Comments on: Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on the Middle East and North Africa

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 22 May 2011 17:12:00 +0000

From listening to recent discussion concerning Obama’s basing peace negotioations on 1967 borders its apparent that this talking point is nothing new; every president since LBJ, including GWB, has made this assertion. Also, the maps comparing the 1967 West Bank and the current state of the Palestinian territories reveal that there is not much left of the Palestinian West Bank. It is engulfed in settlements and slowly dissappearing. Therefore, if Obama were actually suggesting a literal return to the 1967 borders, this would indeed constitute a dramatic shake-up. However, that is not really what Obama is suggesting. He’s saying that negotiations should be “based” on the 1967 borders with “land swaps” being a key component of the negotiations. On the surface, the Republicans, and Netanyahu, don’t seem to understand that. But certainly they must be smarter than that. Indeed, the furor over this matter seems to be a performance meant to score political points. The fact in March, Wikileaks had released a document indicating that Netanyahu actually supports the concept of land swaps. That is not to say he supports a return to 1967 borders, but that’s not what Obama is actually suggesting. But is Netanyahu actually interest in peace? I agree with Dr. Goldfarb; unlike Obama, he’s not the one.

By: Jeffrey Goldfarb

Jeffrey Goldfarb — Sat, 21 May 2011 19:00:00 +0000

I think Obama gave Netanyahu an opportunity to be a historic figure, and Bibi said no thanks, revealing both in his words and his demeanor that he is not interested in peace. A realignment in Israeli politics has now become the most fundamental precondition for a settlement of the Arab – Israeli conflict.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:35:00 +0000

There are a few process considerations which may be worth mentioning. The position that President Obama took on Israel and Palestine shifted him from being a third party (a mediator or honest broker) to being an engaged participant. This happened when he stated musts for a successful negotiation, which if stated at all, are stated backstage in a more impersonal manner. Instead of expressing understandings of opposing views and seeking to build bridges based upon shared interests, he chose to establish parameters without the consent of the main parties. By doing so, President Obama changed roles in the process and now became another party sitting at the table as opposed to being a process facilitator. I suspect that he knew what he was doing and was willing to take the risks.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:42:00 +0000

Netanyahu’s response to Obama’s speech makes the prospects for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine seem as dismal as ever. This is not just a matter between the US, Israel and Palestine, but between those three parties and the rest of the Arab world. If the other key countries in the Middle East don’t accept a peace agreement, it is unlikely that the Palestinians will either. And those countries want pre-1967 borders as well. If none of the parties are will to compromise on this issue, there will be no peace. Such is the nature of “sacred” boundaries.