Sunday, May 22, 2011

"Start" As An Ambiguous Term

Over at Politico's Ben Smith blog they are

Why?  Well

Many U.S. officials are furious this morning at Benjamin Netanyahu. As the Administration sees it, the shift toward an explicit American -- and Obama Administration -- position that 1967 lines should be the start of negotiations did mark a fairly dramatic step. But the inclusion of a commitment to "mutually agreed swaps" and discussion of Israel's security were aimed at addressing the security concerns Netanyahu raised immediately after the speech.

Says one former State Department official: Netanyahu is being completely disingenuous and irresponsible by trying to suggest that anyone has talked about a return to the exact 1967 borders.

But, dear officials,

This phrase - "[the] position that 1967 lines should be the start of negotiations" - is unclear.

If it is the start, does that mean that either Israel goes backwards or is it permitted to go foward territorially/geographically from those armistice lines fixed in 1949 after the first Arab invasion? Or is there to be only Israel that has to pay a price of "territorial compromise"? Isn't what Obama meant is that those are the final borders except from some "swaps"?

The Bush 2004 pledge to take into consideration the new reality of demographics, i.e., "settlement blocs", is seemingly off the table - despite it being the basis upon which Ariel Sharon disengaged, yielding teritory that became a base for continued and more dangerous terror from Arabs?  And the term mutual is somehow lost.

As Elliot Abrams puts it:

It is worth comparing how President Bush described the agreed, negotiated borders he sought for the Israelis and Palestinians in that 2004 letter: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.” The Obama language is a shift away from Israel and toward the Palestinians.

Are American understanding and commitments non-existent?

If so, well, no one at State should be furious but rather ashamed at their duplicity.



Free Online Tutoring said...

When I hear of those in the Jewish community who support Obama, while knowing his stance on this issue just boggles my mind. I’m also very upset and shocked that Hillary Clinton, who was always pro-Israel sat there in support of Obama when he gave this speech. who think they can negotiate with terrorists?

Free Online Astrology said...

Now, after Obama's speech, it is for the Palestian Arabs to approach the table at which Israel has been sitting and waiting for them for the past two years to talk peace. Let us hope, when they do so, that they will come clean handed and in good faith to negotiate, while knowing full well that they will be asked to accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, and that a peace treaty, if and when is signed, will mean the "end of the conflict and the end of all future demands. This poster is waiting...

Employment Experts said...

It's a shame that a politician who I look up to would ignore the obvious human rights violations by Israel. It's really a shame that apartheid still exists in this world and I sincerely hope that U.S. policies to diplomacy in the Middle East developing into something more peaceful.

It is true that Hamas is terrible. But in my mind, Obama needs to bring the situation between these two states into perspective and see the tracks of trot committed.