Please Don’t Kill the Messenger
by
Jerrold L. Sobel
August 2, 2012
Since creating the Israeli Advocate in 2008 I’ve never ceased to marvel and be intrigued at the responses I receive from my articles and that of my contributors. Dependent upon the political persuasion, mood, or a particular reader’s state of mind at the time the article is read, the variance of response runs the gamut from: “Take me off your ******g mailing list” to “absolutely brilliant,” and shades in between.
It’s not always easy, but (after 4 years, our weekly articles now reach approximately 20,000 households) where time and disposition allows, an attempt is made to answer the most civil and sensible ones.
As a political essayist, no different than the New York Times, I too have a point of view, but unlike the Times mine is not masked as news. However, when direct quotes are cited accompanied by the referenced URL from whence it came, its validity is no longer a matter of conjecture. If in doubt, before writing “you’re full of scrap,” a reader should always follow the corroborating URL. Point in hand:
On Thursday, July 26, White House Press Secretary James Carney was asked by a reporter which of the following two cities is recognized by the U.S, as the official capital of Israel: Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. After an inordinate pause, Carney sheepishly replied, “I haven’t had that question in a while.” He then went on to say: “Our position has not changed, you know our position.” For the record, aren’t the American people entitled to know what the United States considers the capital of its strongest ally in the Middle East is?
Carney, obviously uncomfortable, immediately sought out a different query but was then confronted by another reporter asking the same question. Instead of just giving the Administration’s position on this issue, Carney obfuscated. Recognizing this embarrassing incident would soon grow legs in the media, the Press Office later came out with the following statement:
“The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
White House Press Secretary Carney Unable to Utter the Name Jerusalem
You may agree or disagree with his befuddled response or the affirmation his bosses made later on. You may also accede the United States government is correct in not recognizing unequivocally, Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But the fact remains Carney said it, and if he left any doubt, the State Department reiterated in no uncertain terms:
“We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
This is not exactly behavior one would expect from an Administration which professes an “unshakable friendship” with Israel. What could be more basic than recognizing the capital of your professed “close friend?” But on the other hand maybe it’s not so bizarre after all?
In November 2011, the Administration went to the Supreme Court to defend its refusal to recognize Jerusalem, Israel on the passports of Americans born in Israel. In preparation for the case, the State Department hurriedly removed all the captions on a White House photo gallery of Vice President Biden in the city, changing “Jerusalem, Israel” to “Jerusalem.” The optics of methodically erasing the word “Israel” from the White House webpage caused a predictable uproar.
Obama Re-Writes History on Bush and Jerusalem
Now let’s go back to May 19, 2011 and President Obama’s speech at the State Department cajoling Israel to reinitiate “peace talks” (my emphasis) by first returning to the 1967 borders. As stated in a May 19, 2011 article in CNN Politics entitled, Obama Called for Israel’s Return to pre-1967 Borders.
Since the article was written by CNN correspondent Tom Cohen it can’t be shrugged off as some right wing propaganda. His first paragraph says it all:
“President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.”
He then goes on to quote the president directly:
"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine,"
He further stated:
"We believe 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."
These are Obama’s own words, as he’s oft to do, he can not claim them misconstrued. By alluding to what Abba Eban referred to as the “Auschwitz borders,” the President had set the default for renewed negotiations. Is Palestinian intransigence any wonder? Why should their position be any less than what the President of the United States had already negotiated for them?
Obama Calls For Israel’s Return to pre-67 Borders
Not to be out done, on the same date, the New York Times printed an article entitled, “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.”
Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.
Here again, the first paragraph says it all:
WASHINGTON — “President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem.”
So what’s wrong with that? For those who have greater fealty to the President and his party over the security of Israel, absolutely nothing. For others truly concerned with Israel’s security, you have to scratch your head and ask the following questions:
- “Seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world.” The Times correctly ascertained what he was and is trying to do but where in that statement is there any mention of Israel? Since when had the Israeli government given Obama a mandate to create epochal change in the Arab world at their expense?
- Why is Obama, time and time again taking the Palestinian point of view antecedent negotiations?
- Doesn’t this President realize that the pre’67 lines were never recognized borders but cease fire lines following Israel’s victory in 1948?
- Why would Obama ask Israel, after being incessantly attacked prior and subsequent to 1967, make herself once again vulnerable to the same untenable demarcation lines; allowing her only 9 miles from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea?
- Why would Obama give such a speech hours ahead of meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu who was on a plane, in the air, and preparing to meet him the next morning?
- Why has the President placed such emphasis on Israeli settlements (my emphasis) as an impediment to reigniting talks when the Palestinians, prior to his intervention never did?
- With ongoing events in Syria; increased threats of Hezbollah in Lebanon; the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, North Africa, and most likely soon in Jordan; the Iranian cabal’s interminable quest for nuclear weapons; and the ceaseless instability of the region, is Obama correct in pressuring the only true democracy in the Middle East to make land concessions?
- Why should Israel be cajoled into negotiations with an avowed enemy which seeks acquiescence, offers no quid pro quo, while still refusing recognition of Israel as a Jewish state? Isn’t it fair to expect an ally and friend to insist upon this as a prerequisite to any discussion of “settlements” or any other potential trump cards Israel might use in future negotiations? Evidently out of design or naiveté, Obama doesn’t think so.
These are just some questions that voters, particularly “progressive” Jewish voters should be asking themselves in the weeks and months prior to November.
....
Dear reader, if you wish dialogue and response, don’t kill the messenger. Dismissive replies such as “you’re full of spit or that’s a load of scrap” to a quoted speech or a public event is a meaningless rant. However, I will respond to any intelligent person wishing civil discourse. First examine my citations then respond with substantiated refutation of your own. Once again, a quoted public speech is on record, the words uttered are not mine or a matter of conjecture, they are irrefutable. I’m open to discerning dialogue on any of mine or my contributor articles. My policy of reply is up to two go arounds, and I’ll give you the last word.
No comments:
Post a Comment