115 Days to Go
What Bothered Us About Obama

By Sherwin Pomerantz

There are now just 115 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the remarks of President Obama on Thursday evening, it is more important than ever that we let all of the delegates know what a mistake it would be to vote in favor of the Palestinian push for UN approval for statehood, before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of accommodation.

I am trying to figure out what it was about the President’s remarks, his timing and his approach that bothered so many of us. After all, even I, in an earlier blog, spoke about a peace agreement in the framework of the 1967 armistice lines. And even former Pres. Bush, in his 2004 letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also used the word “contiguous” regarding a future Palestinian state. So what was it about Thursday’s events that got so many of us upset?

I think there were a number of aspects to the presentation that made many of us uncomfortable.

First of all, it was the timing. It was simply unconscionable on the part of the President to give that particular speech at the same time that the Prime Minister of the US’s strongest ally in the region was literally on a plane en route to meeting with the President on Friday morning. Simply put, it’s not the way friendly nations treat each other. At a minimum it spoke to his arrogance.

Secondly, the formulation of his coda about the conflict when he stated “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines” to which he added “with mutually agreed swaps.” Making that the basis of where the negotiations will start and not recognizing that these lines were never borders in the first place, but just armistice lines, negates the entire principle of the parties negotiating between themselves to determine the final borders.

Former President Bush was much more realistic when he said, in his April 14, 2004 letter to Sharon:

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.

The italics are mine but the text is verbatim. The borders must emerge from negotiations between the parties and not be dictated by any third party to the discussion.

Third, President Obama’s putting off the issues of the return of refugees and the status of Jerusalem to a time after we here in Israel withdraw from Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) puts Israel in an untenable position vis-à-vis those issues. No Israeli leader in his right mind would give up any part of the West Bank without the concomitant resolution of those two difficult issues. Former Pres. Bush understood this as well when he wrote, in that same letter:

The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

The President could easily have laid out his vision of a peaceful and democratic Middle East without delving into issues which are better left to the negotiators, as difficult as it may be to get everyone to the table.

Given all of this is it any wonder then that some of us are not so sanguine that the US’ will use its veto in the Security Council to stop recognition of Palestine as a country when the UN reconvenes in September? Are any of us sure that this will actually happen? By a President who is ready to bend over backwards to mollify the Arab world?

As such, today it is even more important than it was last week, that the voices of those of us who are again such a move make ourselves heard. Last week I urged everyone to write letters to each and every one of the nations with UN delegations in the New York area letting them know of our displeasure with this move and how much we care about them doing the right thing for peace in the region by not approving the Palestinian initiative. My thought was that if we could get thousands of people to send “snail mail” letters to each delegation not only would the delegates know what we are thinking but, eventually, the local press in the US would pick up on this as well. After all, if every delegation received 10,000 letters then 2 million pieces of mail would flow into New York on this issue and you can bet your bottom dollar that people there would sit up and take notice.

Some of you have asked for the mailing addresses as well as fax and email contacts. Attached is a list of the first 46 countries (A-C) and the rest will follow over the next few days. I still feel that snail mail will make the most impact but, if you find that too big a challenge, then fax is the next best thing and, failing that, e mail.

We, who love Israel, who are committed to its continued place in the family of nations and who understand how important our continued success here is to our people worldwide, owe each other this small act of protest. Do it now! Please!