President Obama gave a speech on the Middle East at the State Department a few days before Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was to arrive for talks. His speech angered the Prime Minister and at a joint press conference in the White House, he lectured the President about Israeli security.
Many Israel supporters were critical of the President’s mentioning as the basis of peace negotiations, the 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon “land swaps.” He later said his words represented no change in U.S. policy, that the 1967 borders was always the basis for all Israel Palestinian negotiations.
Diplomacy is all about words. What is meant is less significant than what is said. Following the 1967 Six Day War, the UN passed a resolution to address what was to happen to the territory Israel captured from her attackers. The Soviet Union and the Arabs wanted the resolution to say Israel would withdraw from “all the territories” and return to the 1967 borders. President Johnson insisted that the words “all the” be removed. Johnson insisted the future borders of Israel would not be predetermined, UN resolution 242 does not specify the territory from which Israel is to withdraw, yet the Arabs continue to insist otherwise.
So, does it matter that the President mentioned the 1967 border? It does, though the difference may seem to be subtle. By not referring to the 1967 borders, U.S. policy maintained Israel was to give the Palestinians land that it did not feel would endanger its security. By referring to the 1967 borders, U.S. policy now implies the Palestinians are entitled to all the land, anything Israel wants to retain for security reasons is a concession by the Palestinians. Israel’s security is not a primary right, but a concession.
Did the President mean to de-emphasize Israel’s security needs in relation to Palestinian claims to land Israel captured in 1967? The President’s supporters seem to think not. However, wide majorities of Israelis do not think the President is pro-Israel. My guess is that this is precisely the reason, they believe the President is not committed to Israel’s security. That will make it difficult for them to trust him in future negotiations.
Rabbi Eric R. Slaton
