Obama's Middle East Speech

[bigjelmapro]

Funny, back in 2005, George W. Bush said that the US position was that the borders of the two states should be based on the 1949 armistice lines.

Excerpt from your link states differently:

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to.

And the 2008:

While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

Bush was specific, with just cause, not to state that the two state solution should be based on the 1949 armistice lines, but rather mutually agreed to adjustments to the armistice lines.

At this point it seems like we're splitting hairs, but the wording is key is the difference, even though its minute to many reading them.

And no, I don't support this media circus drivel about a radical shift in ME policy albeit Obama's speech has more of a forceful approach and has a hint of tying the unrest in the Islamic uhmmah/Arab world to that of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yeah, I mean one beyond that of Quran thumping vociferous lip-service paid to this conflict in some Islamist mosques....

 

[A'isha]

Excerpt from your link states differently:

And the 2008:

Bush was specific, with just cause, not to state that the two state solution should be based on the 1949 armistice lines, but rather mutually agreed to adjustments to the armistice lines.

At this point it seems like we're splitting hairs, but the wording is key is the difference, even though its minute to many reading them.

But Obama was also just as specific about the border being mutually-agreed-to adjustments, and not simply rigidly set at the 1967 line.

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.

EDIT: The head of the ADL sees it the same way:

The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.

“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”

 

[bigjelmapro]

...So why give any speech at all in the first place?

Well, I don't know, what's happening in 2012? And what's this Arab Spring drivel I keep hearing about?

As for the peace process, sure, the rift has grown wider between Israel and the PA, especially since the inclusion of Hamas in a possible unity government...

 

[A'isha]

Well, I don't know, what's happening in 2012? And what's this Arab Spring drivel I keep hearing about?

As for the peace process, sure, the rift has grown wider between Israel and the PA, especially since the inclusion of Hamas in a possible unity government...

And the efforts to get a recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN this September, which Obama warned against in his speech.

 

[bigjelmapro]

But Obama was also just as specific about the border being mutually-agreed-to adjustments, and not simply rigidly set at the 1967 line.

Difference is mutually agreed to adjustments to the 1949 armistice lines, as Bush stated, which is different from a two state solution based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed to land swaps, as Obama stated, which is often interpreted as a 1 to 1 swap with the 1949 armistice lines as a starting point.

You keep pasting the differences, but don't acknowledge them.

 

[bigjelmapro]

And the efforts to get a recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN this September, which Obama warned against in his speech.

Obama has supposedly reiterated a ME policy that has changed one iota, according to some on this board, but apparently still lacks clarity of whether he would or would not veto a unilateral Palestinian declaration. No real mention of the issue with Hamas in a unity government either and the uselessness in actually reiterating this ME policy....

 

[A'isha]

Difference is mutually agreed to adjustments to the 1949 armistice lines, as Bush stated, which is different from a two state solution based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed to land swaps, as Obama stated, which is often interpreted as a 1 to 1 swap with the 1949 armistice lines as a starting point.

You keep pasting the differences, but don't acknowledge them.

Ah...after reading the George Mitchell document in the Palestine Papers, I see what you mean now.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro
As for the peace process, sure, the rift has grown wider between Israel and the PA, especially since the inclusion of Hamas in a possible unity government...

There is NO possible way, Israel will use the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinian govt., as an excuse to abandon peace talks. NO way.


Oh my, what happens if Hamas finally agreed to recognize the State of Israel if they withdraw to the 1967 borders (with minor mutually-agreed upon adjustments)?

 

[A'isha]

Okay, I understand that Israelis see the "swap" terminology as an indication that Obama now supports equivalent territory exchanges, where the terminology used by Bush was seen as an indication that he didn't support equivalent exchanges.

What, then, of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement of November 25, 2009:

Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements. Let me say to all the people of the region and world: our commitment to achieving a solution with two states living side by side in peace and security is unwavering.

The specifics are almost word-for-word what Obama said in his speech, down to the "swap" terminology. However, I don't recall the same sort of Israeli backlash to that at the time, and certainly nothing like the US right-wing reaction.

If Clinton's 2009 statement provoked the same reaction in Israel, why are things exploding now? Why is Obama's speech of yesterday being seen as marking a shift in US policy towards Israel, instead of being seen as a repetition of a policy position that's been the same for over two years?

In other words, if "swap" is the problem, why is this whole thing erupting right now, instead of back in 2009?

EDIT: Netanyahu and Clinton even issued a joint statement a year later, in which Clinton again used the "swap" terminology. It doesn't say what Netanyahu thought of that term, but it nevertheless is a cordial document, and notes "Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement."

So why, when Obama used the same word yesterday, did Netanyahu feel the need to issue the response he did? Why is this a big deal now?

 

[Thunder]

Netanyahu and other right-wing Zionists are now LYING about Obama's speech, falsely accusing Obama of demanding Israel return to the 1967 borders, which means giving up ALL of East Jerusalem and the Old City.

Obama wants a peace accord to be based on the 1967 borders, with a 5% to 10% land swap between the two states. This will allow Israel to keep a a chunk of the Old City, East Jerusalem, and even several of the larger West Bank settlements.

This is nothing new and is NOT a surprise. Right-wing Zionists are simply trying to LIE about Obama in order to make a case against making peace.

But they will fail, as their LIE is soo clear.





Again, anyone who is claiming that President Obama is calling for a full and unequivocal withdrawal to the borders of 1967, is a liar.

 

[Puppycow]

An Awkward Photo Op

Friday's 15-minute Oval Office photo-op with President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might go down as one of the most undiplomatic moments of international diplomacy ever offered for the cameras.

