Obama urges Israel to go back to 1967 borders

Published - May 19 2011 04:27PM EST

By BEN FELLER - AP White House Correspondent


(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama delivers a policy address on events in the Middle East at the State Department in Washington, Thursday, May 19, 2011.

WASHINGTON — Forcefully stepping into an explosive Middle East debate, President Barack Obama on Thursday endorsed a key Palestinian demand for the borders of its future state and prodded Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation."

Obama's urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders _ before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza _ was a significant shift in the U.S. approach. It drew an immediate negative response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is to meet with Obama at the White House Friday.

In a statement released late Thursday in Jerusalem, Netanyahu called the 1967 lines "indefensible," saying such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders, though Obama left room for adjustments reached through negotiations.

At the same time, it was not immediately clear whether Obama's statement on the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations _ something the Palestinians have long sought _ would be sufficient to persuade the Palestinians to drop their push for U.N. recognition of their statehood. Obama rejected the Palestinians' unilateral statehood bid Thursday as he sought to underscore U.S. support for Israel notwithstanding the endorsement of the 1967 borders.

"Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.

Obama's comments came in his most comprehensive response to date to the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. Speaking at the State Department, he called for the first time for the leader of Syria to embrace democracy or move aside, though without specifically demanding his ouster.

As he addressed audiences abroad and at home, Obama sought to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind the protesters who have swelled from nation to nation across the Middle East and North Africa, while also trying to convince American viewers that U.S. involvement in unstable countries halfway around the world is in their interest, too.

Obama said the United States has a historic opportunity and the responsibility to support the rights of people clamoring for freedoms, and he called for "a new chapter in American diplomacy."

"We know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith," the president said.

He hailed the killing of al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and declared that bin Laden's vision of destruction was fading even before U.S. forces shot him dead.

Obama said the "shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region."

The president noted that two leaders had stepped down _ referring to Egypt and Tunisia _ and said that "more may follow." He quoted civilian protesters who have pushed for change in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen _ though without noting that among those nations, only Egypt has seen the departure of a long-ruling autocratic leader.

Obama said that while there will be setbacks accompanying progress in political transitions, the movements present a valuable opportunity for the U.S. to show which side it is on. "We have a chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of a dictator," he said, referring to the fruit vendor who killed himself in despair and sparked a chain of events that unleashed uprisings around the Arab world.

On the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the president cautioned that the recent power-sharing agreement between the mainstream Palestinian faction led by Mahmoud Abbas and the radical Hamas movement that rules Gaza "raises profound and legitimate" security questions for Israel. Netanyahu has refused to deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

"How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?" Obama asked. "In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question."

The president ignored many of the most divisive issues separating the two sides. He did not speak about the status of Jerusalem or the fate of Palestinian refugees. And, he did not discuss a way to resolve Israel's concerns about a Hamas role in a unified Palestinian government, telling the Palestinians that they would have to address the matter themselves.

On Syria, Obama said President Bashar Assad must lead his country to democracy or "get out of the way," his most direct warning to the leader of a nation embroiled in violence. Obama said the Syrian government "has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens." He praised the Syrian people for their courage in standing up to repression in a bloody crackdown that has killed hundreds.

Obama said that while each country in the region is unique, there are shared values in the push for political change that will define the U.S. approach.

"Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States," he said.

The speech was in some ways notable for what Obama did not mention.

While critical of autocracy throughout the Mideast, he failed to mention the region's largest, richest and arguably most repressive nation, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Nor did he discuss Jordan, a staunch U.S. ally that has a peace deal with Israel. Also left out was the United Arab Emirates, the wealthy, pro-American collection of mini-states on the Persian Gulf. And he gave little attention to Iran, where U.S. attempts at outreach have gone nowhere.

The speech included somewhat tepid admonitions of U.S. allies Yemen and Bahrain. On Yemen, a key partner in the U.S. fight against al-Qaida, Obama called on President Ali Abdullah Saleh to "follow through on his commitment to transfer power." His language was stronger on Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, where Obama said the only way forward is dialogue between the government and opposition, "and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail."

Obama announced economic incentives aimed at steering a region roiling in violence toward democratic change that lasts, though some would require congressional approval that might prove difficult to obtain.

Among the elements of his approach:

_ The canceling of roughly $1 billion in debt for Egypt. The intention is that money freed from that debt obligation would be swapped toward investments in priority sectors of the Egyptian economy, likely to focus on entrepreneurship and employment for younger people. Unemployment rates are soaring in Egypt and across the region.

