President Obama’s speech on the Middle East last week was nothing really new. He chastised the usual culprits for suppressing human rights in their countries and assured us all that the United States government would remain vigilant in its pursuit of truth, justice, and the American way when it comes to supporting the oppressed in the Middle East. Oh, he did shock Israel and her proponents by mandating that any peace talks between her and the Palestinians must begin with an acceptance by both sides of the borders as they existed in 1967. This proposition of course has Israel losing territory before it has even started to negotiate. One question is, will this really result in successful peace talks this time around?
Of course the bigger question for Americans is, where does Obama get the authority to issue any mandates with respect to Middle East peace negotiations? The simple answer is he has no authority in that area. He is the president of our country chosen to protect our rights, defend our Constitution, and enforce our laws. The issue of Middle East peace is between Middle Easterners and that is who should decide the matter if there is to be any long lasting peace in the region.
But I read the president’s speech anyway. In fact, at some point as I was reading the usual implied dribble about how America would solve all of the world’s problems, I dozed off into a glorious daydream. Here is the speech Obama gave in that splendid fantasy:
“My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to mark a new beginning for American foreign policy. Israel, the Palestinians, and the other Middle Eastern nations are going to have to solve their own problems. America is done ruling the world. We have enough problems of our own that need our attention and as a nation we have learned for way too long that when we meddle in the affairs of other nations instead of pursuing a foreign policy of friendship, trade and exchange, things normally turn our poorly for us.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Revise history much?
Actually, the answer's not exactly 'no', if I remember our debate on the Depression correctly.
Anyway, FYI Woodrow Wilson at first strongly opposed the severity of the Versailles Accord. You won't find this online, but you will find it in John Barry's brilliant historical work The Great Influenza. It seems Wilson strove to keep France and Britain from imposing such severe penalties on Germany...but then he was bedridden for some time with the same H1N1 that killed between two and five times as many people who were killed in the Great War. After his bout with the flu, he was weakened so that he could no longer exert the force of will that he once did...and so the Versailles Accord was passed and thus largely ensured the eventuality of WWII.
You see, Kenn - I have good and bad things to say about all presidents...including Wilson (who, btw, I hold to be one of our nation's worst...but NOT because of the Versaille Accord).
But back to Obama - was he, indeed, "ordering" the two-state solution at the 1967 borders? Or was he simply noting his support of it? The latter, IIRC, would be in line with what most of the NATO countries have said. Here's an opinion that was posted on CNN:
"it's not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo, [but that] it was the people themselves who launched these movements," the president wisely cautioned that "we must proceed with a sense of humility."
Gee - "It's not America" that made it happen...and "humility" - these are words you rarely hear from politicians these days, huh? Doesn't sound like the tone one who is "mandating" anything....
One more thing - you and I are in agreement that we need to slash our defense. At least that's something that we can heartily agree on...but figure the odds of the Republicans ever letting that happen. I mean, it's no longer the party of George H.W. Bush - the good Bush - who cut our military significantly after the end of the Cold War.
2 - Clavos
But back to Obama - was he, indeed, "ordering" the two-state solution at the 1967 borders?
According to the Washington Post, he was:
“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.”
~President Obama, May 19, 2011
This sentence in President Obama’s much-anticipated speech on the Middle East caused much consternation Thursday among supporters of the Jewish state. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who will meet with Obama on Friday, adamantly rejected it.
For people not trained in the nuances of Middle East diplomacy, the sentence might appear unremarkable. However, many experts say it represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and it is certainly a change for the Obama administration
That's pretty unequivocal and quite clear.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Do you know what the word "should" means? It means, it AIN'T an order. Furthermore, the quote you supplied spoke of a 'significant shift'...but does it speak at all of an order, a demand, a mandate of any kind, in any sense? No, it did not.
The 'significant shift' meant a change from the "let Israel get away with whatever they want" mindset that has infested American politics for far too long...to one that says that in the opinion - I repeat, opinion - of our government, Palestine should be its own nation, and the borders should be recognized at the 1967 border locations.
But of course you knew all that - the only reason you choose to interpret 'should' as something other than what it actually means...is that you want so badly to believe the worst of the man.
4 - Clavos
The 'significant shift' meant a change from the "let Israel get away with whatever they want" mindset that has infested American politics for far too long...to one that says that in the opinion - I repeat, opinion - of our government, Palestine should be its own nation, and the borders should be recognized at the 1967 border locations.
Which is tantamount to throwing one of our most loyal allies under the bus. As Mr. Netanyahu says, those boundaries leave Israel very vulnerable, and if the "opinion" is adopted, the Israelis, surrounded as they are by people absolutely determined to annihilate them, will be the victims of genocide in short order. That, in turn, will precipitate a far more vicious and widespread war than the US, a wimpy nation at best these days, has the stomach for.
5 - El Bicho
"Oh, he did shock Israel"
It's the same position that GWB and Clinton so why would Israel be shocked?
6 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn,
"FYI Woodrow Wilson at first strongly opposed the severity of the Versailles Accord. You won't find this online,"
Because it is not true. To say Wilson was too sick to know better is like saying someone was too drunk to know they ran somebody else over with a car. Maybe they should't have been driving? Perhaps Wilson shouldn't have remained president? Even your hero JM Keynes walked out of the conference because he knew the plan was not doable for Germany. That was probably the only smart thing he ever did.
Whatever Obama's objective is "should include, must include, will include," it doesn't matter. It is none of our business and we should just stay out of it.
In the final analysis our history of meddling has usually turned out badly for all involved, given the enormous problems we face at home it would be great if our government could focus on those things and not everybody else's problems.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
Oh, if something's not online, it must not be true? Something's wrong with that particular line of logic. Like I said, check out that book. Any historian should be glad to have that on his bookshelf.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You're still having problems with the word 'should', hm?
FYI, as long as they have 200+ nuclear warheads, they're not going to be victims of genocide. Why? All it takes is one nuke on Mecca, and the whole Muslim faith has to rework their religious beliefs - no more Kaaba, no more Hajj. That's the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the war plans of those Muslims who want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
Furthermore, the word is FAR different from what it was in 1967, in case you haven't noticed. We're in a world now that a little something called a 'Stuxnet worm' can set back a nation's nuclear program for several years.
And then there's the little fact that not only America would step in if Israel were attacked again, but NATO likely would, too.
Okay? Got that? While Israel will be in danger of rocket attacks and terrorist attacks from now till doomsday, as long as there are both Zionists and Wahabbi Muslims on this planet, the sovereignty of Israel would certainly be in no more danger than it is now with its belligerent attitude.
9 - Cannonshop
I can't help looking at the precedents here-in 1956 the U.S. gave the Israelis a solid-gold promise to intervene if the Egyptians closed the Suez Canal to israeli shipping, when that marker came due in 1967, the U.S. sat firmly upon its hands and did not follow through on its assurances, which action precipitated the 1967 war (the "Six Day War"). In 197(3? 4?) the U.S. pressured the Republic of Vietnam to accept the Paris Accords, they did so under the express promise of U.S. support should Hanoi go ahead and violate those accords. In 1975, Hanoi violated those accords, the U.S. Response? Helicopter evacuation of the Embassy and attempts to block refugees fleeing the communists. The last shipment of U.S. military aid to the Republic of Vietnam (whose government had been savaged over the course of a decade by U.S. intelligence services sponsoring coups) was some helmet covers and bug-dope, most of the high-speed equipment we sold them wasn't useful due to lack of ammunition and fuel (and spares).
There is a pattern here-when the U.S. Left is involved, only the enemy can count on American promises, never the ally.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
When it comes to the six-day war, I also remember the U.S.S. Liberty. They don't get a whole lot of sympathy from me.
Concerning Vietnam, um, who was it in charge in 1973? The Left? I thought it was Tricky Dick Nixon (after the greatest landslide in American history) until 1974, and then Gerald Ford after Nixon had to resign or face impeachment. But don't let silly little things like facts get in the way of you blaming the Left, now.
I'm really curious, though - do you, then, think we should have stayed in Vietnam? That's what it would seem by your j'accuse in comment #9. I thought that most of us here on BC agreed that it was a huge - and criminal - mistake. I personally don't know whether JFK knew that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a ruse, but the war was America's greatest strategic mistake of the 20th century...but not the worst mistake in our history, thanks to the Iraq War which helped to nearly bankrupt our nation.
But you thought we should have stayed? Remember Kissinger's maxim: nations do not have friends - nations have interests (note: this is not a set-in-stone rule).
11 - zingzing
and when did he ever suggest that they should go back to the 1967 borders? wasn't there some bit about "land swaps" in there? this whole "the 1967 borders are indefensible" line of reasoning is just big old handbags of bullshit that clearly shows if someone was listening or not (or maybe they're just playing politics, which of course they are).
12 - Leroy
So much loose talk in so few words. I heard Obamas speech and he said the borders should be negotiated from the 1967 borders as a start, not that they should be fixed there.
IMO Neten-yahoo was just blowing smoke for domestic far-right consumption. Don't take it seriously.
