"The President Is Talking Utter Nonsense": More Tough Talk On Obama's AIPAC Speech

Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm a fan of Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  Here, via the antipodean J-Wire service, is his hard-hitting take on Obama's latest iniitiative. The article is entitled "Palestine - Obama Continues to Fudge on America's Commitment to Israel".

Writes David Singer:

President Obama in an address to the AIPAC Policy Conference on 22 May has failed to redress the enormous damage done by him to America’s integrity and reputation during his speech three days earlier at the State Department.  Addressing the State Department Obama then stated:

“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.. “

This statement amounted to the repudiation of an American written commitment given by President George Bush (the Bush Letter) to Israel‘s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In 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 is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

America’s commitment in the Bush Letter was clear and unambiguous.

America would support Israel’s refusal to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem – as the Arabs had been demanding since 1967.

The amount of such land to be retained by Israel would be determined by mutually agreed changes that reflected the realities existing at the time negotiations were completed

No mention was made that those mutually agreed changes would require Israel to make land swaps of Israeli sovereign territory in exchange for land retained by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:

“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President’s letter.”

President Bush’s letter was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.

Obama’s apparent attempt to abrogate this American commitment in his statement on 19 May resulted in trenchant criticism from Israel and many members of the American Congress forcing him to clarify his position on 22 May.

In doing so President Obama did not climb out of the diplomatic hole he had dug for himself and America three days earlier – but only managed to slide further down it taking America’s integrity and reputation even lower with him.

President Obama told the AIPAC delegates and many Congressmen present and keen to hear his explanation:

“And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition, 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. That’s what mutually agreed- upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace”

With the greatest respect the President is talking utter nonsense.

“Agreed upon swaps” surely means an agreed exchange of something for something else.

President Obama clearly was breaching the Bush Letter in stating that his Government’s belief now was that Israeli sovereign territory would have to be swapped for territory retained by Israel in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.



By M. Langfan http://www.marklangfan.com/

 President Obama’s belief in 2011 is totally irrelevant. President Obama is committed in 2011 to supporting whatever decision Israel makes on how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem it will ultimately withdraw from – nothing more nothing less.

To continue to support the concept of “mutually agreed swaps” only makes matters even worse so far as restoring America’s integrity and reputation is concerned.

It is clear President Obama does not like the terms of the Bush Letter. But he – and America – are bound by it if America‘s integrity and reputation is to be maintained .

Obama’s explanation smacks of a pathetic attempt to try and retrospectively substitute the words “mutually agreed changes” in the Bush Letter with the words “mutually agreed exchanges”.

Surely Congress will react with even greater fury at President Obama’s latest remarks to try and massage the meaning of the Bush Letter to give it a meaning that was never intended.

Israel made a historic – and highly controversial – political decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as a condition of obtaining the Bush Letter. Israel paid dearly for that decision when tens of thousands of its civilian population were subsequently murdered, wounded or traumatized following that disengagement.

It is inconceivable that America should seek in any way to diminish or circumvent the commitments it made under the Bush Letter.

Words have meaning and in this case their meaning brooks only one interpretation.

Obama’s attempt to subvert their meaning must be resisted until he recants and states without qualification or ambiguity that he – as America’s President – and America still stands by what President Bush signed and its Congress ratified.

The Right Lines Regarding Borders

This video has done the rounds of several blogs, but its message is worth emphasisng.

And for a cogent explanation of the border issue, few have surpassed Marvellous Melanie:

"Obama spoke correctly when he referred to the ‘1967 lines’ rather than ‘borders’. There are no 1967 borders. Israel actually has no borders. All it has are the 1949 ceasefire lines, which is where Israel was left when it fought off the attempt by five Arab armies to exterminate it at birth. These lines were referred to [by Abba Eban] as the ‘Auschwitz borders’ because within them no country could possibly defend itself against its enemies. They left Israel at its narrowest point a mere nine miles wide - as Netanyahu said, less than the Washington Beltway. A return to the 1967 lines would mean exposing Israel once more to the likelihood of destruction, and such a proposal runs counter to the spirit and the letter of UN Resolution 242. True Obama added ‘with land swaps’. But no realistic land swaps could make up for this fatal vulnerability."

The rest of her post truly is essential reading: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6966810/obamas-achievement-the-mouse-that-roared.thtml

A Swastika Under The SNP's Sporran? A SNP-led Scottish Council Bans Israeli Books

West Dunbartonshire Council, which is in the hands of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) - which following its landslide victory at  this months polls is the governing party in Scotland - has taken its espousal of the odious BDS movement a step further into the ordure of antisemitism by ordering public libraries under its sway to boycott any new volumes by Israeli authors, printed or published in Israel.  (They are gracious enough to allow Israeli books already in stock to remain on the shelves.)