_ The guaranteeing of up to $1 billion in borrowing for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.

_ Promises by the U.S. to launch a new trade partnership in the Middle East and North Africa and to prod world financial institutions to help Egypt and Tunisia.

___

Associated Press writers Dan Perry and Josef Federman in Jerusalem, Karin Laub in Ramallah and Robert Reid in Cairo contributed to this report.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...ders/full/

As to the Israel's actual, militarily-defined borders, Israel will not voluntarily pull back to the 1967 frontiers, and there is no enticement, bribe, or threat from Americaor anyone else that will make them do so. It will take a major war to make that happen, a much bigger war than anything the Middle East has seen in the last 44 years. Israel's enemies -- for the time being -- are not strong enough to launch a war on that scale, so therefore it won't happen.

As to the domestic-US politics, Obama has just told Jewish voters in America to kiss his @ss, finally and forever. In terms of financial contributions, and in terms of Electoral Votes and popular votes 18 months from now, it is difficult to measure, precisely, how deep the bruise will be felt. I think it's the sort of thing where we'll just have to wait and see. But I think it (the "bruise") will be very deep.

Mexico is asking nicely to go back to 1844 boundaries...Texas, most of New Mexico, and eastern Colorado should be worried.

Arrogant *******. Who does Obama think he is telling Israel what to do? I guess he's looking out for his Muslim buddies.

Doesn't get anymore Racist than this latest move by Obama. Biggest Racist president of my lifetime.

Romney: Obama 'threw Israel under the bus'

Published - May 19 2011 07:05PM EST

By PHILIP ELLIOTT - Associated Press


(AP Photo/Jim Cole/file)
FILE -- In an April 29, 2011 file photo Possible 2012 presidential hopeful, former Massacusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a dinner sponsored by Americans for Prosperity in Manchester, N.H. Romney is set to deliver a speech Thursday, May 12, 2011 addressing health care and outlining what he would do if he wins the White House.

HANOVER, N.H. — Republicans looking to unseat President Barack Obama charged Thursday that he undermined the sensitive and delicate negotiations for Middle East peace with his outline for resumed talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said Obama, whom he served as U.S. ambassador to China until last month, undercut an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to build trust. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama "threw Israel under the bus" and handed the Palestinians a victory even before negotiations between the parties could resume. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech ever made by an America president for the survival of Israel."

Foreign policy has hardly been the center of the debate among the still-forming GOP presidential field. Instead, the candidates and potential candidates have kept their focus _ like the country's _ on domestic issues that are weighing on voters and their pocketbooks. Obama's speech provided one of the first opportunities for Republicans to assert their foreign policy differences with Obama and his Democratic administration.

Obama endorsed Palestinians' demands for the borders of its future state based on 1967 borders _ before the Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. That was a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Campaigning here in the state that hosts the first presidential nominating primary, Huntsman also said the United States should respect Israel and work to foster trust between Israelis and Palestinians.

"If we respect and recognize Israel as the ally that it is, we probably ought to listen to what they think is best," said Huntsman, who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush before surprising his party and serving Obama, a Democrat.

He acknowledged he didn't watch Obama's speech and was reacting to news coverage _ or as he called it "the aftermath."

"It is disrespectful of Israel for America to dictate negotiating terms to our ally," Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It is not appropriate for the president to dictate the terms."

Instead, the United States should work with Israel to push for peace without acceding to the Palestinians, he said.

Gingrich said Israel simply cannot go back to the 1967 borders and expect to remain secure, given technological advancements that would allow its enemies to fire rockets deeper into the state.

"Get a map of the region and look at what Hamas does in firing missiles into Israel," Gingrich told The Associated Press. "The president should have said that Hamas has to abandon its determination to destroy Israel."

Obama urged Israel to accept that it can never have a truly peaceful nation based on "permanent occupation." That follows what other Republicans have painted as hostility from this administration toward a stalwart ally in the Middle East.

"The current administration needs to come to terms with its confused and dangerous foreign policy soon, as clarity and security are the necessary conditions of any serious and coherent American set of policies," Santorum said in a statement.

Obama's speech at the State Department addressed the uprisings sweeping the Arab world. Speaking to audiences abroad and at home, he sought to leave no doubt that the U.S. stands behind the protesters who have swelled from nation to nation across the Middle East and North Africa.

"We know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith," the president said.

But the remarks only muddied things, especially on the dicey issue of Jerusalem, Pawlenty said.

