Barack Obama gave two major policy speeches about the Middle East in quick succession, on May 19 and May 22; and while he discussed a number of Middle East topics, the Arab–Israeli-conflict portion received the lion’s share of attention. Analysts and politicians who care about the Middle East’s only democratic country (yes, I use that formulation now that Turkey is under AKP control) have excoriated Obama and see Israel in great jeopardy. For example, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the speech “a disaster” and said that Obama, in effect, asked Israel “to commit suicide.”
I see things more positively for Israel. My reasoning:
This is Obama’s third gratuitous, unprovoked, and unilateral picking of a fight with Israel. The prior two took place in May 2009 and March 2010: In the one, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared no Israeli building even in eastern Jerusalem; in the other, Vice President Joe Biden got (mock?) outraged when such building did take place.
In all three cases, the fight dwelt on a secondary issue that few had been focused on — Israeli building in the first two cases, and the June 4, 1967 ceasefire lines as the basis for a permanent border agreement in the current one — until Obama turned them into headlines.
Obama’s picking a fight led in all cases to an immediate hardening of positions by both Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis retreated, wounded and disinclined to make concessions, while Palestinians added Obama’s demands, Jerusalem and the 1967 lines, to their prior list of demands of Israel.
When Obama realized his mistake — that Israeli governments make concessions more readily when relations with Washington are strong and Palestinians need to be pressured, not coddled — he crawled back to the Israeli prime minister, making nice as though nothing had happened. This has occurred twice already, in September 2009 and July 2010. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank used choice language to describe the latter episode, describing a “routed and humiliated” Obama in a White House flying “the white flag of surrender.”
I predict that a “routed and humiliated” Obama will regret his ill-chosen fight over the 1967 lines and, if he follows his prior schedule, should be crawling back to the prime minister in about four months’ time, or September 2011.
In conclusion: As someone opposed to Arab-Israeli negotiations while war is underway and to Obama’s presidency, I take solace in his making a hash of diplomacy and politics. This way, Israel is less likely to make more counterproductive “painful concessions” and, with a slew of former Obama supporters abandoning him, Obama has hurt his chances for reelection.
Uh... This was already posted by a different "DP":
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is picking a fight?
Pop quiz, Mr. Pipes: who is the "Prime Minister" in the following quote from a JOINT STATEMENT on the ISRAEL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS WEBSITE:
"The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes 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." Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a UN resolution to recognize Palestine coming, and you say Obama has been "routed"? Everything this President has done regarding Israel has been with a deep dislike of it. The question is whether the US will not even veto this resolution, let alone squash it from coming to a vote. Get your head out of the sand Pipes, Obama is doing incredible damage to Israel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou silly gbh, if you think you are going to stump Daniel Pipes on this subject. You think Pipes is some johnny come lately?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDD - you evidently didn't appreciate the sarcasm. I wasn't really trying to suggest that Pipes doesn't KNOW that the phrase that everyone is now pretending to wring their hands about has been an uncontroversial statement of both US and Israeli policy - until Obama said it.
The point I was actually trying to make is that Pipes is is cynical, dishonest hack, who knows, but does not care, because he sees an opportunity to score political points and promote his extremist views, and that is all that counts.
I'm sorry that I was too subtle about the way I went about it earlier. Hopefully, that's been corrected by this post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, gbh, seriously, where have you been? That sleight-of-hand has been dealt with already and conclusively.
The joint statement in November specifically acknowledged "1967 borders with land swaps" as the *Palestinian* goal. Obama, in his speech, defined it as "our" goal.
November: let's reconcile the Palestinian and Israeli positions.
Obama: we're adopting the Palestinian position.
Those are the plain words of both statements. You may choose to ignore the distinction, but the distinction is there nonetheless. And that November statement certainly said nothing even approaching a "contiguous state" for the Palestinians, as such would require splitting Israel in two.
Seriously, as much as this silly canard gets flown around here, I'm starting to think that the White House has people sent in here specifically to post its own talking points. And in general, that the White House does this strikes me as a virtual certainty. They established an office with the specific goal of countering opposition to Obama on the Internet, so why wouldn't some of the more persistent Obama defenders 'round these parts be part of that effort?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavidJ, the problem with what you're trying to do is that it only works if you ignore all of Obama's speech other than the reference to "1967 borders". What he actually does either side of that ALSO to endorse the Israeli bottom line from the joint statement. In other words, he's saying that they're reconcilable, exactly the same as the joint statement. Here's Obama's speech:
"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure 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. We believe 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, 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-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated."
You can't honestly drive a hair's worth of difference between Obama's speech and the November joint statement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, gbh, I surely can. Obama's speech adopted the Palestinian position specifically and paid lip service to Israeli "security concerns."
Obama is in absolutely no position to be given the benefit of the doubt here. He famously chooses his words carefully (except when he's "jetlagged," apparently), and in a prepared speech, there's no excuse for any ambiguity or sloppy wording. He clearly adopted the Palestinian position. As I said, the plain words of his speech say so.
Given Obama's track record on Israel, such an adoption is fully-consistent.
And the funny thing is, this sort of position is exactly what his supporters from the Left actually want him to take, but for some reason, whenever he does take such a position, they're usually compelled to swoop in and pretend he said something different from what he did. This, of course, always leads me to think -- why not just defend the position as it is if it's what you really believe? Why pretend it's something other than what it is?
I find this especially ironic when in so defending Obama, the charge is almost always that his opposition is being "dishonest" and misleading.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you don't actually disagree with the words, but your decoder ring tells you that he only means it when he talks about the need for a Palestianian state, and he doesn't mean it when he talks about the need for Israeli security?
If that's what you think, there's not much point discussing what he actually said, because it doesn't actually matter to you at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, gbh, take your ball and go home.
I'm not "decoding" anything. I'm taking his exact words at face value. I'm also taking the November statement's exact words at face value.
It's *you* who are divining some kind of esoteric intent into the words and calling people who won't play along "cynical" and "dishonest," "hacks" even. That's a poor refuge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid, you insist on characterizing as "the Palestinian postion" a proposition that every sane person - including previous US and Israeli leaders - knows will be the basis of any peace settlement, and you insist on characterizing Obama's support for Israeli security - again - statements that are entirely consistent with official US position for decades as "lip service".
There's nothing honest or straightforward about this characterization. You are determined to see Obama as anti-Israel, and so you interpret everything he says in support of Israel as dishonest, and everything he says in support of Palestinian statehood without context.
If you were to accept that he means what he says - on all counts - the statement is competely uncontroversial.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, gbh; I'm pointing out what the November statement called "the Palestinian goal." We're talking about differences between the statements, so either you're trying to confuse the issue, or you're simply confused yourself. I, however, am not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegbh - If you're right, why have Sen. Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer distanced themselves from Obama's Thursday speech as have other Democrats?
BTW GD Taylor has a point. The same column appeared under Dennis Prager's byline yesterday. What's up with that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, gbh, I notice you're copy/pasting the same thing into various threads. This does little to dispel any ideas one might have that you were sent in for a purpose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse