Israel surely has history on its side when it is extremely wary of giving up territory based on the world's, or the USA's, or any foreign power's, guarantees of its safety, however honestly meant. In fact I can't think of a case in history where such a thing did work.
I don't disagree with that at all.
I just want to know why what Obama said is a cause for concern and even accusations that the US has sold out Israel, while there was no such concern expressed when Bush was saying essentially the
exact same thing (at least, not in the US and not among the Israeli government at the time).
EDIT: I especially don't understand this newfound concern that Obama is demanding that Israel return to the 1967 borders as a
condition for peace negotiations, with some nebulous "security guarantees" from the Americans. Obama's speech, in fact, makes it very clear that the 1967-based borders will come as a
result of negotiations, not
before, and that any changes to those borders would have to be agreed upon by both sides. He also makes it very clear that Israel should be expected and able to defend its own security as it sees fit, without having to rely on an outside power like America. He even says that any Israeli military withdrawal is conditional on a
demonstrated ability for Palestine to maintain security against terrorists and weapons crossing the border into Israel.
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defence, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarised state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
In fact, the closest thing to a flat statement that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories came from Bush's 2008 statement in Jerusalem, quoted above. Were Israeli newspapers fearful about being forced by America into indefensible borders then, Skeptic? Because the people over
here that are now saying that Obama wants to force Israel to do that were saying nothing of the kind back then (and that's an honest question, by the way...I've already told you I have little knowledge of Israel's newspapers).
Everyone's treating Obama's speech as some kind of radical shift in American policy, when as far as I can tell, he's making the exact same statements Bush has made since at least 2005 (when, despite his supposed 2004 letter of guarantee, he made no mention of that when repeatedly calling for a negotiated border based on the 1949 armistice line).
