What Bibi Gains by Misrepresenting Obama's Mideast Policy

[oberliner]

Of all the petty annoyances, misdemeanors and felonies of public life, there is none that Barack Obama detests more than to have his words twisted or oversimplified. It is a big part of his frustration with the media; it is a bigger part of his disdain for the talk-show wing of the Republican Party. And so it wasnt hard to imagine smoke jetting from the Presidents ears as Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, willfully misinterpreted Obamas statement about the need to renegotiate Israels borders — in Obamas presence, in the Oval Office on May 20. The President had said that a two-state solution, which Netanyahu alleges to support, should be based on the pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that would enable Israel to incorporate the vast majority of its — dare I say — illegal settlements into its territory while giving over equal amounts of Israeli turf to the Palestinians.

This is not a groundbreaking proposition. In the arcane world of Middle East peace negotiations, it is the equivalent of saying many Jews and Arabs eat hummus. Indeed, this exact formulation was used by Israels Ministry of Foreign Affairs after Hillary Clinton met with Netanyahu on Nov. 11. The swapping of borderlands was at the heart of Bill Clintons nearly successful attempt to negotiate a peace deal in 2000. It was at the heart of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmerts nearly successful effort to negotiate peace with the Palestinians in 2008. There are maps circulating that show how such a border might look. The most plausible, one of three versions proposed by David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is shown on this page.

But Netanyahu did an astonishing thing: he chose to ignore the part about the land swaps. He also chose to ignore some significant, and rather hard-line, statements of principle that Obama made in his May 19 speech on Middle East policy, reiterating that Israel shouldnt have to negotiate with terrorist groups like Hamas that deny its right to exist; that Israels security requires a long-term military presence in the Jordan River Valley, eventually leading to a full withdrawal (but setting no timetable for that withdrawal); that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized; and that he would actively oppose any unilateral U.N. effort to declare Palestinian statehood. Instead, in a most condescending manner, Netanyahu chose to lecture the President on a position that he knew Obama hadnt taken — a return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders.

Why on earth would Bibi Netanyahu choose to be so boorish and provocative? Because he can be. He has the U.S. Congress in his pocket, a fact made obvious by the applause tsunami that attended his speech to a joint session (and by the fact that an astonishing 68 Senators and 286 Representatives attended the American Israel Public Affairs Committee banquet the night before he spoke). He also has a stronger argument this time around. The apparent reconciliation of the Palestinian factions allows Netanyahu to focus on Israels greatest fear: when push comes to shove, the Palestinians have never really acknowledged Israels right to exist. The one exception to that rule — Yasser Arafats signing of the Oslo accords — seems hollow, given the subsequent Palestinian rejection of both the Clinton and Olmert offers. But Netanyahus offensive also had an important tactical effect: Israels continued, illegal construction of settlements on Palestinian lands — an impediment to peace every bit as great as the Palestinian refusal to truly acknowledge Israels existence — took a distinct backseat during the week of dueling speeches. Netanyahu was playing offense so he didnt have to play defense.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2074015,00.html#ixzz1NStbkoxM

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Bibi's response and speech to Congress sounded like Rove wrote it.

[Igel]

2. Here's how it could sound.

We have several issues:

1. Borders

2. Right of return

3. Status of Jerusalem

It was said that Obama's speech was a major policy statement. Many saw it as a restatement of long-standing policy. It was more "articulate," therefore ground-breaking. But then it was re-billed as old-hat, because it was long-standing policy.

It was and wasn't long-standing policy. But it requires being able to be aware of at least two things at once and remember back at least 3 years to see that. (Which is why newspaper reporters proclaimed it to be new, then proclaimed it to be unchanged. It was new simply because, in the strictest sense, it was unchanged.)

The old policy went like this: Understanding that some settlement blocs are deemed crucial to Israel's security, along with some sort of defensive position along the Jordan, the '67 borders were to be taken as the starting point with necessary land-swaps being taken in a mutually agreed upon manner. In other words, we start with territorial extent a la '67, stipulate that there *will* be land swaps: Then it's both a question of what land to swap for the settlements, as well as what "non-necessary" swaps will take place to make things work.

That's not Obama's policy. Far from it. *All* land swaps are to be mutually agreed upon. Abbas (or whoever) doesn't want to swap one sq meter of land, that's his choice. Moreover, part of the carrot/stick system was including a final settlement for Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and the RoR. Abbas has no pressure to swap land. Zilch. *Unless* he can find other concessions that Israel could give.

It's long-standing US policy. It's completely new US policy. The difference is context. If a woman wears a bikini to the beach, it's fairly routine. If the same woman is a White House employee--either a server at WH functions or a secretary--and she's told to wear the bikini while on duty--then is it sexist? It's not sexist at the beach, so it's not sexist anywhere. Unless context matters, and what's around the woman + bikini "complex" matters.

Now, Jerusalem is up for negotiation, as is the RoR. Notice the contradiction: The '67 borders ran through Jerusalem. They allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Jordanian side of the border, as well as the desecration (from the Jewish perspective) of the Western Wall and other sites. The '67 borders would reset the border so that Abbas would be able to negotiate for access to much of the city. Perhaps the RoR would allow for this; but Abbas might argue that Palestinians automatically have the RoR, making Israel subject to UN sanctions and then say, "The Old City is Arab and Muslim. Since the Jews have no connection with the Western Wall, there's no point in granting them access. Oh, and we've cleaned out some rubble and reinforced the retaining wall around the Dome of the Rock."