113 Days to Go
Were We Too Hard On Obama?

By Sherwin Pomerantz

From today there are 113 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York.

Over the last few days I’ve devoted this blog to dealing with reactions to the speeches given by President Obama both on Thursday night at the State Department and on Sunday at the AIPAC Conference, both in Washington DC. My conclusion was that after the President’s speech of clarification on Sunday we had even more to worry about than after Thursday night. But did all of us who were critical of the President go too far? Did we miss an opportunity to thank him for what he said that we agreed with?

To address that concern I share with you parts of a piece written by Rabbi Mark S. Golub, president and executive producer of Shalom TV, America's national Jewish television network beamed in 41 million homes on virtually every cable system in the United States and in Canada.

Rabbi Golub said:

In last week's speech, the President positioned the Jewish People's right to a safe and secure homeland in Israel as the top priority and reaffirmed America's unwavering commitment and support, what he described in his address to AIPAC on Sunday as "ironclad." The President was eloquent in speaking of America's support of Israel as "rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values;" and specifically struck out against those would apply a double standard in their evaluations of Israel, saying that the U.S. "will stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums."

Also of extreme import, the President explicitly referred to Israel as the "Jewish" state -- a description which, surprisingly, created significant controversy (even among some American Jews) when Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted on including the words "Jewish state" in describing his own commitment to a two-state solution.

It is noteworthy that he began his actual description of the deadlock in the peace process by publicly acknowledging Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel and declaring that those efforts "will end in failure." The President also took on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians by warning against any "symbolic" Arab effort to seek statehood in the United Nations in September; singled out Hamas' terror and rejectionism as obstacles to peace; criticized the Palestinians alone for abandoning peace negotiations; and verbalized the overarching message the Jewish community has been pleading with the world to embrace: "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

And finally, in referencing the peace process itself, the President finally acknowledged that no peace can be imposed upon Israel from the outside -- not even by the United States.

The President had every right to expect that the Jewish world would applaud his remarks and that the Arab world would feel it had been dealt a serious dose of reality. Why, then, did the speech engender such a negative reaction within the Jewish community?

I don't understand the degree of hysteria over the President's reference to '67 lines -- and I have not found anyone who can explain it to me.

All President Obama did is articulate the formula which the Jewish world has been arguing for: "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." As the President accurately told his APIAC audience, "There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations."

American Jews who have heard an anti-Israel bias in President Obama's address on the Middle East are not only doing him injustice, they are missing an invaluable opportunity to trumpet the President's positive messages regarding the State of Israel -- ones which he made before the entire world and which the entire world should well heed.

Well, let me tell Rabbi Golub what it is that disturbed me. Rabbi Golub simply misses the point and it seems to me that he is writing from the perspective of a supporter of JStreet and, of course, JStreet was wildly supportive of everything that the President said last Thursday night.

I agree that Obama was trying but he really does not understand the realities of the situation here. For sure, we have been talking about a resolution of borders on the basis of the 1967 armistice lines for years. But we have also been discussing keeping Jerusalem undivided and not permitting a return of all of the refugees of 1948 & 1967 as well as their children and grandchildren to what will be Israel proper. What Golub misses is that by publicly stating that the 1967 armistice lines, plus or minus some land swaps, will be the final borders, and putting off the further discussion of refugees and Jerusalem, we might (actually we will) be faced with a situation where the borders are fixed, a Palestinian state is in place and then we will yet have to negotiate these other issues. At that time we will be in a much weaker position to defend our positions on Jerusalem and refugees than if everything had been dealt with together.

From Obama’s perspective for sure it would be easier to deal with borders and security and leave the other two core issues for later. But from our perspective that would be tantamount to buying a house, signing the papers, taking out the mortgage AND THEN telling the seller ok, let’s now discuss what is being left in the house for the buyer to use. At that point the buyer has no leverage whatsoever. We do not want to be in that situation here.

Netanyahu said to Obama on Friday that history will not give the Jewish people another chance. I would have said to him, instead, that our first mistake will be our last and we simply cannot take the chance.

While I do agree that along with the criticism, the Jewish community might have been better served by complimenting the President for what he said that we could support before being critical of the challenging points. But the fact is that there is yet plenty about which to be worried. And if you have any doubts please take a few minutes and look at this video about Israel`s borders: http://youtu.be/ytWmPqY8TE0 It will then be clear why we should still be worried and why we should continue to let the delegates to the UN know that they must vote against affirming Palestinian statehood at the UN before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of their agreement,. We owe ourselves nothing less.