{"id":4896,"date":"2011-05-22T02:12:49","date_gmt":"2011-05-22T09:12:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=4896"},"modified":"2011-05-22T04:21:26","modified_gmt":"2011-05-22T11:21:26","slug":"obamas-israel-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2011\/05\/22\/obamas-israel-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama’s Israel Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Republican politicians and pundits have been screaming for days about how Barack Obama has undermined Israel, and AIPAC is in arms.  But for Republican politicians and pundits, Obama is wrong by definition, and AIPAC does not represent most American Jews, having been largely taken over by Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians.  Their reaction is grossly exaggerated.  Reactions from inside Israel are far less intense.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"22Israel-1967\"On a fundamental level, Obama’s speech was good for Israel. He blocked the Palestinian initiative to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state<\/strong>. He<\/strong> condemned the Palestinian effort to delegitimize Israel<\/strong>. He came out against Hamas<\/strong>. He did not demand a total and immediate freeze on settlement construction<\/strong>. He did not embrace the Arab peace initiative<\/strong>. He showed that he has internalized Israel’s security problems and defense concerns. Above all, he adopted the two main principles of Israel’s peace doctrine: Israel as a Jewish state and Palestine as a demilitarized state. <\/p>\n

Benjamin Netanyahu should have been pleased and proud. Obama’s speech at the State Department transformed his Bar-Ilan speech into an inalienable political asset. Thanks to Barack Obama, the Bar-Ilan principles are now a basic part of the international community’s position on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved.<\/p>\n

But in one important respect, Obama’s speech was very bad for Israel. And very bad for the United States. And very bad for peace. The U.S. president made an egregious error in the way he introduced the principle of 1967 into his vision of peace. Instead of presenting the 1967 borders as the end of the process, Obama made them its start. Instead of tying them to the end of demands and the end of the conflict, they were tied to greater demands and continued conflict\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Ha\u2019aretz<\/a>><\/p>\n

Compared with all the things they like, the timing of introducing 1967 borders is a minor issue, unless Israel intends to violate their treaty commitment by taking more land.  Ha\u2019aretz usually reflects the Likud view.  The more liberal Kadima opposition has no problem with it.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"22israel2\"Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel’s opposition Kadima party, also backed Mr Obama’s two-state solution and accused Mr Netanyahu of putting Israel at risk in order to save his right-wing coalition<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

"The prime minister has violated relations between Israel and the United States<\/strong>," she said, speaking after Mr Obama’s speech but before the Oval Office meeting. "He has endangered the security of Israel and its power of deterrence." <\/p>\n

But Mr Netanyahu is assured of a warm welcome at AIPAC and again the next day when he will address Congress at the invitation of the Republican Speaker, John Boehner. <\/p>\n

Potential Republican presidential candidates have been to the fore in backing Mr Netanyahu’s position\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>] <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <The Telegraph<\/a>><\/p>\n

I think she\u2019s probably correct, but I suspect the real reason for Netanyahu\u2019s opposition is more devious than just saving his coalition.<\/font><\/p>\n