US President Barack Obama's speech at the AIPAC conference yesterday was pro-Israel and also, potentially, anti-Netanyahu. The speech was extremely in favor of an Israel that is Jewish, democratic and secure and does not include most of the Palestinian territories; and against an Israel that includes most of the Palestinian territories but with dubious security that will not stand the test of time, and democracy that will steadily be eroded. Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to decide sooner or later which type of Israel he supports, and considering Obama's desire to go back to the borders of 1967 it will be sooner, assuming he is elected for a second term.
What changed in Obama's second speech, only 3 days after the first one at the State Department? If you ask the White House, not much. On Thursday, Obama wanted to base an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on 1967 borders with agreed upon exchange of territory. On Sunday he also wanted to base an agreement on 1967 borders with agreed upon exchange of territory. He did however add the sentence, "it means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." But isn't this obvious from the expression, "agreed upon exchanges of territory"?
The second speech emphasized certain things, sharpened certain ideas, suggested some explanations, but the principle remains the same: land for peace. These words have the same meaning in Oslo as they do in Washington. Obama has not retracted his statement from last Thursday. He has merely wrapped it in new packaging that is more pleasing to Jews and the Israelis.
In this way Obama was able to give a small gift to the audience at the AIPAC conference, which he wasn't able to give in his previous speech which was aimed towards a global audience. As one of the greatest orators ever to inhabit the White House, Obama knows how to excite his audience: "The existence of the State of Israel is not up for debate" (loud applause); "The commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad" (the audience is on its feet);"Free Gilad Shalit!" (the audience is going crazy with excitement.) But with this cunning text Obama has created new challenges for Netanyahu: Why are the Palestinians turning to the UN? Because they perceive the lack of patience regarding the peace process, or lack thereof, not only among the Arab nations, but also in Latin America, Europe and Asia. In other words, the world is tired of Israel's and the Palestinians' tricks, but it is only Israel that is running out of time. I am willing to help Israel in the global community, but if Israel won't cooperate even the US won't be able to help. And Obama reminded the Israelis about the demographic threat of Palestinian population growth -- a subject which has arisen in many Friday night dinner discussions across the Middle East. Obama emphasized that all of these are "facts."
Netanyahu will have to take up this challenge. Will he choose land or the good of Israel? Netanyahu can hope, and he most likely does hope, that Obama will be defeated in the upcoming elections, although the state of American politics at present indicates the opposite. If Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to adhere to the territory, Obama's speech from yesterday does not bode well for him. Netanyahu understands this -- there is no greater expert in American politics -- and therefore he changed his tone and welcomed Obama's AIPAC version of the speech, which is not significantly different from the speech that aroused Netanyahu's ire. Netanyahu simply capitulated.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com on May 23, 2011
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2011