President Obama this week gave a thoughtful address on the Middle East which has predictably drawn criticism from U.S. partisan critics and the majority party in Israel who object to the president's call for Israel to return to 1967 borders as part of a peace deal with Palestinians. But leading Jewish citizens in Israel are calling for support of President Obama's peace efforts.
Churches for Middle East Peace explains the context of the week's developments:
In a speech to the Knesset May 16, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out principles for negotiations, offering to hand over parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians if they accepted his peace terms. The prime minister said that such a deal would include compromises on "parts of our homeland." However, he stated that such a deal would not include the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel, would keep West Bank Israeli settlement blocs intact, would involve long-term Israeli military presence along the Jordan River, and would keep all of Jerusalem as part of Israel.
On Thursday, May 19, President Obama said in a nationally televised speech on the Middle East, “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 potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”
The president countered Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim to an indefinite Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley saying, “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 must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”
The president also acknowledged the challenge of the reconciliation agreement signed this month by Hamas and Fatah leaders. While noting that the agreement raises legitimate questions for Israel, he also called for Palestinian leadership to take responsibility for the implications of that agreement. He asked, “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? … Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”
What was clear in the president’s speech is that he intends to press for a return to negotiations and an agreement for peace. With a possible nod toward his own administration’s unsuccessful attempts at progress, he said, “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”
Obama met privately with Netanyahu for nearly two hours on Friday, May 19. Their remarks following the meeting demonstrated the fundamental differences in the two leaders’ positions on how to achieve peace. The president will go on to address an AIPAC convention over the weekend, as will the prime minister. The end of this round of speech-making will come on Tuesday, May 24 when Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.
A New U.S. Position?
Obama’s statement about the border and security goes further than any U.S. President has in the past. He specifically did not address the issues of Jerusalem or refugees. There are rumors that there were divisions within the administration about the speech. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was advocating for Obama to set out principles on all the major issues. However, Special Assistant to President Obama on Middle East issues, Dennis Ross, reportedly wanted to give more time for Israel to assess the Middle East’s changing political landscape. Obama chose a middle ground.
Many U.S. opinion leaders have recently encouraged Netanyahu to recognize the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations and are raising questions about his interest in reaching a peace agreement. In a recent column, Thomas Friedman said that instead of trying to make peace, Netanyahu “has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.”
In one example of perspectives of the Israeli right, Danny Danon, a Likud party member and deputy speaker of the Knesset, wrote in the New York Times May 19 that if the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood, Israel should annex the West Bank. Israel “could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank,” excluding Palestinians from citizenship.
Netanyahu’s reaction to President Obama’s speech was frosty. “Withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and … would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] beyond those lines,” he commented from Jerusalem. It was reported that Netanyahu called Secretary Clinton to say reference to 1967 borders should be cut from the Obama’s speech.
The official Israeli position to President Obama's speech may have been "frosty" but many leading Jewish leaders in Israel took out newspaper ads supporting a return to the 1967 borders. The ads stated:
We, the citizens of Israel, call on the public to support the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state as a condition for ending the conflict, and reaching agreed borders on the basis of the 1967 borders. Recognition of such a Palestinian state is vital for Israel’s existence. It is the only way to guarantee the resolution of the conflict by negotiations, to prevent the eruption of another round of massive violence and end the risky isolation of Israel in the world The successful implementation of the agreements requires two leaderships, Israeli and Palestinian, which recognize each other, choose peace and are fully committed to it. This is the only policy that leaves Israel's fate and security in its own hands. Any other policy contradicts the promise of Zionism and the welfare of the Jewish people.
You can see the full ad here.
It needs to be noted that the President has not suggusted, as some have argued, that the exact 1967 borders need to be returned to. What the president was clearly talking about - what is always talked about in this context - is the amount of land returning to 1967 levels. Politico notes the frustration the Obama Administration is feeling with the misrepresentation of their position:
Netanyahu is being completely disingenuous and irresponsible by trying to suggest that anyone has talked about a return to the exact 1967 borders. That's not what the President said and he knows very well -- because he's heard this in myriad discussions, that when you're talking about swaps, it accounts for the settlement blocs, for security
He's trying to play the security card on us and to suggest that we're somehow endangering the State of Israel.... the idea that the president suggested that Israel should be relegated back to the '67 lines is absurd.
Peace must come to this region of the world. It will take brave men and women to force the peace - not through war or terror - but through real negotiations. What remains unclear is whether or not there are peacemakers in positions of leadership in either Israel or Palestine. President Obama, however, has laid out a principled framwork for the parties.
Update: The U.S. Jewish group J Street also issued a statement in support of the president's speech:
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.
It is long past time to end this injustice. Congress can right this fundamental inequality by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).