Break It Down!: Barack, Benjamin, and the Borders

It's time to Break It Down!

Last week, President Obama gave a speech at the State Department to explain U.S. policy on the Middle East. In the process of delineating America’s stance on issues critical to diplomatic relations in the region, Mr. Obama ran head-long into a freight train of opposition in the person of BenjaminNetanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister.

Interestingly, Mr. Obama’s position has been a mutually agreed upon central tenant in the effort to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accord for decades. Moreover, at least in part, the President’s motivation to introduce the 1967 Borders into the current conversation was a strategic decision. There is a movement afoot led by a host of Latin American, Asian, and European countries to frame a United Nations (U.N.) resolution to recognize an independent PalestinianState.

Mr. Obama hoped to incentivize

Israel

to kick-start a resumption of peace talks prior that anticipated September U.N. meeting and Resolution. Even though Mr. Obama affirmed the U.S. will oppose that Resolution, he desire is to avoid the growing movement to isolate

Israel

because most of the nations proposing or supporting the pending Resolution are weary from the lack of a viable peace process, and view the Israelis as integral to the delay.

In a perfect storm-like conundrum, President Obama’s good intentions were instantly overshadowed by intense and vocal opposition. He was attacked, not only by Prime Minister Netanyahu, but by his Republican opponents, by a number of members of his own Democratic Party, and by Palestinians who felt, despite Mr. Netanyahu’s displeasure, the President failed, among other things, to express support for returning the eastern section of Jerusalem to Jordan. The media for its part has appeared to revel in, if not overhype the apparent discord.

Why apparent? Because even though President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have never been viewed as close personal friends, they both have downplayed the notion that the current disagreement threatens the U.S.-Israeli alliance, which has long been considered sacrosanct by citizens and political figures alike in both countries. Alternately, in the 24-Hours news cycle, there is always a temptation, perhaps even a trend to leverage every encounter as a potential mega-story; the kind that stays around for days, if not weeks.

Occasionally stories appear to take a life of their own, without any discernable catalyst or foundation. Without the necessary context, the 1967Borders issue may seem to have materialized out of thin air. If you are younger than age 45, perhaps missed class the day the 6-Day War was discussed. If older than 55, you may need a dose of Ginkgo Biloba to enhance your memory.

A CliffsNotes version of the War goes something like this:

What? The 6-Day War

When? June 5-10, 1967

Where? Loosely, the Middle East

Who? The United Arab Republic (UAR/now Egypt), Jordan, Syria, and Israel

Why? That depends on ones point of view. What happened was…the altercation was initiated by a large-scale surprise air strike by Israel. The results were as decisive as they were swift. In short order, Israel took control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from the UAR, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Opinions are divided on whether the operation was an act of aggression or a pre-emptive strike. You can figure which position is held by whom.

That brings us full circle, back to the sensitivity surrounding the issue of the so-called 1967 Borders. Mr. Netanyahu’s position is that the borders that existed in 1967 did not allow

Israel

to protect itself from neighbors who not only surrounded them, but who wanted to annihilate the State of Israel; clearly an untenable option. The premise behind the 6-Day War was it was necessary to act before its neighbors did.

Mr. Obama spoke to more than 10,000 members of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC), the nation’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, Sunday, and discussed his remarks. There he reiterated his and America’s unwavering support for Israel, and also underscored that part of his comments, “mutually agreed upon swaps,” kept getting left out of all the stem-winding opposition comments to his stance and policy position. Moreover, he reminded those assembled that the 1967 Borders have long been the official position of those engaged in the peace talks, when negotiations have actually been actively engaged. The AIPAC seemed to get it.

Fast forward to yesterday; Mr. Netanyahu goes to Congress.

Israel

is one of 5 nations that have had one of its officials address a joint meeting of Congress on 6 or more occasions:

France – 8

Great Britain – 8

Israel – 7

Italy – 6

Mexico- 6

In a virtual love fest, the Prime Minister spoke for about 55 minutes in a speech that was interrupted 28 times for applause; or slightly more than once every couple of minutes. It was almost as though the Chamber wanted to make up for all those adoring crowds that swooned over President Obama a couple of years ago in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Remember how much so many politicians and journalists moaned about Barack, the Celebrity-in-Chief? The reality is they were extending a reasonable courtesy…just as Mr. Obama received. Now, run tell that! Further, in full disclosure, security did remove one female heckler who also interrupted the speech. However, on balance, AIPAC security removed one heckler from the Prime Minister’s Monday night speech.

Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged that Israel has no better friend than America, and assured the assembly that America has no better friend than

Israel

. He lauded the President for getting bin Laden, a respectful gesture some American Solons have been unable to execute thus far, and reminded attendees, and his television audience, that America does not need to nation build in Israel (“We’re already built), America does not need to export democracy to Israel (“We’ve already got it”), and America does not need to send troops to defend Israel (“We defend ourselves”). He did note that America has been generous in providing

Israel

the tools (Translation = weaponry) needed to enable Israelis to defend themselves. He then thanked Congress and President Obama for their commitment to Israel’s security.

In general, Mr. Netanyahu drew a word picture that delineated the distinction between the instability among Arab nations in the region, and the anchor that is Israel. As expected, some of the loudest and most prolonged applause was heard when the Prime Minister defiantly noted that

Israel

would not again be relegated to the 1967 Borders. He recalled that

Israel

rose from the ashes of the Holocaust, and added, “When we say never again, we mean, never again. Israel reserves the right to defend itself.”

As for his proposed prescription for peace, called for Palestinian President Abbas to utter six words: “I will accept a Jewish state,” words he says he has already told the people of Israel, in relation to a Palestinian State. He outlined what he considered key principles to a negotiated peace:

A Palestinian State big enough to be viable, independent and prosperous

Some current Jewish settlements would end up beyond Israel’s borders

The majority of Israelis live in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and their suburbs; this area should be within Israel’s borders

Jerusalem must remain the united Capital of Israel

Those four points contain the rudiments of issues that have been, and will be the subject of great debate. However, the two countervailingpoints that are sure to make for some of the thorniest moments of future negotiations are these:

· It is absolutely vital for

Israel

’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized

· It is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River (to protect the peace…and to protect Israel, in the event the peace evaporates)

In the fast-paced world of deal, or no deal, that sounds somewhere between requiring a hard sell, and, facing the fact that just ain’t happenin’. But, I don’t get paid to negotiate, or to prognosticate. However, were I a cynic, I could see some logic for the argument that posits, at the end of the day, Mr. Netanyahu is totally uninterested in negotiating and adopting a Peace Pact. If such is the case, the idea that “Barack, Benjamin, and the Borders,” is a stalemate really does hold currency.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-speech-on-middle-east-transcript.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M_CA0orW08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNnHArM2P9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLpYQZOn8KM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56RPPmgqqro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_reb0ZUAk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/obama-netanyahu-1967-border

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/19/moment-opportunity-president-obama-middle-east-north-africa

http://m.philly.com/phillycom/db_41078/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=4A1175667CDBF3A098FCC98D75700888?contentguid=GgLs28lw&detailindex=0&pn=0&ps=10&full=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu