What Obama did to Israel

Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer,

Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.

It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.

It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.

The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.

Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”

Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?

No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”

Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.

Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.

The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.

Kerry: Obama wasted 1 1/2 years on Mideast peace, may try again soon

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that President Barack Obama frittered away the first half of his term on an ill-advised approach to seeking peace in the Middle East, but may "step out" within weeks with a new initiative to break the gridlock.

Speaking to a gathering in Washington of leaders from the Muslim world, Kerry said the administration's effort to set the table for broader talks by resolving the impasse over Jewish settlements in the West Bank was futile. However, he suggested that Obama may move soon to get the peace process going in order to head off a possible showdown at the United Nations in September.

"I was opposed to the prolonged effort on the settlements in a public way because I never thought it would work and, in fact, we have wasted a year and a half on something that for a number of reasons was not achievable," Kerry told the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, organized by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center. "I think it sort of put the cart ahead of the horse in a way here. The key is to get to the security and borders definition and if you can get the borders definition you’ve solved the problem of the settlements. But we can’t get that discussion right now."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to visit Washington next month. Kerry said Netanyahu is likely to address the U.S. Congress and will have an opportunity to present a peace plan that could help defuse a confrontation at the United Nations in September over a proposed vote on the international organization formally recognizing Gaza and the West Bank as a Palestinian state.

"I suspect that it’s very possible that President Obama will even step out ahead of that and will possibly-- I say possibly--make his own contribution to where he thinks the process ought to go in the meantime. Conceivably, that can come together in a responsible effort that produces a transition here," Kerry said. "I think we can get to borders and the fundamental issues fairly quickly and its conceivable that between now and September we will do that."

CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who was moderating the panel discussion, responded with skepticism bordering on disbelief. "You’re predicting a burst of diplomatic activity and achievement in six months that has not happened in two years?” he asked.

“I’m going way out on a limb and predicting the possibility of it,” said Kerry, while hinting that his speculation was informed by some concrete knowledge about a renewed U.S. effort.. “But I think I’m giving you some relatively good vision of what might unfold here."

A White House spokesman declined to comment on Kerry's criticism or his tentative prediction of a new U.S. initiative. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is schedule to address the same conference Tuesday evening.

Kerry called the Palestinian effort to seek formal recognition at the United Nations a "mistake" on the part of Palestinian President Abbas that could backfire and have "dangerous" consequences in various countries in the region.

"I hope that a diplomatic initiative can in fact preclude unintended consequences but, believe me, everyone is well aware of those dangers of September and I think there will be a genuine effort to try to avoid things that you’re not initiating and controlling yourself," the senator said

Another panelist, Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, said simply prodding Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate won't work because Israel feels too secure and the Palestinian leadership too weak.

"The problem will remain unresolved unless the United States steps forward," Brzezinski said. "I think it behooves the United states to step forward with a generalized framework of what the peace has to be."

If so inclined, you can view video of Kerry and Brezinski's comments after the jump. Pick it up around 1:04:45.

Obama to Jewish leaders: Israel needs to create context for Mideast peace

Haaretz

04.03.11
By Natasha Mozgovaya

Obama tells delegates of top Jewish organizations that the U.S. is committed to Israel, but Palestinians don’t feel confident Netanyahu will make territorial concessions.

WASHINGTON − U.S. President Barack Obama told Jewish leaders this week that Israel must use its military, political and cultural strength to create a context for peace with the Palestinians, according to participants of a 50-member delegation that met with Obama at the White House.
Obama also told the delegates of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that Washington was committed to supporting Israel and its security but that the Palestinians don’t feel confident that the Netanyahu government is serious about territorial concessions, participants said.
“The president reassured us about the U.S. commitment to Israel’s sovereignty and security,” said Rabbi Steven Wernick, executive vice president of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism and one of the delegates of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “But he did talk about the fact that Israel is the stronger party here, militarily, culturally and politically. And Israel needs to create context for it to happen.”
Delegates at the Tuesday meeting said Obama indicated that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was intent on establishing a state during his tenure and was amenable to a reasonable peace deal.
The delegation was led by Conference of Presidents chairman Alan Solow and executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, who thanked Obama for “the extraordinary session.”
“The open lines of communication with President Obama and his administration are highly valued and provide us with the opportunity to articulate the views of American Jewry on issues that face our country,” the delegation leaders said in a statement.
During the meeting, Obama shared his views on the turbulence in the Middle East, the recent veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlement construction, and prospects of peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Conflicting reports
There were conflicting reports about what exactly Obama told the Jewish leaders, with some on the right interpreting his call for soul-searching as criticism. However, the Conference of Presidents said in a statement that it viewed the meeting as positive.
“Contrary to certain public reports, the meeting was conducted in an atmosphere of warmth, friendship and openness and there was no expression of hostility toward Israel or its government,” the statement read.
Wernick lauded Obama for what he called a “balanced and fair” approach to the stalled peace process.
“I think the president was consistent in hinting that both sides have to demonstrate greater seriousness for it to occur,” he said in reference to a peace deal.
“I asked the president specifically about the Palestinians creating a context of peace in their culture, especially after the Palestinian leaks showed there is a big difference between their public and private statements,” said Wernick. “He said there is an opportunity in the region for a rigorous debate. He asked for soul-search for everyone. I think he was talking about the objective reality that both sides need to think if they indeed want peace − he spoke specifically about [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israeli leadership, but he spoke also about Palestinians.”
Wernick said the delegation thanked the president the Security Council veto at the Security Council.
A White House statement described the meeting as “productive” and noted “America’s unshakable support for Israel’s security, opposition to any effort to delegitimize it or single it out for criticism, and commitment to achieve a peace that will secure the future for Arabs and Israelis alike.”
“The U.S. and Israel are bonded by core values and commitment to democracy − and part of that is the opportunity for citizens to engage with their government,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said earlier this week. “[Obama] believes it’s vital for us to hear directly from Americans from all walks of life, including the Jewish community − and as he said in the meeting yesterday, their input absolutely gets factored into our policy and decision-making process.”
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said “you could see the relations with this community are incredibly important for the president. It’s a relationship that we value.”