"The city of Jerusalem must never be re-divided," he said. "At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it's never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem."

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a tea party favorite who is leaning toward a run, called the border suggestions "a shocking display of betrayal" to Israel.

"Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first," she said in a statement.

On Twitter, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin didn't directly address the speech but urged Obama to publicly welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of ushering him into private meetings away from reporters, as has occurred on Netanyahu's previous visits. The two leaders will talk Friday at the White House.

"Dear Mr. President, please allow our ally, PM Netanyahu, to respectfully arrive through the front door this time. Thanks, Concerned Americans," she tweeted.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/..._bus/full/

Next headline will read:

"Obama Tells Israel to Surrender Sovereignty to Palestinians via mass Suicide"

That'd make Arafat jump for joy and click his heels if he weren't room temperature.

He may as well be wearing a t-shirt that says "Have you hugged a Palestinian again!"

Doesn't matter, my liberal Jewish friends will continue to donate to his campaign, and Obama and Biden's lack of knowledge of history will continue to haunt us.

Or maybe this is Fareed's idea. Hard to know who is running the country anymore.

The bigger news today is Geithner and the debt ceiling. How long before we become Argentina 2001?

Took awhile today for you guys to jump onto this. You are all ignorant fools if you think Obama said anything different today than the two previous administrations. Learn some history. Hell, even Charles Krauthammer liked the speech. Please learn when Republican politicians looking to score points are manipulating you. Please learn nuance and how to read about and study an issue for yourselves. Please, please please.

Edit: ADL liked it...

Quote:ADL Applauds President Obama's Strong Outline Of Principles For U.S. Policy In Middle East

New York, NY, May 19, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today commended President Barack Obama for his statement of U.S. priorities in the Middle East, his strong affirmation of the deep and "unshakeable" relationship between the United States and Israel, and expressed support for his vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel and a non-militarized Palestinian state.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director issued the following statement:

We welcome President Obama's compelling speech on the priorities for American policy in the Middle East. We applaud his strong outlining of the principles which motivate that policy, including supporting the universal rights of free speech, equality and religious freedom, opposing the use of force and political repression, and promoting political and economic reforms. These are a reflection of American values and promote American interests.

We further commend his strong affirmation of the importance of the deep and unshakeable U.S.-Israel relationship, and his clear articulation of the moral and strategic connections between America and Israel. We support the President's vision of a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian settlement with strong security provisions for Israel, and a non-militarized Palestinian state. We appreciate his direct rejection of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and his understanding that the Hamas-Fatah agreement poses major problems for Israel.

The Palestinians must heed the President's warnings about imprudent and self-defeating actions, including through campaigns to delegitimize Israel, plans to unilaterally declare statehood, and a unity agreement with a Hamas which remains committed to violence, rejection and anti-Semitism.

This Administration has come a long way in two years in terms of understanding of the nuances involved in bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace and a better understanding of the realities and challenges confronting Israel.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/6045_62.htm

AJC liked it...

Quote:AJC Praises President Obama’s Call on Palestinians to Abandon UDI, Return to Peace Talks with Israel

May 19, 2011 – New York – AJC praised President Obama’s call today for the Palestinian Authority to return to direct peace negotiations with Israel and to halt its current campaign to declare a state unilaterally.


“President Obama has sternly warned the Palestinians, and the international community, to stop this senseless drive to try to achieve a state without any negotiated agreement with Israel,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris.


“The parameters of a two-state solution are just as clear today as they were when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the peace talks last September,” said Harris. “The Palestinians must return now to close the deal.”


In a major address on U.S. policy in the Middle East, devoted mostly to America’s response to the unrest across the Arab world, President Obama said,

“Efforts to delegitimize Israel will not end in peace. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.”


Obama reaffirmed America’s “unshakeable” commitment to Israel’s security. Acknowledging the continuing security threats Israel faces, Obama declared that “Israel must be able to defend itself by itself” and a Palestinian state will be “non-militarized.”


AJC has long supported a negotiated two-state settlement, and welcomed the president’s reaffirmation of this goal. “A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples,” said Obama. “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 enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”


The president also stated clearly his concerns about the recent agreement between Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Abbas, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and has been designated by the U.S. and EU as a terrorist organization.


“Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection,” said Obama, adding that the Fatah-Hamas agreement itself “raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”


The president challenged Palestinian leaders to provide “a credible answer” to the question of “how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist.”

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/conte...47¬oc=1

J Street liked it...

