On May 19, Barack Obama dropped a policy bombshell when he proposed that borders predating the 1967 Six Day War should be the basis of peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
This diplomatic deployment, adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank and involving land swaps on both sides, fell like a ton of political bricks on Denver Jews.
The 10-second portion of Obama’s speech generated outrage, praise and heated exchanges around kitchen tables and at synagogues.
Obama’s proposal, announced one day prior to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s state visit in the US, seemed designed for ultimate impact and intense Jewish debate.
It worked.
The Intermountain Jewish News, aware that a house divided has established residency in the local Jewish community, contacted rabbis, individuals and politicians to respond to the following:
“What do you think of President Obama’s speech urging Israel to utilize the pre-June 5, 1967 borders as a baseline for peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians?”
Some answers have been edited for space.
Cong. Jared Polis, US Rep., Democrat, Colorado District 2
“The president has consistently shown bold leadership by promoting America’s vision for peace in the Middle East and respect for human rights and self-determination across the Arab world.
“In calling for a two-state solution, the president insists that Israel’s security is paramount and that the US will support Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks and will counter international efforts to isolate Israel at the UN.
“The president is right in saying that any permanent solution must be negotiated between the two parties, and that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with those who do not believe it has a right to exist.
“I call upon the united Palestinian leadership to renounce terrorism once and for all and join Israel at the negotiating table so that all parties can begin to work out steps for a peaceful and secure future.”
Rabbi Joe Black, Temple Emanuel
“While I am pleased that President Obama reiterated his support for safe and secure borders for the State of Israel, and while everyone who is familiar with the ups and downs, fits and starts of the potential for negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians knows that if there ever will be a two-state solution, the pre-1967 borders will have to be the starting point of any process of negotiation, I am concerned, along with many others, that the question of the so-called ‘right of return’ for the Palestinians was not set aside.”
Read the related IJN editorial
Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman, B’nai Chaim
“The 1967 borders would return the Old City and Latrun to Jordon! Latrun sits in a chokehold position between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
“There is a reason that Abba Eban called them the Auschwitz borders. Is President Obama asking Israel to commit suicide or simply expose its throat to the slitting?”
Scott Wasserman, political activist
“For too long, America’s passive stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has jeopardized the secure future of the Jewish state. Any peace settlement with the Palestinians is going to have to provide for legitimate borders and contiguous territories for the Palestinian people. President Obama’s statement reflected this reality.”
Rabbi Richard Rheins, Temple Sinai
“I am strongly opposed to using the 1967 borders, which were never accepted by the Palestinians or the Arab world from 1948-1967, as the starting point in Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations.
“What will happen to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live in Judea and Samaria? Will they be forced to move? If so, does the president consider a forced move of Arabs from Israel acceptable?
“I believe that peace is possible, and that it is our duty to make it a reality.
“But real peace requires trust and commitment from both sides. It will truly take a miracle from G-d to turn the hatred for Israel burning at the core of the Arab world to feelings of peace and respectful coexistence.”
Read related commentary from Rabbi Hillel Goldberg
Pastor George and Cheryl Morrison, Faith Bible Chapel
“On behalf of Faith Bible Chapel, we, and many more here and around the country in the Christian community, are very concerned over recent comments made by our president concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“No one better understands the problems than those who live in that area of our world.
“Israel has every right to make its own decisions concerning the safety of her people. Additionally, the US should stand in support of an ally who has proven herself over the years.
“We serve on the executive board of Christians United for Israel. Within hours of President Obama’s speech (on May 19), our members sent 58,230 letters to the White House in support of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli people.
“Israel has every right to defensible borders like every other nation on earth.
“America, we need to recognize our true friends and stand courageously alongside them in their pursuit of a ‘true peace effort.’
“Israel, you are not alone!”
Rabbi Benjamin Arnold, Beth Evergreen
“President Obama stated that Israel (and the Palestinians) must use the pre-67 borders as a common baseline, with an understanding that there would certainly be land swaps adjusting those borders, in order for there to be a successfully negotiated (rather than unilateral) two-state solution to the conflict.
“This seems to me self-evident, and reinforces my perception of Obama as a pragmatic bridge-builder who will need to take a more active role to further the cause of Israeli security and regional peace.
“I am encouraged by his direct and realistic engagement in the matter.”
Rabbi Marc Gitler, EDOS
“Unfortunately, the president believes that the problem in the Middle East is the ‘settlements,’ whereas Israel needs to be concerned about its security. He’s asking us to go back to indefensible borders. What has Israel ever gotten for giving away land?
“It’s ridiculous. The president is stuck in an old mentality.”
Rabbi Steven Foster, emeritus, Temple Emanuel
“First, I believe that President Obama’s statement said that the beginning of the talks should be from the pre-1967 borders. It was not the ending point. It’s important to keep that in mind.
“Secondly, the president made it abundantly clear that Israel’s security is a condition for negotiations that may mean real and important adjustments in the borders with appropriate trade-offs on both sides.”
Risa Buckstein, formerly with CAJE
“President Obama’s recent appalling attempts at reinforcing his ‘steadfast friendship’ for Israel has drawn the line in the sand for me regarding my support of him. No amount of retracting or restating can help me change my mind. Israel a procrastinator? I think not. I’ve been duped!”