The shameful move, of course, invites painful memories of 10 May 1933, a day that lives in infamy as that upon which a Nazi mob in Berlin made a bonfire of some 25,000 works by Jewish authors.

SNP-led Dundee City Council sought to do as its West Dunbartonshire counterpart has, but decided against the move - not because it had a sudden twinge of conscience, but because it heeded legal advice that such a move flouts European Union law.

Says a Labour member of the Scottish Parliament, Ken McIntosh, his party's spokesman for Culture and External Affairs:

"This is not just anti-Israel, it is anti-knowledge. While everybody, including councils have the right to express opinions, this simply smacks of a closed minds and actually shuts down debate. I find the move pretty deplorable.

This reflects not so much on Israel, but on West Dunbartonshire Council."

Amir Oftek, press attaché at the Israeli Embassy in London, commented:

"This must be the only organisation in the 21st century which is still banning books. Not only does it close down debate but for many Jews and others who wish to contribute to the peace process in the Middle East this is grossly insensitive.

What happened in Europe in the 1930s should be a warning to us all. Where will this end? By burning books again?”

I think that's a question for Scotland's First Minister, SNP chief Alex Salmond.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/247880Fury-as-council-launches-boycott-on-Israeli-books#ixzz1N5c7qFa3
Update: See also: http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/05/pro-boycott-snp-councillor-calls-anti.html

Tough Takes on Obama

Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) today, President Obama clarified his position on the 1967 lines:

 Notwithstanding periodic outbursts of applause, as Jennifer Rubin explains in "Obama double downs at AIPAC," her astute Washington Post article on the speech, its reception, and its deficiencies, there were, very significantly, boos at a particular juncture.

She points out:

'It is not “well known” what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state, and the security arrangements are the core of the matter. Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties “will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” No, he said it was U.S. policy that the deal would stem from the 1967 lines.

He then disingenuously said he’d always meant “it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrifice.” And there was some pablum about the current situation not being sustainable, the U.S. commitment to Israel and Obama’s fondness for the nation whose bargaining position he has undermined.

The problems in the speech include: 1) Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel’s bargaining position for nothing in return; 2) Obama never even mentioned the right of return; 3) He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley. You see, only Israel’s expected concessions are “well known”; 4) Israel can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume; and 5) if anything Obama underscored that the United States has differences with Israel — but it’s between “friends.”'

Read all of her piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-double-downs-at-aipac/2011/03/29/AFhx9C9G_blog.html

The following article, entitled Palestine - Obama sinks America's Integrity and Reputation, is by the always incisive David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and founder of the International Analysts' Network.  It comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.  I've posted the video at the end before, but it's as well to remind people again how narrow and vulnerable Israel was prior to its stunning victory in the Six Day War; not for nothing did Abba Eban term its pre-war boundaries the "Auschwitz borders".

Writes David Singer:

'Remarks made by President Obama at the State Department in Washington on 19 May indicate he is prepared to honour some – but not all – commitments made to Israel by former American President George W Bush in his letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (the Bush Letter).

President Obama first stressed the following points:

1. It is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else.

2. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

President Obama was indeed confirming America’s written commitment to Israel in the Bush Letter

"The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state."

This commitment – made now by two American Presidents to Israel – has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, the PLO, Hamas and the Arab League. But it is a commitment that America has no intention of abandoning.

However President Obama ignored another commitment in the Bush Letter when he then told his State Department audience:

"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.. "

This statement is contrary to the following statement appearing in the Bush Letter:

"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In 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 is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Bush had clearly committed to back Israel’s position that sovereignty in 100% of the land occupied in the Six Day War by Israel would not be ceded in any ultimate peace settlement.

Obama was obviously trying to wheedle his way out of this Bush commitment by some semantic toe stepping. – suggesting that

1. any loss of such territory to Israel could be compensated by an equivalent swap of existing Israeli sovereign territory and

2. this swap could still lead to the creation of secure borders for Israel.

Israel was certainly not prepared to let Obama back peddle from the terms of the Bush Letter .

The Israeli rebuttal was swift and came just one day later when Israel’s Prime Minster told President Obama during a meeting at the White House:

"I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years."

