By Charles Krauthammer, WASHINGTON POST
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 2 1/2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn’t just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world’s only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a “two-state solution.” That’s why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this “right.”
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
I got botted again. Don’t know why; don’t really care.
Ira, you are apparently right about the meaning of “Barack”. The Hebrew word “Barak” (as in the name of Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak) means “Lightning”. The Hebrew characters of “Barak” correspond to “BRQ”, whereas “Baruch” corresponds to “BRVX”. Arabic is distantly related to Hebrew, but not the same. The online http://www.stars21.com/dictionary/English-Arabic_dictionary.html has the following:
That wasn’t very clear to me, so I checked with Answers.com:
“Barack Obama’s first name is the anglicized version of Baraka, which means ‘blessing’ in Kiswahili (aka Swahili), a language spoken by Senator Obama’s Kenyan father.
“The word “Barack” is shared among several languages. First, it is a word in the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages) Semitic family of languages. As such it mistakenly has been thought to have the root in Hebrew written as baruch, but since the word Barak in Hebrew exists independently, pronounced as Barak with no twisting of sounds, it is the true word from which any meaning should be taken. A version in Aramaic (berek), a version in Arabic (baraka). (See Strong’s Hebrew Bible Dictionary, entries 1288-1294.) It also occurs as a loan word in non-Semitic languages that have been influenced by these Semitic languages, such as Kiswahili (the most widely spoken African language). As often happens, cognate words are similar in pronunciation. What appears in a later-appearing language may sound like something else in the earlier language. And in English we sometimes see words that are pronounced the same and even spelled the same, but that have very different meanings.
“Baraka means ‘blessing’ in Kiswahili and comes from the Arabic spoken by the Omani Arabs that lived and traded along the coast of East Africa. Though it came to Kiswahili from Arabic it no longer has any sectarian connotations and is in common use amongst East Africans of all faiths. It is a common name for boys in Kenya and Tanzania.
“Barack or Barak means ‘lightning’ in Hebrew. The name Barak is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Judges. Barak was part of the story of the prophetess Deborah.
“Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_name_Barack#ixzz1NgFm7YtI”
Some here have confused the Hebrew with the Swahili. I had to clear this up for myself, and thought to pass it on.
I know some of you will say “Nonsense”… But look at some interesting points…
What does the name “BARRACK” means? It is a derivative of the Arabic word “Barak,” and the Hebrew word “Baruch” meaning BLESSING, And OBAMA meaning “CROOKED,not “SRAIGHT”.(Not in a negative connotation In the Suwahili language). You say: what has all this to do with Karuthammer’s brilliant analysis (as always,)of screwing Yisrael?. Well, here’s my theory…
Remember Parashat Ballak (Ben Tzipor)? King of Moav Hires Bila’am Ben Beor to curse Yisrael. Bila’am Worns Ballak that he will not deviate from what God will put in his mouth be it good or bad.On his way to meet Ballak he strongly discuses the matter with his ass (Liberals?), Three times he tries to curse Yisrael Three times he fails to do so, and finally found himself to be BLESSING (Barrack) them…His own personal intentions are to Curse but is actually doing something he never meant to do…crooked…(Obama).
Remember the French Boycott on military sales after the 6 days war? Was it a curse or a Bless?. Believe it or not, This boycott in largely brought us to where we are today technologically. So advanced that even the US got scared, and vetoed the production of than by far the most advanced war plane (Lavi).
Do you remember who was the French president at that time? No, you don’t. History always repeat itself. Obama will be long forgotten by the time his curse will prove bless. He had made, for the first time an Israeli PM raise his head and talk back explaining to BHO that Israel ISREAL.
Thanks Hussein!!! And here’s his middle name meanings: “Hussein”(Arabic)=GOOD!
You were sent to screw and found yourself being screwed.(God’s?)Lips for hire.
Ira.
BTW: I am quite sure the Toast Obama was offering during the British Anthem was Kidush wine.God acts in mysterious ways…(Just my own speculation…)
American presidents have one primary responsibility in foreign affairs. That is to pursue whatever policy is in this country’s best interests. Unfortunately every president with the exception of Truman has followed the mistaken policy of favoring the Arab and Muslim nations over the Jewish nation. For this we can thank the notoriously anti-Semitic State Department and Jew hating presidential advisers. The result has been constant damage to this country’s policies.
Pres. Bush genuinly loved Israel, and understood the need to protect it from it’s enemies. For obummer to come along and trash the letter of Bush’s stated support, and agreement is utter lunacy-then again, he’s the anti-Bush, remember.
As the few allies. if there are any left, they must be wondering if the USA can be trusted ever again.
This will not end well, and hopefully we have until 2012, to get this cretin out of office.
Thank God for proud, stubborn, rejectionist Arabs like Arafat and Abbas. If Israel’s leaders had half their character, there really WOULD be peace in the Middle East — a peace with honor. As it stands, the Israelis have no backbone, and it would be beneath the pride of the Arabs to concede anything to them.
screwing israel is nothing new.
Reagan did it with sanctions, same for Ford, Clinton applied pressure during his whole presidency, same for the two Bushes, Its is a long established tradition for American presidents.
Don’t you just love the truth?