The latest furor regarding the recent meeting with President Netanyahu and President Obama is curious. Notwithstanding the fact that the so called 1967 borders had been on the trading block going back to President Olmert, the mere mention of the 1967 borders sent Jews into a paroxysm of anti Obama hysteria. Notwithstanding the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with a large number of Jewish advisors, has sent a Jewish ambassador to Ottawa, etcetera, there is wholesale distrust of President Obama by mainstream Jews. Why is that?
Can it be because President Obama is black? Almost every mainstream Jewish person would recoil at the thought. However, there has been a large amount of distrust and antagonism going back to the marches in Montgomery Alabama. At that time, many Jews were in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement. Some even died defending the right of blacks to vote and participate in society on an equal basis with others. Then, it appears that the Civil Rights movement turned against even the most vociferous of Jewish supporters. Jews were seen as exploiting blacks by being slum landlords and avaricious merchants. Since then the truce between the black and Jewish communities has been a tenuous one.
Can it be because President Obama is an intellectual? Obama, by all reports, will not follow knee jerk reactions to much of anything. It took him months to decide to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He sought every opinion until he made up his mind. Right or wrong, President Obama is a thinker. His speech to AIPAC was telling. There was no mention of two of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestanian conflict: settlements and the right of return. There was no mention of the fate of the Jerusalem. He focused on the borders. Why?
At the time of the 1967 war there was no unanimity among Israeli political and defence leaders as to whether Israel should occupy the west bank at all. On the "if you break it, you buy it" principle these leaders stated simply that Israel could not simply occupy these territories over the long term. If Israel annexed the territories it would be faced with a large Arab population that would soon overwhelm Israel. Even David Ben-Gurion advocated a two state solution to the Arab Israeli problem. Israel chose not to annex most of the west bank and the Sinai but did annex (that is claim the spoils of war) over Jerusalem. It gave the Sinai back to Egypt as the price for a bilateral peace accord. It has, in principal, agreed to give much of the Golan to Syria if a peace deal can be achieved. In each peace accord (including Jordan) some land adjustments have been made.
If borders are the place to start, what borders should be used as a starting point? There is no other starting point than the pre 1967 borders. If Israel clearly does not want the West Bank (except for the settlements) and Gaza, the only place to start is the 1967 borders. Israel wants and should have defendable borders. The 1967 borders were not realistic. At one location the whole of Israel was 9 miles wide. Israel has always said that they would give land for peace and they have done so in the past. The only strategic land is the Golan and they are prepared to part with that. So, what's the fuss?
I believe that the long term strategy of the US is to get a foothold in the region. If Israel is to start negotiations from its pre 1967 borders, I believe that the US will put pressure on the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist. And then the real fun will begin.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment