Obama Did Not Mention the 1967 Borders
There is a serious omission in most of the news — and, by extension, the comments — about the excerpt from the Thursday speech in which President Barack Obama referred to Israel's borders and the Palestinian state.
All the headlines were based on the assumption that Obama is advocating — for the first time in his administration — the adoption of the 1967 border lines as the basis for the future Palestinian state. False. The complete phrase is: "The borders of Israel and the Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 lines WITH EXCHANGE [of land] Set as a JOINT AGREEMENT."*
This part that I put in capital letters changes the whole impression by mentioning the 1967 borders.
Let me explain: If there were no addendum, Israel would have to withdraw from all parts of the Palestinian territory it occupies, including parts of East Jerusalem that Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state, but Israel says is an undivided city.
The addendum, however, allows Israel to keep as much land as it wants, in the form of implemented settlements located on lands that the UN says to belong to the Palestinians, including in East Jerusalem. It’s enough, according to the content of Obama's speech, to exchange what is occupied by Jewish settlers with areas of Israel that do not matter to the Israelis.
In addition, Obama reiterated the old formula of American diplomacy, that “the gradual and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces [from the occupied territories] would depend on the ability of the Palestinian security forces and other items to be agreed to prevent the resurgence of terrorism.”
Obviously, Israel has the right to live without the shadow of terrorism threatening its population, but it is outside the scope of any security scheme to actually prevent terrorism, while there is still one person out there willing to kill and die in the same act. 9/11 is a clear proof of that.
So, Obama's speech, in what concerns the Israeli/Palestinian question, is harmless and nothing new.
As analyzed by Elliott Abrams, an expert on the Council on Foreign Relations, “the president's comments on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict do not lead anywhere. It is shocking that he did not suggest any action: neither a meeting, nor a special correspondent, nor a meeting of the Quartet [the group formed by the United States, Russia, EU and U.N., which attempts to mediate between the parties], nor an invitation to Washington.”
Bottom line: One should always read more than the daily headline.
*Editor's note: President Obama's actual remark is as follows: “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 ...”
All the headlines were based on the assumption that Obama is advocating — for the first time in his administration — the adoption of the 1967 border lines as the basis for the future Palestinian state. False. The complete phrase is: "The borders of Israel and the Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 lines WITH EXCHANGE [of land] Set as a JOINT AGREEMENT."*
This part that I put in capital letters changes the whole impression by mentioning the 1967 borders.
Let me explain: If there were no addendum, Israel would have to withdraw from all parts of the Palestinian territory it occupies, including parts of East Jerusalem that Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state, but Israel says is an undivided city.
The addendum, however, allows Israel to keep as much land as it wants, in the form of implemented settlements located on lands that the UN says to belong to the Palestinians, including in East Jerusalem. It’s enough, according to the content of Obama's speech, to exchange what is occupied by Jewish settlers with areas of Israel that do not matter to the Israelis.
In addition, Obama reiterated the old formula of American diplomacy, that “the gradual and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces [from the occupied territories] would depend on the ability of the Palestinian security forces and other items to be agreed to prevent the resurgence of terrorism.”
Obviously, Israel has the right to live without the shadow of terrorism threatening its population, but it is outside the scope of any security scheme to actually prevent terrorism, while there is still one person out there willing to kill and die in the same act. 9/11 is a clear proof of that.
So, Obama's speech, in what concerns the Israeli/Palestinian question, is harmless and nothing new.
As analyzed by Elliott Abrams, an expert on the Council on Foreign Relations, “the president's comments on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict do not lead anywhere. It is shocking that he did not suggest any action: neither a meeting, nor a special correspondent, nor a meeting of the Quartet [the group formed by the United States, Russia, EU and U.N., which attempts to mediate between the parties], nor an invitation to Washington.”
Bottom line: One should always read more than the daily headline.
*Editor's note: President Obama's actual remark is as follows: “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 ...”