The bulk of headlines this morning on President Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday emphasized that the Israelis, Palestinians, Hamas, or the Arab world are incensed by some policy outlined yesterday. These complaints are only about spinning the speech for future negotiations and not based in reality, with Obama using the opportunity to foster his image of the “only adult” ahead of 2012 elections.
The Israelis, on the brink of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s U.S. visit, are rejecting the call to return to 1967 borders, even though Obama backed a key Israeli request to be recognized as having a right to exist by the Palestinians.
Obama said:
We believe 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.
Therefore, Obama is saying that the the 1967 borders should form the basis for a final agreement, with land swaps according to population centers and that the status of Jerusalem should be negotiated at a later point, which he also mentioned in his speech. That basic premise has been the foundation of many peace proposals anyways. Even Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Israel Beitenu), who is in Netanyahu’s coalition, has backed a land swap proposal.
So, why are the Israelis up in arms? Hold that thought.
The Palestinians are also chastising the speech, with Hamas immediately condemning Obama’s comments as “throwing dust in the eyes” to obscure. While Obama supported a demilitarized Palestinian state, he also chided their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. That criticism runs to the heart of the Palestinian’s claim of a right-of-return. Through the right-of-return, Palestinians could flock into modern day Israel and demographically change the country into a bi-national — not Jewish — state, effectively eradicating the country.
Obama clearly gave both sides carrots, but also played the role he is also attempting to foster as his image when dealing with Congress — that of the only reasonable adult that must reign in children’s bickering in order to govern. Obama attempted to use this personage in budget talks with House Republicans and Senate Democrats, and this image of Obama as the “parent” stuck between two immature children will likely continue to emerge over the next year and a half ahead of the 2012 election.
Even though Obama’s speech was clearly not one sided, the headlines chastising Obama are merely an effort to spin public opinion to concede less once negotiations commence — primarily on the final status of Jerusalem. If the Israelis can foster this perception that they were completely blind-sided by the Obama speech and characterize the U.S. plan as pro-Palestinian, Israel can attempt to scale back any expected concessions and give up less territory or expunge any calls for bifurcating Jerusalem. Similarly, by characterizing the speech as pro-Israeli, the Palestinians can attempt to obtain a blessing for a militarized state and additional land beyond 1967 borders, inclusive of Jerusalem.
The speech was clearly not one-sided, but characterizing it as such is merely an effort to brainwash public perception by replacing the actual words with apocalyptic scenarios that have no foundation in the reality of the White House’s policy or the commonly accepted future of a two-state solution.
Nor was Obama’s speech extreme, but spinning of the media by both sides is disingenuous and merely attempts to turn the public into marionettes that will echo the least concessions possible.