Quote:J Street Commends President Obama’s Middle East Speech
May 19, 2011 at 1:00 pm

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami issued the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s speech on his approach to the changing Middle East:

J Street commends President Obama for his important speech today outlining his approach to the changing Middle East and stating that efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution are “more urgent than ever.” We are grateful that the President reiterated that America’s friendship with Israel is rooted in shared values and that the United States maintains an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

We share, however, the President’s deep concern that the status quo today between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable, and that “the dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” He is correct in saying that Israel will only find security through granting the Palestinian people their freedom, and the Palestinian people will only achieve freedom if Israel finds security.

J Street wholeheartedly endorses the approach to resolving the conflict outlined today by the President, namely, to address borders and security first. This is an approach which J Street first advocated when negotiations stalled last year. He also clearly established that those borders must be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps – an essential component of the ad J Street ran this morning in The New York Times.

We hope the President will now put his words into action in the coming days as he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he will launch a credible new diplomatic initiative in advance of the looming September United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.

We urge the President to publicly ask the leaders of both parties to join him in an intensive and immediate effort to achieve a two-state solution on the basis of the principles laid out in this speech. He has laid out the parameters of a workable two-state deal, and now the parties must decide if they are ready to work seriously to achieve that elusive goal.

http://jstreet.org/blog/j-street-commend...st-speech/

More perspective for the challenged on here...

Quote:Nothing New in the Idea That '67 Borders Should Guide Peace Talks (UPDATED)
MAY 19 2011, 2:07 PM ET

I'm amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel's 1967 borders should define -- with land-swaps -- the borders of a Palestinian state. I'm feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

A bigger deal: President Obama's call for a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank following an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to keep a residual force in the Jordan Valley (as does the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which won't admit this publicly). The key here is the word "phased," which could mean anything. Israel could keep troops in the valley for 10 years after an agreement.

A much bigger deal: Obama's forthright denunciation of the unilateral Palestinian plan to seek the General Assembly's endorsement this September of statehood. Also a big deal: The President's statement that the Hamas-Fatah pact "raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel -- how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question." This doesn't sound like a radical departure from long-term American policy. Or even a mild departure.

UPDATE: Here is what Hillary Clinton said in 2009: "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."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international...ed/239162/

(05-20-2011 01:47 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  More perspective for the challenged on here...

Quote:Nothing New in the Idea That '67 Borders Should Guide Peace Talks (UPDATED)
MAY 19 2011, 2:07 PM ET

I'm amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel's 1967 borders should define -- with land-swaps -- the borders of a Palestinian state. I'm feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?

A bigger deal: President Obama's call for a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank following an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to keep a residual force in the Jordan Valley (as does the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which won't admit this publicly). The key here is the word "phased," which could mean anything. Israel could keep troops in the valley for 10 years after an agreement.

A much bigger deal: Obama's forthright denunciation of the unilateral Palestinian plan to seek the General Assembly's endorsement this September of statehood. Also a big deal: The President's statement that the Hamas-Fatah pact "raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel -- how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question." This doesn't sound like a radical departure from long-term American policy. Or even a mild departure.

UPDATE: Here is what Hillary Clinton said in 2009: "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."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international...ed/239162/

This whole subject is one hot topic. Hell, we give awards to people throughout history for their work towards Middle East peace, yet the same problems dog the area as time marches on.

Every administration talks about these borders because it is what the Palestinians and Israelis always want to talk about. No news here.

I would be interested in the context of Bush being brought up in this article. I thought Bush was very clear in his 2004 letter about the boundaries (ie unrealistic to go back to 1967 boundaries).

In any event... new administration, new thoughts on obtaining peace in the area. Time marches on.

Well... Florida now goes back to Espana. We don't need all of those retired folks anyway.

For an administration that hides behind soverignty issues when washing it's hands when demonstrators were getting whacked in Iran and now Syria, we sure don't have a problem kicking the the internal hornets' nest when it comes to allies. Israel was only the most obvious ally in that region that is pissed at that speech. Baharain and the Saudis won't be sending flowers anytime soon. With friends like us...

Find me an Israeli source that approves of this--You'd be hard pressed to come up with an Isralei Jew that favors such a policy....and after all, aren't they the most important party involved in these negotiations? It is, after all, THEIR COUNTRY....

Israel is the one stable government in the immediate region, and the US just unleashed the hounds of hell on them yesterday. No wonder they are pissed. Going to be a crazy summer in Jerusalem. When Israel asserts its soverign right to tell everyone to go f### themselves, this thing is going to blow up.

