JustASC

A lot of people have been linking to this joint statement by PM Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton last November to suggest that the whole contretemps over the “1967 lines” was manufactured by Netanyahu. Here’s the key quote:

The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” 

Glenn Kessler, however, suggests why Obama’s statement of virtually the same thing was groundbreaking:

In the context of this history, Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.

…[For] a U.S. president, the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the Rubicon.

Jim Besser makes some predictions about the Mideast peace process in a post-”1967 and all that” world:

- President Obama will continue to appeal to our European allies to reject Palestinian statehood moves at the UN, probably with only limited success

- Netanyahu, betting that the Obama administration is all talk and no action, will continue to point to the obvious obstacles to resumed negotiations – starting with the Fatah-Hamas alliance – and hold precariously to the status quo

- Jewish peace groups will keep saying time is running out, but not explain how peace talks can be restarted under current conditions, and continue to be frustrated by an administration that is unlikely to risk major U.S. diplomatic capital on negotiations seen as unlikely to advance

- groups on the right will keep trying to pull the centrist groups in their direction, claiming the administration is waging a virtual war on the Jewish state – again, with only limited success.

11:23: Bibi enters to warm sustained applause and standing O. Wife Sara looks on from balcony; behind her Malcolm Hoenlein of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Abe Foxman of Anti-Defamation League.

Opens with shout out to Joe Biden: “Do you remember when we were the new kids in town?”

First applause line refers to friends among “Republicans and Democrats alike.” Nice bipartisan touch in wake of tense week with Obama. Goes on to congratulate the president: “You got bin Laden. Good riddance!”

“Israel is America’s unwavering ally.”

Good one: “You don’t need to do nation-building in Israel. We’re already built.”

Thanks Obama again for “steadfast commitment to Israel.”

(Heckling from the balcony! Lawmakers drown it out with applause. BN welcomes the heckling as “real democracy.” Good recovery.)

["Peace" group CODEPINK takes credit in news release, saying heckler was Rae Abileah, 28, a  "Jewish American Woman" who shouted  "Stop Israeli War Crimes, Free Palestine."]

Long section on upheavals among neighboring countries: “Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads.”

Another laugh line: “You think you are tough with one another in Congress; come spend a day in the Knesset — be my guest.”

Boasts of democratic rights of Israel’s Arab citizens: “Proud that one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades.”

Big applause: “Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

Gets to Iran: “Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger of all will soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear armaments.” Complains about the “lack of outrage,” and those who condmen Israel for defending “itself against Iran’s terror proxies.”

Praise for Obama’s sanctions against Iran. “You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions.” A shot?

Standing O as he calls on Congress to pledge that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons.

“When we say never again, we mean never again. [Applause] Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.”

New section: Peace. ”Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother.”

Urges financial and political support to all those “committed to peace” — i.e, Egypt and Jordan.

“We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians.” Reiterates support for two-state solution. “Im willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace…. It’s not easy. Because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. You have to undertand this — in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.” [Big applause.]

“The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they’ll be neither Israel’s subjects or citizens.”

Praise for PA Prime Minister Fayyad for West Bank’s “remarkable” economic progress — wishes him a speedy recovery from his “recent operation.” Menschy touch.

However, “Palestinains are unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.”

“I stood before my people and said I will accept a Palestinian state. It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state.’ Those six words will change history.”

Speaks of a compromsie that will reflect ”dramatic demographic changes” since 1967 — makes pitch for incorporating suburbs [beyond the Green Line] and strategic areas into the “final borders of Israel.”

Concession: “Some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”

“Quotes” Obama: “The border will be different than the one that existed before June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967.” [Big applause.]

Rejects right of return: “The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel. Everybody knows this. It is time to say it.”

On Jerusalem, no hint of compromise: “Jerusalem must never again be divided.” Big applause. “I believe with creativy and good will a solution can be found.” Meaning?

Israel needs “unique security arrangements.” Reiterates call for Israeli troops along Jordan river.

“Israel will not negotiate with Israel government backed by the Palestinian version of al Qaeda,” meaning Hamas. To Abbas: “Tear up your pact with Hamas. Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state.”

Sounds like he is wrapping up: “Thank you for your unwavering support of Israel.”

Applause, standing O, for over a minute.

Leaves podium to press the flesh.

A timely story from The Onion:

Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel
Forced To Resign 

For Israel-watchers, the newsiest bit of Pres. Obama’s Mideast speech:

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. 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. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Reactions — first, from the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: 

Why is this important? Palestinian have long demanded that the border that existed before the 1967 war be the basis of negotiations, and the Israeli government refused. This was a key reason why the talks never really got off the ground in the past two years. Netanyahu has also said he would never remove Israeli troops from the Jordan Valley, and Obama said there must be a “full and phased withdrawal of israeli militray forces.”

Obama prefaced this section with a new and potentially important concept: “While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel.” He is equating the two in a way that may make Israelis uncomfortable.

Leave no doubt, these words will send shockwaves in the Middle East.

Jeffrey Goldberg:

Bibi Netanyahu is also not overly thrilled, I think, but also not shocked or upset. The 1967 lines have always been the basis of negotiations — this is not new. But I’m sure Bibi doesn’t appreciate lectures about challenges to Israel’s democratic and Jewish nature. I hope he’s listening, though.

