U.S. Pundits Differ on Speech

American analysts were far from unanimous on the meaning of President Barack Obama’s speech, as it relates to Israel and the PLO.

His decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state marks a subtle — but, for the contentious Israeli-Palestinian peace process, potentially important — shift by the United States a step closer to the position of the Palestinians.

 

The shift is vital to the Palestinians because it means the American implicitly back their view that new Israeli settlement construction would have to be reversed — or compensated for — in talks over the borders for a new Palestinians state.

Israelis and Palestinians each will have their reasons to be unsettled by the president’s words. Obama did not lay out a specific U.S. plan for Middle East peace, limiting himself to repeating principles that his administration and past administrations have endorsed before — like the notion that a territorial settlement between Israel and a Palestinian state must be based on Israel’s 1967 borders.

 

But Obama acidly dismissed the plan by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to seek recognition of Palestinian statehood by the United Nations General Assembly this September, declaring that “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations will not create an independent state.” He also said “Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer” to the question of how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, which refuses to accept Israel’s existence.

This is a far cry from the attention he gave the issue in the 2009 Cairo speech, drawing sustained applause from the audience. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” Obama said then. “This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Of course, that effort to pressure Israel on settlements blew up diplomatically in the administration’s face. Israel balked at a total freeze, and then the deal the United States cut with Netanyahu ended up upsetting the Palestinians. So it is little wonder the president decided to basically skip the subject this time around.

Barack Obama thinks he must incessantly talk about Middle Eastern events that he can affect only marginally, if at all. But before firing up his teleprompter, he should have something helpful to say. Thursday, he did not.

Obama should have said nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his prior statements (about Israel housing construction, and a deadline for a peace settlement) having made matters worse. Obama's idea--Israel's, too--is "two states for two people." Now, there is nothing more to be said until a Palestinian leader also says that.

Obama's dilation on the 1967 borders makes matters worse: Borders are what negotiations are supposed to be about, not what is to be stipulated before negotiations.

The president's speech on the Middle East was clear about where he wants to go and not so clear on how to get there.

The speech was timely and necessary as the president prepares for his talks with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama needed to put out a healthy reminder that he has not changed his view of the situation or how it must be resolved.

While support for Israel has been a given for both Democratic and Republican administrations, the strength of Obama's commitment to Israel has been questioned going back to the 2008 presidential campaign. It was a concern for the Obama campaign during the Florida Democratic primary, for instance, because of the significant number of Jewish voters there.

 

With Florida perhaps even more important to Obama's 2012 fortunes as four years ago, Obama can't afford to leave doubts as to his support for Israel though he also sought to convey the need for Israelis to compromise if they are ever to achieve a durable peace with Palestinians.