Those concerned to ensure that American presidential commitments made to third parties are honored and upheld by their successors should be as equally worried as Israel at Obama’s apparent attempt to breach such a fundamental presidential commitment.

The price Israel paid to secure the Bush Letter was its decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza in 2005. This disengagement exposed Israel’s civilian population living in its southern region to the threat of continuing indiscriminate missile and terrorist attacks from Gaza without any Israeli military forces being retained in Gaza any more to prevent, defend and respond to any such attacks. 8000 Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses established in Gaza over the preceding 38 years.

This is indeed what happened after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 – with disastrous consequences for both civilian populations in Israel and Gaza and for those 8000 Israelis who had evacuated Gaza..

Jeopardizing its security on the entire Gaza front required Israel to be absolutely assured of American commitment to Israel’s security on the West Bank front. That assessment saw the refusal to cede sovereignty in 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as being non-negotiable.

America’s decision to stand by and support Israel on this fundamental territorial issue is critical.

Israel’s Government in 2008 had unsuccessfully explored the possibility of land swaps with the Palestinian Authority – but those negotiations ended inconclusively and are now in total lock down.

Exploring land swaps might again be considered by Israel in future negotiations. The current Israeli Government shows no intention to do so. But that will have to be Israel’s decision – not America’s.

America’s view – now or later – regarding land swaps is irrelevant under the Bush Letter.

President Obama’s statement will no doubt be seen by some to indicate a shift in America’s position – perhaps made in an attempt to induce the Palestinian Authority to resume the stalled negotiations with Israel.

Obama’s position will be viewed by Israel and its supporters as a shift that does no honor to America and badly damages its reputation and integrity.

The Bush commitment was made for an Israeli commitment that has resulted in the death, injury and traumatisation of tens of thousands of Israelis.

Obama’s attempt to minimize or modify that commitment in any way must be firmly and publicly resisted by Israel and its supporters in the American Congress – which had voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush signing the Bush Letter in the first place.

Doing so will certainly help restore America’s reputation for honesty and transparency in its dealings with third parties – and for standing by and remaining staunchly committed to the decisions of its presidents.

Aren’t these indeed cardinal democratic principles which Obama – as leader of the world’s leading democracy – is sworn to uphold?'

Gene Simmons Proves His Witz (video)

Here's the intelligent and likeable "Kiss" lead singer Gene Simmons, born Chaim Witz in Haifa in 1949, with a few blunt words regarding those 1967 lines:

Demonic on Campus: British students and academics instigate new anti-Israel measures

Harrogate, that rather genteel and prosperous spa town in north Yorkshire, will be the setting from 28-30 May of the anual conference of the University and College Union (UCU), which to the dismay of many rank-and-file members has been hijacked by elements devoted to the boycott of Israel.  (See, for instance, http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jewish-chronicle-report-of-ucu-meeting-on-antisemitism/)

Among the items on the Congress's agenda, which in addition to issues directly focusing on the higher education sector in the UK also embraces topics pertaining to British society (including motions condemning the EDL and Islamophobia),  is a pernicious motion designed to redefine the meaning of antisemitism in order that Israel can be maligned with impunity on campuses in the UK.

The motion upon which delegates are asked to vote concerns the "Working Definition of Antisemitism" set out in 2005 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency.

The EUMC document, which was adopted by all the EU member states as well as by the USA, and by the National Union of Students (NUS), includes several clauses relating to Israel in its definition of antisemitism, but specifically says: "critiscism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be considered antisemitism".

See http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

The Israel-demonising Left have predictably been deeply unhappy with the relevant aspects of this document, and some have sought to discredit it - witness a piece from 2007 in the Guardian's notorious "Comment-is-Free" online section by self-described "Jewish anti-Zionist" Arthur Neslen and a piece written earlier this year by Richard Kuper, a former chairman of the fringe group Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/05/whenanantisemiteisnotana

http://jfjfp.com/?p=21466

Last Tuesday, as the result of a vigorous campaign waged by the NUS's Black Students' Committee, supported by students from nine universities including such hives of anti-Israel activity as the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Sussex, Essex, and Bradford,  the NUS adopted a virulently anti-Israel motion.

To quote the current issue of the Jewish Chronicle, it undertook

'to send British students on future flotillas to Gaza, build links with the Hamas-backed Islamic University of Gaza, twin British student unions with Palestinian universities, and called for the right to return for all Palestinian refugees....

The motion makes no reference to Hamas, but acknowledges Archbishop Desmond Tutu's likening of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and former UN relief agency head John Ging's belief that conditions in Gaza represent a "medieval siege".'

