to resolution today that it did ten years ago. President Obama, by electing NOT to pander to the Jewish vote took an admirable position in trying to move the process along, in terms acceptable to Israel towards a lasting peace. These were not the words of a man who hates or wishes more tragedies upon the Israeli people.
Sources:
