Republican lawmakers and some pro-Israel groups are in an snit about President Obama's call for Israel and the Palestinians to resume negotiations, with the starting point being the 1967 borders – with negotiated land swaps.
Is what they're saying that there should never be a real Palestinian state? Because if you reject the idea of starting with the 67 borders and negotiating from there, that may be what you're advocating, intentionally or not.
People keep asking me: in a frenzied few days of speech making, lobbying and diplomacy in Washington, who came out on top – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or President Barack Obama? (see my story on the week's events here.)
Broad Jewish center being ‘bombarded’ in wake of Obama speech.
James D. Besser
Washington — In the corridors of the Washington Convention Center, the buzz among more than 10,000 charged-up pro-Israel activists at this week’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference was all about new U.S.-Israel tensions in the wake of President Barack Obama’s call for Israel-Palestinian negotiations based on the 1967 borders — with land swaps — and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s angry response.
Prime minister, at AIPAC, revives call against ‘indefensible’ borders.
Editor And Publisher
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had an excellent response to President Barack Obama’s major speech on the Arab world and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But it came two days too late, and the net result is another hasbara disaster for Jerusalem.
Numerous Republicans have hit President Obama for his call for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps - an explicit way of stating what has been implicit in U.S. policy since Bill Clinton's administration.
Which leads to the question: exactly what are the critics for?
Do they support those in Israel and the small minority in the American Jewish community who say Israel has a right to the West Bank and Gaza and should not give them up, period?
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee said it "appreciated" President Obama's clarification that he did not expect Israel to return to its 1967 lines.
"In particular, we appreciate his statement that the U.S. does not expect Israel to withdraw to the boundaries that existed between Israel and Jordan in 1967 before the Six-Day War," the pro-Israel lobby said in a statement released after Obama delivered a speech Sunday to its annual policy conference.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had an excellent response to President Obama’s major speech on the Arab world and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But it came two days too late, and the net result is another hasbara disaster for Jerusalem.
Netanyahu said on Saturday that Obama had “shown his commitment to Israel’s security, both in word and deed,” in Thursday’s Presidential speech, adding: “We are working with the administration to achieve common goals.”
An interesting morning at the AIPAC policy conference. Then again, how could it not be with President Barack Obama addressing more than 10,000 participants only days after giving a major policy address on the Middle East?
I half expected a purely political speech, reaffirming his strong support for Israel, using key slogans like Israel's qualitative military edge and banging away at Iran, and avoiding his call the other day for peace negotiations kith the Palestinians based on the 1967, with negotiated land swaps.
Days after President Obama's big Middle East speech at the State Department, the Jewish left is caught between skepticism and hope, the right is on the warpath – and I suspect most American Jews are wondering what the fuss is all about.
Yes, President Obama uttered the words “1967 borders” on Thursday along with “mutually agreed swaps,” all of which has been more or less U.S. policy for a long time even though that particular rhetorical formulation hasn't been used.