Various commentators maintain that when Obama said, in his recent speech on Mid-East policy, that the solution to Israel-Palestine problem must be "based on 1967 borders", he is just stating publicly what has been commonly said for ages. Therefore, goes the argument, it's not really a big "new ask" put on Israel, it's just stating in public what has long been discussed privately or in the media; just not said out loud by the president.
But this is nonsense. What the American president says, or doesn't say, is important.
Something may be long whispered In the corridors of power, or spoken from the rooftops in the media. But as long as it's not said aloud by the president, it is not US policy.
Take an example. The US has a "one China policy". It recognises only Peking as the seat of government of China. That includes Taiwan and Hong Kong. It has however, never been absolutely specific about China's sovereignty over Taiwan. There was from the beginning of modern Sino-US relations, and has been to this day, a clear ambiguity -- if ambiguity can indeed be clear -- about Taiwan that suited all sides. In theory China is one country. In practice, the US government and business acts as if Taiwan is independent.
But the president does not say so.
And what if he were to say so publicly? All hell would break loose, that's what. China-US relations would be plunged into crisis. China would mass-sell its US debt, putting the US dollar into free fall and threatening the economy. That's just for starters. So the US president does not say such a thing publicly. Publicly, it's One China. Privately it's China, Taiwan (and Hong Kong, my home town). And that's how it should be.
Back to the Israel and '67 border issue. It's important to stress that the president did not simply articulate in public what's been around for a while. He went further. He said that there should be land swaps. More: he said that the new Palestine should have "contiguous" borders.
This, it seems to me, is both significant, and deeply ominous. For the only contiguous borders that one can construct from Obama's speech is one in which Israel loses land, to create a kind of backwards "L" of the new Palestine. This new Palestine would cradle in its open jaws the new Israel. How long before before those jaws snapped shut?
So the "land swaps" under this Obama plan -- which some apologists have taken to be a positive for Israel -- would in fact be a clear threat to its very existence.
In any case, negotiations are best not conducted in public. As one commentator noted, the biggest advances in Israel-Palestine relations were the Oslo accords, and these were conducted in complete secrecy. Obama is O-pen, but that ain't good. Not for Israel, anyway.
But this is nonsense. What the American president says, or doesn't say, is important.
Something may be long whispered In the corridors of power, or spoken from the rooftops in the media. But as long as it's not said aloud by the president, it is not US policy.
Take an example. The US has a "one China policy". It recognises only Peking as the seat of government of China. That includes Taiwan and Hong Kong. It has however, never been absolutely specific about China's sovereignty over Taiwan. There was from the beginning of modern Sino-US relations, and has been to this day, a clear ambiguity -- if ambiguity can indeed be clear -- about Taiwan that suited all sides. In theory China is one country. In practice, the US government and business acts as if Taiwan is independent.
But the president does not say so.
And what if he were to say so publicly? All hell would break loose, that's what. China-US relations would be plunged into crisis. China would mass-sell its US debt, putting the US dollar into free fall and threatening the economy. That's just for starters. So the US president does not say such a thing publicly. Publicly, it's One China. Privately it's China, Taiwan (and Hong Kong, my home town). And that's how it should be.
Back to the Israel and '67 border issue. It's important to stress that the president did not simply articulate in public what's been around for a while. He went further. He said that there should be land swaps. More: he said that the new Palestine should have "contiguous" borders.
This, it seems to me, is both significant, and deeply ominous. For the only contiguous borders that one can construct from Obama's speech is one in which Israel loses land, to create a kind of backwards "L" of the new Palestine. This new Palestine would cradle in its open jaws the new Israel. How long before before those jaws snapped shut?
So the "land swaps" under this Obama plan -- which some apologists have taken to be a positive for Israel -- would in fact be a clear threat to its very existence.
In any case, negotiations are best not conducted in public. As one commentator noted, the biggest advances in Israel-Palestine relations were the Oslo accords, and these were conducted in complete secrecy. Obama is O-pen, but that ain't good. Not for Israel, anyway.