The shock move was condemned by a spokesperson for the Union of Jewish Students, who said:

 "This is such a regressive move when NUS is taking so many steps forward with regard to hate speech and its negative impact on campus..... This is not just NUS taking a side on a heavily-polarised conflict, irresponsible though that is. It is NUS taking actions that isolate Jewish students from their national movement."

And a Board of Deputies official added:

"This motion will not contribute to bringing peace to the Middle East. It will only serve to undermine attempts to improve campus relations and will leave Jewish students and those who support Israel feeling marginalised and abandoned by the very union which is meant to protect, defend and represent them."

The motion to be voted upon in Harrogate, framed by the ECU's National Executive Committe, reads:

Congress notes with concern that the so-called 'EUMC working definition of antisemitism', while not adopted by the EU or the UK government and having no official status, is being used by bodies such as the NUS and local student unions in relation to activities on campus.

Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.Congress resolves:

that UCU will make no use of the EUMC definition (e.g. in educating members or dealing with internal complaints)

that UCU will dissociate itself from the EUMC definition in any public discussion on the matter in which UCU is involved

that UCU will campaign for open debate on campus concerning Israel's past history and current policy, while continuing to combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination

Notes blogger and academic David Hirsh, who's been in the forefront of opposition to the UCU's noxious boycott of Israel policy:

"The EUMC definition says it may, in some contexts, be antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their union; to say Israel is a racist endeavour; to apply double standards; to boycott Israelis but not others for the same violations; to say that Israeli policy is like Nazi policy; to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. All of these things have been going on a lot inside the academic unions for the last eight years. Instead of addressing the antisemitic culture, the leadership of the union now proposes to alter the definition of antisemitism. The union wants to carry on treating ‘Zionists’ as disloyal; singling out Israel and only Israel for boycott; holding Israeli universities responsible for their government; allowing ‘Zionist’ union members to be denounced as Nazis or supporters of apartheid.

The precise form that bullying typically takes within UCU is that people who complain about antisemitism are accused of doing so in bad faith in a dishonest attempt to outlaw criticism of Israel. The antisemitism isn’t seen, isn’t acknowledged, the accuser is accused; and Israel is blamed for the unseen and unacknowledged antisemitism.

The new motion makes this form of bullying into official union policy. Even though the definition says that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’, the new motion declares that the definition outlaws criticism and is intended to silence debate.

UCU will now oppose all bigotry except for one particular category: racism which can be said to resemble criticism of Israel. UCU will oppose racist and religious antisemitism, but political antisemitism will be protected under the new policy."

He adds, with understandable sarcasm:

"Israel murders children? Not antisemitic. Israel controls US foreign policy? Not antisemitic. Magen David = Swastika stuck on your office door? Not antisemitic. Jews invent antisemitism to de-legitimise criticism of Israel? Not antisemitic. Host a man found guilty of hate speech by the South African Human Rights commission? [For this shameful incident see http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/antisemitic-meeting-soas] Not antisemitic. Exclude nobody but Israelis from the global academic community? Not antisemitic."

And observes:

"It is clear now how antisemitism against Israelis far away, in the form of a boycott campaign, also threatens ‘Zionists’ within the union. We have learnt that the boycott campaign brings antisemitism with it into any organisation which treats it as one side in a legitimate debate. UCU have understood it too, now. The only thing left for them, now, is to change the defiinition of antisemitism so that they fall outside of it."

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/instead-of-adressing-its-antisemitism-ucu-proposes-to-change-the-definition-of-antisemitism/  (The Engage blog is essential reading for developments in academia)

Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust's Mark Gardner told the Jewish Chronicle:
"It proves, once again, that the UCU's executive are political extremists who care only about their ideological wars, including obsessively hating Israel and condemning mainstream political attempts to protect Jews from antisemitism..."

And on his blog he notes, inter alia:

'This resolution ... not only hurts Jews and the fight against antisemitism, it actually reinforces antisemitism; and does so notwithstanding that noisy minority of people of Jewish identity or origin, who consciously parade their Jewishness in order to help legitimise political and rhetorical attacks upon Israel and Zionism and Zionists (and therefore the broad mass of their co-religionists, over 70% of whom self-identify as Zionists).

The resolution comes under the header, “Campaigning for equality”. It would be funny, or at least ironic, were it not so Orwellian.'

Read all of Mark Gardner's blogpost here: http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=2575

The Unflappable Mr Regev on a Palestinian State (video)