Quote:Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting, Mr. Netanyahu walked out of the hotel and told him that he had been impressed with Mr. Obama’s intellect, and that the American presidency “was his to lose.”

But things went downhill soon after Mr. Obama took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the president his first foreign policy humiliation when Mr. Obama had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply.

Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly denied him all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Mr. Obama the next day, refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.

Things got so bad, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Mr. Obama, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said.

But the easing of tensions ended this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Mr. Obama’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Mr. Obama, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John A. Boehner issued the invitation, for late May.

So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/...ml?_r=1&hp

Netanyahu at White House after Obama challenge

Published - May 20 2011 08:23AM EST

By ERICA WERNER - Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were sharply at odds over terms for Middle East peace ahead of a highly anticipated Oval Office meeting Friday.

In a speech Thursday on U.S. policy in the Mideast, Obama for the first time endorsed the Palestinians' demand that their eventual state be based on borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel forces occupied east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

From Jerusalem, Netanyahu dismissed the position as "indefensible," saying it would leave major Jewish settlements outside Israel. Then he boarded a plane for his long-scheduled visit to Washington, vowing to seek clarifications in his meeting with Obama at the White House. He arrived in Washington early Friday.

The encounter will pit a president deeply frustrated with a peace effort in shambles against an Israeli leader confronted by a Palestinian government he says he cannot do business with. International pressure is growing on both to answer the demands of the Palestinian people as the revolts sweeping the Arab world crest against Israel itself. Palestinian protesters emboldened by the winds of change marched on the Jewish state's borders this week and at least 15 people were killed.

Against that backdrop, Obama is aiming "to try to convince Netanyahu and the Israelis that there's a greater urgency in reaching agreement with the Palestinians because of the dramatic changes under way in the region and greater diplomatic pressures and efforts to isolate Israel and delegitimize its existence," said Haim Malka, deputy director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"So he was speaking to both the Israelis and the Palestinians and trying to urge them to move forward and conveying a sense of urgency and risk in the status quo," Malka said.

Netanyahu's tough response to Obama's speech "expresses disappointment at the absence of central items that Israel had demanded, primarily the (Palestinian) refugees," a senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not free to discuss U.S. policy on the record, told reporters traveling with the prime minister.

The official said Netanyahu was disappointed the speech did not address the Palestinian demand to repatriate to Israel millions of Palestinians, most descendants of people who were driven from or fled homes in the war over the Jewish state's 1948 creation.

"There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, Washington does not understand what we face," the official said.

Obama's stance on the 1967 borders was not a major policy change, since the U.S _ along with the international community and even past Israeli governments _ previously endorsed an agreement building on the 1967 lines.

But it was the first time he'd explicitly endorsed those borders as a starting point, a position Netanyahu rejects. Obama said Israel can never be a truly peaceful Jewish state if it insists on "permanent occupation." But he did say the 1967 borders should be accompanied by land swaps agreed to by both sides, which could accommodate existing Jewish settlements.

Obama was unsparing, too, in his words for the Palestinian leadership, repudiating its pursuit of unilateral statehood through the United Nations and questioning its alliance with a Hamas faction bent on Israel's destruction. It was not immediately clear, however, whether Obama's statement on the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations _ something the Palestinians have long sought _ would be sufficient to persuade the Palestinians to drop their quest for U.N. recognition.

Obama's blunt attempt to steer the peace effort was a major change in tactics from a president who has avoided imposing any U.S. plan but is now running out of patience and reasons to be subtle. Seeking to shake up a dynamic of mutual blame for the stalled peace talks, Obama pushed both sides to accept his starting point _ borders for Palestine, security for Israel _ and get back to solving a stalemate "that has grinded on and on and on."

"The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome," the president said Thursday at the State Department. "At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever."

That doesn't mean resolution is anywhere in sight.

Ahead of his trip to Washington, Netanyahu delivered a speech to his parliament in which he made clear his opposition to talks with a newly constituted Palestinian government that shares power between the mainstream Palestinian Fatah faction led by Mahmoud Abbas and the radical Hamas movement that rules Gaza. He also made a series of demands that the Palestinians _ and especially Hamas _ are not likely to meet. Among them were dropping their claim to east Jerusalem, their would-be capital, and recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland.

Palestinians, for their part, refuse to negotiate while Israel continues to expand Jewish enclaves in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want to be part of an eventual state. Israel refuses to freeze settlement construction, saying the matter should be resolved through negotiations.