Steve Saunders, City Council candidate, District 5
“I am pleased that President Obama is again calling for direct negotiations based on the absolute understanding by all involved that the US stands with Israel.
“The reference to the 1967 borders with ‘land swaps’ needs more clarification because in all instances the security of Israel must be guaranteed.”
Karen Kataline, president, Jewish Republicans of Colorado
“I have never been more worried for my country and for the Jewish people. Almost as worrisome is that so many Jews are still asleep. The shofar was blown on May 19. Never again forget the adage, ‘Fool me once.’ ”
State Rep. Joel Judd, Democrat, House District 5
“Between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea my people the Jews have built, and their neighbors the Palestinians will build, vibrant states.
“President Obama and the international community have important but secondary roles in defining these two states. Ultimately these neighbors must do the heavy lifting.”
Rob Schwartz, political activist
“I have tried hard to like this president. I got my answer May 19 and will work hard to make him a one-term president. He is threatening the existence of Israel.”
State Sen. Joyce Foster, Democrat, District 35
“I found this statement to be very disturbing. I’m counting on the Democratic and Republican delegates at the AIPAC policy conference, which is meeting this weekend in Washington, DC, to voice their utter disapproval for this plan.
“I’m counting on US Senators Bennet and Udall to be a clear voice of reason in an advisory capacity to the president.”
Rabbi Salomon Gruenwald, assistant rabbi, HEA
“I heard President Obama — both on Thursday and on Sunday at AIPAC — affirm his steadfast support for Israel and its security while articulating a position consistent with the policy of previous administrations, which is that a negotiated peace should result in a secure Israel living side-by-side with a Palestinian state roughly equivalent to the territory beyond the 1967 lines.
“The two-state solution is not new and has long been the consensus among a majority of Israelis and American Zionists.
“I’m gratified to know that Mr. Obama understands the urgent need for peace since it is the only way to ensure the Zionist dream of a secure and democratic Jewish state.”
Rabbi Joshua Rose, Har HaShem
“I’m a bit baffled by much of the critical reaction to the president’s speech.
“First, Obama made clear his opposition to the UN vote and affirmed the necessity of Hamas’ recognition of Israel.
“Second, in asserting that the 1967 line should form the basis of negotiation (and not, as some have characterized it, ‘insisting’ that Israel withdraw to it), Obama formalized what has been universally recognized inside and outside Israel as the de facto starting place of any peace initiative. It was the basis of Oslo and the informal position of the previous two administrations.
“The status quo is unjust, contrary to our highest values, and unrealistic. If our love for Israel leads us to fear any step toward negotiation, we will end up endangering Israel.”
Les Canges, formerly with J Street
“President Obama stated that negotiations for a Middle East peace should start with a proposal that Israel’s borders be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps (emphasis added).
“This is in line with previous American administration’s proposals, international proposals including the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and non-state sponsored n egotiations such as the Geneva Initiative.
“According to polls, agreement on this principle makes sense to most people in the world, most people in this country including most American Jews, and most Israelis and Palestinians. What’s not to like?”
Prof. Shaul Gabbay, Joseph Korbel School of International Studies, DU
“When it comes to the Middle East, President Obama’s inexperience with the complexities is obvious. Recipient of a Nobel Prize for Peace before peace was established, he is naturally eager to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“The suggestion that Israel should return to the 1967 borders is not a serious proposition. However, coming from the leader of the free world, it may have unintended and dire consequences at the negotiating table.
“By highlighting the 1967 borders as a baseline for future negotiations of a Palestinian state, President Obama is again pushing the Palestinian leadership to insist upon a position that is clearly ‘not going to happen’ from the get-go.
“According to Arab tradition, there are three things that, once unleashed, can never be returned: an arrow, a bullet, and the spoken word. Jewish tradition commands us to speak wisely and cautiously.”
Craig Silverman, KHOW radio
“President Obama’s speech was disappointing and frightening. What part of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood does he not understand? This president would be the ideal person to speak the truth to the Palestinians and Muslim world about the need to reform Islamic intolerance of infidels, apostates, and unbelievers.
“At least and at last, President Obama mentioned freedom of religion as part of his universal rights agenda.”
Rabbi Raymond Zwerin, emeritus, Temple Sinai
“It is chutzpadik for the president of one nation to tell another sovereign nation what its borders should look like and what the preconditions for negotiations with sworn enemies will be, including a call for land swaps (as if the other people own by law or by right any of the land in question); that the other ‘state’ should have contiguous borders (even though creating such a state would leave Israel split and thus non-contiguous in at least one place); that for Israel to become a free and democratic nation it must end all occupation (as if Israel wasn’t already a free and democratic nation — the only one in the midst of a sea of monarchies and dictatorships).
“Moreover, the idea of occupation is both false and scurrilous — the word and the concept were adopted as a mantra by the PA and ‘ratified’ by the world press and the left.
“It has no basis in fact. Arab individuals may have rights to acreage for which there is title in writing. Jews, on the other hand, have no rights to land for which they had title in Arab lands.
“Where is the justice, Mr. President?”
Copyright © 2011 by the Intermountain Jewish News