From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> ^^^^^^^ CB: Gee u sure go through a lot of contortions to try not to give Obama any credit for this, as usual. So, was this or was it not in response to the pressures u listed in your first post ?
JD: and Obama's heresy was simply repeating a version of the old line that none of the pundits within the Beltway was openly admitting had changed a bit in recent years. ^^^^^ CB: In other words, it is a change from the movement away from this position of two states that had been changed in recent years. u look like a pretzel Listening to U.S. National Public Radio and reading the NYT, it looks like Obama's shift to advocating 1967 borders (with negotiated adjustments via land-swaps) isn't a real shift at all. In fact, Hillary Clinton said something similar a couple of months ago, as have various U.S. Presidents over the years. Instead, * the statement was more of a matter of a reflection of the growing power of Israel and its lobbies in US politics and foreign policy (partly due to Obama's own acquiescence during the last 2 years): Obama's adherence to an old position is now treated as heresy by the lobbies and their allies. This was reinforced by the fact that Israel's Likudnik leadership has repeatedly been able to get away with dogmatism (and indeed has been rewarded for it). The US "line" on the borderline subject has shifted to the right (or to the left on the map, i.e., taking more of Palestine) and Obama's heresy was simply repeating a version of the old line that none of the pundits within the Beltway was openly admitting had changed a bit in recent years. (Of course the "line" was ambiguous all along. That's the nature of diplomacy.) * Obama's real "sin" was surprising Netanyahu while the latter was in the US with a statement of the US "line" that was different from the interpretation that "Bibi" has been pushing (and largely successfully). Of course, this might be seen as verbal revenge for Netanyahu's government's surprise expansion of land-grabbing housing projects in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) on two occasions, while VP Biden and H. Clinton were visiting Israel. (Did they pull a third surprise during a George Mitchell visit too?) * Netanyahu's dogmatic reaction to Obama's statement is "more of the same," i.e., an effort to push US foreign policy further into the Israeli/Likud camp (or to lock it more firmly there). The high dudgeon act has worked in the past (including helping to mobile Israel's political base in the US) so why not do it again? * Obama's people likely wanted the "new" line on the borderline to sound like a break from the past, since it might raise support for the US among the people involved in the "Arab Spring." This would aid US policy-makers' efforts to channel popular unrest into to serving US goals. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