One day after Mr. Obama laid down a tough line on negotiations with the Palestinians, Mr. Netanyahu replied in kind, inches from Mr. Obama, in his office. In side-by-side chairs, Mr. Netanyahu leaned toward the president, looked directly at him, and excoriated his new Middle East policy.

"A peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality," the Israeli leader lectured, suggesting the Obama formulation was based on just that.

Mr. Obama sat somewhat stiffly and mostly looked to reporters in the room as he repeatedly praised the bond of friendship between the two countries.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Osama used Bush's speech on this, word for word, the GOP would be making the same attacks that they are today. Then, after finding out that it's Bush's speech, they would attack Obama for plagiarizing while ignoring their own hypocrisy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The other side of this seems to be that, while the speech may piss off Israel and its supporters, the Arabs are far from satisfied.

Heh, so he opened his mouth and pissed off everyone concerned. What, was he in Iowa this week?

More on topic, I am not sure why he bothered to make this speech now, given that he "tsk tsk'd" Syria recently, and "NATO" just blew 8 of the Qrazy Qolonel's boats out of the water, in a harbor in Libya ... while the Taliban has apparently decided to lay a little solidarity on Al Qaeda and began to blow crap up in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hell of a time to make a "position" speech unless his real message is:

"Y'all are upset with us anyway, it doesn't matter what I say, so I'll piss of the Israelis too just to be fair and imbalanced."

Good theater, but beyond that, well, you won't always throw a strike.

 

[Thunder]

Obama may have also been trying to keep the Palestinians from seeking an independent state at the UN. Israel should be greatful if this works.

 

[Kopji]

Well, I liked the emphasis of the speech. Nobody's going to lose an election over this. Wake up call - to most American voters, Israel is that quaint place where Jesus grew up and went fishing for men.

I get a sense that the US is more than a little concerned about how the traditional Israel-Palestine intransigence is going to play out when faced with popular uprisings for change. The US is both happy and somewhat startled by the continued broad protests sweeping the middle east - even in the face of gunfire - and is trying to find a way to support individuals and stand for universal rights.

Some of the speech is what I'd call 'positioning' - daring someone to deny the universal rights of women, or coming up with a better idea for a solution between Israelis and Palestinians. The middle ground is the battlefield of the extremes.

The speech was not all about Israel, but am I wrong to leave with the impression that Obama is concerned that the borders of Israel will be the next flash point of widespread protests?

 

[WildCat]

If Osama used Bush's speech on this, word for word, the GOP would be making the same attacks that they are today. Then, after finding out that it's Bush's speech, they would attack Obama for plagiarizing while ignoring their own hypocrisy.

 

[Thunder]

Obama didn't say anything new. He simply turned reality into official policy.

If I had a penny for every person who is falsely claiming that Obama is calling for a complete return to the 1967 borders, I'd be a rich man.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Obama didn't say anything new. He simply turned reality into official policy.

If I had a penny for every person who is falsely claiming that Obama is calling for a complete return to the 1967 borders, I'd be a rich man.

Well if i were a rich man...ye diddy diddy diddy yeddy diddy diddy diddy dum!

 

[dvictr]

they need to give more aid to Israel bump them up to 50billion a year.. thats the only rational solution, more money for greater security.

at the same time give pakistan an extra 10b, syria an extra 10b, egypt 10b, libyia 10b, afganistan 10 so they can all buy bombs and xxxxxxx each other

 

[bigjelmapro]

What, then, of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement of November 25, 2009:

The specifics are almost word-for-word what Obama said in his speech, down to the "swap" terminology. However, I don't recall the same sort of Israeli backlash to that at the time, and certainly nothing like the US right-wing reaction.

Ok, now read the entire Obama speech and the usage of Israel and then we're making progress as to why there are some Jewish organizations that have trouble with the speech overall. Some Jewish organizations have overlooked some of the core issues of Obama's speech, mainly that of the inclusion of Hamas into the PA government unity deal and its dire complications towards any final status agreements in the future.

One of the press releases are from the SWC:
SWC: Israel Should Reject a Return to 1967 'Auschwitz' Borders

...
"We welcome the President's recognition of Israel's security needs and that Hamas cannot be a partner in the peace process, but a call to a return to 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, even with 'land swaps' is a non-starter, when at least half of the Palestinian rulers are committed to Israel's destruction," said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, founder and dean, and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

A more detailed explanation as to the subtle differences (some subtle to some more than others, apparently) in the latest Obama speech, and excuse me in advance for using a blog, but I did find this to be a detailed explanation as to their reservations to this speech:
The “1967 lines” factor

Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.

There's a link to a full article Glenn Kessler that goes into more detail as to the excerpt above.

And lastly, some other Jewish group reactions to the speech, more positive in this case: Jewish groups respond to Obama’s Mideast speech

...
So why, when Obama used the same word yesterday, did Netanyahu feel the need to issue the response he did? Why is this a big deal now?

The Glenn Kessler article, full one linked here (Understanding Obama’s shift on Israel and the ‘1967 lines’), outlines in more details the differences in US policy towards this conflict with this latest Obama speech. The core issue is to put the issue of border demarcations, a final status agreement issue, as a start to negotiations, apparently leaving out the issue of refugees and J'lem out until a later date, albeit, the 1949 armistice line does affect J'lem as it would cut off the entire Old city off as it once was under Jordanian occupation and more importantly, Jordanian occupied West Bank/J'lem off limits to Jews whom were evicted entirely during the 1948 war. This among others are what sets the Obama speech apart from previous administrations (the article provides quotes from previous presidents and attached commentary depicting the subtle differences).

So rather than crying out that this is hypocrisy to respond so harshly to the latest Obama speech, it is better to put these statements/speeches under the microscope and discuss the subtle differences to that of previous ME policies.