Why Obama's "Cairo II" Speech Was Wrong And Unprecedented In Declaring That Israeli Borders Must Be "Based" On The "1967 Lines"

There are no "1967 lines." The 1967 lines actually include the entire West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria), Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai, and Israel has been pulling back from the 1967 lines ever since that war. At best President Obama meant the "pre-1967 lines." What Obama is actually talking about of course is what should be called the 1949 armistice lines. It is the line that was born out of the attack on the newborn Jewish State that Obama is referring to. "1949 armistice lines" immediately reminds anyone of the Arab wars and rejection of Israel's creation and is therefore a far more accurate phrase. Change the wording to accurately reflect the line being spoken of and you should realize that the indefensible borders that led to the 1967 "Six Day War" in the first place is what is now considered and for the first time being declared publicly by the United States as what negotiations should be "based" upon. This is now the current state of affairs with the present occupant of the White House making his ridiculous proclamation. Now the new line from which all negotiations are to be based are the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

While it is true that the so-called "1967 lines" have been the working premise for negotiations since at least 2000, no President has ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the "1967 lines" as what everything negotiated needs to "based on." In that respect, it is unprecedented and a radical departure from previous public American pronouncements.

The Jerusalem Post specifically explains the response of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Obama's statement in his so-called "Cairo II" speech. While "thanking Obama for his commitment to peace, Netanyahu said he 'expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004 that received wide support in both houses of Congress.' This was a reference to a letter from president George W. Bush to prime minister Ariel Sharon that did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and that recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground – a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that it would hold on to the large settlement blocs." So Israelis, including the Prime Minister, and apparently many others inside and outside of Israel, took this line from Obama's speech to now mean that there is a new baseline from which Israel must be forced to swap land if it wishes to in any way deviate from that line. Netanyahu came out swinging very strongly against Obama's speech, and the tension between the United States and her close ally Israel is clearly at palpably record levels. This is a radical shift in American policy. Obama's speech is a priori implying that those blocs mentioned in Bush's letter to Sharon are illegitimate rather than what Bush recognized them as, a "reality on the ground." At the very best in order to be kept by Israel Obama is saying that concessions must be made. Further, aside from certain blocs, it would seem that if Israel required maintaining a line that allowed for a defensible border, that such security considerations would also be further cause for Israeli concessions. The point here is it is a departure from the letter from Bush to Sharon that taking a different tone explicitly said "[i]n light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

It should also be pointed out that "1967 lines" would assume that all of Jerusalem's holy sites belong to the Palestinians as well. Prior to the 1967 War the holy sites of Jerusalem were all under the control of Jordan, and Jews were prohibited from even visiting the Western Wall. The Palestinians are now going to increase their claims to very important parts of Jerusalem given that President Obama has now said the "1967 lines" are the basis for all negotiation.

Finally, it appears that Obama knew that inserting this line was something that was unprecedented and that was changing the guideposts for negotiation at the outset from defensible borders for Israel that reflect "realities on the ground" to "1967 lines." The Los Angeles Times reported that top aides, "including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and senior Mideast adviser Dennis Ross, had argued against laying out U.S. proposals. But Obama, accepting the arguments of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others, decided that he could use the momentum of change in the Middle East, and that doing so would help convince the Arab world that the administration was on the side of reform." So the fact is that the administration inserted the language against the advice of some top foreign policy and Mideast advisers in order to placate the Arab world. Those that may have liked to attribute more pure motives or benign intent will be hard pressed to do so now that this internal deliberation has already been made public.

Then again, maybe we all got it wrong and Obama was saying that Israel should take back the Sinai and Gaza and follow the "1967 lines." In that case, I'm all for it, and this was the most pro-Israel public statement ever made. Tweet