Today, President Obama made a highly anticipated policy speech on the Middle East, and from the faux outrage pouring out of Israel's conservative leadership over his mention of the number "1967," one would likely conclude that Obama shifted America's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a radically new place.
Guess what – he did no such thing. At least, not for the Israelis.
If one ever wanted an example of how Fox News and Israel's conservative leadership share a penchant for ratcheting up dishonest, exaggerated rhetoric, well, I have a surprise in store. Today is your day.
Today, after President Obama's speech – in which he stated "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" – Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had this reaction, care of Haaretz:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.
In a statement after President Barack Obama's speech outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said before heading to Washington that "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence".
"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
From Netanyahu's response (which was mild in comparison to those we'll soon see), it would seem that a) Obama is suddenly making an egregious, unthinkable request that Israel base it's borders with Palestine on those from 1967, and b) that Obama wants Israel to relinquish major Jewish settlement blocks.
Neither, of course, are the case. For the latter, Obama was clear about this when he mentioned the phrase "mutually agreed swaps." For the former, America's position since the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION has been to base negotiations from the 1967 borders.
Shocked by Netanyahu's response (among others), Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote:
I'm amazed at the amount of insta-commentary out there suggesting that the President has proposed something radical and new by declaring that Israel's 1967 borders should define -- with land-swaps -- the borders of a Palestinian state. I'm feeling a certain Groundhog Day effect here. This has been the basic idea for at least 12 years. This is what Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat were talking about at Camp David, and later, at Taba. This is what George W. Bush was talking about with Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. So what's the huge deal here? Is there any non-delusional Israeli who doesn't think that the 1967 border won't serve as the rough outline of the new Palestinian state?
Indeed! Here is what Hillary Clinton said on the matter in 2009:
"We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
Of course, Netanyahu knows all of this – he's not ignorant on the matter of what has been America's position. So why the faux outrage? Instead of engage with Obama's speech honestly, in a spirit of engagement, Netanyahu chose instead to posture and preen, both for the international audience and for his own constituency. (He is, after all, meeting with Obama tomorrow.)
Netanyahu's response, incidentally, was tame compared with some. Here's what fellow Likud minister Danny Dannon had to say:
“Barack Hussein Obama adopted Yasser Arafat’s staged plan for Israel’s destruction, and he is trying to force it on our prime minister,” Likud MK Danny Danon said. “All that was new in the speech was that he called for Israel to return to 1967 borders without solving the crisis. Netanyahu has only one option: Tell Obama to forget about it.”
Now tell me. Does that not sound like quote straight out of Fox News' mouth?
Want an off-the-deep-end response to Obama's mention of 1967? Hold on to your hat. This comes from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
Israel Should Reject a Return to 1967 'Auschwitz' Borders
Auschwitz borders. Really?
The sad element displayed by all this rhetoric intended to cast Israel as the true victim is that, by and large, several of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's primary stakes were shot down by Obama:
1. Obama rejected the notion that, if peace talks fail, the Palestinians should seek a unilateral declaration of statehood by the UN in September, essentially calling such efforts destructive and having no possible positive outcome.
2. Obama called for a slow withdraw of Israeli troops if a Palestinian state is formed – a nod to Israel's security concerns.
3. Obama did not call on a cessation of settlement building.
Which is to say: give Netanyahu credit for the smokescreen. Only problem is this: smokescreens don't solve intractable conflicts.