Israel has about 5 million people. Soon all the anti- israel nations in the ME will have rockets and warheads (courtesy of N. Korea which must sell nukes to feed it's people), so the future looks dark, not only for the ME but for the world. We better have a good redoubt strategy if we are to survive, and it appears to me that the Israelis are just picket troops in that case.
13 - Clavos
Zing and Leroy:
Here's the actual wording of the part of Obie's speech advocating return to the 1967 borders:
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.
14 - zingzing
what is it about the phrase "with mutually agreed swaps" that makes it so easy to ignore?
it's there. it's important. yes, the 1967 borders figure at the beginning of the negotiations, but they are not the end point, a fact that should be very clear to anyone reading the sentence. it takes into account the changed realities and populations of the region.
to ignore the phrase is just political slight of hand, except you really stink at it and everyone can see what you are doing.
i'm frankly disappointed that it seems people would rather play politics than see actual peace in the region.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
And what, pray tell, do you think "mutually agreed swaps" means? Especially when he said afterwards, "[The principles of a state's right to security] provide a foundation for negotiations."
And then he said, "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."
IN OTHER WORDS, Clavos, the context of the paragraphs clearly show that his suggestion - "should", remember? - was that they should sit down with each other, start with the template of the 1967 borders, and NEGOTIATE a new set of borders which allows Israel to maintain its security while allowing the Palestinians to actually have a homeland.
Sheesh! You ping me on my reading comprehension...but sometimes you also need to read more than the sentence that - when taken in proper context - means something else than what you want it to mean.
16 - zingzing
that was directed at all the people who are trying to say obama advocated a return to the 1967 borders, which he clearly did not. it wasn't just at clavos.
if someone wants to say that it's politically inconceivable that obama's negotiating points will ever achieve peace in the region, that's alright. but don't try to make it sound like he said something he did not say. that's just a waste of time. and i don't quite understand why anyone would bother.
17 - Dr Dreadful
As far as I'm concerned, Obama is perfectly entitled to express his opinion that any Israel-Palestine negotiations should start with a recogntion of the 1967 borders, just as Netanyahu is perfectly within his rights to tell Obama to fuck off.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
That would be true of private citizens, but not so of leaders of nations. I mean, it might be their personal 'right' to do so...but realpolitik often demands otherwise.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, as I see it, Obama is expressing America's opinion on the matter. Obama gets to decide what America's opinion is because he won the election to be the head of its government.
Same goes for Netanyahu. These need not be their personal opinions, and diplomacy demands that they're couched in rather more murky terms than the ones I put in their mouths, but they're still opinions.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Many's the time a politician has to agree to something or say something that he doesn't want to agree to or say - such is the nature of politics in a democracy. After all, how many flip-flops have you seen over the years?
21 - Clavos
...start with the template of the 1967 borders...
Glenn, please don't insult me. I negotiate for a living -- been doing it for more than forty years; the starting point in any negotiation is always greater than what either party expects to be the ending point of the negotiation.
Netanyahu is not a fool. He knows how to negotiate, which is why he immediately objected so strongly to Obama's proposal.
22 - zingzing
well, clavos, that's the problem. palestine will accept nothing less than the 67 borders, but if it had its way, it would take it all back because they view it as their stolen land. israel will not go with the 67 borders, it wants what it has today, and would rather spread than contract. the only thing TO negotiate is the the disputed territory, and the only benchmark that seems to get any play whatsoever from palestine is the 67 borders.
yes, netanyahu is objecting because he knows how to negotiate. but he knows that he'll get more than the 67 borders, if these negotiations start from there. he doesn't for a second think that that's where it'll end up. he's playing a) dumb, and b) smart.
i'm sure he heard the "mutually agreed swap" phrase, and i'm sure he knows what it means. but he's acting all shocked and insulted to start from as strong a position as he possibly can.
not that these negotiations will ever really happen. more dumb shit will happen. and more dumb shit after that. and the shit will spiral around yet never flush.
23 - handyguy
It's not that the proposal/framework is new; it's that it is being said in public rather than behind closed doors in negotiating sessions. The GOP is pretending to be shocked, but I'm sure Netanyahu was not shocked, and both he and Obama are doing a pre-ordained kabuki dance.
24 - Kenn Jacobine
You know, the point of the article is that we should mind our own business because we have enough problems of our own and our interference usually ends in disaster. You guys are arguing about a silly point - what Obama specifically said. It's like Clinton's "it depends on what your defintion of is is"
25 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
Thank you for clarifying the negotiation process...not that Clavos will pay any attention, but you explained it brilliantly.