Thoughts from Charles Krauthammer:
Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
The Kumbaya president.
[Update mid morning]
What Jeffrey Goldberg gets wrong:
Does Goldberg really believe that if there were no settlements, and if they were suddenly abandoned, that Mahmoud Abbas would suddenly recognize Israel and be ready to make peace? He knows well that since 1948 and Israel’s creation, the Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership — then commanded by the Nazi supporter the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — have vowed never to accept any Jewish state anywhere in Palestine. To them, all of Israel was an illegal settlement by colonialist-imperialist occupiers.
Has Goldberg read any of the penetrating columns by Sol Stern, who regularly has shown how Israel has offered to make peace, only to find Palestinian rejection facing them? (Stern’s most recent one can be read here.) As Stern writes, it is not the settlers who are the impediment to peace, but the false “Nakba narrative” propounded by the PA leaders, especially Abbas. Stern points out: “No one living under Palestinian rule dares publicly question this lie. No historian dares offer his people a balanced account of the 1948 war, of who attacked whom, and of the reasons for the flight of the refugees. As long as this remains the case, the ‘right of return,’ far more than any question of borders, will remain the principal roadblock to successful peace negotiations.”
Some truths are too hard to face for some people.
It is amazing that people refuse to argue against what Obama actually said, and rather substitute what they wanted to hear. Obama said:
1) “In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”
2) “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
3) “As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.”
You see, Rand, “Mutually-agreed swaps” means that BOTH SIDES AGREE. It doesn’t mean that “If they don’t agree, something else will happen” which is what Krauthammer is arguing.
Nor did Obama say ANYTHING about forcing Israel to accept Palestinian refugees. In fact, he said that “peace cannot be imposed.”
“He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip.”
Bosh. Let us suppose that Israel agrees that the final borders of Israel will be based on the 1967 borders. It can still annex hundreds of square kilometers east of the Green Line, as long as it gives up as much and as good land to the west. And suppose Israel and Palestine finally reach agreement on those terms.
That’s not the only chip on the table. Still in play at that point:
Who controls the borders of the new state borders, Israel or Palestine?
Who has legal control of the airspace above the West Bank?
Can any Israeli military forces maintain a presence in the West Bank? If so, how much and where? In any case, if any are leaving, when?
Will Israel recognize Palestine as a sovereign state,? If so, when?
Will Palestine be demilitarized? If so, to what extent?
Does Israel admit any obligation at all to let refugees and their descendants return to their original homes, or at least compensate them for preventing them? If yes, what does Israel propose to do about that?
Similarly, was privately owned land effectively confiscated by Israel without just compensation? Will there be redress for the original owners? If so, what? if not, why?
Holy Places in Jerusalem: Who controls what?
The PLO recognized the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security in 1993. Does Israel need more than this, and if so why?
That’s a lot of other chips.
“That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.””
That’s the problem with the United States. We have policies to adamantly oppose things, but nobody tells anyone. As a United States citizen, I was somewhat surprised to read that it was our policy to adamantly oppose the right of people to flee a war zone where they might be killed and later return to their homes.