’67 Lines and Checks and Balances
The president of the United States stated that the ‘67 borders are going to be the basis of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and has since received strong objection from Netanyahu in return. Moshe Arens posits that the strong backing Netanyahu received from Congress will have some affect on the president.
It has been a long time since an Israeli prime minister has expressed these words: “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers,” said Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech addressing both houses of Congress, to a standing ovation. Past Israeli prime ministers would take a passive approach to slanderous and defaming speech hurled at their country over the years coming from inside and out. According to the allegations, Israel is a “conqueror” of the territories that fall beyond the armistice line conceived in 1949. Even Ariel Sharon, in his final years in office, started to speak of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as a type of “occupation.”
This flawed approach that Israeli prime ministers have unfortunately taken up in representing their nation has wrought immeasurable damage to Israel’s world image and has helped to form this perception that the “occupation” is evil and needs to be suppressed. However, this was no matter for Netanyahu, who had the strength to deny this fallacy of occupation in his address to Congress.
Many disappointed Israeli commentators, who were hopeful that Netanyahu would announce the end of the “occupation” in his speech to Congress, found it easy to explain the great cheering applause with which his words were met. There was even someone who wrote that had Netanyahu simply read from the phone book, he would have received applause. Others remarked that there is nothing to be said for the enthusiasm that resulted from his words. They pointed out that every Israeli prime minister that has ever spoken in Congress was received by the crowd with a loud standing ovation.
They forgot to mention that previous prime ministers turned to Congress at a time when Israeli policy was coordinated with the White House. This time around, things are different. Netanyahu spoke to Congress after he made it clear that Israel does not accept Barack Obama’s proclamation that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders, and he went back and sustained his position in his speech.
Not to the “Auschwitz Borders”
Now there are Israelis who consider themselves experts on the American government system and explain that, in truth, the president manages American policy while Congress has no part in its formation. Therefore, according to them, it doesn’t matter if today’s Congress is especially friendly and supportive of Israel and positions taken by its government, which is democratically elected, because Congress has no role in creating American foreign policy.
However, these experts are displaying their ignorance regarding the checks and balances system of the United States. This system has great influence on the president’s relation to Congress and on American foreign policy. The executive branch, while essentially headed by the president, cannot pass new foreign policy acts in direct opposition to a majority Congress vote. In any case, even these “experts” must understand that the warm greeting Congress extended to Netanyahu was an impressive demonstration of the strong relationship between the American people and the Israeli people. They can also take a look at the headlines of The Washington Post the day after Netanyahu appeared before Congress, which read “Top Democrats Criticize Obama's Policy toward Israel.”
A few days later, Obama took part in the G8 meeting in Europe. He was probably surprised when the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, objected to the inclusion of the "1967 lines" in the G-8's resolution on the Middle East. North of the U.S. there is great friend of Israel who seems to agree with Netanyahu.
Obama probably realizes by now that he erred when he said the "1967 lines" should serve as the base for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Somebody should have told him that for most Israelis the "1967 lines," which Abba Eban in his famous speech at the UN referred to as the "Auschwitz borders," are like a red cape waved in front of a bull.
Another person erred as well. The leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, without giving it a second thought, used the opportunity to criticize the prime minister, announcing that Netanyahu should have accepted Obama's proposal. She will most likely discover that withdrawal to the "1967 lines" is going to be an unpopular platform for Kadima in the next election.
It has been a long time since an Israeli prime minister has expressed these words: “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers,” said Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech addressing both houses of Congress, to a standing ovation. Past Israeli prime ministers would take a passive approach to slanderous and defaming speech hurled at their country over the years coming from inside and out. According to the allegations, Israel is a “conqueror” of the territories that fall beyond the armistice line conceived in 1949. Even Ariel Sharon, in his final years in office, started to speak of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as a type of “occupation.”
This flawed approach that Israeli prime ministers have unfortunately taken up in representing their nation has wrought immeasurable damage to Israel’s world image and has helped to form this perception that the “occupation” is evil and needs to be suppressed. However, this was no matter for Netanyahu, who had the strength to deny this fallacy of occupation in his address to Congress.
Many disappointed Israeli commentators, who were hopeful that Netanyahu would announce the end of the “occupation” in his speech to Congress, found it easy to explain the great cheering applause with which his words were met. There was even someone who wrote that had Netanyahu simply read from the phone book, he would have received applause. Others remarked that there is nothing to be said for the enthusiasm that resulted from his words. They pointed out that every Israeli prime minister that has ever spoken in Congress was received by the crowd with a loud standing ovation.
They forgot to mention that previous prime ministers turned to Congress at a time when Israeli policy was coordinated with the White House. This time around, things are different. Netanyahu spoke to Congress after he made it clear that Israel does not accept Barack Obama’s proclamation that Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders, and he went back and sustained his position in his speech.
Not to the “Auschwitz Borders”
Now there are Israelis who consider themselves experts on the American government system and explain that, in truth, the president manages American policy while Congress has no part in its formation. Therefore, according to them, it doesn’t matter if today’s Congress is especially friendly and supportive of Israel and positions taken by its government, which is democratically elected, because Congress has no role in creating American foreign policy.
However, these experts are displaying their ignorance regarding the checks and balances system of the United States. This system has great influence on the president’s relation to Congress and on American foreign policy. The executive branch, while essentially headed by the president, cannot pass new foreign policy acts in direct opposition to a majority Congress vote. In any case, even these “experts” must understand that the warm greeting Congress extended to Netanyahu was an impressive demonstration of the strong relationship between the American people and the Israeli people. They can also take a look at the headlines of The Washington Post the day after Netanyahu appeared before Congress, which read “Top Democrats Criticize Obama's Policy toward Israel.”
A few days later, Obama took part in the G8 meeting in Europe. He was probably surprised when the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, objected to the inclusion of the "1967 lines" in the G-8's resolution on the Middle East. North of the U.S. there is great friend of Israel who seems to agree with Netanyahu.
Obama probably realizes by now that he erred when he said the "1967 lines" should serve as the base for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Somebody should have told him that for most Israelis the "1967 lines," which Abba Eban in his famous speech at the UN referred to as the "Auschwitz borders," are like a red cape waved in front of a bull.
Another person erred as well. The leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, without giving it a second thought, used the opportunity to criticize the prime minister, announcing that Netanyahu should have accepted Obama's proposal. She will most likely discover that withdrawal to the "1967 lines" is going to be an unpopular platform for Kadima in the next election.
Next article![]( "DSK: Are the French Media Responsible?")