JTA:

The speech, which focused mostly on the Arab democracy movements in the Arab world, marked the first time a U.S. president formally declared that the pre-Six Day War borders should form the basis of negotiations.

Simon Wiesenthal Center:

SWC ISRAEL SHOULD REJECT A RETURN TO 1967 ‘AUSCHWITZ’ BORDERS

The Simon Wiesenthal Center commended President Obama’s call for further democratization in the Arab world but expressed deep disappointment that he called for Israel’s return to the pre-June 1967 borders.

“We welcome the President’s recognition of Israel’s security needs and that Hamas cannot be a partner in the peace process, but a call to a return to 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, even with “land swaps” is a non-starter, when at least half of the Palestinian rulers are committed to Israel’s destruction”, said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, founder and dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

“The road to peace has been clear for a long time – direct negotiations between parties who recognize each other’s legitimacy,” they concluded.

As for the “Auschwitz borders” bit, Bradley Burston puts the reference in context (back in 2007):

There was a time when the mention of 1967 lines was met with nothing more than one version or other of Abba Eban’s 1969 comment to the German newspaper Der Spiegel:

“We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”

Many of those who cite the “Auschwitz borders” quote as a bulwark against giving up all occupied territory, conveniently forget that Abba Eban was an outspoken and unabashed dove.

Many of those who oppose territorial compromise of all kinds turn a blind eye to Abba Eban’s comment that an Israel which refuses to consider ceding land is “tearing up its own birth certificate.

“Israel’s birth is intrinsically and intimately linked with the idea of sharing territory and sovereignty,” Eban declared.

Strange bedfellows department: A Muslim group and the American Jewish Committee are complaining that new anti-discrimination guidlines for college campuses can be used to censor criticism of Israel.

American Muslims for Palestine responds to charges from the Zionist Organization of America that its campus activities (at Rutgers, among other places) maybe be a violation of Title VI, which protects students from racial and ethnic bigotry:

The claims are absurd. Legitimate concerns about Israel’s discriminatory policies against Palestinians should not be conflated with anti-Semitism.

A “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the civil rights office on Oct. 26, 2010, said discrimination against a student who is a member of a religious group violates Title VI when the discrimination is based on the group’s “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics “… or when it is based upon the student’s actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity,” said David Thomas, U.S. Department of Education spokesman.

This reinterpretation now can be applied to Jewish students who claim universities create hostile environments if they allow pro-Palestinian events or even class lectures critical of Israeli policies.

To be sure, Jewish — as well as Muslim — students should be protected from discrimination. But the reinterpretation is being used to silence debate. That’s a descent down a slippery slope many academics are unwilling to make.

“While some of the recent allegations “… might well raise a claim under Title VI, many others simply seek to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers. This approach is not only unwarranted under Title VI, it is dangerous,” Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, and attorney Kenneth Stern, anti-Semitism expert with the American Jewish Committee, wrote recently in an open letter on AAUP’s website.

The Jewish Week had a piece last month [where was I? Oh, yeah...] about Stern and AJC’s criticism of the ZOA approach:

“Some, in reaction to these recent incidents, are making the situation worse by distorting the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and what has been called the ‘working definition of anti-Semitism,’ ” the statement [by Stern and Nelson] said. “Opposing anti-Israel events, statements, and speakers, they believe the only way to ‘protect’ Jewish students is by imposing censorship.”

The ZOA was not happy:

“It must surely be demoralizing to those Jewish students who’ve had the courage to come forward and demand a campus environment that’s safe, welcoming and conducive to learning, to learn that an organization like the American Jewish Committee, which is supposed to be standing up for them and against anti-Semitism, is instead minimizing the problems they’re facing and criticizing legitimate efforts to protect and enforce their civil rights,” the ZOA said in a letter to Stern and Nelson.

For obvious reasons, this is my new favorite English soccer player, replacing, um — I’ll get back to you.

My friend and colleague Rabbi Joyce Newmark rocked on “Jeopardy!” last night, coming in first and taking home $29,200.

The episode was taped on Feb. 2. Sworn to secrecy, Newmark sat with an enigmatic smile as dozens of her fellow congregants at Congregation Beth Sholom in Teaneck (including me) gathered there to watch Monday’s broadcast. As Newmark outpaced the other contestants, including two-time winner Joe McKee of Palos Heights, Ill., the room exploded in cheers.

JTA has details:

Newmark was set to return Tuesday night to defend her “Jeopardy!” title.

At her audition, she was asked to fill out a form informing the producers if there were specific dates when she would not be available to tape. She wrote “Jewish holidays.”

Upon receiving the congratulatory call from the show about her selection, Newmark expressed surprise, explaining that she had never expected to be picked.

“We actually were going to call you two months ago,” the show official told Newmark, “but it was during Chanukah, so we figured you couldn’t come.”

Ah, those French. From JTA’s report on the arrest of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on assault charges:

“It is very painful for us,” said Marc Djebali, vice president of the Sarcelles Jewish community. “I know him well. I’ve even seen him seduce a woman, but it was always with gentleness.”

My friend Rabbi Joyce Newmark , a Conservative rabbi and regular contributor to NJJN’s “Touch of Torah” column, is a contestant on the game show “Jeopardy!” tonight. The episode airs at 7  p.m. edt.

Joyce taped the show months ago but held fast to her pledge not to reveal the results.