In a sharp shift in politics if not policy, President Obama yesterday called for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to begin with the borders that predated Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War with its Arab neighbors.
“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,” Obama said toward the end of a sweeping, 45-minute address on the rapidly transforming Middle East.
“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat.”
It was not the first time the 1967 borders have been invoked by American officials, but many Middle East experts yesterday noted the robustness of Obama’s rhetoric, and the speech’s timing: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington today for high-level meetings.
“This was a finger in the eye” to Netanyahu, said David Levy, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a one-time adviser to ex-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Netanyahu has long rejected a return to the 1967 borders, and in a series of official statements yesterday, further denounced Obama’s proposal.
“Those borders are not defensible,” Netanyahu said as he prepared to board a flight to Washington. “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.”
The speech was Obama’s first major public address on the Middle East since a series of pro-democracy uprisings have altered the landscape of the entire region.
Advisers to the president had pledged that he would use the speech to seize the moment of political revolution and put the administration’s imprint on the region’s changes.
Among other things, Obama praised the peaceful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and promised that the United States would assist the new democracies in their future development, including relieving Egypt of $1 billion in debt.
He also offered his sternest denunciation yet of the violent response of the leaders of Bahrain — an American ally — in crushing street protests there, and called for the autocratic rulers of Yemen and Syria to also heed the democratic impulses of their citizens.
But several regional analysts yesterday said they were underwhelmed by Obama’s remarks, especially on the touchy subject of revolutions in nations where the U.S. has diplomatic relations.
In Syria, for instance, Obama called for President Bashar Assad merely to make a “choice” between stepping down and helping lead democratic change.
“A thousand people dead and he still thinks he hasn’t made a choice?” said David Schenker, Arab politics program director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It really suggests that this administration is still invested in [Assad].”
Meanwhile, Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar, described the speech as lacking any sense of urgency, and missing a “major opportunity” to reach out to the Arab world.
“Obama doesn’t seem to be moved by this moment,” Hamid said. “He doesn’t seem to really grasp what this moment means in history, that this is unprecedented, at the level of the Berlin Wall. Obama doesn’t seem to get that, or maybe he gets that but he doesn’t feel it.”
Indeed, in what some experts call a reflection of the speech’s lack of potency, several pro-Israeli groups praised Obama’s address, despite its reference to the 1967 borders.
“It’s not a big deal because it doesn’t have any legs, and it’s not coming in the context of any peace negotiations,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and former State Department Arab-Israeli peace negotiator. “The peace process is the walking dead right now.”
“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,” Obama said toward the end of a sweeping, 45-minute address on the rapidly transforming Middle East.
“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat.”
It was not the first time the 1967 borders have been invoked by American officials, but many Middle East experts yesterday noted the robustness of Obama’s rhetoric, and the speech’s timing: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington today for high-level meetings.
“This was a finger in the eye” to Netanyahu, said David Levy, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a one-time adviser to ex-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Netanyahu has long rejected a return to the 1967 borders, and in a series of official statements yesterday, further denounced Obama’s proposal.
“Those borders are not defensible,” Netanyahu said as he prepared to board a flight to Washington. “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence.”
The speech was Obama’s first major public address on the Middle East since a series of pro-democracy uprisings have altered the landscape of the entire region.
Advisers to the president had pledged that he would use the speech to seize the moment of political revolution and put the administration’s imprint on the region’s changes.
Among other things, Obama praised the peaceful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and promised that the United States would assist the new democracies in their future development, including relieving Egypt of $1 billion in debt.
He also offered his sternest denunciation yet of the violent response of the leaders of Bahrain — an American ally — in crushing street protests there, and called for the autocratic rulers of Yemen and Syria to also heed the democratic impulses of their citizens.
But several regional analysts yesterday said they were underwhelmed by Obama’s remarks, especially on the touchy subject of revolutions in nations where the U.S. has diplomatic relations.
In Syria, for instance, Obama called for President Bashar Assad merely to make a “choice” between stepping down and helping lead democratic change.
“A thousand people dead and he still thinks he hasn’t made a choice?” said David Schenker, Arab politics program director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It really suggests that this administration is still invested in [Assad].”
Meanwhile, Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar, described the speech as lacking any sense of urgency, and missing a “major opportunity” to reach out to the Arab world.
“Obama doesn’t seem to be moved by this moment,” Hamid said. “He doesn’t seem to really grasp what this moment means in history, that this is unprecedented, at the level of the Berlin Wall. Obama doesn’t seem to get that, or maybe he gets that but he doesn’t feel it.”
Indeed, in what some experts call a reflection of the speech’s lack of potency, several pro-Israeli groups praised Obama’s address, despite its reference to the 1967 borders.
“It’s not a big deal because it doesn’t have any legs, and it’s not coming in the context of any peace negotiations,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and former State Department Arab-Israeli peace negotiator. “The peace process is the walking dead right now.”
