By being unclear in his speech on the Middle East on Thursday (which was transmitted in Arabic and Farsi), Obama left himself room to flip flop when speaking to AIPAC. He now says that what he meant by the 1967 borders (or lines) in Thursday’s speech was not the military lines that existed before the six day war on June 4, 1967. That can only leave the borders that came after the six day war unless I am missing something.
Either way, I’m not buying it. I’m calling flip-flop. If this indeed was what Obama meant by 1967 lines then why didn’t he clarify when Netanyahu and he were giving their joint press conference on Friday? Why did Netanyahu feel the need to publicly state, right in front of Obama, that the 1967 lines were indefensible and were not an option for negotiations after they just spoke in private? If Obama had clarified what he meant to Netanyahu behind closed doors, then surely it would have come up in their public remarks. But it didn’t. It didn’t come up until Obama felt the need to pander (in English, mind you) to a political constituency, AIPAC.
Obama is nothing but a liar (big surprise!) who will say whatever it takes to get elected.
Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.
Also, it’s worth noting that Obama again repeated the phrase “Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat” which got applause from the AIPAC audience. That perplexes me as I feel that is a betrayal of an ally in one sentence.
—