I’ve already responded to you in a different discussion that I never stated, nor do I believe, in 1949 armistice lines, AKA the Green Line. I don’t believe that’s what Israel should give to the Palestinians and I don’t believe UNSCR 242 requires it. I’m especially sensitive on the issue of Jerusalem and environs on this point. When Hillary translates Barack, the differentiation isn’t there. Instead, it has become “settlements” as in “all the settlements” which is unacceptable language because in 1949, the Jordanians emerged victorious on the part of Jerusalem that is most critical to the Jewish people. Translating that into “settlements” today would be very bad for Israel. The fact that we’re not seeing any differentiation indicates to me one of two things: Obama believes he has to give 1949 lines to the Arabs to achieve peace; or, he believes that this needs to be the first negotiating position in order to conclude with an acceptable compromise. The second possibility is actually very dangerous for Israel because in the past the Palestinians have always started negotiations from whatever the last position of their previous partner may have been. Then they stall the talks and years later the new negotiations have a new baseline. In this case, the new baseline includes Jerusalem and environs.

I hope I’m being clear here that even while I believe in the removal of settlements, and even of the doing so unilaterally, I’ve been very specific and consistent that they should move the settlers west of the Fence and then negotiate for the remaining half of what’s west of the Fence and the Green Line with the understanding that the large settlement blocs are sacrosanct. Additionally, any compromise on Jerusalem must not treat Jerusalem as occupied territory. Period. Compromise is fine, but nobody spent 2000 years waiting for Jerusalem just to give it up because the Jordanians won it in 1948 and proceeded to make it Judenrein.

Third, I already wrote in my previous comments on this, although not on this post, that I thought this was a good speech and was an important speech for America. That Barack did what he needed to do to begin the reinvigorate and actually change the relationship with the Muslim world. Within that context, I think he did a fine job and have said so on this site. This post takes him to task for the weaknesses in the speech, particularly as his new approach on American policy deals with Israel and the negative aspects of the Arab and Muslim world.

This post also points out that the Buchenwald visit and its timing was the throwing of a bone and in my view a bone that was difficult to swallow. I reject the idea that Israel was created because of the Holocaust on many levels. It’s not true historically; it’s not true if you look at the history of the Yishuv, it’s not true if you look at its population, and it’s not true in terms of the idea of Israel and what it’s about as a home for the Jewish people. Zionism as an ideology goes back long before Zionism as a political movement and even Zionism as a political movement precedes the Holocaust by 100 years.

It doesn’t appease me in any way that Obama went to Buchenwald – and my family lost the entirety of my father’s family (grandparents, great uncles and aunts, married siblings of both his mother and father, their spouses, plus their children, as well as cousins) in the Holocaust – if the intention was, as I believe it to be, to throw us all a bone. It becomes a cynical ploy to advance an agenda that is antithetical to Israel’s well being and security. If the idea was to force Israel to move back to 1949 lines and then show us he cares because he respects the Holocaust, I think it would be better if he didn’t use the Holocaust in this way. “Give up Jerusalem, folks, but look at how much I care about the Holocaust.”

There is also a deep problem with the Iran issue. It is now clear that Obama is going to let them proceed with their nuclear program. He hasn’t even had a bite from the Iranians despite all of his pronouncements so far, but as I read this speech, they have a pass to continue with their program from the US now. That is a mistake that hurts not only Israel, but also the US. Israel will just be the first, god forbid, to pay the price of this mistake.

As to your final paragraph, I have already stated in our other discussion that this was a sophisticated speech that was important and successful as far as forging forward with a new American policy with the Arabs and Muslims. But it also seems to indicate that the “special relationship” and Jerusalem are the sacrifices Obama is willing to make to further America’s interests. Not only do I find this disappointing, I also think it’s wrongheaded. At the end of the day, Israel remains the only true democracy in the Middle East. This is critical to the equation, but it’s not what Obama articulates in his speech about why Israel’s bonds with the US are unshakeable.

Right now, as I write, the Israelis are saying to the American administration that promises were made and assurances were given by the former President just several years ago and the Americans are responding that this is untrue or if true wasn’t binding on the Americans. Is it in America’s interest to do this Tom? Pretend for a minute that the ally in question wasn’t Israel but, say, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, etc. If things were said at the highest levels of government, but said quietly for obvious reasons, is it in the interest of the US to renege on those agreements when it becomes convenient?

So how about you give me Obama’s sophisticated speech and approach to the Muslims without the parts where dangers to Israel are increased, where it doesn’t lose its most important city, where its democratic values are appreciated for what they are and where Iran doesn’t get a pass? All of that would square away with America’s national interest, unless you have come to believe as Obama has, that it’s in America’s interest to sacrifice parts of Israel (and perhaps even Israel itself if Iran continues on its current course) to move ahead in the Muslim world. If that’s the case, then we disagree.

I don’t differ with your argument, I just don’t follow it. You’re in AIPAC/Camera mode here, and it doesn’t square with your views elsewhere.

Obsma’s speech, while flawed (by far the most disturbing passages for me dealt with Iran), gets subjected to a simple test: was it in the national interest of the US? I think the answer was clearly yes. He presented a new American attitude and an appealing alternative to al-Zawahari et al. Will it work? Probably not immediately, maybe not at all, but it was worth trying.

Middle chastises the president for not giving the speech Bush may have given. You know, ‘you’re either for us or against us’, near-reflexive deference to Israel on security matters, etc. Is this what you want, a Bush approach to the Middle East?

He knows his audience, that’s for sure, and it’ll be interesting to see how and if he progresses with the actions promised in Cairo…