With talks at a standstill, the Palestinians are planning to unilaterally take their bid for statehood to the United Nations in September, a step Obama rejected Thursday, saying, "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state."

But Obama had no solution to the question of Hamas, and no blueprint for how to solve enormous conflicts over the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. The border issue, he conceded, was just a start.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller in Washington and Amy Teibel traveling with Netanyahu and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...enge/full/

Quote:Prime minister’s associate slam US president’s speech, says ‘he didn’t deliver the goods,’ fails to understand Mideast realities. Israeli PM prepared for confrontation with Obama over vital issues, Netanyahu’s aides say

Attila Somfalvi Published: 05.20.11, 02:21 / Israel News
share




Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s associates expressed their disappointment with Barack Obama’s speech Thursday, with one aide saying that the US president is detached from regional realities.

The PM’s associates told Ynet early Friday that Netanyahu, who departed to the US Thursday night, is prepared for a confrontation withPresident Obama on vital issues.

Israeli Reaction:

Netanyahu says 'No' to 1967 borders / Attila Somfalvi

Prime minister expects Obama to reaffirm Bush pledges, whereby settlement blocs will remain in Israel.

Referring to the US president’s Mideast policy speech, a Netanyahu associate said: “He (Obama) didn’t deliver the goods…Obama apparently does not understand the reality in the Mideast.”

The PM’s aides added that Obama’s historic speech lacked many key points and that his address was “bad for Israel.” Netanyahu himself issued a quick response to the speech earlier, demanding that the president reaffirm previous US pledges that Israel will not be asked to withdraw to the 1967 borders in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians.

In his Washington speech, Obama said that a Jewish, democratic state must be based on the 1967 borders, with territorial tradeoffs. The president voiced his objection to the Palestinian intention to seek UN recognition of statehood in September, but refrained from addressing the contentious issue of Palestinian refugees.

Obama also refrained from harshly slamming the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement, and reminded Netanyahu that the international community was getting tired of a process that has not culminated in a peace deal.

A Netanyahu associate told Ynet that the president apparently “forgot the conditions set forth by the International Quartet, which Obama himself endorsed.”

The aide added that Obama did not meet any demand set forth by the prime minister, referring to Netanyahu’s recent speech where he declared that Israel will not give up settlement blocs and maintain a military presence along the Jordan River.

Obama also did not address in his speech the issue of Palestinian recognition of the Jewish State as a pre-condition for negotiations.

“Netanyahu is willing to offer painful concessions. In his Knesset speech, the prime minister went far,” a Bibi associate said. “He contends with a problematic rightist coalition. We expected Obama to understand this and take these issues into consideration in his speech.” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...11,00.html

Quote:But things went downhill soon after Mr. Obama took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the president his first foreign policy humiliation when Mr. Obama had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply... Things got so bad, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Mr. Obama, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said.

But the easing of tensions ended this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Mr. Obama’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Mr. Obama, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John A. Boehner issued the invitation, for late May.

So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/...ml?_r=1&hp

[/quote]

In the 63 years since the State of Israel was established, there has never been a more dysfunctional relationship between an Israeli PM and an American President than the one between Obama and Netanyahu. That is not going to change, and I suspect that nothingof any real substance is going to be achieved in this area (Middle East peace) so long as both men are in office.

BTW, I just love that anonymous quote about how "the relationship now is very cordial." That is quite rich. I always wonder who, exactly, such comments are intended to fool.

Here is what I like about the Israelis. Whether military or political, you never have to worry about where they really stand. How is this for straight forward?

Quote:Israel Expects Obama to Take Back ‘1967 Lines’ Demand

by Gil Ronen
Follow Israel news on and .


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick on the draw Thursday in voicing clear displeasure with President Barack Obama’s mideast policy speech.

“Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace,” the response began, curtly. “Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”

“That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

“Among other things,” Netanyahu reminded Obama, “those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”

“Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.”

“Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.”

“Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.”

“Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.”

“Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144338

Translation: Go f### yourself.

It was just two years ago that in a speech pandering to Jewish voters, BO made the statement that splitting the Jewish nation was not an option, and would ever be.

Snubbing allies (and this is much more than a "snub") and bowing to kings and despots has been Obama's only real consistency.

I have a feeling Hillary isn't going to take much more of this. She might still have a career to look forward to after this circus ends, but maybe not if she sticks around through the next election.

This is the foreign policy equivalent to: "Hey maybe if we are really, really mean to Israel, the Iranians, Palestinians and Syrians etc. will see us as really swell."

Why not, It worked so well with Russia.